See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303346836

Motivations and Uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat: Which

platform wins the challenge among college students?

Conference Paper · August 2016

CITATIONS READS

15 7,747

6 authors, including:

Mengyan Ma Saleem Alhabash

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Michigan State University
10 PUBLICATIONS 694 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 2,827 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mengyan Ma on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 New Media and Society

Fo
rPe
er
Re
vi
ew

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 1 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27 A Tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and
28
er

29
30
Snapchat among college students?
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 2 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 2

1
2
3
Abstract
4
5
6 The current research explores the differences between Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and
7
8 Snapchat in terms of use intensity, time spent daily on the platform, and use motivations. The
9
10
11
study applies the uses and gratifications approach to contrast uses and motivations across
12
13 platforms. A cross-sectional survey of college students (N = 396) asked participants to indicate
14
15 the intensity of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat as well as nine different use
16
17
18 motivations. Findings show that participants spent the most time daily on Instagram, followed by
Fo
19
20 Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter, respectively. They also indicated the highest use intensity for
21
22 Snapchat and Instagram (nearly equally), followed by Facebook and Twitter, respectively. With
r
23
24
regard to use motivations, Snapchat takes the lead in five of the nine motivations. Findings are
Pe

25
26
27 discussed in relation to the uses and gratifications approach and uniqueness of different social
28
er

29
media and SNSs.
30
31
32
Re

33
34 Keywords
35
36
Uses and gratifications, motivations, social media, social networking sites, Facebook, Twitter,
vi

37
38
39 Instagram, Snapchat.
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 3 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 3

1
2
3
INTRODUCTION
4
5
6 Social media are generally defined as forms of electronic communication where users can
7
8 create communities to share information, ideas, pictures, videos and other content. Social
9
10
11
networking is a subcategory of social media, which generally entails the creation and
12
13 maintenance of online relationships both personal and professional via various platforms
14
15 (Schauer, 2015). These platforms can be categorized as social networking sites (SNSs). Many of
16
17
18 the actions that occur on social media, such as creating and sharing content, also take place on
Fo
19
20 SNSs.
21
22 Nearly two-thirds of all American adults and three-quarters of Internet users report using
r
23
24
one or more SNS (Perrin, 2015). While young adults (aged 18-29) have the highest social media
Pe

25
26
27 adoption rates (90%), other age groups – e.g., teenagers and older adults – are also exhibiting
28
er

29
exponential growth in social media adoption rates (Perrin, 2015). Across different social media
30
31
32 platforms, the numbers of users are exceeding hundreds of millions, and in some cases (i.e.,
Re

33
34 Facebook) exceed the number of citizens in the world’s largest country. The uniqueness of the
35
36
current social media environment is the ability given by limitless bandwidth for the creation and
vi

37
38
39 propagation of new services and platforms on a daily basis. While Twitter was the craze a few
ew

40
41 years ago, reports of its demise are not only gaining users’ attention, but also investors’ careful
42
43
44 scrutiny (Tsukayama, 2016). As Twitter may be fading away, it is being overtaken by new
45
46 trending services like Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook remains a subject of loyalty among
47
48 young adults, yet it is being abandoned by teens migrating to Instagram and Snapchat (Lang,
49
50
51 2015).
52
53 The changing nature of the social media world makes for an interesting comparative
54
55
56
analysis of the leading platforms. The current study explores differences in uses and
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 4 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 4

1
2
3
gratifications among Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, and, in doing so, aims to
4
5
6 better understand the uniqueness of each platform. The study applies the uses and gratifications
7
8 approach across platforms to predict use intensity from a set of nine use motivations. Before
9
10
11
providing the study’s theoretical framework, the next section introduces each of the platforms
12
13 examined in the current study.
14
15 LITERATURE REIVEW
16
17
18 From the World’s Largest Country to the Fastest-Growing Movement
Fo
19
20 Facebook. Facebook is one of the most popular SNSs. Per the company’s website,
21
22 “Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and
r
23
24
connected” (Facebook, 2016). Facebook allows people to connect with friends, family, and
Pe

25
26
27 acquaintances, and gives people the opportunity to post and share content such as photos and
28
er

29
status updates (Stec, 2015). Founded in 2004, the platform has over a billion active daily users
30
31
32 and over 1.65 billion monthly active users; with a majority of users accessing it via mobile
Re

33
34 devices (Facebook, 2016). About three-quarters of Internet users report having a Facebook
35
36
account, and seven in 10 users report accessing the site daily, indicating the habitual and
vi

37
38
39 ritualized nature of Facebook use (Duggan, 2015a). The majority of young adults (18-29 years
ew

40
41 old) report using Facebook (87%), yet this age group experienced a 5% drop in usage rates from
42
43
44 2013 to 2015 (Duggan, 2015b; Duggan M, Ellison N, Lampe C, Lenhart A and Madden M,
45
46 2015).
47
48 Twitter. Founded in 2006, Twitter has been categorized as a microblogging site, where
49
50
51 users interact in “real time” using 140 character tweets to their followers. Users can converse
52
53 using mentions, replies, and hashtags (Stec, 2015). One-third of online young adults ages 18-29
54
55
56
were reported use Twitter in 2013, compared with 37% used this platform in 2014, and 32% in
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 5 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 5

1
2
3
2015 (Duggan, 2015b; Duggan M, Ellison N, Lampe C, Lenhart A and Madden M, 2015). Over
4
5
6 the past few years, statistics about the number of Twitter users have faced critique over
7
8 credibility, as Twitter overestimates the number of users by including accounts that have not
9
10
11
been active for long periods of time. Nonetheless, recently Twitter released that it has 320
12
13 million active users with one billion unique monthly visits to sites with embedded tweets
14
15 (Twitter, 2016).
16
17
18 Instagram. Instagram is a photo sharing mobile application which allows users to take
Fo
19
20 pictures, apply filters to them, and share them on the platform itself, as well as other platforms
21
22 like Facebook and Twitter (Stec, 2015). Per the company’s website, Instagram has over 400
r
23
24
million active monthly users who shared over 40 billion pictures, with an average of 3.5 billion
Pe

25
26
27 daily likes for more than 80 million photos shared daily on the site (Instagram, 2016). More than
28
er

29
half of young adults (18-29 years old) report using Instagram, thus making them the largest
30
31
32 group of Instagram users (Duggan, 2015b; Duggan M, Ellison N, Lampe C, Lenhart A and
Re

33
34 Madden M, 2015).
35
36
Snapchat. Snapchat is a social media mobile application that lets users send and receive
vi

37
38
39 time-sensitive photos and videos, which expire after viewing (Stec, 2015). Since these messages
ew

40
41 are removed after a few seconds, Snapchat gives users the opportunity for more private means of
42
43
44 communication. Recent estimates show that there are over 100 million Snapchat users worldwide
45
46 (Piwek and Joinson, 2016). Despite the fact that roughly a quarter of young adults (18-29 years
47
48 old) report using Snapchat, this platform is rated as the third-most popular SNS service following
49
50
51 Facebook and Instagram in 2013 (Duggan, 2013; Utz, Muscanell and Khalid, 2015).
52
53 Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter are the four leading social media platforms.
54
55
56
Per Lenhart (2015), these four platforms are the most popular among both teenagers and young
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 6 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 6

1
2
3
adults. The current study attempts to explore differences in the uses and gratifications of the four
4
5
6 platforms. The following section provides an overview of the uses and gratifications approach as
7
8 a theoretical framework for our study.
9
10
11
Uses and Gratifications: A Theoretical Framework
12
13 The uses and gratifications (U&G) approach has evolved and adapted in parallel to
14
15 growing diversity and pervasiveness of information communication technologies (ICTs). The
16
17
18 emergence of social media and SNSs extended the U&G approach to include a larger set of
Fo
19
20 motivations and different forms of identifying usage behaviors. Before we discuss the evolution
21
22 of U&G per the emergence of social media, we briefly review U&G’s basic assumptions.
r
23
24
U&G has five major assumptions related to the nature of media and their users: (1)
Pe

25
26
27 audience members are active and goal-oriented consumers of media; (2) people gratify certain
28
er

29
needs when using media; (3) as media satisfy needs, they become sources of competition to other
30
31
32 need-satisfying sources; (4) media users are aware of their interests and motives and have certain
Re

33
34 expectations of media that help them with media selection and need gratification; and (5) media
35
36
users are the ones capable of judging the quality of media (Katz, 1959; Katz, Blumler and
vi

37
38
39 Gurevitch, 1973). Considering that media gratify basic human needs (e.g., social, psychological,
ew

40
41 physiological), the study of U&G takes into consideration the users’ psychosocial individual
42
43
44 differences, media use motivations (e.g., information, entertainment, surveillance, personal
45
46 relationship, identity, and diversion, among others), and media use effects or consequences
47
48 (Katz, 1973; Papacharissi, 2008; Rosengren, 1974).
49
50
51 U&G is both one of the most-often used and criticized theoretical frameworks. There are
52
53 four major areas of critique: (1) conceptual ambiguity of motivations, needs, and uses; (2) lack of
54
55
56
a uniform way of measuring media use and heavy reliance on self-reports; (3) problematic
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 7 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 7

1
2
3
assumption related to awareness of needs by users and being too individualistic while
4
5
6 disregarding other contextual and cultural influences; and (4) limited explanatory power
7
8 (Rayburn, 1996). Despite these limitations, the concept of understanding why people use media
9
10
11
is an essential empirical question that continues to change with media development. While
12
13 enhancing the framework’s relevance, continued growth and diversification of ICTs brings the
14
15 challenge of diminishing consistency across media types as well as the emergence of a new set of
16
17
18 motivations and uses in light to expand the U&G framework (Ruggiero, 2000). The ICT boom
Fo
19
20 has also led to the reconciliation of some U&G assumptions, such as the assumption about the
21
22 active nature of media audiences, given that ICT affordances facilitate individualistic and active
r
23
24
information seeking and selection (Anderson and Meyer, 1975; Chen, 2015; Dicken-Garcia,
Pe

25
26
27 1998; Morris and Ogan, 1996; Newhagen and Rafaeli, 1996; Rayburn, 1996; Ruggiero, 2000;
28
er

29
Swanson, 1979).
30
31
32 The diversity of options offered by the Internet creates a challenge for U&G scholars. In
Re

33
34 abstract terms, the Internet has a set of unifying characteristics (e.g., demassification,
35
36
interactivity, asynchronicity, hypertextuality, packet switching, and multimedia; Ruggiero,
vi

37
38
39 2000). However, one can no longer regard the Internet as a single homogenous channel that
ew

40
41 conveys uniform messages. Social media services, including SNSs, offer numerous opportunities
42
43
44 distinguishable from those offered by other Internet services and traditional media in
45
46 functionality and structure that manifest themselves on system and user levels. The present study
47
48 takes this approach to shed light on cross-platform differences in social media uses and
49
50
51 gratifications.
52
53 U&G: The Unique Case of Social Media
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 8 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 8

1
2
3
Mäntymäki and Islam (2016) suggest that the use of SNSs has both positive and negative
4
5
6 influences. Using the U&G approach, Mäntymäki and Islam (2016) placed social enhancement
7
8 and interpersonal connectivity as positive gratifications, while exhibitionism and voyeurism as
9
10
11
negative gratifications for SNS use. Exhibitionism, interpersonal connectivity, and voyeurism,
12
13 respectively were the strongest predictor of SNS use, and so was the number of SNS friends
14
15 (Mäntymäki and Islam, 2016). Mäntymäki and Islam (2014a) found that content consumption
16
17
18 and content production on SNSs are associated with different motivations: voyeurism and
Fo
19
20 exhibitionism, respectively.
21
22 Seidman (2013) suggests that use of SNSs can help users build, communicate, and
r
23
24
interact with other people as a way to maintain social relationships. In regard to positive
Pe

25
26
27 behaviors, such as self-promotion, Belk (2013) found that self-disclosure (Hollenbaugh and
28
er

29
Ferris, 2014) could be gratified through social media use. On the other hand, Marwick (2012)
30
31
32 suggests that following users on social media without the aim of maintaining or developing
Re

33
34 relationships can be a form of social surveillance or voyeurism as depicted by Mantymaki and
35
36
Islam (2014a; 2016).
vi

37
38
39 People use social media to obtain information about others (Lampe et al., 2006). The
ew

40
41 information gained helps them maintain interpersonal relationships, as depicted by Seidman
42
43
44 (2013), thus helping them fulfill their need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Others use
45
46 social media to meet like-minded individuals as well as to receive companionship and social
47
48 support (Wellman and Gulia, 1999). On the other hand, Jung and Sundar (2016) found that
49
50
51 senior citizens over 60 years old used social media, specifically Facebook, for social bonding,
52
53 social bridging, curiosity, and as a vehicle for responding to family member requests. Joinson
54
55
56
(2008) identified seven motivations for the Facebook use among college students: social
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 9 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 9

1
2
3
connection, shared identities, photographs, content, social investigation, social network surfing
4
5
6 and status updates. Additionally, he found that entertainment-related content motivated younger
7
8 users to spend more time on Facebook.
9
10
11
Whiting and Williams (2013) identified 10 uses and gratifications for using social media:
12
13 Social interaction, information seeking, passing time, entertainment, relaxation, communicatory
14
15 utility, convenience utility, expression of opinion, information sharing and surveillance or
16
17
18 knowledge about others. Comparing Facebook and Snapchat, Stanley (2015) found that
Fo
19
20 undergraduates more frequently use Snapchat than Facebook, and expressed motivations to
21
22 increase networking when joining Facebook as opposed to peer pressure and content appeal that
r
23
24
drive the motivations to use Snapchat. Stanley (2015) also found a gender difference in uses and
Pe

25
26
27 gratifications of Facebook and Snapchat.
28
er

29
The earlier stages of investigating the U&G of social media platforms, mostly in relation
30
31
32 to Facebook use, have centered on the social value of social media as it relates to interacting and
Re

33
34 connecting with friends. For example, earlier studies on Facebook showed that connecting and
35
36
staying in touch with friends, family, and acquaintances, maintaining social ties, keeping up with
vi

37
38
39 old friends, among other socially-relevant motivations were the primary motives for using a
ew

40
41 platform like Facebook (Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Quan-Haase and Young, 2010).
42
43
44 However, over the past 12 years, the nature of Facebook, as well as other social media platforms,
45
46 evolved in such a way where other motivations are advancing in salience. Entertainment,
47
48 medium appeal, and self-documentation have become more prevalent and predictive of usage
49
50
51 patterns among Facebook users (Alhabash, Chiang and Huang, 2014; Alhabash, Park, Kononova,
52
53 Chiang and Wise, 2012; Karlis, 2013).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 10 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 10

1
2
3
The nature of Twitter, with its limited 140-character tweets, redefined the types of
4
5
6 motivations and gratifications that users seek. Liu, Cheung, and Lee (2010) found that
7
8 information sharing and social interaction were most predictive of expressed intentions to
9
10
11
continue using Twitter. Similarly, Johnson and Yang (2009) found that information sharing
12
13 motivations were moderately correlated with time spent on the site weekly and frequency of
14
15 visits per week. Park (2013) found that among opinion leaders on Twitter, their motivations of
16
17
18 information seeking, mobilization, and public expression predicted their use of Twitter within a
Fo
19
20 political context. Most notable is Twitter’s role in relation to the 2011 Arab Spring.
21
22 Research on both Instagram and Snapchat is still in its infancy due to the recent increase
r
23
24
in adoption rates. Sheldon and Bryant (2015) found that Instagram users place less emphasis on
Pe

25
26
27 connecting with other people and more on personal identity and self-promotion, in addition to
28
er

29
other motives, including: surveillance and knowledge gathering about others, documentation of
30
31
32 life events and general coolness, which includes self-promotion and displaying creativity such as
Re

33
34 photography skills. This particular study found that surveillance was the strongest motivation for
35
36
Instagram usage. To the best of our knowledge, no studies in the context of U&G have been
vi

37
38
39 conducted with focus on Snapchat.
ew

40
41 Past literature points to a number of observations about the overall view of the U&G of
42
43
44 social media platforms. First, past research suggests that affordances and functionality of each
45
46 platform yield a unique set of motivations and gratifications sought and obtained through
47
48 platform use. Second, as sociotechnical systems evolve and strive for continued reinvigoration
49
50
51 by updating their design and functionality, motivations and usage patterns also change. Third,
52
53 while each platform has unique features and motivations for using it, there could be common and
54
55
56
complimentary motivations across platforms.
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 11 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 11

1
2
3
Considering the limited number of studies that compare U&G across different social
4
5
6 media platforms (Stanley, 2015), wee asked:
7
8 RQ1: What are the differences, if any, in use intensity, time spent daily, and motivations
9 to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat?
10
11
12 RQ2: How do motivations to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat and time
13 spent daily on the platform predict the intensity of platform use?
14
15 METHOD
16
17 Sample
18
Fo
19
20 To answer the study’s research questions, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of
21
22 college students (N = 396), recruited through a student subject pool at a large Midwestern
r
23
24
university. Participants were recruited online and completed the survey anonymously via
Pe

25
26
27 Qualtrics.com and received course or extra credit for participation. Thirty-three participants were
28
er

29 excluded for failing quality control check questions, thus reducing the sample size to 363
30
31
32
participants. A larger proportion of the sample identified as female (64.6%), with a mean age of
Re

33
34 about 22 (SD = 2.98), and mostly white (79.3%). With regard to having active accounts on the
35
36 four social media platforms, 97.2% reported having an account on Facebook, 79.1% on Twitter,
vi

37
38
39 87.1% on Instagram, and 84.3% on Snapchat. For cross-platform analyses, we only used
ew

40
41 participants who indicated they had active accounts on all four platforms, which reduced the
42
43 sample size to 240 for certain statistical analyses.
44
45
46 Operational Measures
47
48 All scale items used in the study were measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale
49
50
anchored by “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” A detailed list of all items is provided in
51
52
53 Appendix 1. To measure the intensity of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, we
54
55 used six items adapted from Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe’s (2007). We also asked participants
56
57
58
to indicate the amount of time they spent daily on each of the platforms using two drop-down
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 12 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 12

1
2
3
menus; one for hours/day and another for minutes/day that were combined into overall minutes
4
5
6 per day. As for motivations to use each platform, we used Liu, Cheung, and Lee’s (2010) list of
7
8 motivations and added four items to measure the photo-sharing motivations. In total, we asked
9
10
11
participants to express their agreement/disagreement with statements pertaining to the following
12
13 motivations for information sharing (3 items), self-documentation (3 items), social interaction (3
14
15 items), entertainment (2 items), passing time (3 items), self-expression (2 items), medium appeal
16
17
18 (1 item), convenience (2 items), and pictures (4 items). Additionally, we asked participants to
Fo
19
20 indicate the number of friends/followers they have on the platform as well as the number of
21
22 actual friends who are also friends/followers on the site. Specific to Twitter, Instagram, and
r
23
24
Snapchat, we also asked participants to indicate the number of users that the participants follow
Pe

25
26
27 and the actual friends that the participants follow on the platforms. For all questions related to
28
er

29
the number of friends or followers, participants were instructed to enter the number using an
30
31
32 open-ended question. Averaged variables were created for multi-item construct following
Re

33
34 satisfactory factor and reliability analysis results (see Appendix 1).
35
36
RESULTS
vi

37
38
39 Cross-Platform Differences
ew

40
41 Research question 1 inquired about the differences between Facebook, Twitter,
42
43
44 Instagram, and Snapchat in terms of use intensity, time spent daily, and motivations to use each
45
46 platform. To answer this research question, data for each measure of interest (time spent, use
47
48 intensity, and nine motivations) were submitted to a 4 (platform) repeated measures ANOVA.
49
50
51 Results are summarized in Table 1.
52
53 Results show that participants spent the greatest amount of time on Instagram (M =
54
55
56
108.73, SD = 101.55), followed by Snapchat (M = 107.15, SD = 106.47), Facebook (M = 106.35,
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 13 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 13

1
2
3
SD = 94.65), and Twitter (M = 88.92, SD = 104.14), respectively, F(3, 223) = 3.37, p < .05, η2p =
4
5
6 .04 (see Figure 1). Pairwise comparisons showed that the difference between Twitter and
7
8 Instagram was significant (p < .05) and that between Twitter and Snapchat approached
9
10
11
significance (p = .057), while the other pairwise differences were not significant.
12
13 As for the intensity to use each platform, participants expressed the highest intensity to
14
15 use Snapchat (M = 5.07, SD = 1.44), followed by Instagram (M = 5.06, SD = 1.56), Facebook (M
16
17
18 = 4.49, SD = 1.41) and Twitter (M = 4.22, SD = 1.83), respectively, F(3, 237) = 24.43, p < .001,
Fo
19
20 η2p = .24 (see Figure 2). Pairwise comparisons showed that all cross-platform differences were
21
22 significant (p < .05) except for the difference between Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and
r
23
24
Snapchat.
Pe

25
26
27 Results showed that all motivations, except for information sharing, were significantly
28
er

29
different across the four social media platforms. Results are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 3,
30
31
32 thus we will limit this report to highlighting trends and similarities across motivations. A trend in
Re

33
34 the prevalence of use motivations related to self-documentation, social interaction,
35
36
entertainment, passing time and convenience emerged across the four platforms. Snapchat takes
vi

37
38
39 the lead in these five motivations, followed by Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, respectively.
ew

40
41 With regard to self-expression motivations, we see that Instagram slightly leads, followed by
42
43
44 Snapchat, Twitter, then Facebook, respectively. Snapchat takes the lead for medium appeal,
45
46 followed by Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, respectively. Finally, with regard to motivations
47
48 to use the platform to post and share pictures, we see that Instagram takes the lead, followed by
49
50
51 Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter, respectively.
52
53 Predicting Use Intensity Across Platforms
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 14 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 14

1
2
3
Research question 2 deals with exploring the ways in which the nine motivations to use
4
5
6 each of the four platforms and time spent on the site predict the intensity of using Facebook,
7
8 Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. To answer this question, we ran comparable OLS regression
9
10
11
models. All four regression models include platform use intensity as a criterion variable and the
12
13 nine motivations, as well as time spent on the platform daily, the number of friends/followers
14
15 (overall and actual) and the number of users they follow (overall and actual; applicable to all
16
17
18 except Facebook), as predictors. The risk for multicollinearity was assessed for each model and
Fo
19
20 was deemed acceptable. Tolerance scores ranged from .17 to .92 and the variance inflation factor
21
22 (VIF) ranged between 1.14 and 5.49. There were only two predictors in the Twitter model with a
r
23
24
VIF score exceeding 5, however, we chose to keep the predictors in that model for the sake of
Pe

25
26
27 comparability across platforms.
28
er

29
As summarized in Table 2, results showed that the regression models for the four
30
31
32 platforms had similar explanatory power that ranged from 57% to 66%. Across the four
Re

33
34 platforms, entertainment was consistently the strongest predictor of use intensity. Self-
35
36
documentation, entertainment, self-expression, convenience, and time spent daily were positively
vi

37
38
39 associated with Facebook use intensity. Entertainment, convenience, pictures and time spent
ew

40
41 daily were positively associated with Twitter use intensity. Self-documentation, entertainment,
42
43
44 and time spent daily were positively related to Instagram use intensity. Self-documentation,
45
46 entertainment, self-expression, convenience, time spent daily, and number of friends were
47
48 positively associated with Snapchat use intensity. Additionally, across all platforms, the amount
49
50
51 of time spent daily on the site was positively related to the intensity of its use.
52
53 DISCUSSION
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 15 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 15

1
2
3
The current study explored social media U&G across four different popular platforms:
4
5
6 Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat using a sample of college students. Following is a
7
8 summary of the study’s main findings.
9
10
11
Our study showed that participants spent the greatest amount of time on Instagram and
12
13 Snapchat, then Facebook and Twitter. The increasing popularity of Instagram and Snapchat has
14
15 also been shown in other studies (see Stanley, 2015). This was also mirrored in the findings
16
17
18 related to use intensity, where participants rated their intensity of using Instagram and Snapchat
Fo
19
20 higher than that of Facebook and Twitter. In other words, participants found Instagram and
21
22 Snapchat to be more important to their life than Facebook and Twitter.
r
23
24
With regard to the motivations to use each platform, participants reported using all four
Pe

25
26
27 platforms equally to share information. Across the four platforms, the two-highest rated
28
er

29
motivations were for entertainment and convenience. As noted by prior studies (e.g., Alhabash et
30
31
32 al., 2014), there are changing values attached to using social media that move beyond the
Re

33
34 hypothesized value of socialization and social networking. With increasing network size across
35
36
all platforms, the meaning and value added moves beyond the interactive social nature which
vi

37
38
39 was anticipated for these platforms, and migrates to a value of habitual and ritualized use that
ew

40
41 becomes mostly passive (e.g., everyone is a lurker) with the option of interactivity in certain
42
43
44 situations.
45
46 The four platforms deviate from similarity when inspecting the other use motivations. For
47
48 example, following convenience and entertainment, participants reported they use Facebook for
49
50
51 passing time, medium appeal, photos, information sharing, self-expression, social interaction,
52
53 and self-documentation motivations, respectively. As for Twitter, motivations other than
54
55
56
entertainment and convenience include: medium appeal, passing time, self-expression,
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 16 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 16

1
2
3
information sharing, social interaction, self-documentation and photos, respectively. It is worth
4
5
6 noting that for both Facebook and Twitter, information sharing was the sixth-highest motivation,
7
8 compared to the least rated motivation for Snapchat and Instagram.
9
10
11
It is not surprising that photos are next to entertainment and convenience for the
12
13 motivations to use Instagram, followed by medium appeal, passing time, self-expression, self-
14
15 documentation, social interaction, and information sharing, respectively. As for Snapchat, we see
16
17
18 that after entertainment and convenience, medium appeal, passing time, self-expression, self-
Fo
19
20 documentation, photos, social interaction, and information sharing followed, respectively (see
21
22 Figure 4).
r
23
24
The regression results also point to intriguing contrasts across the four platforms. Before
Pe

25
26
27 looking how use motivations predict intensity of use, it is important to look at the relationship
28
er

29
between the time participants spent daily using the platform and the intensity of use, which was a
30
31
32 significant predictor for all platforms. However, we see that the contribution of usage time to the
Re

33
34 intensity of use is greater for Facebook and Twitter than it is for Instagram and Snapchat. It is the
35
36
plausible that the nature and progression of Facebook and Twitter lend themselves to greater
vi

37
38
39 time engagement than Instagram and Snapchat. Another plausible explanation is that Facebook
ew

40
41 and Twitter have been in use for a longer period of time than Instagram and Snapchat. For our
42
43
44 sample, participants reported that, on average, they have been using Facebook for 6.65 years,
45
46 (SD = 1.77), followed by Twitter (M = 4.20, SD = 1.60), Instagram (M = 3.50, SD = 1.27), and
47
48 Snapchat (M = 2.85, SD = 1.23), F (3, 221, p < .001, η2p = .84. What this suggests is that
49
50
51 participants had a longer period to time to ritualize their use of each of these platforms, and
52
53 therefore, their attitudes toward the medium (use intensity) is positively related to how time they
54
55
56
spend daily on the medium.
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 17 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 17

1
2
3
As found in previous studies (e.g., Alhabash et al., 2014), our findings showed that the
4
5
6 strongest predictor of use intensity was the motivation to use the platform for entertainment
7
8 purposes. Our finding also suggest a few contrasts across the different platforms. Facebook use
9
10
11
intensity is also driven by self-documentation, convenience and self-expression. Twitter use
12
13 intensity is also driven by convenience and photos as motivations. Instagram use intensity is also
14
15 predicted by self-documentation. Finally, the intensity of using Snapchat is predicted further by
16
17
18 convenience, self-expression, and self-documentation. Snapchat is also the only platform in
Fo
19
20 which network size slightly mattered in terms of use intensity, plausibly due to the nature of
21
22 interactions on it and its novelty, therefore placing greater emphasis on the size of the audience
r
23
24
of friends compared to other platforms.
Pe

25
26
27 Theoretical and Practical Implications
28
er

29
The current study is one of few that compared the U&G of four leading social media and
30
31
32 SNS platforms among college students. The most apparent theoretical implication for the current
Re

33
34 study is the similarities and dissimilarities across the four different platforms in relation to usage
35
36
patterns and motivations. The distinctiveness of each platform is certainly reflected in several
vi

37
38
39 ways in relation to time spent daily interacting with the platform, to the different motivations,
ew

40
41 and how the motivations predict use intensity. The other implication deals with the robustness of
42
43
44 the U&G approach in predicting use-related evaluations and behaviors from motivations. Despite
45
46 critiques of the U&G approach, the regression models reported here predict roughly 60% of the
47
48 variance in use intensity across the four platforms. However, it is worth mentioning that per the
49
50
51 U&G approach, we followed a general and plausibly standardized approach to measuring uses
52
53 and motivations, therefore, future research should attempt at understanding the uniqueness of the
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 18 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 18

1
2
3
general motivational expressions per each platform. For example, does using Facebook to share
4
5
6 and post pictures mean the same thing when done on Snapchat?
7
8 On a practical level, our findings provide professional communicators – be them
9
10
11
advertisers, marketers, PR practitioners, or health communicators – with a deeper understanding
12
13 of the complexities and intricacies of dealing with social media audiences. The high emphasis on
14
15 entertainment by our participants should lead these professional communicators to designing
16
17
18 campaigns that adhere to and gratify these motivations for engagement and continuity purposes.
Fo
19
20 Limitations and Future Research
21
22 Our study used a college-student sample, with a majority female and white participants.
r
23
24
Despite the fact that young adults are the heaviest adopters and users of social media and social
Pe

25
26
27 networking platforms, our results cannot be generalized to the entire population of social media
28
er

29
users. Future studies should replicate our survey with individuals from diverse demographic
30
31
32 groups.
Re

33
34 We took a standardized approach in asking participants about their motivations and uses
35
36
of the different platforms. This brings up a number of limitations. First, there could be a test-
vi

37
38
39 retest effect on the way participants responded to all the questions pertaining to each of the
ew

40
41 platforms. Second, by taking a standardized approach, we limited the unraveling of unique
42
43
44 features and trends related to each of the four platforms. Future research should take a hybrid
45
46 approach that asks standardized questions across different platforms, yet allows for unique
47
48 features to be included in the study design. The current study explored cross-platform differences
49
50
51 in uses and gratification of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Our findings showed
52
53 that newer platforms – Snapchat and Instagram – are taking the lead in usage and motivations for
54
55
56
use in several aspects.
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 19 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 20 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 20

1
2
3
REFERENCES
4
5
6 Alhabash S, Chiang YH and Huang K (2014) MAM & U&G in Taiwan: Differences in the uses
7
8 and gratifications of Facebook as a function of motivational reactivity. Computers in
9
10
11
Human Behavior, 35, 423-430.
12
13 Alhabash S, Park H, Kononova A, Chiang YH and Wise K (2012) Exploring the motivations of
14
15 Facebook use in Taiwan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(6), 304-
16
17
18 311.
Fo
19
20 Anderson JA and Meyer TP (1975) Functionalism and the mass media. Journal of Broadcasting,
21
22 19(1), 11-22.
r
23
24
Baumeister RF and Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as
Pe

25
26
27 a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.
28
er

29
Belk RW (2013) Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-
30
31
32 500.
Re

33
34 Blumler JG (1979) The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication
35
36
Research, 6(1), 9-36.
vi

37
38
39 Carey JW and Kreiling AL (1974) Popular culture and uses and gratifications: Notes toward an
ew

40
41 accommodation. In Blumler JG and Katz E (Eds.), The uses of mass communications:
42
43
44 Current perspectives on gratification research (pp. 225-48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45
46 Chen GM (2015) Why do women bloggers use social media? Recreation and information
47
48 motivations outweigh engagement motivations. New Media & Society, 17(1), 24-40.
49
50
51 Dicken-Garcia H (1998) The Internet and continuing historical Discourse. Journalism and Mass
52
53 Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 19-27.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 21 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 21

1
2
3
Duggan M (2013) Additional Analysis. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
4
5
6 http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/28/additional-analysis/
7
8 Duggan M (2015a) Mobile messaging and social media 2015: The demographic of social media
9
10
11
users. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-
12
13 demographics-of-social-media-users/
14
15 Duggan M (2015b) Demographics of social media users. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
16
17
18 http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/
Fo
19
20 Duggan M, Ellison N, Lampe C, Lenhart A and Madden M (2015) Social Media Update 2014:
21
22 While Facebook remains the most popular site, other platforms see higher rates of growth.
r
23
24
Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
Pe

25
26
27 http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_SocialMediaUpdate20141.pdf
28
er

29
Duggan M (2015) Demographics of social media users. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
30
31
32 http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/
Re

33
34 Elliot P (1974) Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alternative. In
35
36
Blumler JG and Katz E (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspective on
vi

37
38
39 gratification research (pp. 249-268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
ew

40
41 Ellison NB, Steinfield C and Lampe C (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital
42
43
44 and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated
45
46 Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
47
48 Facebook (2016) Newsroom: Company Info: Stats. Retrieved from:
49
50
51 http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
52
53 Hiting A and Williams D (2013) Why people use social media: uses and gratifications approach.
54
55
56
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362-369.
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 22 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 22

1
2
3
Hollenbaugh WE and Ferris AL (2014) Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits,
4
5
6 social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50-58.
7
8 Instagram (2016) Our story: A quick walk through our history as a company. Retrieved from:
9
10
11
https://www.instagram.com/press/?hl=en
12
13 Johnson PR and Yang S (2009) Uses and gratifications of Twitter: An examination of user
14
15 motives and satisfaction of Twitter use. In Communication Technology Division of the
16
17
18 annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Fo
19
20 in Boston, MA.
21
22 Joinson AN (2008) Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: Motives and use of
r
23
24
Facebook. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
Pe

25
26
27 in Computing.
28
er

29
Jung EH and Sundar SS (2016) Senior citizens on Facebook: How do they interact and why?.
30
31
32 Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 27-35.
Re

33
34 Karlis JV (2013) That's News to Me: An Exploratory Study of the Uses and Gratifications of
35
36
Current Events On Social Media of 18-24 Year-Olds. Scholar Commons.
vi

37
38
39 Katz E (1959) Mass communication research and the study of daily serial listeners: An editorial
ew

40
41 note on a possible future for this journal. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1-6.
42
43
44 Katz E, Blumler JG and Gurevitch M (1973) Uses and gratifications research. The Public
45
46 Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
47
48 Lampe C, Ellison NB and Steinfield C (2006) A face (book) in the crowd: social searching vs.
49
50
51 Social browsing. In proeedinngs of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer
52
53 supported cooperative work (pp. 167-170).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 23 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 23

1
2
3
Lang N (2015) Why teens are leaving Facebook: It’s ‘meaningless.’ The Washington Post.
4
5
6 Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/02/21/why-
7
8 teens-are-leaving-facebook-its-meaningless/
9
10
11
Lenhart A (2015) Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center.
12
13 Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-
14
15 2015/
16
17
18 Liu IL, Cheung CM and Lee MK (2010) Understanding Twitter usage: What drive people
Fo
19
20 continue to Tweet. In PACIS (p. 92).
21
22 Mäntymäki M and Islam AKMN (2014a). Voyeurism and exhibitionism as gratifications from
r
23
24
presuming social networking sites. In proceeding of the 22nd European conference on
Pe

25
26
27 information systems (ECIS2014).
28
er

29
Mäntymäki M and Islam AKMN (2014b) Social virtual world continuance among teens:
30
31
32 Uncovering the moderating role of perceived aggregate network exposure. Behaviour &
Re

33
34 Information Technology, 33(5), 536-547.
35
36
Mäntymäki M and Islam AKMN (2016) The Janus face of Facebook: Positive and negative sides
vi

37
38
39 of social networking site use. Computers in Human Behavior 61: 14-26.
ew

40
41 Marwick AE (2012) The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance &
42
43
44 Society, 9(4), 378.
45
46 Morris M and Ogan C (1996). The Internet as a mass medium. Journal of Communication 46(1),
47
48 39-50.
49
50
51 Newhagen JE and Rafaeli S (1996) Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A
52
53 dialogue. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 4-13.
54
55
56
Papacharissi Z (2008) Uses and gratifications. In Uses and Gratifications. An Integrated
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 24 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 24

1
2
3
Approach to Communication Theory and Research (pp. 137-152). Michael Salwen, Don
4
5
6 Stacks (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum.
7
8 Park CS (2013) Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion leadership,
9
10
11
and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1641-1648.
12
13 Perrin A (2015) Social Media Usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science &
14
15 Tech. Retrieved 21 March 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-
16
17
18 networking-usage-2005-2015/
Fo
19
20 Piwek L and Joinson A (2016) What do they snapchat about? Patterns of use in time-limited
21
22 instant messaging service. Computers In Human Behavior, 54, 358-367.
r
23
24
Quan-Haase A and Young A (2010) Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of
Pe

25
26
27 Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 350-
28
er

29
361.
30
31
32 Raacke J and Bonds-Raacke J (2008) MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and
Re

33
34 gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology &
35
36
Behavior, 11(2), 169-174.
vi

37
38
39 Rayburn JD (1996) Uses and gratification. In Salwen MB and Stacks DW (Eds.), An integrated
ew

40
41 approach to communication and research (pp. 97-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
42
43
44 Associates, Inc.
45
46 Rosengren KE (1974) Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In Blumler JG and Katz E
47
48 (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research
49
50
51 (pp. 269–286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52
53 Ruggiero TE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and
54
55
56
Society, 3(1), 3-37.
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 25 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 25

1
2
3
Schauer P (2015) 5 Biggest Differences between Social Media and Social Networking. Social
4
5
6 Media Today. Retrieved 21 March 2016, from http://www.socialmediatoday.com/social-
7
8 business/peteschauer/2015-06-28/5-biggest-differences-between-social-media-and-social
9
10
11
Seidman G (2013) Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences
12
13 social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402-407.
14
15 Sheldon P and Bryant K (2016) Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and
16
17
18 contextual age. Computers In Human Behavior, 58, 89-97.
Fo
19
20 Stanley B (2015) Uses and gratifications of temporary social media: A comparison of Snapchat
21
22 and Facebook. California State University, Fullerton, 2015.
r
23
24
Stec C (2015) Social media definitions: The ultimate glossary of terms you should know.
Pe

25
26
27 Hubspot. Retrieved from: http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6126/The-Ultimate-
28
er

29
Glossary-120-Social-Media-Marketing-Terms-Explained.aspx
30
31
32 Swanson DL (1979) Political communication research and the uses and gratifications model: A
Re

33
34 critique. Communication research, 6(1), 37-53.
35
36
Tsukayama J (2016) The death of Twitter as we know it. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:
vi

37
38
39 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/11/the-death-of-twitter-as-
ew

40
41 we-know-it/
42
43
44 Twitter (2016) Twitter milestone. Retrieved: https://about.twitter.com/company/press/milestones
45
46 Wellman B and Gulia M (1999) Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as
47
48 communities. Networks in the global village, 331-366.
49
50
51 Whiting A and Williams D (2013) Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications
52
53 approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 26 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 26

1
2
3
Utz S, Muscanell N and Khalid C (2015) Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A
4
5
6 comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social
7
8 Networking,18(3), 141-146.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 27 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 27

1
2
3
Table 1.
4
5
6 Repeated Measures ANOVA
7
8 Variable FB TW IG SC ANOVA Results
9
10 Time spent using… 106.35 88.92 108.73 107.15 F(3, 223) = 3.37, p <
11
12
(minutes/day) * (94.65) (104.14) (101.55) (106.47) .05, η2p = .04
13 4.49 4.22 5.06 5.07 F(3, 237) = 24.43, p <
Use intensity
14 (1.41) (1.83) (1.56) (1.44) .001, η2p = .24
15 4.14 4.07 3.96 4.09 F(3, 237) = 1.45, ns
16 Information Sharing
(1.54) (1.62) (1.61) (1.75)
17 3.47 3.44 4.39 4.56 F(3, 237) = 77.55, p <
18 Self-Documentation
(1.50) (1.59) (1.48) (1.45) .001, η2p = .50
Fo
19
20 3.67 3.64 3.96 4.09 F(3, 237) = 6.59, p <
Social Interaction
21 (1.43) (1.61) (1.61) (1.75) .001, η2p = .08
22 4.78 4.90 5.52 5.63 F(3, 237) = 39.21, p <
Entertainment
r
23 (1.46) (1.62) (1.35) (1.30) .001, η2p = .33
24
4.45 4.43 4.81 4.87 F(3, 237) = 12.44, p <
Pe

25 Passing Time
26 (1.27) (1.48) (1.39) (1.44) .001, η2p = .14
27 3.85 4.09 4.76 4.74 F(3, 237) = 35.39, p <
Self-Expression
28 (1.60) (1.71) (1.60) (1.57) .001, η2p = .31
er

29 4.37 4.67 4.81 5.24 F(3, 237) = 25.94, p <

30 Medium Appeal
(1.42) (1.67) (1.39) (1.39) .001, η2p = .25
31
32 4.93 4.71 5.27 5.38 F(3, 237) = 16.95, p <
Convenience
.001, η2p = .18
Re

33 (1.35) (1.79) (1.48) (1.47)

34 4.16 2.99 5.08 4.46 F(3, 237) = 124.73, p <
Pictures
35 (1.38) (1.56) (1.33) (1.29) .001, η2p = .61
36 Notes. FB = Facebook; TW = Twitter; IN = Instagram; and SC = Snapchat
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 28 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 28

1
2
3
Table 2.
4
5
6 Regression results for the relationship between nine use motivation and time spent daily and the
7 intensity to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat
8 Facebook Twitter Instagram Snapchat
9
β β β β
10
11 Information Sharing -.02 -.06 .03 .04
12 Self-Documentation .15* -.01 .25** .13†
13 Social Interaction .08 .13 .00 .06
14 Entertainment .36*** .35*** .39*** .24***
15 Passing Time -.01 .08 .08 .06
16 †
17 Self-Expression .12 .08 .07 .13*
18 Medium Appeal .07 -.04 -.05 .06
Fo
19 Convenience .10* .16* -.01 .20**
20 Pictures -.04 .13* .10 -.01
21 Time spent daily .17*** .19*** .08* .09*
22
# of friends/follower .06 -.02 -.06 .14†
r
23
24 # of actual
.01 .03 -.02 -.03
friends/followers
Pe

25
26 # of users I follow -- .06 .15* -.07
27 # of users I follow who are
28 -- .01 .06 .02
actual friends
er

29
30 Model Statistics
31 R .76 .82 .79 .82
2
32 Adjusted R .57 .66 .61 .65
Re

33 (df) (12, 326) (14, 260) (14, 256) (14, 278)

34 37.91*** 38.95*** 30.97*** 39.83***
F
35
36 Notes. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p <.001
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 29 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 29

1
2
3
4 120
5 106.35 108.73 107.15
6
7 100
8
88.92
9
10
11 80
Minutes/day

12
13
14
15
60
16
17
18 40
Fo
19
20
21
22 20
r
23
24
Pe

25 0
26
Facebook Twitter Insatagram Snapchat
27
28
er

29
30
Figure 1. Time Spent Daily on Social Media
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 30 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 30

1
2
3
4 6
5
6 5.06 5.07
7 5
8 4.49
9 4.22
10
11 4
Mean Use Intensity

12
13
14
15 3
16
17
18 2
Fo
19
20
21
22 1
r
23
24
Pe

25
0
26
Facebook Twitter Insatagram Snapchat
27
28
er

29
30
Figure 2. Means differences in intensity to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 31 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 31

1
2
3
4
5 4.14
6 4.07
Information Sharing
7 3.96
8 4.09
9
10 3.47
11 3.44
12 Self-Documentation
4.39
13
4.56
14
15 3.67
16 3.64
17 Social Interaction
3.96
18
4.09
Fo
19
20
4.78
21
22 4.9
Entertainment
r
23 5.52
24 5.63
Pe

25
26 4.45
27 4.43
Passing Time
28 4.81
er

29 4.87
30
31 3.85
32 4.09
Re

33 Self-Expression
4.76
34
4.74
35
36 4.37
vi

37
4.67
38 Medium Appeal
39 4.81
ew

40 5.24
41
4.93
42
43 4.71
Convenience
44 5.27
45 5.38
46
47 4.16
48 2.99
Photos
49 5.08
50 4.46
51
52 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
53
54 Facebook Twitter Insatagram Snapchat
55
56
57 Figure 3. Mean differences in motivations to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
 New Media and Society Page 32 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 Convenience Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment
17 2 Entertainment Convenience Convenience Convenience
18
Fo
19 3 Passing Time Medium Appeal Photos Medium Appeal
20
21 4 Medium Appeal Passing Time Medium Appeal Passing Time
22
5 Photos Self-Expression Passing Time Self-Expression
r
23
24
Information Information Self-
Pe

25
26
6 Self-Expression
Sharing Sharing Documentation
27
28 Self-
er

29 7 Self-Expression Social Interaction Photos

30 Documentation
31
32 Self-
8 Social Interaction Social Interaction Social Interaction
Re

33
34 Documentation
35 Self- Information Information
36 9 Photos
vi

37 Documentation Sharing Sharing

38
39
ew

40
41 Figure 4. Ranking of Use Motivations Across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat
42
43 (Social Media Icons by www.hartzy.net)
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
Page 33 of 34 New Media and Society

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 33

1
2
3
APPENDIX 1.
4
5 Descriptive statistics, factor and reliability analyses for study variables
6 Facebook Twitter Instagram Snapchat
Variable
7 M SD Load. M SD Load. M SD Load. M SD Load.
8 Intensity to use…
9 ___ is part of my everyday activity 4.95 1.78 .875 4.36 2.24 .915 5.37 1.76 .897 5.42 1.68 .888
10 I am proud to tell people I’m on ___ 4.18 1.61 .760 4.07 1.76 .808 4.86 1.70 .839 4.77 1.75 .847
___ has become part of my daily routine 4.93 1.76 .863 4.30 2.24 .919 5.40 1.72 .896 5.39 1.69 .874

Fo
11
12 I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged
3.93 1.92 .839 3.80 2.14 .894 4.58 1.91 .842 4.43 2.04 .810
13 onto ___ for a while
I feel I am part of the ___ community 4.40 1.65 .825 3.99 1.96 .900 4.70 1.81 .863 4.69 1.86 .855

rP
14
15 I would be disappointed if ___ shut
4.47 1.86 .777 4.15 2.09 .860 5.18 1.85 .860 5.09 1.84 .853
16 down
17 Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 4.08 (67.94%) 4.68 (78.07%) 4.50 (75.07%) 4.39 (73.08%)
18
19
Cronbach’s α
Information Sharing: I use ___ to…
Share information
.905

4.39 1.67 ee
.902
.943

4.08 1.83 .918

.933

4.00 1.81 .902

.924

4.03 2.01 .894

rR
20
21 Share information useful to people 4.13 1.77 .887 3.82 1.76 .890 3.66 1.84 .890 3.78 2.04 .897
22 Present information on my interest 3.92 1.76 .852 4.10 1.83 .898 4.43 1.84 .837 4.24 1.96 .892
23 Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 2.33 (77.56%) 2.44 (81.35%) 2.31 (76.88%) 2.40 (80.02%)
24
25
Cronbach’s α
Self Documentation: I use ___ to…
To record what I do in life
.854

3.73 1.74 .906

.885

3.69 ev
1.80 .911
.849

4.97 1.76 .888

.875

5.05 1.79 .897

iew
26
27 To record what I have learned 3.12 1.71 .844 3.16 1.77 .854 3.43 1.80 .723 3.33 1.99 .711
To record where I have been 3.65 1.86 .858 3.34 1.82 .900 4.89 1.75 .885 4.87 1.83 .907
28
Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 2.27 (75.63) 2.37 (79.00%) 2.06 (69.82%) 2.13 (71.07%)
29
Cronbach’s α .838 .867 .778 .785
30
31 Social Interaction: I use ___ to…
To connect with people who share some
32 3.99 1.72 .881 3.83 1.84 .917 4.14 1.82 .903 4.04 1.97 .889
of my values
33
To connect with people who are similar
34 4.14 1.71 .879 4.01 1.90 .910 4.25 1.85 .890 4.38 1.92 .885
to me
35
To meet new people 2.94 1.83 .794 2.94 1.82 .811 3.20 1.89 .826 3.12 2.07 .792
36
Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 2.18 (72.71%) 2.33 (77.59%) 2.29 (76.31%) 2.20 (73.34%)
37
Cronbach’s α .809 .854 .843 .815
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
47
48
 New Media and Society Page 34 of 34

Running Head: MOTIVATION TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA 34

1
View publication stats

2
3
Appendix 1. (continued)
4
Facebook Twitter Instagram Snapchat
5 Variable
M SD Load. M SD Load. M SD Load. M SD Load.
6
7 Entertainment: I use ___ to…
It’s enjoyable 4.66 1.54 .943 4.70 1.74 .957 5.50 1.39 .940 5.49 1.47 .951
8
It’s entertains me 4.90 1.58 .943 4.84 1.76 .957 5.54 1.42 .940 5.56 1.48 .951
9
Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 1.78 (88.85%) 1.83 (91.65%) 1.77 (88.45%) 1.81 (90.36%)
10
Cronbach’s α .874 .909 .869 .893

Fo
11
Passing Time: I use ___ to…
12
It helps pass the time 5.03 1.61 .859 4.86 1.81 .875 5.32 1.49 .861 5.30 1.57 .876
13
I have nothing better to do 4.50 1.78 .801 4.43 1.91 .840 4.50 1.81 .811 4.83 1.78 .862

rP
14
It relaxes me 3.69 1.76 .694 3.78 1.80 .778 4.58 1.70 .783 4.23 1.93 .822
15
Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 1.86 (62.06%) 2.08 (69.26%) 2.01 (67.05%) 2.19 (72.87%)
16
Cronbach’s α .686 .777 .747 .807
17
18
19
Self Expression: I use ___ to…
To show my personality
To tell others about myself
3.93
3.73
1.78
1.77 ee
.920
.920
4.27
3.77
1.91
1.85
.930
.930
5.01
4.51
1.71
1.76
.921
.921
4.88
4.36
1.76
1.90
.906
.906

rR
20
Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 1.69 (84.70%) 1.73 (86.44%) 1.70 (84.78%) 1.64 (82.10%)
21
Cronbach’s α .819 .843 .820 .780
22
Convenience: I use ___ to…
23
24
25
It is easy to use
It is convenient
Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained)
4.90
4.93
1.510
1.37
1.67 (83.31%)
.913
.913
4.76
4.60
ev
1.70
1.83
1.79 (89.31%)
.945
.945
5.40
5.30
1.40
1.44
1.79 (89.63%)
.947
.947
5.39
5.26
1.520
1.558
1.80 (90.07%)
.949
.949

iew
26 Cronbach’s α .797 .879 .884 .890
27 Photos: I use (__) to…
28 To post pictures 4.71 1.82 .919 3.33 1.89 .894 5.87 1.44 .868 5.45 1.53 .906
29 To post selfies 2.52 1.71 .521 2.27 1.70 .811 3.84 2.07 .528 4.12 2.04 .906
30 To tag others in pictures 4.36 1.92 .855 2.90 1.83 .877 5.03 1.69 .815 2.86 1.96 .949
31 To share pictures 4.74 1.81 .902 3.41 1.89 .903 5.57 1.64 .852 5.17 1.69 .949
32 Eigenvalue (% of Var. Explained) 2.66 (66.51%) 3.04 (76.03%) 2.42 (60.53%) 2.226 (55.64%)
33 Cronbach’s α .822 .895 .747 .710
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms
47
48