Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat

Accepted Manuscript Uses and Gratifications of Social Networking Sites for Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: A Comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat

Joe Phua, Seunga Venus Jin, Jihoon Jay Kim PII:

S0747-5632(17)30114-0

DOI:

10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041

Reference:

CHB 4798

To appear in:

Computers in Human Behavior

Received Date:

09 November 2016

Revised Date:

14 February 2017

Accepted Date:

15 February 2017

Please cite this article as: Joe Phua, Seunga Venus Jin, Jihoon Jay Kim, Uses and Gratifications of Social Networking Sites for Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: A Comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, Computers in Human Behavior (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.chb. 2017.02.041

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

1. Uses and gratification theory (UGT) was applied to explain social networking site usage. 2. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat influence bridging/bonding social capital. 3. SNS intensity, tie strength, privacy, introversion, and social comparison are moderators.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Uses and Gratifications of Social Networking Sites for Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: A Comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat

Joe Phua, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia 120 Hooper Street Athens, GA 30602-3018 Email: [email protected] Phone: (706) 542-4984 Fax: (706) 542-2183 Corresponding Author*: Seunga Venus Jin, Ph.D.* Associate Professor School of Business Sejong University Neungdong-ro 209, Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-gu Seoul, Korea Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Phone: 82-2-6935-2488 Jihoon (Jay) Kim, M.A. Ph.D. Graduate Assistant Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia 120 Hooper Street Athens, GA 30602-3018 Email: [email protected] Phone: (706) 542-4791

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

Uses and Gratifications of Social Networking Sites for Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: A Comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat

Abstract Applying uses and gratifications theory (UGT) and social capital theory, our study examined users of four social networking sites (SNSs) (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat), and their influence on online bridging and bonding social capital. Results (N = 297) found that Twitter users had the highest bridging social capital, followed by Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat, while Snapchat users had the highest bonding social capital, followed by Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. SNS intensity, trust, tie strength, homophily, privacy concerns, introversion, and attention to social comparison were also found to moderate the relationship between SNS use and online bridging and bonding social capital. Keywords Uses and gratifications; social networking sites; social media; online social capital; privacy concerns; attention to social comparison

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

2

Uses and Gratifications of Social Networking Sites for Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: A Comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat Introduction Social networking sites (SNSs) are web-based platforms on which members can create personal profiles, articulate friendship connections, and socially interact with the friend connections by uploading, liking, and commenting on content such as photos, messages, and videos shared on newsfeeds (Ellison et al., 2014). A 2015 Pew Internet Research Center found that among American online adults, 72% use Facebook, 31% use Pinterest, 28% use Instagram, 25% use LinkedIn, and 23% use Twitter, with the majority accessing SNSs using their mobile devices (Duggan, 2015). Recent research has also found that the majority of SNS users integrate two or more platforms in their daily activities (Davenport et al., 2014; Quan-Haase and Young, 2010), deriving benefits from their SNS use, including receiving health support (Phua, 2013), engaging in civic and political participation (Hyun and Kim, 2014), and increasing social capital (Barker et al., 2015; Phua and Jin, 2011). Applying uses and gratifications theory (UGT) and social capital theory, this study examined frequent users of four major SNS platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat), bridging and bonding social capital derived from each SNS, and the influence of several moderating variables (intensity of SNS use, SNS trust, tie strength, homophily, SNS privacy concerns, introversion, and attention to social comparison) on the relationship between frequent use of each SNS and bridging and bonding social capital. Literature review Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) (Katz et al., 1974) is a framework that explains how and why people actively seek out specific types of media. According to UGT, people receive

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

3

gratifications through the media, which satisfy their informational, social, and leisure needs. Key assumptions of the UGT framework are: audiences are goal-directed in their media selection and actively interpret and integrate media messages within their everyday lives, so as to achieve optimal levels of gratification (Rubin, 1986). Studies applying UGT have found that audience members’ individual differences—including media self-efficacy, habitual behavior, prior attitudes, and self-regulation—serve to moderate their media selections (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2013; LaRose and Eastin, 2004; Orchard et al., 2014). These media selections, in turn, lead to enhanced knowledge, social interaction, diversion, escapism, and civic participation (Gil de Zuniga et al., 2012; Rubin, 1986). SNSs and uses and gratifications More recently, scholarly research has drawn upon UGT to examine audiences’ goaldirected consumption behavior in the computer-mediated communication context (e.g., Gil de Zuniga et al., 2012; Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2011; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Sundar and Limperos, 2013). In particular, two trends of SNS use have been identified: first, the majority of people use two or more SNSs simultaneously because each has its unique features and purposes (Brandtzaeg, 2012); and second, people increasingly embrace SNSs as tools for both communication and information, which help them fulfill their informational, emotional, and social desires when used in tandem (Quan-Haase and Young, 2010). Additionally, SNS users, particularly teenagers and young adults (collectively known as “millennials”), are accessing multiple SNSs through their smartphones and mobile devices (Cho, 2015; Salehan and Negahban, 2013), connecting to multiple networks, and tapping into multiple social resources at any point in time.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

4

To date, numerous researchers have analyzed motives for using SNSs applying the UGT framework. For instance, Krause et al. (2014) found that entertainment, communication, and habitual diversion were three main motivations of using Facebook. Orchard et al. (2014) found that motivations for SNS use included information exchange, conformity, freedom of expression, social maintenance, and recreation, with the strongest predictor being making new connections. Park et al. (2009) found four primary needs (socializing, entertainment, self-status seeking, and information) fulfilled from participating in Facebook groups. Hunt et al. (2012) also found that interpersonal communication, self-expression, and entertainment motives are most predictive of frequent Facebook use. Quan-Haase and Johnson (2010) also identified six gratifications (passing time, showing affection, following fashion, sharing problems, demonstrating sociability, and improving social knowledge) derived from Facebook use. Due to the different design and usability features of Facebook compared to other popular SNSs like Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, frequent users of each SNS may differ significantly on motives for using, and gratifications derived from, each of these four SNSs. In turn, each SNS may differ on attendant bridging and bonding social capital outcomes for frequent users, which rationalizes applying UGT to the current research. To date, no prior research has compared bridging and bonding social capital among frequent users of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, and various intervening variables influencing the relationship between frequent use of each SNS and social capital outcomes. The current research aims to address this gap. Online Social Capital and SNSs Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) define social capital as “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p. 14).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

5

Activated by human relationships, social capital fulfills productive activity when people use the relationships as resources to achieve their goals (Coleman, 1988). Social capital not only serve as contact points through which people receive information and opportunities (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Burt, 1999), but also entail personal relationships with a system of norms and reciprocity that can be activated by individuals to receive benefits in the same way as financial capital (Lin, 2001; Putnam, 2000; Williams, 2006). Positive social capital outcomes include increased selfesteem, civic participation, and life satisfaction (Ellison et al., 2014; Phua and Jin, 2011). In the age of Web 2.0-enabled computer-mediated communication, whereby people can easily access their online social connections at anytime and anywhere through their networked mobile devices, SNSs are increasingly becoming important platforms for creation and maintenance of social capital (Duggan, 2015; Hampton et al., 2011; Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2011). SNSs connect people to existing offline family and friends while also expanding their online networks through interaction with others from disparate geographic locations who share similar interests (Phua and Jin, 2011). Similarly, Putnam (2000) defined two distinct forms of social capital: bridging and bonding. Bridging social capital refers to weak, distant relationships between individuals that make available opportunities for information sharing, while bonding social capital applies to strong relationships providing emotional kinship, trust, and social support. Recent research has established SNSs as a viable medium for individuals to accumulate and activate their online bridging and bonding social capital. Ellison et al. (2014) found that relationship maintenance behaviors on Facebook, including congratulating and sympathizing with others, led to increased bridging social capital. Similarly, Gil de Zuniga et al. (2012) found that political discussion and information seeking through SNSs significantly predicted social

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

6

capital and civic engagement. In their study of international college students in the U.S., Phua and Jin (2011) also found that SNS use positively impacted bridging social capital in the college environment, and bonding social capital in students’ home countries. SNSs can therefore play a critical role in shaping users’ online social capital. However, with multiple SNS memberships, simultaneous use of two or more SNSs, and SNS access via mobile devices on the rise (Duggan, 2015; Hampton et al., 2011; Humphreys et al., 2013), it is possible that frequent users of different SNSs would derive significantly different levels of online bridging and bonding social capital. Hence, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 1. SNS users who most frequently use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat would differ significantly on (a) online bridging social capital, and (b) online bonding social capital. Potential moderators This study also examined several potential moderators of the relationship between frequency of SNS use and bridging and bonding social capital. SNS intensity refers to the degree to which SNS users feel emotionally connected to a particular SNS and integrate it into their daily activities (Ellison et al., 2007). Previous studies found that intensity of Facebook use significantly predicted bridging and bonding social capital (e.g. Ellison et al., 2007; Phua and Jin, 2011; Valenzuela et al., 2009). SNS trust refers to users’ willingness to rely on other SNS users in whom they have confidence (Moorman et al., 1993). Tie strength is the degree to which bonds among SNS members are strong or weak (Mittal et al., 2008). Homophily refers to the degree of similarity among SNS network connections based on their beliefs, values, social status, and interests (McPherson et al., 2001). In previous studies, high levels of SNS trust, tie strength, and network homophily have been found to significantly predict bonding social capital on SNSs

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

7

(Chu and Kim, 2011; Phua and Jin, 2011). However, no prior research examined whether these variables moderated between frequency of SNS use and bridging and bonding social capital outcomes across a variety of SNSs including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, which the current study attempts to address. Online privacy concerns refer to SNS users’ desire to keep their personal information from misuse, and have been found to be significantly related to individuals’ decisions to start and continue SNS use (Taddicken, 2014). Introversion is a person’s preference for spending time alone rather than in large groups (McCroskey et al., 2001). Previous studies have found SNS use helping introverts to increase their online social capital (Zywica and Danowski, 2008). Attention to social comparison refers to one’s sensitivity to others’ reactions with regards to his or her own behavior (Lennox and Wolfe, 1984), and has been found to significantly impact peer influence on SNSs (Chan and Prendergast, 2007; Mandel et al., 2006). Based on this, it was hypothesized that SNS intensity, trust, tie strength, homophily, privacy concerns, introversion, and attention to social comparison, would moderate between SNS use and social capital: Hypothesis 2. The relationship between SNS use and bridging and bonding social capital will be moderated by (a) intensity of SNS use, (b) SNS trust, (c) tie strength, (d) homophily, (e) SNS privacy concern, (f) introversion, and (g) attention to social comparison. Method Participants College students (N = 305) enrolled at a major university in the United States participated in the study for extra credit. A total of 252 (82.6%) were female, and 53 (17.4%) were male. For

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

8

ethnicity, 229 (75.1%) identified as White, 28 (9.2%) African-American, 28 (9.2%) Asian, 10 (3.3%) Latino/Hispanic, 5 (1.6%) Mixed, and 5 (1.6%) Other Ethnicity. For year in school, 23 (7.5%) were freshmen, 92 (30.2%) were sophomores, 116 (38.0%) were juniors, 71 (23.3%) were seniors, and 3 (1.0%) were graduate students. For annual household income, 90 (29.5%) earned less than $20,000, 12 (3.9%) earned $20,000 - $40,000, 40 (13.1%) earned $40,000 $60,000, 42 (13.8%) earned $60,000 - $80,000, 36 (11.8%) earned $80,000 - $100,000, and 85 (27.9%) earned more than $100,000. Mean participant age was 20.3 years old (SD = 1.25). Procedure An online survey was posted to the college’s research participation pool. At the beginning of the survey, participants were asked to select one SNS from a drop-down list (including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat) that they most frequently used, and to answer all subsequent questions based on their use of this one SNS. Measures SNS use. SNS use was assessed using seven items modified from Rosen, Carrier, and Cheever (2013) on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from “not at all” to “frequently”. Items included “how often do you post status updates?” and “how often do you browse profiles and photos?” (Cronbach’s α = .84). Bridging and bonding social capital. These were assessed using modified versions of Williams’s (2006) bridging and bonding social capital subscales on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Bridging social capital (9 items) included “I feel I am a part of the community on this SNS” and “I am interested in what goes on in this SNS” (Cronbach’s α = .88). Bonding social capital (5 items) included “There are several people on

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

9

this site that I trust to help me solve my problems” and “There is someone on this SNS that I can turn to for advice on making very important decisions” (Cronbach’s α = .85). SNS intensity. SNS intensity (six items) was accessed using a modified version of Ellison et al.’s (2007) Facebook Intensity Scale on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Questions included “I am proud to tell people that I am using this SNS” and “I feel out of touch when I have not logged in to this SNS for awhile” (Cronbach’s α = .86). SNS trust, tie strength, and homophily. These were assessed using items modified from Chu and Kim (2011) on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Trust (3 items) included “I trust my friends on this SNS”, and “I have confidence in my friends on this SNS” (Cronbach’s α = .84). SNS tie strength (3 items) included “I feel very close to my friends on this SNS” and “I communicate frequently with my friends on this SNS” (Cronbach’s α = .83). SNS homophily (3 items) included “My friends on this SNS think like me” and “My friends on this SNS behave like me” (Cronbach’s α = .86). SNS privacy concerns. Privacy concerns were assessed using a scale by Taddicken (2014), which included 17 items on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from “not at all concerned” to “highly concerned”. Items included “How concerned are you about your privacy when using this SNS?” and “Are you concerned about people you don’t know obtaining personal information about you from your SNS profile?” (Cronbach’s α = .94). Introversion. Introversion was assessed using 18 items from McCroskey et al. (2001) on 5-point Likert scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Items included “Are you inclined to keep to the background in social situations?” and “Are you inclined to limit your

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

10

acquaintances to a select few?” Introversion scores were calculated using a formula from McCroskey et al. (2001). Attention to social comparison. Attention to social comparison was assessed using 13 items modified from Lennox and Wolfe (1984) on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Items included “I actively avoid wearing clothes that are not in style” and “At parties I usually try to behave in a manner that makes me fit in” (Cronbach’s α = .85). Results SNS use For SNS most frequently used, 116 (38.0%) answered Instagram, 93 (30.5%) answered Facebook, 60 (19.7%) answered Twitter, 28 (9.2%) answered Snapchat, 6 (2.0%) answered Tumblr, 1 (.4%) answered Pinterest, and 1 (.4%) answered Google+. For main device for logging in to the SNS, 241 (79.0%) used smartphones, 55 (18.0%) used laptops, 5 (1.6%) used desktops, and 4 (1.3%) used tablets. Mean time as a member of the SNS most frequently used was 52 months (SD = 24.9); mean time per week spent using the SNS was 161 minutes (SD = 90.9); and mean number of SNS friends was 480 (SD = 219.5). For the data analysis, the eight participants who reported using Tumblr, Pinterest, and Google+ most frequently were excluded, leaving 297 total participants. Online bridging and bonding social capital A one-way MANOVA was used to examine online bridging and bonding social capital by SNS platform (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat). Results revealed a significant multivariate main effect by SNS platform (Wilks’ λ = .498, F (6, 584) = 40.563, p < .001, partial 2 = .294, observed power = 1.00). Given the significance of the overall test, univariate

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

11

ANOVA results were examined with the p-value set at < .025 to control for Type I error. Significant univariate main effects by SNS platform were obtained for bridging social capital [F (3, 293) = 41.56, p < .001, partial 2 = .298, observed power = 1.00] and bonding social capital [F (3, 293) = 24.67, p < .001, partial 2 = .202, observed power = 1.00], supporting H1. Levene’s tests of equality of error variances were insignificant; hence Scheffe post-hoc tests were used to compare pairwise group means. Mean score for bridging social capital was highest on Twitter (M = 5.35, SD = .59), followed by Instagram (M = 4.71, SD = .98), Facebook (M = 4.25, SD = .85), and Snapchat (M = 3.36, SD = .70). Mean score for bonding social capital was highest on Snapchat (M = 5.30, SD = 1.21), followed by Facebook (M = 4.78, SD = .88), Instagram (M = 4.33, SD = 1.17), and Twitter (M = 3.52, SD = 1.00). <> Moderation tests Hierarchical regression analyses were then used to test the moderation effects proposed in H2. To avoid potential high multicollinearity, each variable was centered, and interaction terms were created between SNS use and each potential moderator. They were then entered into model of each set of hierarchical regressions. For each potentially significant moderation effect, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013), across 1000 bootstrap samples, was run on the centered terms to examine the effect. SNS intensity significantly interacted with SNS use to influence bonding social capital [ΔR2 = .016, ΔF (1, 293) = 5.09, p < .05,β = .142, 95% CI [.018, .265], t (293) = 2.26, p < .01], but not bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .002, ΔF (1, 293) = .526, p = .469], partially supporting H2a. SNS trust significantly interacted with SNS use to influence both bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .024, ΔF (1, 293) = 7.81, p < .01,β = -.137, 95% CI [-.233, -.041], t (293) = -2.79, p < .01] and bonding social capital [ΔR2 = .017, ΔF (1, 293) =

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

12

5.80, p < .05,β = .136, 95% CI [.025, .247], t (293) = 2.41, p < .05], supporting H2b. SNS tie strength significantly interacted with SNS use to influence both bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .013, ΔF (1, 293) = 4.21, p < .05,β = -.089, 95% CI [-.175, -.004], t (293) = -2.05, p < .05] and bonding social capital [ΔR2 = .046, ΔF (1, 293) = 16.88, p < .001,β = .195, 95% CI [.102, .289], t (293) = 4.11, p < .001], supporting H2c. SNS homophily also significantly interacted with SNS use to influence both bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .019, ΔF (1, 293) = 6.17, p < .05,

β = -.131, 95% CI [-.236, -.027], t (293) = -2.48, p < .05] and bonding social capital [ΔR2 = .026, ΔF (1, 293) = 8.49, p < .01,β = .180, 95% CI [.058, .301], t (293) = 2.91, p < .01], supporting H2d. SNS privacy concerns also significantly interacted with SNS use to influence bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .015, ΔF (1, 293) = 4.86, p < .05,β = .101, 95% CI [.011, .190], t (293) = 2.20, p < .05], but not bonding social capital [ΔR2 = .008, ΔF (1, 293) = 2.38, p = .124], partially supporting H2e. Introversion also significantly interacted with SNS use to influence bonding social capital [ΔR2 = .014, ΔF (1, 293) = 4.35, p < .05,β = .015, 95% CI [.001, .029], t (293) = 2.09, p < .05], but not bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .001, ΔF (1, 293) = .251, p = .617], partially supporting H2f. Attention to social comparison also significantly interacted with SNS use to influence both bridging social capital [ΔR2 = .015, ΔF (1, 293) = 5.10, p < .05,β = .164, 95% CI [.021, .307], t (293) = 2.26, p < .05] and bonding social capital [

ΔR2 = .014, ΔF (1, 293) = 4.40, p < .05,β = -.185, 95% CI [-.358, -.011], t (293) = -2.10, p < .05], supporting H2g. <>

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

13

Discussion Results of this study indicate that frequent users of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, derived significantly different levels of bridging and bonding social capital from their SNS use. Twitter users reported the highest bridging social capital (H1a), followed by Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat. This may be attributed to Twitter being a micro-blogging platform, whereby users can follow other individuals with whom they do not have a real-life relationship, such as celebrities, politicians, brands, and organizations (Jin and Phua, 2014). The diverse network of weak ties that Twitter users build on the site thereby leads to higher bridging social capital compared to the other three SNSs (Ellison et al., 2014; Gil de Zuniga et al., 2013). These diverse, loosely-linked connections allow for diffusion of new information, as seen on users’ Twitter feeds, which include tweets from others they follow, as well as “retweets” and other rebroadcast posts (Jin and Phua, 2014). Twitter users are therefore most likely to feel like part of a larger community, want to try new things, and come into contact with new people (Williams, 2006). On Instagram, users are also likely to interact with others they do not know in real life, but to a lesser degree than Twitter. Meanwhile, Facebook users are more likely to connect with their real-life friends and family members (Ellison et al., 2007). As for Snapchat, relationships are even more restricted, since “snaps” are sent to select individuals with whom users have private relationships. For bonding social capital, the opposite result was obtained, with Snapchat users reporting the highest bonding social capital (H1b), followed by Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Snapchat users are most likely to interact with others who are able to provide them with emotional support, advice for making important decisions, and whom they trust to help them solve their problems (Williams, 2006). This finding may be explained by the “private” nature of

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

14

Snapchat, whereby users send “snaps” to selected recipients that are deleted after a specified amount of time. Because Snapchat users only interact, for the most part, with others whom they send private messages to, it can be assumed that they share closer relationships with their friend connections than those on the other three SNSs. The fact that Snapchat users typically add other users with whom they already share a connection in real life (such as a personal phone or email contact) establishes their Snapchat relationships as more typical of close friends and family members (Duggan, 2015; McPherson et al., 2001). As such, Snapchat users derived a higher level of bonding social capital, due to the higher trust and stronger emotional bonds shared with their Snapchat connections, compared to the other three SNSs. Facebook users scored the second highest on bonding social capital. A possible explanation is that Facebook users typically add existing offline friends and family to their network (Ellison et al., 2007), but due to the more “public” nature of the SNS (i.e., posts are typically broadcast to all connections rather than selected recipients), Facebook users derived less bonding social capital than Snapchat users. On Instagram and Twitter, users are likely to be less inhibited, connecting with people they do not know in real life, including celebrities and other public figures, and therefore these weak ties on the sites lead to a lower level of bonding social capital (Jin and Phua, 2014). Additionally, this study also found that SNS use significantly interacted with several moderators to influence bridging and bonding social capital. SNS users with high SNS intensity (H2a) increased their bonding social capital, but not bridging social capital with increased SNS use. Emotional connectedness to the SNS and integration of the SNS into one’s life, along with increased duration and frequency of posts, led to stronger bonds with fellow SNS users. SNS trust (H2b) also significantly impacted both bridging and bonding social capital. SNS users with low SNS trust increased their bridging social capital, but decreased their bonding social capital

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

15

with increased SNS use. Frequency and duration of SNS use therefore helped those with low trust to increase their connectedness to weak ties and information, but at the same time, decreased their emotional bonding through SNSs. SNS tie strength (H2c) also impacted bridging and bonding social capital the same way. SNS users with low tie strength increased their bridging social capital, but decreased their bonding social capital with increased SNS use. Those who did not feel strong ties to their SNS connections were able to increase their links to numerous diverse network connections through increased SNS use, but at the same time, also perceived their networks to be less trustworthy with increased SNS use. For SNS homophily (H2d), users who saw their SNS network as being more heterogeneous (low homophily) increased their bridging social capital, but decreased their bonding social capital with increased SNS use. More frequent SNS use therefore led people with more heterogeneous networks to perceive greater connectedness to the world and meet new people, but also inhibited their emotional bonding with close friends on the site. Those with high SNS privacy concerns (H2e) were able to increase their bridging social capital, but not bonding social capital through increased SNS use. Introversion (H2f) only impacted bonding social capital with highly introverted SNS users increasing their strong, trusting bonds with SNS connections through increased SNS use. Attention to social comparison (H2g) impacted both bridging and bonding social capital. Users who are more sensitive to social cues were able to increase their loose network ties with greater SNS use, but also decreased their emotional support network at the same time. These results show that many moderators, including network factors (tie strength and homophily), individual cognitions towards SNSs (trust and privacy concerns), emotional connectedness and integration of SNSs into everyday activity (SNS

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

16

intensity), and personality differences (introversion and attention to social comparison) influence the relationship between SNS use and online social capital. Results of the current study offer several theoretical contributions and practical implications. First, this study makes theoretical contributions to extant literature on UGT and social capital formation and maintenance among SNS users (e.g. Chu and Kim, 2011; Ellison et al., 2014; Gil de Zuniga et al., 2012; Phua and Jin, 2011; Valenzuela et al., 2009; Williams, 2006) by examining how bridging and bonding social capital differs among frequent users of four popular SNSs: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Specifically, bridging social capital was highest for frequent Twitter users, while bonding social capital was highest for frequent Snapchat users. Second, the study also found evidence for SNS trust, tie strength, network homophily, and attention to social comparison moderating between frequency of SNS use and both bridging and bonding social capital. At the same time, SNS privacy concerns moderated between frequency of SNS use and bridging social capital but not bonding social capital, while SNS intensity and introversion moderated between frequency of SNS use and bonding social capital but not bridging social capital.. These results point to the ability for SNS users to activate positive SNS-based relationships and their attendant benefits through selective and simultaneous use of multiple SNSs, so as to increase their levels of online bridging and bonding social capital. There are some limitations to this study, which offer suggestions for future research. First, our study participants self-reported their most regularly used SNS, frequency and duration of SNS use, perceived online bridging and bonding social capital, and other dependent measures in an online survey. Thus, our data only contains subjective perceptions of participants’ SNS usage and outcome variables, while missing objective and quantitative indices of their SNS

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

17

activity. Future research should track participants’ actual SNS use data through social monitoring programs, so as to increase measurement validity as well as establish greater generalizability of these results. Second, our study sample consisted of college students, which may have skewed the results due to the more frequent use of mobile-based SNS apps, like Snapchat and Instagram among millennials (Duggan, 2015). Additionally, other demographic variables, including gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, may have a significant effect on frequency of SNS use and type of SNS most often used. Future studies should recruit more diverse participants in terms of age, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status, so as to increase external validity and obtain results that are more applicable to the general SNS-using population. Also, given the relatively low sample size and large number of moderating variables tested in the study, we did not use factor analysis and structural equation modeling for our data analysis. Future studies should recruit a larger sample size and use these statistical methods in order to further parse out the relationships between frequent SNS use, bridging and bonding social capital, and various intervening variables. Third, we only examined four SNS platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, due to our sample self-reporting these as their most frequently used SNSs. Future studies should examine more SNSs with unique features and distinct purposes such as Pinterest, LinkedIn, Tumblr, etc., so as to offer a more comprehensive picture of social capital formation and maintenance on SNSs. Applying UGT (Katz et al., 1974) and social capital theory, this study examined frequent users of four major SNS platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat), bridging and bonding social capital derived from each SNS, and the influence of several moderators (intensity of SNS use, SNS trust, tie strength, homophily, SNS privacy concerns, introversion, and attention to social comparison) impacting the relationship between frequent use of each SNS and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

18

bridging and bonding social capital. Overall, the current research contributes to the literature on computer-mediated communication (CMC) and online bridging and bonding social capital, offering insights into how each of these four SNSs can impact SNS users’ social relationships, fostering systems of norms and reciprocity through these networks, so as to achieve desired social goals and outcomes.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

19

References Adler PS and Kwon SW (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17-40. Barker V, Dozier DM, Weiss AS, et al. (2015) Harnessing peer potency: Predicting positive outcomes from social capital affinity and online engagement with participatory websites. New Media & Society 17(10): 1603-1623. Bourdieu P and Wacquant LJ (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Brandtzæg PB (2012) Social networking sites: Their users and social implications-A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17(4): 467-488. Burt RS (1999) The social capital of opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 566(1): 37-54. Chan K and Prendergast G (2007) Materialism and social comparison among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 35(2): 213-228. Cho J (2015) Roles of smartphone app use in improving social capital and reducing social isolation. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18(6): 350-355. Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120. Chu SC and Kim Y (2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising 30(1): 47-75. Davenport SW, Bergman SM, Bergman JZ, et al. (2014) Twitter versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior 32: 212-220.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

20

Duggan M (2015) Mobile messaging and social media 2015. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/08/Social-Media-Update-2015-FINAL2.pdf Ellison NB, Steinfield C and 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): 1143-1168. Ellison NB, Vitak J, Gray R, et al. (2014) Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(4): 855-870. Gil de Zúñiga H, Jung N and Valenzuela S (2012) Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 17(3): 319-336. Hampton KN, Sessions LF and Her EJ (2011) Core networks, social isolation, and new media: How Internet and mobile phone use is related to network size and diversity. Information, Communication & Society 14(1): 130-155. Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. Humphreys L, Von Pape T and Karnowski V (2013) Evolving mobile media: Uses and conceptualizations of the mobile Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18(4): 491-507. Hunt D, Atkin D and Krishnan A (2012) The influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(2): 187-202.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

21

Hyun KD and Kim J (2015) Differential and interactive influences on political participation by different types of news activities and political conversation through social media. Computers in Human Behavior 45: 328-334. Jin SAA and Phua J (2014) Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of twitterbased electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising 43(2): 181195. Katz E, Blumer JG and Gurevitch M (1974) Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In: Blumler JG, Katz E (eds.) The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. London: SAGE, 19-34. Krause AE, North AC and Heritage B (2014) The uses and gratifications of using Facebook music listening applications. Computers in Human Behavior 39: 71-77. LaRose R and Eastin M (2004) A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48(3): 358-377. Lennox R and Wolfe R (1984) Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(6): 1349-1364. Lin N (2001) Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCroskey J, Heisel A and Richmond V (2001) Eysenck's BIG THREE and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs 68(4): 360-366. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L and Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415-444.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

22

Mandel N, Petrova PK and Cialdini RB (2006) Images of success and the preference for luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16: 57-69. Mittal V, Huppertz JW and Khare A (2008) Customer complaining: The role of tie strength and information control. Journal of Retailing 84(2): 195-204. Moorman C, Deshpande R and Zaltman G (1993) Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 81-101. Orchard LJ, Fullwood C, Galbraith N, et al. (2014) Individual differences as predictors of social networking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(3): 388-402. Park N, Kee KF and Valenzuela S (2009) Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12(6): 729-733. Papacharissi Z and Mendelson A (2010) Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In Papathanassopoulos S (ed.) Media Perspectives for the 21st Century. New York: Routledge, 212-230. Phua J (2013) Participating in health issue-specific social networking sites (SNSs) to quit smoking: How does online social interconnectedness influence smoking cessation selfefficacy? Journal of Communication 63(5): 933-952. Phua J and Jin SAA (2011) ‘Finding a home away from home’: The use of social networking sites by Asia-Pacific students in the United States for bridging and bonding social capital. Asian Journal of Communication 21(5): 504-519. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

23

Quan-Haase A and Young AL (2010) Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5): 350361. Raacke J and Bonds-Raacke J (2008) MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11(2): 169-174. Rosen LD, Carrier LM and Cheever NA (2013) Facebook and texting made me do it: Mediainduced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior 29(3): 948-958. Rubin AM (1986) Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In Bryant J, Zillmann D (eds) Perspectives on Media Effects. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 281-301. Salehan M and Negahban A (2013) Social networking on smartphones: When mobile phones become addictive. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2632-2639. Sundar SS and Limperos AM (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57(4): 504-525. Taddicken M (2014) The ‘Privacy Paradox’ in the social Web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of selfdisclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(2): 248-273. Valenzuela S, Park N and Kee KF (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4): 875-901. Williams D (2006) On and off the’Net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2): 593-628.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

24

Zywica J and Danowski J (2008) The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(1): 1-34.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

25

Figure 1. Study participants’ (N = 297) bridging and bonding social capital from using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat

Top: Online bridging social capital by SNS platform. Bottom: Online bonding social capital by SNS platform.

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

26

Figure 2. Plots of significant moderators of SNS use and bridging social capital (N = 297)

Top left: Interaction between SNS use and SNS trust; Top right: Interaction between SNS use and SNS tie strength. Middle left: Interaction between SNS use and SNS homophily; Middle right: Interaction between SNS use and SNS privacy concern. Bottom middle: Interaction between SNS use and attention to social comparison.

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES (SNSs)

Figure 3. Plots of Significant Moderators of SNS Use and Bonding Social Capital (N = 297)

Top left: Interaction between SNS use and SNS intensity; Top right: Interaction between SNS use and SNS trust. Middle left: Interaction between SNS use and SNS tie strength; Middle right: Interaction between SNS use and SNS homophily. Bottom left: Interaction between SNS use and introversion; Bottom right: Interaction between SNS use and attention to social comparison.

27