Journal Pre-proof

Knowledge sharing behaviors in social media

Daphna Shwartz-Asher, Soon Ae Chun, Nabil R. Adam, Keren LG. Snider

PII: S0160-791X(20)30410-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101426
Reference: TIS 101426

To appear in: Technology in Society

Received Date: 29 April 2020

Revised Date: 1 October 2020
Accepted Date: 10 October 2020

Please cite this article as: Shwartz-Asher D, Chun SA, Adam NR, Snider KL, Knowledge
sharing behaviors in social media, Technology in Society (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techsoc.2020.101426.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. 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.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Author statement
Daphna Shwartz-Asher: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing,
Visualization, Supervision, Project administration.
Soon Ae Chun: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Resources, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization.
Nabil R. Adam: Conceptualization, Validation, Resources, Data Curation.
Keren LG Snider: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Title page information

Title
Knowledge Sharing Behaviors in Social Media

Author names and affiliations

Daphna Shwartz-Asher, Ph.D.
Education in Science and Technology, Technion, Haifa 32000
Soon Ae Chun, Ph.D

of
Visiting Professor, The Governance Lab, New York University

ro
Professor, Information Systems & Informatics, Computer Science & Data Science
City University of New York -p
Nabil R. Adam
re
Distinguished Professor of Computer and Information Systems
lP

Professor of Medicine, New Jersey Medical School

Founding Director of Rutgers Institute for Data Science, Learning, and Applications
na

Founding Director of Rutgers CIMIC Research Center

Keren LG Snider, Ph.D.
ur

Postdoctoral scholar, School of Political Science, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905,
Israel
Jo

Corresponding author
Daphna Shwartz-Asher
E-mail: Sdaphna@technion.ac.il

Present address
Daphna Shwartz-Asher, Education in Science and Technology, Technion, Haifa 32000
Bios

Dr. Daphna Shwartz-Asher is a Research Associate at the Faculty of Education in Science and
Technology at the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology and a Lecturer at Tel-Hai Academic
College. During 2014-2017, Dr. Shwartz-Asher was a Visiting Research Associate at Rutgers
Center for Information Management, Integration and Connectivity (CIMIC), studying social
media in E-government context. Her Ph.D. was awarded by The Faculty of Management at Tel
Aviv University. Her research interests are human behavior aspects in organizations facing new
communication technologies and STEM career choices. She has experience in teaching

of
undergraduate and graduate courses in the management discipline.

ro
Daphna Shwartz-Asher is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: sdaphna@technion.ac.il -p
re
Soon Ae Chun is a Visiting Professor of the Governance Lab at New York University, and a
lP

Professor of Info Systems and Informatics and Graduate Programs in Computer Science and
Data Science in City University of New York. Her expertise areas include Data Science,
na

Machine Learning and Semantic Technology. She conducts applied research in Digital
government, Public health, and Security and Privacy. She is the founding co-Editor in Chief for
ur

the ACM Digital Government Research and Practice. She is the recipient of a 2018 Fulbright
Senior Scholarship, and the 2014 President's Dolphin Award for Outstanding Research. She
Jo

served as the President of the Digital Government Society. She is a senior member of IEEE and a
member of ACM.

Dr Nabil R. Adam is serving as the Vice Chancellor for Research & Collaborations at
Rutgers University – Newark. He is a Distinguished Professor of Computers and Information
Systems at Rutgers University; the Founding Director of the Rutgers of the Institute for Data
Science, Learning, and Applications (I-DSLA); and the Founding Director of the Rutgers CIMIC
Research Center. He is a Co-founder and past Director of the Meadowlands Environmental
Research Institute. He was on loan as a Fellow to the US Department of Homeland Security –
Science & Technology Directorate where he served as a Senior Program Manager, a Branch
Chief and managed the Complex Event Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis program, served as
the technical lead for the Unified Incident Command & Decision Support System program, and
initiated the Cyber-Physical Systems Security initiative and the Social Media Alert and Response
to Threats to Citizens (SMART-C) initiative. He served as a Research Fellow at the Center of
Excellence in Space Data and Information Science, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He was
a member of the Science Council of the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science,
NASA Ames. He is a founding member of the consortium for System of Systems Security
(SOSSEC) and member of the Board of Directors of SOSSEC, Inc.

Dr. Keren L.G. Snider is a postdoctoral scholar in the School of Political Science at

of
the University of Haifa, Israel, as well as an instructor at the University of Haifa and Ben-Gurion

ro
University. Dr. L.G. Snider specializes in psycho-political consequences
of conventional terrorism and cyber-terrorism, mass political attitudes and behavior, immigration
-p
politics and survey experiments research. She uses rigorous quantitative methodologies to apply
re
principles taken from political psychology to study public opinions under conflict and violence.
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Knowledge Sharing Behaviors in Social Media

ABSTRACT
Purpose: Users on Social Media (SM) platforms make many decisions related to content sharing, such
as whether to create or reuse content, whether to label for easy access by an interest group or not, and
whether to disseminate to targeted individuals or broadcast to general audiences. In this study, we
investigated if these content-related strategies on SM, called social media knowledge sharing behaviors,
are determined by user characteristics.

of
Methodology: Using concepts from Self-Motivation Theory and the Affordance Theory,

ro
we examined if the knowledge sharing behaviors are influenced or correlated with user
-p
characteristics, such as the intensity of engagement on SM, a strong preference attitude for a SM
platform, and multiple functional intentions for using SM. Based on this survey study of one hundred
re
and twenty-three subjects, we developed hierarchical regression analyses to test if the SM user’s
lP

knowledge decisions (Creation, Framing and Targeting) are corelated with the user’s online usage
intensity, their SM online platform preferences, and their functional intentions (Intensity, Preferences
na

and Functionality). We complemented the regression models with a more comprehensive path analysis
for an integrative hypothesis testing.
ur

Findings: The main findings show that knowledge creation and knowledge targeting behaviors were
Jo

correlated with multiple functional intentions (or needs) of users, meaning that users who utilized SM in
order to fulfill many needs create and broadcast knowledge more than users that utilized SM in order to
fulfill fewer needs.

Originality: The study investigates the relationship between detailed knowledge sharing behaviors
afforded by the social media tools and different user self-determination factors, such as intensity,
preference and needs. This study further describes the attributes of social media sharing as a bundle of
content sharing strategies of creation, sharing and targeting, which are used differently based on
different user characteristics and motivations.

1
Keywords
Social Media, Behavior, Knowledge Sharing, Information Sharing, Communication.

1. INTRODUCTION
Social media platforms serve as important tools for sharing and diffusing content, emotions, opinions,
and for allowing engagement of and collaboration with known or imagined audiences. The social media
platforms easily and quickly create virtual communities of interest, where the range of interests are
limitless. The interpersonal communication in the physical space targets the immediate audience to

of
achieve some purpose (e.g. report facts, persuade others, form impressions, maintain relationships), but

ro
communication on social media platforms is made to either real targeted, imagined or unknown
audiences, and its purpose is unclear other than denoting an intention to share. The content can be
-p
multi-media, filled with idiosyncratic expressions, loaded with a wide range of emotions and opinions,
re
and defying the standard formal language and grammar. The reusing and diffusing of existing content
lP

created by other people or organizations is the norm, rather than exception. In addition, unlike face-to-
face communication, social media platforms as a type of computer-mediated communication tool, lacks
na

any direct expression of facial or body cues that indicate emotions, gestures, intonations, or emphasis.
ur

These unusual communication tools are widely adopted by users, generating many scholarly studies on
Jo

what motivates the adoption of social media sharing behaviors (e.g. Kim & Jang 2018, Ham et al. 2019,
Syn & Oh, 2015, Rode, 2016, Vilnai-Yavetz & Levina, 2018). Self-determination Theory (SDT) is a
motivational theory that posits that extrinsic or intrinsic self-determination and autonomy influences or
hinders an individual’s behavior, outcome, or performance results (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The SDT
claims that one’s action is influenced by a self-determination continuum that ranges from a lack of
individual intent, motivation or autonomy to take any action, to an extrinsic motivation driven by
external rewards or demands, personal values or importance, to an intrinsic motivation, which drives a
person to perform an activity for its inherent satisfactions. These motivation factors include human
perceptions, cognitions, emotions, and needs, and can be used as predictors of behavioral,
developmental, and experiential outcomes in learning, job performance, experience, and psychological
health (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000). There have been many scholarly studies that use Self-Determination
Theory to explain social media sharing behaviors (e.g. Ham et al. 2019, Razmerita, Kirchner & Nielsen,

2
2016, Wakefield & Wakefield, 2016, Zhang et al., 2015, Talwar et al., 2019), and employee knowledge
sharing behaviors (Wang and Hou, 2015).

The Theory of Affordances proposed by Gibson (1977) explains the concept of affordances as the
physical properties of an object that allow it to function. In other words, physical, perceptual clues or
materiality of an object act as indicators of a desired action. However, this physical affordance theory
was later extended to a perceived affordance theory where the same physical object is perceived
differently in its utility, affordances, by different people in different context (Gibson 1986; Norman

of
1990). Thus, perceived affordances are defined as a relational concept, i.e., the actions or functions that
users perceive possible, which is distinct from the actual possible actions from an object or artifacts in

ro
isolation. This perceived affordance concept is used to explain the design of technologies (Norman,
-p
1990; Gaver, 1991). The study of several different types of social media technologies, such as wiki,
blogs, microblogs, social networks, and social tagging (Treem & Leonardi, 2013) identified that social
re
media technology enables four affordances: visibility, persistence, editability and association. These
lP

four affordances are suggested as influencing or altering socialization, knowledge sharing, and power
processes within organizations. The socialization influence through these affordances may include
na

people processing tactics, information seeking, and relationship formation, and the managerial power
process changes may include increase in workers decision making power, open discussions and
ur

contributions, and wider surveillance and accountability. The affordance features may affect knowledge
Jo

sharing processes such as capturing tacit knowledge, motivating knowledge contributions, overcoming
organizational boundaries by more interactions, and identifying expertise.

Although the Self-Determination Theory can identify personal motivations or characteristics as factors
influencing the use of social media, it does not explain how these user characteristics influence content
sharing, such as whether the content is to be reused or created, whether the content is indexed or not, or
whether the content has a targeted audience or not. On the other hand, the Affordance Theory focuses
on identifying the affordances that the social media provides, and what impact or utilities are achieved
from affordances, but it does not relate how the user characteristics (intentions, preferences,
motivation/intent) influence the affordances in content sharing behaviors.

3
In this study, we address this research gap and investigate if there is a relationship between the user
characteristics (e.g. behavioral or intentions) and the choice of content sharing affordances, thus
connecting the Self-determination Theory and the Affordance Theory for social media.

The social media platforms provide content diffusion features, such as content creation or reuse, content
indexing, and content targeting affordances. Specifically, Twitter provides RT for content reuse,
hashtag (#) for content search indexing, and username call out (@username) for content targeting. We
call the act of using these content diffusion affordances as knowledge sharing behaviors, in short,
knowledge behaviors that include knowledge creation, framing and targeting behaviors. We investigate
whether the user characteristics, such as social media usage intensity, posting intentions, and social

of
media platform preferences, influences these knowledge behaviors.

ro
The contributions of this study include:
-p
re
This study goes beyond identifying whether some determinants such as user intentions influence the
sharing in social media or not, and what affordance features allow the user to fulfil their intended goals.
lP

It investigates the relationship between the personal characteristics and knowledge sharing behaviors,
such that the affordances of content sharing, such as creation, content indexing (or framing), and content
na

targeting, are influenced by user characteristics.

ur
Jo

We defined the sharing (posting) in Social Media into three different content sharing categories, namely,
knowledge creation (or reuse), knowledge framing (or indexing), and knowledge targeting (or
broadcasting). This distinction allows us to study the fine-grained knowledge behaviors in the social
media.

Our findings show that the user intensity does not have strong relationship with any of knowledge
sharing behaviors, but users with more intentions (functional goals) tend to use knowledge creation
more than knowledge reuse, and fewer targeting. The platform preferences show diverse differences
depending on a particular social media platform.

We present a brief summary of studies on social media sharing behaviors in Section 2. In section 3, we
describe the three types of knowledge behaviors in social media. In Section 4, we present the basic SM

4
Knowledge Behavior Model, our hypotheses and our proposed extended SM Knowledge Behavior
Model. In Section 5 we describe survey, analytics methods and data characteristics, followed by findings
and analysis of hypotheses in Section 6. In Section 7, we discuss the potential applications of our
findings.

2. SOCIAL MEDIA SHARING

Previous studies on sharing in social media focused on the factors that may be influencing the use of
social media (Ham et. al 2019), or how the content shared in social media can be useful for gaining

of
knowledge sharing in an organizational context (Leonardi, 2014). Ham et al. (2019) investigated the
factors influencing social sharing behaviors, such as using ‘like’ or ‘share’ buttons to disseminate

ro
contents on social media platforms. Specifically, they studied motivation factors, such as: social
-p
presence, social conversation, easy connection or self-management, subjective norms of sharing, attitude
toward sharing, and intention to share on the social media platforms. Through online surveys, they
re
identified that social conversation is a strong motivational factor that positively influences the attitude of
lP

sharing. The attitude toward sharing significantly influences the intention to share. On the other hand,
motivational factors, such as easy connection or social presence, are not significant factors. The factor of
na

self-management, which indicates the motivation to share topics related to work, career, or self-
improvement, is negatively related to the subjective social norm factor, which indicates the perception of
ur

social obligations to share. These two factors negatively influence the attitude toward sharing.
Jo

The Ham study assumed that the purpose of social media is to share information in public, and their
research question involved identifying the factors influencing the attitude toward sharing and intention
to share. Their study did not relate these factors with how the content is shared on social media, which is
the focus of the current study.

Leonardi (2014) shows that social media makes communication visible to other participants through
message transparency and network translucence. He shows that the communication visibility provided
by an enterprise social media allows the users to learn organizational knowledge through direct
communication with others, and to learn an organization’s meta knowledge, such as enhanced awareness
of who knows what and whom, through vicarious learning by watching the communication among

5
people on the network. This study shows that social media can serve as a good platform for acquiring
direct and tacit knowledge, which are difficult to obtain in one-to-one communication such as email.
Although it is interesting, it does not focus on how the user communicates knowledge, such as whether
the user decides on creating a new message or reusing an existing one, whether it is labeled or not for
search and easy access, or whether it is targeted to specific users.

3. KNOWLEDGE BEHAVIORS IN SOCIAL MEDIA

Users in social media make different communication decisions for sharing their content, such as whether
to create a new content/post or a reuse other posts, whether to make information easier to access or not,

of
and whether to target a specific audience or a general imagined audience. We call these content-related

ro
decisions knowledge behaviors. Knowledge behaviors include: (a) knowledge creation, which
determines what content is created or whether content is created or reused; (b) knowledge framing,
-p
which specifies how the content is labelled or packaged, depending on the intent of the communication,
re
(e.g., sharing or locating like-minded people, or forming a group/community based on a specific topic);
lP

and (c) knowledge targeting, which determines whether to target a specific recipient or audience. The
“sharing” of content (i.e. a post) in social media requires users to make decisions on: content creation
na

versus content reuse (Knowledge Creation), SM content labeling behaviors, i.e. content branding versus
not branding (Knowledge Framing), and SM content spreading patterns, i.e. addressing the content to
ur

specific users versus broadcasting indiscriminately (Knowledge Targeting). Knowledge behaviors

represent basic (affordance) elements of a user’s social knowledge sharing strategy. Our research
Jo

question is whether different user characteristics utilize the three knowledge behavior elements
differently for different sharing strategies.

3.1 Knowledge Creation Behavior

Content created by the users of social networking sites has reached such high levels of quality and
variety that it is comparable to that produced by professional agencies. Therefore, it is important to
understand what types of content users generate and what underlying motivational factors are vital in
creating this content (Zeng & Wei, 2012). Discovering and quantifying distinct patterns using SM data
is important for studying social behavior, although the rapid time-variant nature and large volumes of
these data make this task difficult and challenging (Sasahara et al., 2013).

6
Majchrzak, Wagner & Yates (2013) studied Wiki shaping and adding practices in order to explore
knowledge integration and reuse. Their findings imply that different knowledge resources have
differential effects on shaping. These effects differ from the effects on the more common user behavior
of simply adding domain knowledge to a Wiki. They also find that shaping and adding each
independently affect contributors' perceptions that their knowledge in the Wiki has been reused.

Understanding retweeting behavior can contribute to the understanding of social behavior of the need to
inform others, forward massages, and maybe more important: the need to share existing information.
Retweeting behavior can be detected and measured in terms of social interactions and collective

of
attention (Sasahara et al., 2013), information flow and opinion leadership (Xu et al., 2014), the

ro
willingness to share knowledge, its being considered more beneficial than to hoard it (Nielsen &
Razmerita, 2014), and in terms of leading followers (and their respective followers) to engage
-p
(Christensen, 2013, examined the use of Twitter in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, which
re
was the ‘most tweeted’ political event in US history).
lP

There are thematic and contextual factors that influence the usage of different communicative tools
na

available to Twitter users, such as original tweets, @replies and retweets (Bruns & Stieglitz, 2012).
There are also factors concerning the content pattern. For example, Weng, Menczer & Yong-Yeol (2013)
ur

demonstrate that the future popularity of a meme can be predicted by quantifying its early spreading
pattern in terms of community concentration; the more communities a meme permeates, the more viral it
Jo

will be. Sprenger et al. (2014) analyzed information diffusion as a type of infectious disease or viral
contagion, and demonstrated that users providing above average investment advice are retweeted (i.e.,
quoted) more often, which amplifies their share of voice.
The impact of retweeting is a function of both the content itself and the user characteristics. For example,
Tonkin, Pfeiffer & Tourte (2012) indicated that irrelevant tweets died out, that users retweeted to show
support for their beliefs in others' commentaries, and that tweets offered by well-known and popular
individuals were more likely to be retweeted. Yates (2016) who examined revealed that non-event-
related knowledge is re-used more often than event-related knowledge.

Finally, the impact of retweeting is influenced by factors concerning user social ties and connectivity.
Xu et al. (2014) show that users with higher connectivity and issue involvement are better at influencing

7
information flow, and that tweets by organizations had greater influence than those by individual users.
Zeng & Wei (2012) empirically documented the relationship between social ties and the similarities
between the types of content that people create online. They found that around the time of the formation
of a social tie, members of dyads began to upload more similar content than they did before that time.
After a social tie was formed, this similarity evolved in different ways in different subgroups of dyads.
In summary, we have sharing of content into two types of knowledge creation behaviors, i.e. “reuse” or
“creation”.

3.2 Knowledge Framing Behavior

of
A Twitter hashtag (#) is a keyword assigned to information that describes a tweet and aides in searching

ro
content. With millions of tweets per day, hashtags are central to organizing information on Twitter
around specific topics or events. They can be used to search and archive twitter content as metadata (e.g.
-p
search keywords or index terms), provide different visual representations of tweets, and permit grouping
re
by categories and facets (Chang & Iyer, 2012). Chang & Iyer (2012) describe various applications of
lP

Twitter hashtags and the functional characteristics of each application. They examine the trends in
Twitter hashtag features and how these may be applied as enhancements for next-generation library
na

catalogues.
Bruns & Burgess (2012) outline innovative approaches for large-scale quantitative research on how
ur

Twitter is used to discuss and cover the news, focusing especially on #hashtags. Bruns & Stieglitz (2013)
outlined a catalogue of applicable, standardized metrics for analyzing Twitter-based communication,
Jo

and stated that lack of standard metrics for comparing communicative patterns across cases prevents
researchers from developing a comprehensive perspective on the diverse, sometimes crucial, roles which
hashtags play in Twitter-based communication.

Political hashtags came to prominence in public events. Smalla (2011) analyzed the intersection of
microblogging and Canadian politics, through a content analysis of the most popular Canadian political
hashtag, #cdnpoli. He shows that informing is the primary function of a political hashtag such as
#cdnpoli, that political dialogue and reporting is rare, and that contributors scour the internet for relevant
online information on Canadian politics and use #cdnpoli as a dissemination feed.

8
Hashtags are also a way to signal if conversation is work- or non-work-related. Neeley & Leonardi
(2018) who investigated SM usage at two large firms indicates that users who participate in nonwork
interactions on SM catalyze trust that enables knowledge sharing. They indicate that employees’
curiosity about nonwork related and work related interactions motivate them to use the sites. The
integration of nonwork and work content allows employees to identify people with valuable knowledge,
and gauge the passable trust that they need to share knowledge on the sites or offline. They recommend
that in order to foster work related knowledge sharing, managers should accommodate nonwork
related interactions on SM.

of
3.3 Knowledge Targeting Behavior

ro
SM technologies of many-to-many communications collapse multiple audiences into single contexts,
making it difficult for people to use the same techniques that they do to handle multiplicity in face-to-
-p
face conversations.
re
lP

Targeting to a specific audience is the way to institute a community, even a small and temporary one.
Leonardi (2014) studied recombing existing ideas into new ideas and proactively aggregate information.
na

He suggests that once invisible communication occurring becomes visible for third parties, those third
parties could improve their metaknowledge (i.e., knowledge of who knows what and who knows whom),
ur

meaning seeing the contents of other’s messages helps third-party observers make inferences about
others knowledge. Faraj, Von Krogh & Monteiro (2016) who studied collective flow of knowledge
Jo

among community participants claim that online communities create significant economic and relational
value for its participants.

One of the major concepts that have emerged through SM technologies is that of an “imagined audience”
- a person's mental conceptualization of the people with whom he or she is communicating. The
imagined audience has long guided the thoughts and actions of presenters during everyday writing and
speaking. However, in today's world of SM where users must navigate through highly public spaces
with potentially large and invisible audiences, scholars have begun to ask, “Who do people envision as
their public or audience as they perform in these spaces, and what is the gap between the imagined and
actual audiences (Eden, 2012)?”. Marwick & Boyd (2011) investigate how content producers navigate

9
‘imagined audiences’ on Twitter, describe practices of ‘micro-celebrity’ and personal branding, both of
which are types of strategic self-commodification.

Highfield, Harrington & Bruns (2013) examined the use of Twitter as a technology for the expression of
shared fandom in the context of a major, internationally televised annual media event. They provide a
unique insight into the use of Twitter as a technology for fandom and for what in cultural studies
research is called ‘audiencing’- the public performance of belonging to the distributed audience.

Meo, Ferrara, Rosaci & Sarné (2015) argue that the mutual trustworthiness between community

of
members is an important definition of the community and describes how individuals gather and form,

ro
enjoy and share contents, driven by preferences, and influenced by peers. They suggested the notion of
compactness of a social group based on these definitions. In this context, the activities carried out within
-p
a group (such as targeting for example) are influenced by issues of similarity and trust and therefor
re
related to the measure of compactness.
lP

Across policy domains, government agencies evaluate SM content produced by third parties, identify
na

valuable information, and at times reuse information to inform the public. This has the potential to
permit a diversity of SM users to be heard in the resulting information networks. One may ask, to what
ur

extent are agencies relying on private users or others outside of the policy domain for message content?
Wukich & Mergel (2016) findings demonstrate that agencies emulate offline content reuse strategies by
Jo

relying predominately on trusted institutional sources rather than new voices, such as private users.
Those institutional sources predominantly include other government agencies and nonprofit
organizations, and their messages focus mostly on informing and educating the public.

4. KNOWLEDGE BEHAVIOR MODEL

In the previous studies (Shwartz-Asher, Chun & Adam, 2016, 2017), we focused on investigating
whether the same SM tools are being used differently by different types of users. Different user groups
may demonstrate different content sharing strategies (i.e. knowledge behaviors) to achieve different
types of goals. This user distinction study is important for services suppliers such as government,
because user differentiation (segmentation) can allow them to target different groups with different

10
services appropriate to their characteristic attributes, allowing greater sensitivity to each particular
group’s needs.

Based on the assumptions mentioned above, we proposed a Knowledge Behavior Model that
hypothesizes that different user types exhibit different SM content strategies and behaviors. We
classified the users into different types according to the frequency of their postings: individual users
(light users) versus heavy users (organization or marketers or automated programs, i.e. e.g. social bots).
We tested our hypothesis that different types of users have different communication goals to achieve and
will utilize different strategies in their SM sharing strategies – e.g. knowledge behaviors, i.e. content

of
creating, content framing, and targeting. The results are shown in Figure 1. In knowledge creation

ro
behavior, light users reuse an existing content more often while heavy users create an original content
more often. In knowledge framing behavior, heavy users frame more than light users. In knowledge
-p
targeting behavior, light users tend to target a specific audience while heavy users broadcast to a general
re
audience.
lP
na

Knowledge Creation Behavior

(Create, Reuse)
ur

Light user
+Frequency
Jo

Knowledge Framing Behavior

(Hashtag use)
Heavy user
-Frequency
Knowledge Targeting Behavior
(@ use)

Figure 1. SM Knowledge Behavior Model by User’s SM posting frequency

In the current study, we investigate additional user characteristics and how these user characteristics
influence the social media knowledge behaviors, i.e. knowledge creation, framing, and targeting.

11
4.1 SM user characteristics
We studied social media user characteristics of usage intensity, such as the amount of time they spend
on SM, platform preference for one particular social media platform over others, or intentions for
achieving a goal. We hypothesize that these user characteristics may influence their knowledge
behaviors regarding content creating, content sharing, and targeting on Twitter.
We define individual characteristics along three measurable dimensions: (a) intensity, (b) preferences,
and (c) functionality. We considered users on the following SM platforms: Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Google+, YouTube, and WhatsApp.

of
ro
a) SM Intensity (SMI): Intensity is a measurement of the amount of time each participant uses the
various media platforms (“How many hours do you spend using the following SM?”). Previous studies
-p
(Brandtzæg, 2012; Yaacoub & Najjar, 2016; Ainin, et al., 2015; De Vries & Carlson, 2014; Park & Lee,
re
2014) defined usage intensity as a mixed measure of usage, frequency, duration, acceptance,
lP

engagement, desire for entertainment, and relationship maintenance. For example, Sabermajidi, Valaei,
Balaji & Goh (2019) defined Facebook intensity as more active engagement of the users with Facebook
na

that represents the perceived role of Facebook in an individual’s lifestyle and daily routine.
Therefore, we defined high intensity users are defined as users with scores of intensity above 3 hours per
ur

day, and low intensity users (“non-intensive”) are users with less than 3 hours per day devoted to a SM
platform.
Jo

b) SM Functionality (SMF): Scholars found that users' utilize network sites with different motives or
intentions (Ramendra & Yavuz, 2014; Magro, Ryan & Prybutok, 2013; Cavallari & Tornieri, 2017;
Kietzmann et al., 2011). For example, Idemudia, Raisinghani & Samuel-Ojo (2018) cited Ajzen (1985)
who stated that the individual behavior is driven by behavioral intentions which are a function of the
individual’s attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms surrounding the performance of the
behavior.
Therefore, we measured different needs fulfilments by instructing participants to check needs fulfilment.
Answers ranged from 0 to 14 distinct needs, such as: to post updates, to share Pictures/Videos; to view
others' status. High users are defined as those with scores of more than 7 functions and Low users as
those with scores of less than 7 functions.

12
c) SM Platform Preferences (SMP): Previous studies argued that different SM sites tend to
concentrate on some functions more than others (Kietzmann et al., 2011; Bonsón, Royo & Ratkai, 2015;
Ouirdi et al., 2014; Smith, 2007). Accordingly, an individual’s SM platform preferences may influence
his/her knowledge behaviors. For example, Delibalta, Baruh & Kozat (2017) suggested to learn on user
preferences from Google search platform, which gathers information on users and provides well-tuned
and targeted content that may be used to change user behavior, inclinations, or preferences. When users
use one SM platform more often than others, they show their preferences for that platform. High users in
preference are defined as users with scores of a daily bases use of a specific SM platform (i.e. strong

of
preference), and Low users are defined as users with scores of less than a daily basis use of a specific

ro
SM platform (low preference).

-p
A summary of all user characteristics is presented in table 1.
re
lP

Table 1 A summary of SM user characteristics

User characteristics Intensity (SMI) Functionality (SMF) Preferences (SMP)

na

User type
ur

Low Less than 3 hours per day Less than 7 functions Less than daily bases use
devoted to a SM Platform of a specific SM platform
Jo

High More than 3 hours per More than 7 functions More than daily bases use
day devoted to a SM of a specific SM platform
platform

4.2 Hypotheses
The proposed Extended SM Knowledge Behavior Model in Figure 2 shows how users with different
usage characteristics across three dimensions (intensity, preferences, and functionality) can utilize the
three knowledge behavior elements differently (creation, framing, and targeting).

13
 of
ro
-p
Figure 2 Extended SM Knowledge Behavior Model
re
We theorize that each user group/type can influence the SM knowledge behaviors differently.
lP

Knowledge Creation
na

The SM usage intensity was found to influence personalized advertisement and the Word of Mouth
intentions (Wirtz, Göttel, & Daiser, 2017). We theorize that non-intensive users, users who use SM for
ur

few functions and users who have no specific SM preference, may want to infuse their personal
Jo

emotions (sentiments or judgments) into the existing content, i.e. reuse, while intensive users, users that
use SM for many functions, and users who have a strong preference towards a specific SM, may want to
share more new knowledge such as new products or positions, or events/programs. Hence, we
hypothesize that the knowledge creation or reuse behaviors in SM may differ: Social media is used for
product or self-branding (Skinner, 2018), social conversations (Hoque & Carenini, 2019), social
presence (Oh & Ki, 2019), or social obligations/ Responsibility (Okazaki, Plangger, West & Menéndez,
2020). The more functionalities a user has, the more likely the content is created rather than reusing it.
Social media platforms can be distinguished in two dimensions: self-disclosure, the degree of providing
personal information to promote one’s impression. and social presence/media richness, the degree of
social connections and the amount of contents (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Thus, a strong preference on
one platform means that the user may try to make social promotion and social presence through the
particular platform more often by creating more content. A person who prefers Facebook (specific SM),

14
and uses it daily (intensively) for making new friends as well as publishing news (many functions), will
be more interested in information exchange, and therefore will create information. A person who doesn’t
have specific SM preferences, hardly uses SM, and uses SM only for making new friends (few
functions), will be motivated to use SM for social connections or information seeking. Thus, we expect
he would be less interested in creating his own information but more in reusing existing content to share
with others.

H1a: Intense SM users will show more knowledge creation behaviors, while non-intensive users will
prefer to reuse existing content.

of
H1b: Users of SM for many functions (intentions), will facilitate more knowledge creation behaviors,

ro
while users of SM for few functions will prefer to reuse existing content.
H1c: Users with a preference towards a specific SM outlet, will facilitate more knowledge creation
-p
behaviors, while users who have no SM preference, will prefer to reuse existing content.
re
lP

Knowledge Framing
Based on the description of knowledge framing in Section 3.2, we theorized that different user types
na

have different proportions of their content being searched, reused, or disseminated. Thus, they are
expected to use hashtags differently. Individual users may not care whether they are being searched
ur

because their content is directed to other specific individuals or is a declaration of their mental,
emotional or physical state. For a user who is politically motivated or a marketer, including automated
Jo

agents, it is extremely important to reach more “listeners” or “followers” and to produce tweets that
appear in tweet search results. We hypothesize that users with different user characteristics have
different desires to have their content be searched, reused, or disseminated, thus, they will use different
knowledge framing strategies.

A hashtag may not just supply a search opportunity, but also a community building effort. Thus, it may
be a good tool for marketers or opinion leaders, since trending words may spread virally. Community
building, meaning an intent to attract people of the same motivation, will be used more by intensive
users (unless this user is initiating his own cause rather than for individual use).

15
Although the literature doesn’t refer directly (yet) to the hashtag habits of different user types, one can
assume that different incentives lead to different usage. The Larsson & Moe (2012) study identifies
different user types based on how high-end users utilize the Twitter service. Hashtags are a potent
resource for promoting the visibility of a Twitter update (and, by implication, the update’s author).
Results from Page (2012) suggest that practices of self-branding and micro-celebrity operate on a
continuum, which reflects and reinforces the social and economic hierarchies that exist in offline
contexts. Despite claims that hashtags are ‘conversational’, this study suggests that participatory culture
in Twitter is not evenly distributed, and that the discourse of celebrity practitioners and corporations
exhibits the synthetic personalization typical of mainstream media forms of broadcast talk. Bastos,

of
Raimundo & Travitzki (2013) explores the structure of gatekeeping in Twitter. Their results suggest an

ro
alternative scenario to the dominant view regarding gatekeeping in Twitter political hashtags. Instead of
depending on hubs that act as gatekeepers, they found that the intense activity of individuals with
-p
relatively few connections is capable of generating highly replicated messages that contributed to
re
trending topics without relying on the activity of user hubs. The results support the thesis of social
lP

consensus through the influence of committed minorities, which states that a prevailing majority opinion
in a population can be rapidly reversed by a small fraction of randomly distributed committed agents.
na

A person who prefers Facebook (specific SM), use it daily (intensively), and use it for making new
ur

friends as well as publish news (many functions), will be more interested in organizing the information,
and therefore will frame his information. If one doesn’t have a specific SM preference, hardly uses (non-
Jo

intensive) SM, and uses SM only for making new friends (few functions), he will be less interested in
organizing the information, and therefore will frame less.
These lead us to our hypothesis set number 2.

H2a: Intensive SM users will facilitate more knowledge framing behaviors than non-intensive SM
users.
H2b: Users who use SM for many functions will facilitate more knowledge framing behaviors than
users who use SM for few functions.
H2c: Users who have a preference towards a specific SM outlet will facilitate more knowledge framing
behaviors than users who have no SM preference.

16
Knowledge Targeting
A mention of a username in a Tweet is used to interact with a particular target user (@username) to
engage them to a conversation or attract their attention to the content of the tweet. A reply is a tweet
responding to a previous message. This interaction behavior in Social Media is defined as knowledge
targeting. As discussed in section 3.3, the knowledge targeting behavior has been associated with
community, relationship building, often with trust or with fandom, rather than sharing information with
invisible audience. Thus, we assume that non-intensive users, users who use SM for few functions, and
users who have no particular preference for a SM platform, are likely to target their close audience or a
specific audience to interact with them. Meanwhile, intensive users, users who use SM for non-specific

of
multiple functions, and users who have no SM platform preference, will direct their information to

ro
larger audiences or invisible public.

-p
A person who prefers Facebook (specific SM), uses it daily (intensively), and uses it for making new
re
friends as well as publishing news (i.e. many functions), will be more interested in reaching a large
lP

audience, and therefore will broadcast his information. If one doesn’t have a specific SM preference,
hardly uses (non-intensive) SM, and uses it for only making new friends (few functions), he will be less
na

interested to reach a large audience, and therefore will target his information to a specific audience.
This brings us to our hypothesis number 3.
ur

H3a: Intense SM users will exhibit fewer knowledge targeting behaviors (they will broadcast), than
Jo

non-intense users who exhibit more knowledge targeting behaviors.

H3b: Users who use SM for many functions will exhibit fewer knowledge targeting behaviors (they
will broadcast), than users who use SM for few functions.
H3c: Users who have a preference towards a specific SM outlet, will exhibit fewer knowledge
targeting behaviors (they will broadcast), than users who have no SM preference.

5. METHODS
To test our hypothesis, we designed an online survey that included measurements of the study’s key
predictor variables – SM user characteristics (intensity, preference, and functionality), user demographic
variables, and the predicted variable of the knowledge sharing behaviors. The survey data collection was
approved by IRB, and the data was recorded and stored using the SurveyMonkey application.™

17
Participants were recruited by sending the questionnaires to a convenient sample of 1000 potential SM
users. One hundred and twenty-three American participants took part in this study (71% women). The
participants ranged in age from 18-55+; 31 participants (47.7%) were between the ages 18-34, 28
participants (43.1%) between the ages of 35-54, and 6 participants (9.2%) were 55 years old and older.
Other socio-economic characteristic (education: no schooling completed, high school graduate, college
graduate, post college) were collected.

5.1 Variables
A summary of example survey questions for related variables is presented in Table 2.

of
Table 2 Survey question types and Variables

ro
Variables Examples of Survey Questions
1. User 1.1 intensity (SMI)
Characteristics 1.2 functionality (SMF)
-p
How many hours do you spend using the following SM?

For what purpose(s) do you use SM?

re
1.3 Preference (SMP) How often do you use the following SM?
lP

2. Knowledge 2.1 knowledge creation Post on your wall.

Behaviors (KCB) “Like” (or other reaction).
na

Share others content.

ur

Comment on someone else’s post, Participate in a discussion

board.
Jo

2.2 knowledge framing Use emoticons such as :-) or :-( within text.

(KFB) Use hashtag.

2.3 knowledge targeting Post on an interest (close/open) group wall, such as "Cooking

(KTB) Moms".

Post on a business profile or a group wall of a firm.

Post on a government agency profile, such as your city

borough.

Post to a specific friend.

3. User What is your age?

Demographics Indicate your gender.

18
 Indicate your race/ethnicity:

What is the highest level of school you have completed?

SM user characteristics are measured by variables denoting user intensity (SMI), user’s intended
functionality (SMF), and SM platform preference (SMP). We considered users on the following SM
platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Google+, YouTube, and WhatsApp.

1a) SM Intensity (SMI): Intensity measures the amount of time each participant uses the various media

of
platform (“How many hours do you spend using the following SM?”). Answers ranged from (0) "I do
not use SM" to (5) "10 or more hours per day". High intensity users are defined as those with intensity

ro
scores above 3 hours per day and low intensity users (“non-intensive”) are those with less than 3 hours
per day devoted to a SM platform. -p
re
1b) SM Functionality (SMF). We instructed participants to check all needs that were fulfilled by SM
lP

use. Answers ranged from 0 to 14 distinct needs, such as: posting updates, sharing Pictures/Videos;
viewing others' status. Users with a lot of functionalities are defined as those with scores of more than 7
na

functions, and users with few functionalities are defined as those with scores of less than 7 functions.
ur

1c) SM Preferences (SMP): An individual’s SM preferences were measured with a question regarding
Jo

the participants’ usage of various media platforms (How often do you use the following SM?). Answers
ranged from (0)"Never or rarely" to (5)"Continually (more than 1-2 times per hour)". High preference
(toward specific SM) users defined as those with scores of a daily basis use of a specific SM platform,
and low preference (toward specific SM) users are those with scores of less than a daily basis use of a
specific SM platform.

An individual’s knowledge behavior is measured in three different dimensions, of (a) creation, (b)
framing and (c) targeting of SM content. Knowledge behavior was assessed by the frequency of possible
SM actions on the scale of Never or rarely (0) to Continually (more than 1-2 times per hour) (5).

2a) Knowledge creation behavior (KCB). The amount of new content that a user creates, in contrast to
forwarding existing content created by others, was assessed by the scale of 0 to 5. KCB variable

19
measures the amount of posting, reacting, e.g. “like” (or other reactions), sharing the content of others,
commenting on someone else’s post, or participating in a discussion board. The ratings were averaged to
create a single score (Cronbach’s alpha for KCB was .872).
b) Knowledge framing behavior (KFB). KFB is defined as the amount of content that the user has
labeled with a hashtag or to which an emoticon has been added in order to label the information as
emotional content. The point of using an emoticon is to indicate that the same message can be
interpreted in different ways depending on which emoticon is used. KFB variable measures include the
use of hashtag or emoticons such as: -) or : -( within the text.

of
c) Knowledge targeting behavior (KTB). The amount of content that is broadcast to a general

ro
audience in comparison to being delivered to a specific user or group of users. We asked participants:
how often do you: (a) Post on an interest (close/open) group wall, such as "Cooking Moms"; (b) Post
-p
on a business profile or a group wall of a firm; (c) Post on a government agent profile, such as your city
re
borough; (d) Post to a specific friend. The items are assumed to demonstrate the nature of the intended
lP

audience; is it a specific interest group or an organization, is it a collective, or an individual? As one

kind of item does not necessarily portend another type, internal reliability was not calculated for the
na

items.
ur

Controls. We collected data on three demographic variables as controls: age, and education (1=no
schooling completed; 2=high school graduate; 3=college graduate; 4=post college) and gender (1=male,
Jo

0=female). The unbalanced data between men and women required a compensating weight that brings
both sub-groups of men and women to a balanced of approximately 50:50, as in the population. This
means that all further analyses are performed subject to this compensating weight. Specifically, the
original 70:30 ratio was brought back to a 50:50 ratio.

5.2 Analysis
We evaluate our hypotheses based on: predictor variables related to characterizing SM users, such as
SM intensity (SMI), preferences (SMP), and functionality (SMF); and the dependent variables of SM
knowledge behaviors, i.e. Knowledge Creation (KCB), Framing (KFB) and Targeting (KTB). We also
looked at demographic variables such as age, gender, and education levels, to see whether there are any
correlations between these variables and basic SM usage. We used correlation analyses among variables

20
followed by a set of hierarchical regression analyses in which the hypothesized associations were tested
gradually, and a comprehensive path analysis model that included all three outcome variables
simultaneously as a more competitive statistical tool for hypothesis testing.

The Hierarchical Regression analysis (Gelman and Hill, 2007) builds several regression models by
adding new variables to a previous model at each step, so later models always include prior smaller
models. The differences in R-Square indicate the importance of the research variables over the controls.
This process allows to evaluate the effects of Model 1 variables on the dependent variable, and then the
effects of model 2 variables on the dependent variable, etc. With the difference between two R2 values

of
in two models, ΔR2 = γ2 – γ1, one can say the additional variable (x2) in model 2 explains additional ΔR2

ro
% of the variances in y, and it is statistically significant.

6. RESULTS
-p
re
6.1 Correlation Analyses
lP

To test the assumption that user characteristics are correlated with user behaviors, we looked at
correlations across all research measurements. The intercorrelations among the study variables are
na

displayed in Table 3. The means and standard deviations for the study variables are displayed in
appendix 1.
ur

Table 3: Correlations Among Study Variables

Jo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Age 1
2 Gender (male=2) .022 1
3 Education .568*** -.026 1
4 KTB -.011 -.274** -.004 1
5 KFB -.035 -.185* .151 .206 1
6 KCB .057 .191* .077 .323*** .107 1
7 SMP -.322*** -.043 -.097 .100 .171 .144 1
8 SMI -.356*** .040 -.252*** .063 .161 .156 .744*** 1
9 SMF -.038 -.267** -.002 .440*** .138 .333*** .288*** .163 1
Note. *p<0.05; **p<.01: ***p<.0001

21
 Knowledge Creation Behaviors (KCB): As seen in the correlation analysis, hypotheses related to
knowledge creation behavior (KCB), H1b, was supported. Positive correlations were found between
SMF and KCB (r=.333, p<.0001), i.e. participants who reported high level of KCB also reported high
levels of functionality. Hypothesis H1a and H1c was not supported, i.e. participants who has high levels
of intensity and high levels of preference toward one platform did not show high level of knowledge
creation.

Knowledge Framing Behavior (KFB): Hypotheses related to knowledge framing behaviors (KFB),
H2a, H2b and H2c, were not supported; no correlations were found between user characteristics of SMI,

of
SMF or SMP and KFB.

ro
Knowledge Targeting Behavior (KTB): From among the hypotheses related to knowledge targeting
-p
behavior (KTB), only H3b was supported. A positive correlation was found between SMF and KTB
re
(r=.440, p<.0001), i.e. participants who reported high levels of SMF (intentions, needs or functionalities)
lP

also reported high level of targeting behaviors. Hypothesis H3a and H3c were not supported, i.e.
participants who have significantly high levels of SMI and SMP did not report high knowledge targeting
na

behaviors.
ur

6.2 Correlation Analysis of Platform-Specific Knowledge Behaviors

We further investigated correlations among platform-specific user characteristics and Knowledge
Jo

Behaviors.

6.2.1 Platform-specific Preference and Knowledge Behaviors

First, the analysis was conducted to see if the user’s preference for a specific platform, such as Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, etc., is correlated with Knowledge behaviors. Table 4 presents its result.

Table 4: Correlations among Platform-specific Preference (SMP 1-8) and KCB, KFB, and KTB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 SMP Facebook 1
2 SMP Twitter .121 1
3 SMP Instagram .323** .312** 1
4 SMP Snapchat .085 .207** .467*** 1

22
5 SMP LinkedIn -.107 -.037 .085 .106 1
6 SMP Google+ .031 -.089 -.240*** .082 .110 1
7 SMP YouTube .072 .045 .012 .255*** .033 .178 1
8 SMP WhatsApp .216* -.198 .170 .136 .066 .131 .090 1
9 KTB .050 .028 .237** .038 -.042 .267*** -.032 -.133 1
10 KCB .294*** .047 .131 -.247** .199* .058 .042 -.003 .323*** 1
*
11 KFB .036 .105 .015 .230* -.322*** .187* .166 .217 .206* .107 1
Note. *p<0.05; **p<.01: ***p<.0001

A positive correlation was found between SMP Instagram, and SMP Facebook and Twitter, respectively

of
(r=.323, p<.01; r=.312, p<.0001). A positive correlation was found between SMP Snapchat, and SMP

ro
Twitter and Instagram, respectively (r=.207, p<.01; r=.467, p<.0001). A positive correlation was found
between SMP YouTube and SMP Snapchat (r=.255, p<.0001). A positive correlation was found
-p
between SMP WhatsApp and SMP Facebook (r=.216, p<.05). A negative correlation was found
re
between SMP Google+ and SMP Instagram (r=-.240, p<.0001). In summary, these findings reveal that
participants who prefer Instagram also prefer Facebook and Twitter; participants who prefer Snapchat
lP

also prefer Twitter and Instagram; participants who prefer YouTube also prefer Snapchat; participants
who prefer WhatsApp also prefer Facebook; and participants who prefer Google+ do not prefer
na

Instagram.
ur

In terms of knowledge behaviors, positive correlation was found between KTB, and SMP Instagram and
Jo

Google+ respectively (r=.237, p<.01; r=.267, p<.01), i.e. participants who reported high levels of
Preference on Instagram and Google+ also reported high level of Knowledge Targeting.
Users with high preference for Facebook show a positive correlation with Knowledge Creation (KCB)
(r=.294, p<.0001), while a negative correlation was found between KCB and users with preference of
Snapchat (r=-.247, p<.01), i.e. participants who reported high level of KCB also reported high levels of
SMP Facebook and low levels of SMP Snapchat.

A negative correlation was found between Knowledge Framing (KFB) and SMP LinkedIn (r=-
.322, p<.0001), i.e. participants who reported low levels of SMP LinkedIn also reported high level of
KFB.

23
 A positive correlation was found between KCB and KTB and between KFB and KTB, respectively
(r=.323, p<.0001; r=.206, p<.05), i.e. participants who reported high level of KCB and KFB also
reported high levels of KTB.

6.2.2 Platform-specific Intensity and Knowledge Behaviors

Secondly, we investigated the correlation among platform-specific user intensity and Knowledge
Behaviors. Table 5 shows these results.
Table 5. Correlations among Platform-specific Intensity and KCB, KFB, and KTB

of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

ro
1 SMI Facebook 1
2 SMI Twitter .123 1
3 SMI Instagram .017 .249*** 1
-p
re
4 SMI Snapchat -.050 .233** .439*** 1
5 SMI LinkedIn -.031 -007.051 .016 .193 1
lP

6 SMI Google+ .135 .161 .101 .371*** .248*** 1

7 SMI YouTube -.113 -.077 .175** .120 .398*** .139 1
na

8 SMI WhatsApp .071 -.018 .281** .326** -.014 .288* .109 1

9 KTB .116 -.044 .080 -.048 .129 .061 .036 -.022 1
10 KCB .210** -.0005 -.029 -.28 .185 .094 .130 .124 .323*** 1
ur

11 KFB .050 .072 -.013 .202** .015 .194** .078 .0141 .206** .107 1
Jo

Note. *p<0.05; **p<.01: ***p<.0001

A positive correlation was found between SMI Instagram and SMI Twitter (r=.249, p<.0001). A positive
correlation was found between SMI Snapchat and SMI Twitter and Instagram, respectively
(r=.233, p<.01; r=.439, p<.0001). A positive correlation was found between SMI Google+ and SMI
Snapchat and LinkedIn, respectively (r=.371, p<.0001; r=.248, p<.0001). A positive correlation was
found between SMI YouTube and SMI Instagram and LinkedIn, respectively (r=.175, p<.01;
r=.398, p<.0001). A positive correlation was found between SMI WhatsApp and SMI Instagram, and
Snapchat and Google+, respectively (r=.281, p<.01; r=.326, p<.01; r=.288, p<.05).

In summary, these findings reveal that participants who report intensively using Instagram also report
intensively using Twitter; participants who report intensively using Snapchat also report intensively

24
using Twitter and Instagram; participants who report intensively using Google+ also report intensively
using Snapchat and LinkedIn; participants who report intensively using YouTube also report intensively
using Instagram and LinkedIn; and participants who report intensively using WhatsApp also report
intensively using Instagram, Snapchat and Google+.

A positive correlation was found between KCB and SMI Facebook (r=.210, p<.0001), and between
KFB and SMI Snapchat and SMI Google+, respectively (r=.202, p<.01; r=.194, p<.01), i.e. participants
who reported high levels of KCB also report intensively using Facebook, and participants who reported
high levels of KFB also report intensively using Snapchat and Google+.

of
ro
Finally, a positive correlation was found between KCB and KTB and between KCB and KFB,
respectively (r=.323, p<.0001; r=.206, p<.01), i.e. participants who reported high levels of KCB and
-p
KFB also report high levels of KTB.
re
lP

A summary Table 6 shows the findings from the correlation studies between the user characteristics and
knowledge behaviors, as well as from the correlation studies of platform-specific user characteristics
na

with the knowledge behaviors. The latter results are shown in parentheses.
ur

Table 6 A summary of the Correlations among Study Variables

Jo

H1 – Creation (KCB) H2 – Framing (KFB) H3 – Targeting (KTB)

H1a: Not Supported H2a: Not Supported H3a: Not Supported
Intensity
(SMI) (SMI on Facebook**) (SMI on Snapchat**
SMI on Google+**)
Functionality H1b: Supported*** H2b: Not Supported H3b: Supported***
(SMF)
H1c: Not Supported H2c: Not Supported H3c: Not Supported
Preferences
(SMP) (SMP on Facebook*** (SMP on Snapchat* (SMP Instagram**
SMP on Snapchat** SMP on LinkedIn*** SMP Google+***)

25
 SMP on LinkedIn*) SMP on Google+*
SMP on WhatsApp*)

6.3. Path analysis

In this section, we use the hierarchical regression analysis to verify the findings summarized in Table 6,
especially the significant effects between user characteristic variables, Knowledge Creation Behaviors,
and Target Behaviors stated in Hypotheses 1 and 3.

6.3.1 Predictors of Knowledge Creation Behavior

of
We focus on the significant variables of user characteristics on KCB and KTB, such as SMI and SMF,

ro
as well as platform specific preferences (SMP1 for Facebook, SMP2 for Snapchat), and platform-

-p
specific Intensity (SMI1 for Facebook). The result of a four-step hierarchical regression analysis to test
whether different user characteristics facilitated knowledge creation behaviors (appendix 2).
re
lP

The first step of the regression included introducing the socio-demographic variable Gender as a
background variable and predictor of KCB. In the second step, we added SMP (platform preference).
na

The addition of the difference between these measurements did not increase the explanatory percentage
of the model. The difference between measurements was not significant (delta R2=.023, p=.097),
ur

demonstrating that main effect SMP does not affect KCB. In the third step, we added SMI. The addition
of the difference between these measures did not increase the explanatory power of the model (delta
Jo

R2=.007, p=.572). The fourth step introduced SMF as a predictor of KCB. We expected that the more
functions the SM fulfills, the more knowledge would be created. The addition of the difference between
SMF measurements increased the explanatory power of the model (delta R2=.14, p=.000) 1 . As
hypothesized, SMF is a predictor of KCB. These results showed that KCB was corelated with SMF
(Beta=.104, p=.001). Users that facilitated SM in order to reach many needs, created more knowledge
than users that facilitated SM in order to fulfill fewer needs. This agrees with the findings on H1b, but
not H1a in Table 6. Results also indicate gender stays significant thought the entire model. This finding

1
When conducting hierarchical regression with more than one step the Delta R2 represents the change in R2 between two
equations. This value will indicate whether the increase in R2 (delta R2) is statistically significantly greater than no increase.
In the current analysis the delta R2 (in the fourth step) is higher than all the other steps and significant (delta R2=.177,
p=.000).

26
is consistent with previous findings suggesting male participants reported target, frame, and behave in
different ways in comparison to female participants (Meng-Hsiang, et al., 2015).

We also further verify the findings of the significance of platform-specific SMP or platform-specific
SMI presented in Tables 4 and 5. We conducted a four-step hierarchical regression analysis to test
whether users who prefer Facebook (SMP1) and/or Snapchat (SMP4), and who use Facebook
intensively (SMI1) - facilitated KCB. The result of this analysis (appendix 3).

The first step of the regression included introducing the socio-demographic variable Gender as a

of
predictor of KCB. In the second step, we added two types of SMP – Facebook and Snapchat. Results

ro
show that SMP toward Facebook and Snapchat predicted KCB. The difference between measurements
was significant (delta R2=.167, p<.001), demonstrating the effect of specific SMP (Facebook and
-p
Snapchat) on KCB. In the third step, we added a specific SMI - Facebook. The addition of the difference
re
between these measures did not increase the explanatory power of the model (delta R2=.002, p>.005).
lP

The fourth step introduced SMF as a predictor of KCB. The addition of the difference between SMF
measurements increased the explanatory power of the model (delta R2=.39, p<.001). The results showed
na

that SMP on Facebook and Snapchat preferences affect KCB, while the SMI on a specific platform
(Facebook) does not affect KCB, which is different from the correlation studies. This analysis also
ur

strengthened the results from our prior regression regarding SMF as a strong predictor of KCB.
Jo

6.3.2 Predictors of Knowledge Targeting Behaviors

To test the hypothesis on Knowledge Targeting Behaviors (KTB), we conducted a four-step hierarchical
regression analysis to test whether SMI, SMP and SMF variables facilitated different KTBs (appendix 4).

The first step of the regression included introducing the socio demographic variable Gender as a
predictor of KTB. In the second step, we added SMP. The addition of the difference between these
measurements did not increase the explanatory percentage of the model. The difference between
measurements was not significant (delta R2=.014, p>.005), demonstrating that main effect SMP does not
affect KTB. In the third step, following the first hypothesis, we added SMI. The addition of the
difference between these measures did not increase the explanatory power of the model (delta R2=.004,
p>.005). The fourth step introduced SMF as a predictor of KTB. The addition of the difference between

27
SMF measurements increased the explanatory power of the model (delta R2=.186, p<.001). As
hypothesized, SMF is a significant predictor for KTB. Results indicate that KTB is corelated with SMF
(Beta=.079, p=.001). This result agrees with the findings in the correlation analysis for the targeting
hypothesis (H3b as shown in table). Users that use SM in order to fulfill many needs, tend to broadcast
while users using SM for fewer needs use targeting of specific individuals or groups. Results also
indicate gender stays significant thought the entire model. These findings are consistent with previous
findings suggesting male participants reported target, frame, and behave in different ways in comparison
to female participants (Meng-Hsiang, et al., 2015).

of
We conducted a four-step hierarchical regression analysis to test whether a platform-specific user

ro
preference variable, e.g. users who prefer Instagram (SMP3) and/or google+ (SMP6), and a platform-
specific intensity variable, i.e. users who use Instagram intensively (SMI3) are significant predictors of
-p
KTBs as shown in Table 6 (appendix 5). The first step of the regression included introducing the socio
re
demographic variable Gender as a predictor of KTB. In the second step, we added two types of SMP –
lP

Instagram and Google+. The results show that SMP toward Instagram and Google+ predicts KTB. The
difference between measurements was significant (delta R2=.137, p<.001), demonstrating the effect of
na

specific SMP (Instagram and Google+) on KTB. In the third step, we added a specific SMI - Instagram.
The addition of the difference between these measures did not increase the explanatory power of the
ur

model (delta R2=.021, p>.005). The fourth step introduced SMF as a predictor of KTB. The addition of
the difference between SMF measurements increased the explanatory power of the model (delta R2=.049,
Jo

p<.001). The results showed that different SM preferences had an effect on KTB. Preferences for
Google+ and Instagram especially affect KTB. This analysis also confirms the results from our prior
regression regarding SMF as a strong predictor of KTB. However, the platform specific intensity
variable (SMI1 on Instagram) did not turn out to be a good predictor for the Targeting. This result does
not agree with the correlation analysis (see Table 6). Meng-Hsiang, et al. (2015) already suggested that
male participants behave differently than female participants.

In summary, the hierarchical regression analysis2 results on KCB and KTB are shown in Table 7.

2
A four-step hierarchical regression analysis for KFB (Knowledge Framing Behaviors) predictors was
not conducted because the second set of hypotheses regarding KFB was not supported, as shown in
table 6.

28
 Table 7 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

H1 – Creation (KCB) H3 – Targeting (KTB)

Intensity H1a: Supported** H3a: Not Supported

(SMI)
Functionality H1b: Supported*** H3b: Supported***
(SMF)

of
H1c: Not Supported H3c: Not Supported

ro
Preferences
(SMP) -p
(SMP on Facebook***
SMP on Snapchat***)
(SMP Instagram***
SMP Google+***)
re
lP

Lastly, we ran a comprehensive path analysis model, in which we complemented the hypothesis testing
procedure (appendix 6). To make the hypothesis testing more distinguishable, we separated the model
na

run into two steps. In the first step, we controlled for two main background characteristics – gender and
education level, where education was set as a binary variable for those respondents who had academic
ur

degree versus those who did not. We found that women had higher KBC in comparison to men (b=0.242,
Jo

p<.05), but lower KBT and KBF (b=-0.247, p<.05; b=-0.482, p<.10). However, education was not a
factor in the level of knowledge creating and targeting, nor age was a factor (was tested in an earlier
version of the model and made no contribution to the model). Thus, we move to the second step and
included the research variables. Note that SMP and SMI were found to be highly collinear as the later
complemented the former. Thus, we kept the SMI measure only. Our results from the second step
chowed that SMF had a positive effect on two out of the three outcome variables (KBC: b=0.09, p<.001;
KBT: b=0.06, p<.001) supporting in-part the research hypotheses. The overall goodness-of-fit of these
two path analysis runs were above satisfactory level, subject to minor modifications. A rescaling
estimators (MLR) was used due to the imposed weight, which made the two-step comparison more
difficult. The improved R2 confirmed the SMP, SMF role in explaining knowledge creation.

29
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The main findings show that among user characteristic variables of intensity, functionality, and specific
platform preference, only functionality is a good predictor of Knowledge Creation and Knowledge
Targeting behaviors. However, Knowledge Framing Behavior was not correlated with SM user
characteristics. An analysis involving the first hypothesis (Knowledge Creation) and the third hypothesis
(Knowledge Targeting) showed that these knowledge behaviors are strongly influenced by SM
Functionality, meaning that users who utilized SM in order to fulfill many needs create and broadcast
knowledge more than users that utilized SM in order to fulfill fewer needs. Users who used SM to fulfill
fewer needs tend to reuse existing knowledge, rather than create new content, and target specific

of
individuals or groups, rather than broadcast to a general audience.

ro
Tafesse & Wien (2018) argued that social media platforms facilitate a range of user functionality and
-p
used Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre (2011) findings to discussed these functions of
re
identity disclosure, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation management and groups.
lP

Brandtzæg’s (2012) identification of distinct types of users based on their frequency of usage
na

strengthens our findings in respect to user intensity and creation behaviors. Majchrzak, Wagner & Yates
(2013) imply that different knowledge resources affect how users shape knowledge behaviors, and Yates
ur

(2016) claim that the function of knowledge is more important than knowledge reuse. The honeycomb
framework (Kietzmann et al. 2011) defines SM by using different functional building blocks, which
Jo

makes it reasonable to assume that "Functionality" will affect differently not only user behavior in a
general sense, but also user behavior in different SM. Our findings on SM Functionality and knowledge
creation and targeting behaviors are consistent with these findings.

The Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak (2010; 2016) sharing-protecting theory showed that creation and targeting
are behaviors that are done while thinking of others (Faraj, Von Krogh & Monteiro 2016; Treem &
Leonardi 2017), while framing is in many ways a labeling/classification strategy that is planned to serve
the individual himself and not others. This may explain the lack of influence of user characteristics on
Knowledge Framing Behaviors.

30
In addition to SM functionality, an effect of specific SM preferences for Facebook, Snapchat and
LinkedIn on knowledge creation was found, as well as an effect of specific SM preferences for
Instagram and Google+ on knowledge targeting and an effect of specific SM preferences for Snapchat,
LinkedIn, Google+ and WhatsApp on knowledge framing. We have also found an effect of specific SM
intensive usage for Facebook on knowledge creation and for Snapchat and Google+ on knowledge
framing.

The following findings supply an initial roadmap for comparison between different SM users in terms of
characteristics, on one hand, and knowledge behaviors on the other.

of
ro
Referring to specific SM preferences, it seems that participants who prefer Instagram also prefer
Facebook and Twitter; participants who prefer Snapchat also prefer Twitter and Instagram; participants
-p
who prefer YouTube also prefer Snapchat; and participants who prefer Google+ do not prefer Instagram.
re
We also found that participants who prefer Facebook or LinkedIn, or don’t prefer Snapchat - create
lP

more content; participants who prefer Google+ or don’t prefer LinkedIn - frame more content; and
participants who prefer Instagram and Google+ - target their content more.
na

Referring to specific SM intensity, it seems that participants who intensively use Instagram also
ur

intensively use Twitter; participants who intensively use Snapchat also intensively use Twitter and
Instagram; participants who intensively use Google+ also intensively use Snapchat and LinkedIn;
Jo

participants who intensively use YouTube also intensively use Instagram and LinkedIn, and participants
who intensively use WhatsApp also intensively use Instagram, Snapchat and Google+. We also found
that participants who intensively use Facebook create more, and participants who intensively use
Snapchat and Google+ frame more.

Finally, our results support findings from previous studies about correlations between the background
characteristics of users and their usage of SM (Meng-Hsiang, et al., 2015). We demonstrated that older
participants reported low levels of SM preferences and intensity in comparison to younger participants.
Male participants reported low levels of targeting, framing, and SM functionality in comparison to
female participants. Educated participants reported a low level of SM intensity.

31
7.1 Contributions and Future Directions
In this study, we conducted survey studies to empirically examine whether the affordance of social
media, such as retweets (content reuse), hashtags (content labeling) and @mentions (content targeting),
which we define as Knowledge Sharing Behaviors or Knowledge Behaviors, in short, are related to the
user characteristics, such as social media intensity, purpose (intention) and platform preferences. This
research goes beyond previous studies where the focus was on whether user characteristics are actually
enabling the use of social media for sharing (e.g. Kim & Jang 2018, Ham et al. 2019, Syn & Oh, 2015,
Rode, 2016, Vilnai-Yavetz & Levina, 2018). It detailed the social media sharing into three types,
Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Framing, and Knowledge Targeting behaviors, and showed that some

of
of the user characteristics are correlated with and are good predictors of these knowledge sharing

ro
behaviors. This work extends the proposed model of SM Knowledge Behavior Model (Shwartz-Asher,
Chun & Adam, 2016) which connects different user types defined by posting frequency as light user
-p
versus heavy users.
re
lP

In this study, we distinguished user types into two groups, one user type with high intensity, platform
preference and multiple functionalities/purposes, and the other user type with low intensity, no platform
na

preference, and fewer functions of SM usage. Using a survey from a real-world sample population, we
showed the connection between two different user types and their knowledge behaviors, through
ur

correlation and path analysis methods.

Jo

The results showed that knowledge creation behaviors (KCB) and knowledge targeting behaviors (KTB)
are influenced by user functionality. An effect of specific Platform preferences for Facebook, Snapchat
and LinkedIn were found on knowledge creation, an effect of specific Platform preferences for
Instagram and Google+ on knowledge targeting and an effect of specific Platform preferences for
Snapchat, LinkedIn, Google+ and WhatsApp on knowledge framing.

The Social Media Knowledge Behavior Model was established as a framework to demonstrate that
different user types (defined by posting frequencies) and a user’s media usage characteristics (defined by
intensity, preferences and functionality) are associated with varying SM knowledge behaviors. To the
best of our knowledge, this research is the first to offer measurements of different users’ knowledge
behaviors from user surveys.

32
These results strengthen the implications of our models. The current study may contribute to a better
understanding of SM use for services providers such as governments or businesses. Enhancing
metaknowledge can lead to more innovative products and services. Decision makers can better allocate
resources and improve communication with their customers (the public) by identifying those that use
SM for many (vs. few) functions. After identifying these different types of customers, decision makers
can facilitate information strategy management accordingly. Local businesses and government can
exploit users who use SM for many functions (versus few) to broadcast important content and expect it
to be spread and targeted widely, and at the same time track desired content of users who use SM for

of
many functions (versus few) as a source of new information.

ro
This study is limited because it examines users through only three usage characteristics (intensity,
-p
preferences and functionality). Another limitation relates to the study's design. First, we recruited
re
participants via their personal online social networks. This strategy may have caused a sampling bias.
lP

Second, based on N=123, the predictive power of the study is limited. Evidence from a larger sample,
that represents a wider distribution of the population will contribute to strengthening the SM Knowledge
na

Behavior Model. The research variables can produce more meaningful results, perhaps, if other users’
characteristics not included in this study are measured and taken into account, such as personality or
ur

demographic traits, SM reputation, and so on.

Jo

In this study, three knowledge behaviors were investigated: creation, framing, and targeting. It is
possible that other knowledge behaviors, such as different types of content sharing and operational
measurements such as using "http" strings for linking purposes, for example, could contribute to
broadening the scope and value of this model.

33
8. REFERENCES
1. Ainin, S., Naqshbandi, M., Moghavvemi, S. & Jaafar, N. I. (2015). "Facebook usage, socialization
and academic performance", Computers & Education, 83, 64-73.
2. Bastos, M. T., Raimundo, R. L. G. & Travitzki, R. (2013). "Gatekeeping Twitter: message
diffusion in political hashtags", Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 260-270.
3. Bonsón, E., Royo, S. & Ratkai, M. (2015). "Citizens' engagement on local governments' Facebook
sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe",
Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 52–62.
4. Brandtzæg, P. B. (2012). “Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A

of
Longitudinal Study”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 467–

ro
488, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01580.x.
5. Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2012). "Researching News Discussion on Twitter - New methodologies",
-p
Journalism Studies, Special Issue: The Future of Journalism 2011: Developments and Debates,
re
13(5-6), 801-814.
lP

6. Bruns, A. & Stieglitz, S. (2012). "Quantitative Approaches to Comparing Communication

Patterns on Twitter", Journal of Technology in Human Services, Special Issue: Methods for
na

Analyzing SM, 30(3-4), 160-185.

7. Bruns, A. & Stieglitz, S. (2013). "Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting
ur

activities", International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(2), 91-108.

8. Cavallari, M. & Tornieri, F. (2017). "Vulnerabilities of Smartphones Payment Apps: The
Jo

Relevance in Developing Countries", International Journal of the Academic Business World 11.1.
9. Chang, H. C & Iyer, H. (2012). "Trends in Twitter Hashtag Applications: Design Features for
Value-Added Dimensions to Future Library Catalogues", Library Trends, 61(1), 248-258.
10. Christensen, C. (2013). "Wave-Riding and Hashtag-Jumping - Twitter, minority ‘third parties’ and
the 2012 US elections", Information, Communication & Society, Special Issue: SM and Election
Campaigns – Key Tendencies and Ways Forward, 16(5), 646-666.
11. Delibalta, I., Baruh, L., & Kozat, S. S. (2017). An Online Causal Inference Framework for
Modeling and Designing Systems Involving User Preferences: A State-Space Approach. Journal of
Electrical & Computer Engineering, 1–11. https://doi-
org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.1155/2017/1048385

34
12. De Vries, N. J. & Carlson, J. (2014). "Examining the drivers and brand performance implications
of customer engagement with brands in the SM environment", Journal of Brand Management,
21(6), 495-515.
13. Eden, L. (2012). "Knock, Knock. Who's There? The Imagined Audience", Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media, Special Issue: Socially Mediated Publicness, 56(3), 330-345.
14. Faraj, S., von Krogh, G. & Monteiro, E. (2016). “Special section introduction: Online community
as space for knowledge flows”, Information Systems Research, 27(4), 668-684.
15. Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/108844.108856

of
16. Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical

ro
Models, Cambridge University Press.
17. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving,
-p
acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
re
18. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
lP

19. Ham, C. D., Lee, J., Hayes, J. L., & Bae, Y. H. (2019). Exploring sharing behaviors across social
media platforms. International Journal of Market Research, 61(2), 157-177.
na

20. Highfield, T., Harrington, S. & Bruns, A. (2013). "Twitter as a Technology for Audiencing and
Fandom - The #Eurovision phenomenon", Information, Communication & Society, Special
ur

Issue: AoIR Special Issue, 16(3), 315-339.

21. Hoque, E., & Carenini, G. (2019). Interactive topic hierarchy revision for exploring a collection of
Jo

online conversations. Information Visualization, 18(3), 318–338.

22. Idemudia, E. C., Raisinghani, M. S., & Samuel-Ojo, O. (2018). The contributing factors of
continuance usage of social media: An empirical analysis. Information systems frontiers, 20(6),
1267–1280. https://doi-org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.1007/s10796-016-9721-3
23. Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Majchrzak, A. (2016). “Interactive self-regulatory theory for sharing and
protecting in interorganizational collaborations”, Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 9-27.
24. Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Majchrzak, A. (2010). “Research Commentary: Vigilant Interaction in
Knowledge Collaboration: Challenges of Online User Participation Under Ambivalence”,
Information Systems Research, 21(4), 773-784.
25. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

35
26. Kavanaugh, A. L., Fox, E. A., Sheetzb, S. D., Yanga, S., Lid, L. T., Shoemaker, D. J., Natsevf, A.
& Xieg, L. (2012). "SM use by government: From the routine to the critical",
Government Information, 29(4), 480–491.
27. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P. & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). "SM? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of SM", Business Horizon, Special Issue: SM, 54(3),
241–251.
28. Kim, D., & Jang, S. S. (2018). Online sharing behavior on social networking sites: Examining
narcissism and gender effects. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 89-93.
29. Larsson, A. O. & Moe, H. (2012). "Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010

of
Swedish election campaign", New Media & Society, 14(5), 729-747.

ro
30. Leonardi, P. M. (2014). “SM, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of
communication visibility”, Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796-816.
-p
31. Magro, M. J., Ryan,S. D. & Prybutok, V. R. (2013). "The Social Network Application Post-
re
Adoptive Use Model (SNAPUM): A Model Examining Social Capital and Other Critical Factors
lP

Affecting the Post-Adoptive Use of Facebook", Informing Science: The International Journal of
an Emerging Transdiscipline, 16.
na

32. Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C. & Yates, D. (2013). “The impact of shaping on knowledge reuse for
organizational improvement with wikis”. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 455-A12.
ur

33. Marwick, A. E. & Boyd, D. (2011). “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience”, New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133.
Jo

34. Meng-Hsiang, H., Shih-Wei, T., Hsien-Cheng, L. & Chun-Ming, C. (2015). "Understanding the
roles of cultural differences and socio-economic status in SM continuance intention", Information
Technology & People, 28(1), 224 – 241.
35. Meo, P. D., Ferrara, E., Rosaci, D. & Sarné, G. M. L. (2015). Trust and Compactness in Social
Network Groups, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 45(2), pp. 205-216, doi:
10.1109/TCYB.2014.2323892
36. Neeley, T. B. & Leonardi, P. M. (2018). “Enacting knowledge strategy through SM: Passable trust
and the paradox of nonwork interactions”, Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 922-946.
37. Nielsen, P. & Razmerita, L. (2014). "Motivation and Knowledge Sharing through SM within
Danish Organizations", In Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. & Nielsen, P. (Eds.). Creating Value for All

36
 Through IT, Volume 429 of the series IFIP Advances in Information and Communication
Technology, 197-213, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
38. Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
39. Oh, J., & Ki, E.-J. (2019). Factors affecting social presence and word-of-mouth in corporate social
responsibility communication: Tone of voice, message framing, and online medium type. Public
Relations Review, 45(2), 319–331. https://doi-
org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.02.005
40. Okazaki, S., Plangger, K., West, D., & Menéndez, H. D. (2020). Exploring digital corporate social
responsibility communications on Twitter. Journal of Business Research, 117, 675–682.

of
https://doi-org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.006

ro
41. Ouirdi, M. E., Ouirdi, A. E., Segers, J. & Henderickx, E. (2014). "SM Conceptualization and
Taxonomy: A Lasswellian Framework", Journal of Creative Communications, 9, 107-126.
-p
42. Page, R. (2012). "The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of
re
hashtags", Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181-201.
lP

43. Park, N. & Lee, S. (2014). "College Students' Motivations for Facebook Use and Psychological
Outcomes", Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 601-620.
na

44. Ramendra, S. & Yavuz, R. (2014). "Location sharing on social networks: implications for
marketing", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(5), 567-585.
ur

45. Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in
organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of
Jo

Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1225.

46. Rode, H. (2016). To share or not to share: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on
knowledge-sharing in enterprise social media platforms. Journal of information technology, 31(2),
152–165. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.8
47. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
48. Sabermajidi, N., Valaei, N., Balaji, M. S. & Goh, S. K. (2019). Measuring brand-related content in
social media: a socialization theory perspective. Information Technology and People, 33(4), 1281–
1302. https://doi-org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.1108/ITP-10-2018-0497
49. Sasahara, K., Hirata, Y., Toyoda, M., Kitsuregawa, M. & Aihara, K. (2013). "Quantifying
Collective Attention from Tweet Stream", PLoS ONE, 8(4), e61823.

37
50. Shwartz-Asher, D., Chun, S. A., Adam, N. (2016). "Understanding SM User Behavior in E-
Government Context", Presented at The 17th International Digital Government Research
Conference, Fudan University, China.
51. Shwartz-Asher, D., S.A. Chun & N. R. Adam (2017) Knowledge Behavior Model Of E-
Government Social Media Users, Special Issue of Social Media and Government, in the Journal
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy (TGPPP), Vol 11 Issue 3, ISSN: 1750-
6166.
52. Skinner, H. (2018). Who really creates the place brand? Considering the role of user generated
content in creating and communicating a place identity. Communication & Society, 31(4), 9–25.

of
https://doi-org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.15581/003.31.4.9-25

ro
53. Smalla, T. A. (2011). “What The Hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter”,
Information, Communication & Society, Special Issue: Networking Democracy?: SM innovations
-p
and participatory politics, 14(6), 872-895.
re
54. Smith, G. (2007). "Social software building blocks", Retrieved November 5, 2010,
lP

from http://nform.ca/publications/social-software-building-block.
55. Sprenger, T. O., Tumasjan, A., Sandner, P. G. & Welpe, I. M. (2014). "Tweets and Trades: the
na

Information Content of Stock Microblogs", European Financial Management, 20(5), 926–957.

56. Syn, S. Y., & Oh, S. (2015). Why do social network site users share information on Facebook and
ur

Twitter? Journal of information science, 41(5), 553–

569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515585717
Jo

57. Tafesse, W., & Wien, A. (2018). Implementing social media marketing strategically: an empirical
assessment. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(9/10), 732–749. https://doi-
org.ezlibrary.technion.ac.il/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1482365
58. Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake
news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing
behavior. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 51, 72–
82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026
59. Tonkin, E., Pfeiffer, H. D. & Tourte, G. (2012). "Twitter, information sharing and the London
riots?", Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Special Section:
Knowledge Management of Social Networks, 38(2), 49–57.

38
60. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International
Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.
61. Treem, J. W. & Leonardi, P. M. (2017). “Recognizing Expertise: Factors Promoting Congruity
Between Individuals’ Perceptions of Their Own Expertise and the Perceptions of Their
Coworkers”, Communication Research, 44(2), 198-224.
62. Vilnai-Yavetz, I., & Levina, O. (2018). Motivating social sharing of e-business content: Intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, or crowding-out effect? Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 181–
191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.034

of
63. Wakefield, R., & Wakefield, K. (2016). Social media network behavior: A study of user passion

ro
and affect. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(2), 140–
156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.04.001
-p
64. Wang, W. T., & Hou, Y. P. (2015). Motivations of employees’ knowledge sharing behaviors: A
re
self-determination perspective. Information and Organization, 25(1), 1-26.
lP

65. Weng, L., Menczer, F. & Yong-Yeol, A. (2013). "Virality Prediction and Community Structure in
Social Networks", Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2522.
na

66. Wirtz, B. W., Göttel, V., & Daiser, P. (2017). Social networks: usage intensity and effects on
personalized advertising. Journal of electronic commerce research, 18(2), 103-123.
ur

67. Wukich, C. & Mergel, I. (2016). "Reusing SM information in government", Government

Information Quarterly, 33(2), 305–312.
Jo

68. Xu, W. W., Sang, Y., Blasiola, S. & Park, H. W. (2014). "Predicting Opinion Leaders in Twitter
Activism Networks - The Case of the Wisconsin Recall Election". American Behavioral Scientist,
58(10), 1278-1293.
69. Yaacoub, H. K. & Najjar, R. (2016). "Effect of Facebook friends on each other's consumption
Patterns", Journal of Competitiveness Studies, 24(3), 177-193.
70. Yates, D. (2016). The impact of focus, function, and features of shared knowledge on re-use in
emergency management social media. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1318-1332.
71. Zeng, X. & Wei, L. (2012). "Social Ties and User Content Generation: Evidence from Flickr",
Information Systems Research, 24(1), 71–87.

39
72. Zhang, T., Wang, W. Y. C., Lin, Y. C., & Tai, L.-H. (2015). Understanding user motivation for
evaluating online content: a self-determination theory perspective. Behaviour & information
technology, 34(5), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.964319

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

40
 APPENDIX 1: Means and Standard Deviations of all Variables
Mean Std. Deviation
Age 2.367 .5788
Gender 1.288 .4548
Race/ethnicity 4.754 1.1242
Education 2.974 .9775
KTB KTB1234 .6549 .48906
KTB1 .483 .7884
KTB2 .390 .8577
KTB3 .105 .4072
KTB4 1.592 1.0330

of
KFB 12 2.5792 1.25523
KFB 1 4.5258 1.11890

ro
KFB 2 1.259 1.1430
KCB 12*3*45
KCB1
-p
2.1147
1.331
.68986
1.1209
re
KCB4 1.942 1.0869
KCB5 .949 1.1435
lP

KCB2* 3.2035 .97431

KCB3* 3.9468 .76716
SMF 6.8750 2.92644
na

SMP 1.7928 .62648

SMP Facebook 3.220 1.4115
ur

SMP Twitter 2.228 1.5085

SMP Instagram 1.756 1.5542
Jo

SMP Snapchat .577 1.1805

SMP LinkedIn 1.439 1.2291
SMP Google .455 .9343
SMP YouTube 2.352 1.0438
SMP WhatsApp 2.317 2.0257
SMI 1.0409 .39128
SMI Facebook 1.820 1.0758
SMI Twitter 1.352 .9174
SMI Instagram .942 .8431
SMI Snapchat .450 .6197
SMI LinkedIn .893 .6273
SMI Google .450 .5776
SMI YouTube 1.361 .8138
SMI WhatsApp 1.016 1.0122

41
 APPENDIX 2: Four-step hierarchical regression analysis
KCB

Dependent Variables → b SE β

Predictor variable ↓

Step 1
Gender .237 .115 .189*
R2 .036*
Step 2

of
Gender .246 .114 .196*

ro
SMP .152 .091 .152
2
R
∆R 2
-p .059
.023
re
Step 3
lP

Gender .239 .115 .191*

SMP .094 .137 .094
na

SMI .122 .216 .078

R2 .062
ur

∆R2 .003
Jo

Step 4
Gender .366 .110 .292**
SMP -.042 .131 -.042
SMI .172 .200 .109
SMF .089 .020 .406***
R2 .201
2
∆R .14***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; Note: all R2 scores are adjusted R2 results.

42
 Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of

43
APPENDIX 3: Four-step hierarchical regression analysis for specific SM on Knowledge Creation

KCB

Dependent Variables → b SE β

Predictor variable ↓

Step 1
Gender .237 .115 .189 *
R2 .036*
Step 2

of
Gender .258 .107 .206*

ro
SMP1 Facebook .165 .041 .3454***
SMP4 Snapchat -.143 .048 -.250***
R2
-p .203
re
∆R2 .167***
Step 3
lP

Gender .272 .110 .217*

SMP1 Facebook .147 .052 .307***
na

SMP4 Snapchat -.138 .049 -.242***

SMI1 Facebook .040 .071 .062
ur

R2 .205
Jo

∆R2 .002
Step 4
Gender .360 .102 .288***
SMP1 Facebook .109 .048 .228**
SMP4 Snapchat -.193 .046 -.337***
SMI1 Facebook -.007 .065 -.010
SMF .093 .019 .423***
R2 .344
∆R2 .139***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; Note: all R2 scores are adjusted R2 results.

44
 Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of

45
APPENDIX 4: Four-step hierarchical regression analysis on Knowledge Targeting

KTB

Dependent Variables → b SE β

Predictor variable ↓

Step 1
Gender -.251 .081 -.276**
R2 .076**
Step 2

of
Gender -.247 .081 -.272**

ro
SMP .064 .065 .088
2
R .084
∆R2
-p .008
re
Step 3
Gender -.258 .082 -.273**
lP

SMP .057 .098 .059

SMI .015 .154 .085
na

R2 .084
∆R2 000
ur

Step 4
Jo

Gender -.157 .079 -.173*

SMP -.041 .094 -.057
SMI .050 .143 .044
SMF .064 .014 .403***
R2 .222
2
∆R .138***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; Note: all R2 scores are adjusted R2 results.

46
APPENDIX 5: Four-step hierarchical regression analysis for specific SM on Knowledge Targeting
KTB

Dependent Variables → b SE β

Predictor variable ↓

Step 1
Gender -.263 .082 -.289***
R2 .083
Step 2

of
Gender -.215 .078 -.237***
SMP3 Instagram .079 .026 .261***

ro
SMP6 Google+ .171 .044 .337***
R
∆R2
2
-p .220
.137***
re
Step 3
lP

Gender -.210 .077 -.31***

SMP3 Instagram .125 .037 .415***
na

SMP6 Google+ .179 .044 .352***

SMI3 Instagram -.112 .063 -.209
ur

R2 .242
∆R2 .021
Jo

Step 4
Gender -.161 .077 -.177*
SMP3 Instagram .077 .049 .256
SMP6 Google+ .134 .045 .264***
SMI3 Instagram -.050 .066 -.094
SMF .042 .015 .363***
R2 .290
∆R2 .049***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; Note: all R2 scores are adjusted R2 results.

47
APPENDIX 6: Path Analysis Results, Unstandardized and Standardized Estimates
KBC KBT KBF

b se(b) Β b se(b) β b se(b) β

STEP 1

GENDER 0.242* .194 -0.247** -.273 -0.482~ -.181

(0.116) (0.079) (0.274)

EDUCATION 0.127 .101 0.040 .045 0.382 .143

(0.115) (0.079) (0.273)

R2

of
.08 .05 .05
2
Model Fit: Χ =3.74, df=3, p=.292; RMSEA=.046; CFI=.980, TLI=.941; SRMR=.045

ro
Scaled X2=3.89

STEP 2
-p
re
GENDER 0.375** .300 -0.154~ -.170 -0.432 -.161
(0.118) (0.084) (0.288)
lP

EDUCATION 0.115 .092 0.029 .032 0.410 .153

(0.112) (0.077) (0.273)
na

SMP 0.050 .050 -0.015 -.020 0.351~ .164

(0.108) (0.069) (0.182)
ur

SMF 0.087*** .395 0.063*** .399 0.019 .041

(0.018) (0.016) (0.041)
Jo

R2 .221 .204 .088

2
Model Fit: Χ =3.56, df=5, p=.615; RMSEA<.001; CFI=1.00, TLI=1.00; SRMR=.030

Scaled X2=4.07

*** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, ~ p<.10; Standard error in parentheses

48
Highlights
• Knowledge sharing behaviors are correlated with social media user characteristics.
• User characteristics are intensity of engagement on social media, a preference towards a social
media platform, and functional intentions for using social media.
• Knowledge creation and knowledge targeting behaviors are correlated with multiple
functional intentions, needs and motivation of the users.
• Decision makers can better allocate resources and improve communication with their
customers (the public) by identifying social media user’s functionality and facilitate
information strategy management accordingly.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo