facebook and motives for its use

8/9/2019 Facebook and Motives for Its Use

1/16

Student Favorite: Facebook and

Motives for its Use

Pavica Sheldon

Te idea of a community accessible only via my computer screensounded cold to me at first, but I learned quickly that people can

feel passionately about e-mail and computer conferences. I ve be-come one of them. I care about these people I met through my

computer (Rheingold, 1993, p. 1)

he range of communication media available to young people is rich, wide,and likely to continue to increase in the future. As the number and vari-ety of media have increased across U.S. households (Louie, 2003), many

questions about individuals media choice and use remain unanswered (Flanaginand Metzger, 2001).

In 2006 about 88 percent of Americans age 12 through 29 went online.Digital Natives is the name of the group that has grown up with Internet technol-

ogy. Te Pew Internet Project (2006) found that the Internets major benefit is inhelping people tap into social networks. One of these networks is Facebook, anInternet site created by Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard undergraduate student, inFebruary 2004. Facebooks primary purpose, according its homepage, is to shareinformation with people you know, see whats going on with your friends, andlook up people around you. (Facebook.com, 2007)

As college students spend more time online than any generation before, itis important to know what gratifications they seek and obtain from the new me-dia. As LaRose and Eastin (2004) suggested, the definition of Internet usage is

too broad. So research in this area should distinguish Internet application (e.g.,e-mail vs. online chat), functions or settings. Similarly, Papacharissi and Rubin

A survey with 172 students was conducted at Louisiana State University to seewhat students motives are for using the Facebook, how individual differences relateto motives for Facebook use, and to what extent motives and individual differencescan predict attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of Facebook use. In light of the usesand gratification theory, the study found that people go to Facebook to fulfill needstraditionally fulfilled by other media but for their interpersonal communication

needs first (relationship maintenance). Women were more likely to go to Facebook tomaintain existing relationships, pass time and be entertained. On the other hand,men were more likely to go to Facebook to develop new relationships or meet new

people.


2/16

(2001) suggested that, with the widespread use of CMC, we need a better under-standing of personal and social attributes that predict why people use computer-mediated communication (CMC) and the outcomes of CMC-related behavior.CMC blurs traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass commu-nication, thus offering new opportunities for the way individuals relate to one

another (Parks and Floyd, 1996). Although some educational institutions haveraised their voices against Facebook, claiming that students may be addicted tothe site and spend too much time there, there is little research on who uses thesite, what brings people to Facebook, and what the outcome of their social net-

working is. What are user motives (gratifications sought) for using Facebook, howdo individual differences (age, gender, education) relate to motives for Facebookuse, and to what extent can motives and individual differences predict attitudinaland behavioral outcomes of Facebook use? Tese are the questions this study isdesigned to answer.

Uses and Gratifications Teory. Newhagen and Rafaeli (1996) suggested thatuses and gratification (U&G) theory might well be suited to study the Internet.Te theory explains how different people use the same media messages for dif-ferent purposes to satisfy their psychological and social needs and achieve theirgoals (Katz, 1959). According to uses and gratifications theory, audiences differ inthe gratifications they seek from the mass media. What needs and gratificationspeople are looking for can be grouped into the following categories: diversion(escape from problems; emotional release), personal relationship (social utility of

information in conversation; substitute of the media for companionship), per-sonal identity (value reinforcement, self-understanding), and surveillance (Mc-Quail, Blumler, and Brown, 1972). Later, researchers added a few more categories.Generally, U&G theory focuses on motives for media use, factors that influencemotives, and outcomes from media-related behavior. Many studies conducted af-ter 1972 showed that different motives are linked to different media preferences,leading to different patterns of media exposure and use to different outcomes(Haridakis and Rubin, 2003).

Ruggiero (2000) writes that new media like the Internet possess at least three

attributes not commonly associated with traditional media: interactivity, demas-sification, and asynchroneity. Dicken-Garcia (1998) said that the Internet placesstronger emphasis on interpersonal conversations than has been true of earliermedia. Users say electronically what they might never say in person, sometimestaking on new personalities, ages, and genders. It more resembles word of mouththan the sort of communication one usually sees in newspapers and television(Dicken-Garcia, 1998). Tat is, many researchers see the Internet as a continuumbetween mass and interpersonal communication (Ruggiero, 2000).

Uses and gratification theory has been criticized for focusing too narrowly

on the individual (Elliot, 1974) and not explaining why people use a certain me-dium, or how a certain gratification is provided by using the medium. Many cen-


3/16

sought and gratifications obtained (GS and GO) and media choice, extendingthe research from description of gratifications to tests of the explanatory powerof these gratifications (Dobos, 1992). Tese studies found that GO are strongerpredictors of media exposure than GS.

Cyber communities. Coley (2006) differentiates among three types of cyber

communities. First, there are social networks such as Facebook and MySpacewhere young people create their profiles with private information and then reveal-ing that information to their cyber friends. Te main purpose of social networksis to make new friendships or to maintain those that already existed. Te secondtype of cyber community is a chat system, which includes instant messaging (IM).Te third type is blogs, personal websites with frequently updated observations,news, commentaries, and recommended links (Coley, 2006).

Online social networks and Facebook. Online social networks encompass on-line dating sites, as well as popular social networking websites such as MySpace,

Xanga, Live Journal, and Facebook. Te difference between chat rooms and socialnetworking sites is that the majority of communication in online social networkstakes place asynchronously and within the network of friends that the user hasestablished. Facebook.com is a social networking website which, according tononacademic sources, allows people who use it several advantages. It allows us-ers to stay in touch with old friends and those at other schools, to make newfriends, to join groups that fit their interests, advertise their parties, check howmany personal messages/wall posts they received from their friends, and see other

peoples pictures and new features that Facebook continually adds. Many searchfor new people who have recently joined Facebook and whom they might knowor want to meet. Another reason is that students are already online, and checkingFacebook is a routine online behavior. Coley (2006) asserts that most students useFacebook for fun, to organize parties, and to find dates. Tey like the opportunityto find others with similar interests, students with whom they are in class, andin using Facebook, they feel a sense of community and connectedness. In 2006,Coley (2006) wrote that about 80 percent of colleges have Facebook, and 85 per-cent of students at those colleges have accounts. Sixty percent of them log on daily,

around six times a day. According to Coley, Facebook is the ninth most-visitedwebsite, behind a similar online network called MySpace.com.

Facebook features include a profile, status, friends, photos, shares, events,notes, groups, messages, an account setting, and a privacy setting. Facebook alsooffers a possibility to find a person from your yahoo or hotmail address list thathas a Facebook account. A minimal Facebook profile only tells a users name, dateof joining, school, status, and e-mail address.

Withall (2005) best summarized the importance Facebook has for students:Facebook.com has become our social Bible for definitive information on our

classmates, crushes and high school peers we have not spoken to in who-knows-how long.


4/16

as answers to open-ended questions, essays and diaries (Vettehen and Van Snip-penburg, 2002). According to Morris and Ogan (1996), the Internet can fulfillinterpersonal and mediated needs. Except for interpersonal needs,Flaherty, Pearce,and Rubin (1998) found that people use computers to satisfy needs tradition-ally fulfilled by media (i.e., social interaction, to pass time, habit, information,

and entertainment), and other needs(i.e., meeting people), which are fulfilled bynew media. Flanagin and Metzger (2001) included in mass media needs mediatedinterpersonal needssuch as feeling less lonely, relationship maintenance, problemsolving and persuasion. For Parker and Plank (2000), a relaxationand escape factorpredicted Internet usage. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) found a social interactionfactor as the only one that predicted going online. Other researchers found thatthe expectation of finding enjoyable activities online predicted the amount of con-sumption (LaRose, Mastro, and Eastin, 2001). Charney and Greenberg (2001)described eight gratification factors for the Internet (to keep informed, diversion

andentertainment,peer identity, good feelings, communication, sights and sounds, ca-reer, andcoolness). However, the assumptions of this study assert that certain Inter-net features, such as Facebook, may not be designed to fulfill all of those needs.

According to the uses and gratifications model, a persons social and psycho-logical factors influence motives for communicating - their gratifications soughtand gratifications obtained.Research on media using patterns suggests that de-mographic variables influence motives and behaviors. Tus, females were foundto be more involved in online interpersonal relationships than men (Parks and

Floyd, 1996).Behavioral and attitudinal outcomes of Facebook use. Parks and Floyd (1996)found more developed personal relationships for those who posted more oftenand who had been posting online for a longer time. Uses and gratification re-searchers have suggested conceptualizing and measuring gratifications in terms ofboth gratifications sought and gratifications obtained from media use (Palmgreenand Rayburn, 1985). Gratifications sought are defined as the audiences reasonsare for using Facebook. Gratifications obtained are defined as being those benefitsaudiences believe they receive from the uses of Facebook or from their frequency

of using Facebook. In this study, we measure Facebook use asthe frequency ofFacebook use and the duration of Facebook use(Rubin, 1983). We also measurethe frequency of updating ones Facebook profile. Te measure of relationship de-velopment is operationalized as the number of friends people have on Facebook,and the percentage of friends they have never met in person. Tis study measuredusers satisfaction with Facebook gratifications. It also examined how much users

would miss the site if it suddenly disappeared.

Research Questions

Te first research question addresses student motives (gratifications) for us-ing Facebook. Based on the differences in demographics, the second research ques-


5/16

behaviors are measured as the frequency of Facebook use, duration of use, thenumber of Facebook friends, the number of people never met in person, satisfac-tion with Facebook, missing the Facebook.

Method

Sample and procedure.o address these questions, a survey of 172 studentswas conducted at a large southern research university. Te survey sample consistedof students enrolled in two large communication classes. Ninety-three percent(n=172) of students had a Facebook account and seven percent (n=12) did nothave the account. Tis number is larger than Coley (2006) found. Of those whohad an account, 43 percent (n = 74) were male and 57 percent (n = 98) werefemale. Te average age of respondents was 20 (M= 19.92, SD= 1.23). Most

respondents were sophomores (52 percent) and business majors (see able 1 and2).Measurement.Te survey asked participants to complete the questionnaire

regarding their Facebook usage. Participation was voluntary, but students receivedcredit if they completed the survey. Overall, they spent approximately five to sevenminutes on the survey. Students who never had a Facebook account were excludedfor the analysis.

Demographics. Respondents indicated whether they were male or female andwere coded dichotomously. Respondents were also asked their age. Tey were

asked their educational level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and other) andtheir field of study.

ABLE 1Respondents Education Level

Education Frequency (n) Percent

Freshman 5 2.8Sophomore 92 51.7

Junior 56 31.5Senior 17 9.6Graduate 3 4.4

Total 173 100

ABLE 2Participants Field of Study

Majors Percent

Finance/Business 25.2

Communication Studies 5.8

Kinesiology 4

Psychology 3.4Mass Communication 3.4


6/16

Motives. A pool of gratification items was assembled from prior Internetgratifications studies (Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin, 1998; Papacharissi and Rubin,2000; Flanagin and Metzger, 2001). However, items were edited for duplicationand redefined so that they fit Facebook users needs. In the questionnaire, respon-dents were asked how much they use Facebook for the certain reasons. A 5-point

Likert Scale was used in rating 38 gratifications items, namely 5 (exactly) and1 (not at all). Factor analyses extracted factors related to gratifications of theInternet. Te factor analysis used a principal component solution and varimaxrotation to find variable groupings, and specified the retention of factors witheigenvalues greater than 1.0. Tis resulted in final six factors accounted for 60percent of the variance.

Facebook use and attitudes. o measurethe frequency of Facebook use,re-spondents were asked how many hours they spend on Facebook on an averageday and how often they log into their account. As a measure of duration of use,respondents indicated when they opened their Facebook account. We then calcu-lated the number of years and months they had used Facebook. Respondents werealso asked to determine how many Facebook friends they have. Facebook satisfac-tion was measured with a single-item: Overall, how satisfied are you with the jobthe Facebook does in providing you with the things you are seeking? Responseoptions ranged from extremely satisfied(5) to not at all satisfied(1). Similarly, re-spondents were asked If Facebook suddenly disappeared how much would youmiss it? Response options ranged from miss a lot(5) to not miss at all(1).

Results

Te goal of the study was to find out to what extent motives and individualdifferences can predict attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of Facebook.

Te data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, multipleregression and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). For all analyses, thealpha level was set at .05.

According to the analysis, the average time of a Facebook account was 18months. Students in this sample reported that, on an average, they spent 47 min-

utes a day on Facebook. Fifty-four percent of the respondents logged into the ac-count several times per day. wenty- seven percent logged in once per day. Overall,81 percent of students logged into Facebook on a daily basis. Tis is 21 percentmore than Coley (2006) found.

Te majority of students (50 percent) changed their profile every few months.Nineteen percent changed their profile every day, and 19 percent 1 to 3 times per

week. Te majority of students had between 200 and 350 Facebook friends.Facebook motives. Te first research question asked what motivates student

to use Facebook. Te final factor analysis yielded six interpretable factors. able 3

presents the results of factor analysis.Factor 1 was labeled relationship maintenance (eigenvalue = 10.73). Itcon-


7/16

ABLE 3Motives for Facebook Use: Primary Factor Loadings

Loading Eigenvalue Variance

Factor 1: Relationship Maintenance

To send a message to a friend .74

To post a message on my friends wall .70

To communicate with my friends .83 10.73 31 .90

To stay in touch with friends .78

Get in touch with people I know .72

Get through to someone who is hard to reach .58

Factor 2: Passing Time

To pass time when bored .67

It is one of the routine things I do when online .61 3.94 11.2 .83

To occupy my time .74

To check my wall after I receive an e-mail from Facebook .74

Factor 3: Virtual community

Develop a romantic relationship .77

Find more interesting people than in real life .70 1.84 5.2 .80

Find companionship .86

Meet new friends.65

To feel less lonely .52

Factor 4: Entertainment

To see other peoples pictures .59

It is entertaining .56

To read other peoples profi le .67 1.62 4.6 .84

To enjoy it .61

To see which of the people I know that joined the Facebook .62

Factor 5: CoolnessIt makes me cool among my peers .76

Have fun .66 1.48 4.2 .76

It is cool .60

Factor 6: Companionship

To feel less lonely .51

No one to talk or be with .75 1.41 4 .76

So I wont be alone .83

otal variance explained = 60 percent


8/16

total variance. Te motive is particularly salient to the Internet (Flaherty, Pearce,and Rubin, 1998).

Factor 3, virtual community (eigenvalue = 1.83) consisted of five items (e.g.o feel less lonely, o meet new friends) and explained 5.2 percent of the totalvariance. Tis factor, as opposed to maintaining relationships with existing ac-

quaintances, emphasized communication with people met through the Internet.It was named virtual community following Song et al. (2004) term.

ABLE 4Internet Motives Scale

I use the Facebook for the following reasons M SD

Factor 1: Relationship Maintenance

To send a message to a friend 3.62 1.19

To post a message on my friends wall 3.61 1.31

To communicate with my friends 3.84 1.22

To stay in touch with friends 3.92 1.22

Get in touch with people I know 3.49 1.19

Get through to someone who is hard to reach 3.37 1.31

Factor 2: Passing Time

To pass time when bored 4.10 1.07

It is one of the routine things I do when online 4.04 1.24

To occupy my time 3.52 1.33

To check my wall after I receive an e-mail from Facebook 3.85 1.29

Factor 3: Virtual community

Develop a romantic relationship 1.15 .51

Find more interesting people than in real life 1.22 .58

Find companionship 1.18 .49

Meet new friends 1.60 .87

To feel less lonely

Factor 4: Entertainment

To see other peoples pictures 3.67 1.18

It is entertaining 3.58 1.21

To read other peoples profi le 3.05 1.24

To enjoy it 3.61 1.19

To see which of the people I know that joined the Facebook 2.25 1.15

Factor 5: Coolness

It makes me cool among my peers 1.52 1.12

Have fun 2.62 1.23

It is cool 2.22 1.22

Factor 6: Companionship

To feel less lonely 1.28 .57

No one to talk or be with 1.50 .92

So I wont be alone 1.26 .64


9/16

Factor 5, coolness (eigenvalue = 1.48) consisted of three items (e.g. It is cool,and Have fun) and explained 4.2 percent of the total variance. It was namedInternet motive by Charney and Greenberg (2001).

Factor 6, companionship(eigenvalue = 1.41) consisted of three items (e.g. ofeel less lonely, No one to talk or be with), and explained 4 percent of the totalvariance. It is connected with loneliness and regarded as one of mediated interper-sonal technology needs (Flanagin and Metzger, 2001).

Passing time(M= 3.88, SD= 1.23) and relationship maintenance(M= 3.64,SD= 1.24) factors had the highest mean scores. Entertainment(M= 3.23, SD=

1.19) was also a salient factor for using the Facebook. Less important reasons werecoolness (M= 2.12, SD= 1.19), companionship(M= 1.35, SD= .78), and virtualcommunity (M= 1.29, SD= 0.6) (able 4). Te internal consistency of each factor

was assessed. Cronbachs alpha ranged from .75 to .90 (able 3).Motives and antecedents. Te second research question examined how stu-

dents individual differences relate to their gratifications sought in Facebook use.Six stepwise multiple regressions were run with different motives identified by thefactor analysis and the demographic characteristics of age, gender, and educationallevel (able 5.)

Gender ( = .63**) and age ( = -.16*) were the significant predictors ofrespondents motivations to go on Facebook to maintain their existing relationships.Females and younger respondents went to Facebook for those reasons more thanmales and older respondents. Te variables explained 16.3 percent of variance(F[3, 160] = 11.60,p < .01). Gender (= .40*), age (= -.18*), and education(= .38*) predicted passing time motives, with more females than males, andmore young people going to Facebook to pass time when bored. Te variablesexplained 8 percent of variance (F[3, 160] = 5.6,p < .001). Gender was the onlysignificant predictor of the use of Facebook to develop new relationships (virtual

community). Tis time male respondents (= -.40*) went to Facebook to meetnew people, or to develop a romantic relationship more than female respondents

ABLE 5Multiple Regressions: Facebook Motives and Demographics

Gender

(Female=1)

Age Education Adjusted R

Relationship maintenance .63** -.16* -.08 .16Passing time .40* -.18* .38* .08

Virtual community -.40* -.08 -.06 .03

Entertainment .42** -.04 .01 .04

Coolness -.02 -.08 .01 .00

Companionship -.14 -.05 -.16 .00

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001


10/16

predicted respondents going to Facebook to appear cool or relieve loneliness(companionship factor).

Gender differences emerged also from the multivariate analysis of variancefor four of six Facebook motives: relationship maintenance, F [1,162] = 24.15,p

facebook and motives for its use

Documents