Telematics and Informatics: Amandeep Dhir, Chin-Chung Tsai

Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Telematics and Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele
Understanding the relationship between intensity and

gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young
adults
Amandeep Dhir a,b,⇑, Chin-Chung Tsai c
a
Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
b
Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland
c
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Facebook is a well-known computer-mediated communication platform considered popu-

Received 4 June 2016 lar among adolescents and young adults. New media scholars have coined the term ‘‘inten-
Received in revised form 26 August 2016 sity of Facebook use” (IFU) for the concept that measures the emotional and affective
Accepted 27 August 2016
attitude towards Facebook use among young people. IFU is an important service use con-
Available online xxxx
cept that has been positively linked with the different psychosocial outcomes of student
well-being. However, only a limited amount of the prior literature has investigated the
Keywords:
relationship between IFU and different Facebook uses and gratifications (U&G). The exist-
Adolescent
Cross-sectional survey
ing literature suggests inconsistent findings with a sole emphasis on young adults. To
Content U&G address these gaps, the present study has investigated the differential role of different
Intensity of Facebook use Facebook U&G among adolescents and young adults in predicting IFU. A total of three
Process U&G and young adults cross-sectional data sets (N = 373, 107, 105) represented adolescents and university-
attending young-adult Facebook users. The study results suggest that process U&G do
and content U&G do not play any significant role in predicting IFU. Adolescents and young
adults differ in their sought Facebook U&G. In addition to this, cultural differences were
observed in the sought Facebook U&G and their differential role in predicting IFU.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years, the use of online social networking sites (SNS) including Facebook has become much more diversified,
popular and acceptable due to various inherent social and interpersonal affordances (Park and Lee, 2014). The use of Face-
book enables people to create their own profile, make new friends and participate in computer-mediated environments via
sharing, tagging and commenting on different forms of content (e.g., photos, videos, web-links, status posts) (Dhir et al.,
2015, 2016c; Dhir, 2016a,b). Consequently, Facebook is now used by people from different demographic, cultural as well
as geographical settings in different ways and to satisfy different motives and needs (Dhir et al., 2016b; Dhir, 2016a). Face-
book use has a special relevance for both adolescents and young adults (Hofstra et al., 2015; Dhir, 2016b). It offers various
uses and gratifications (U&G), including communication, entertainment, escape, connecting, self-expression, online self-
presentation, exposure and various other professional and academic uses (Lenhart et al., 2010; Pempek et al., 2009). The
intensity of Facebook use (IFU) of young people (i.e., college attending students) has been associated with various social
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland.

E-mail addresses: amandeep.dhir@helsinki.fi (A. Dhir), cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw (C.-C. Tsai).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.017
0736-5853/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Dhir, A., Tsai, C.-C. Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use
among adolescents and young adults. Telemat. Informat. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.017
2 A. Dhir, C.-C. Tsai / Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
and psychological outcomes such as satisfaction with college life (Valenzuela et al., 2009), civic and political participation
(Valenzuela et al., 2009; Vitak et al., 2011), higher self-esteem, and bridging and bonding of social capital (Ellison et al.,
2007; Steinfield et al., 2008; Zanno, 2013).
IFU is an important measure that has been widely utilized in the computer-mediated communication and new media lit-
erature. It was developed by Ellison et al. (2007) to measure affective and cognitive attitudes towards Facebook use, and is
considered to be a more holistic conceptualization in comparison with other traditional notions such as frequency of use and
time spent in service use (Valenzuela et al., 2009). IFU is of special relevance to scholars as well as practitioners engaged in
the field of educational research since it has been linked to various important aspects concerning the academic well-being of
students, for example, their academic performance (Junco, 2012; Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010), satisfaction with college
life (Valenzuela et al., 2009; Ellison et al., 2007), self-esteem (Gonzales and Hancock, 2011) and classroom collaboration
(Lampe et al., 2011). Similarly, several prior studies have found positive relationships among different Facebook U&G and
IFU, suggesting that certain Facebook U&G drive IFU among young adults (see Alhabash et al., 2014; Alhabash and
McAlister, 2014; Mo and Leung, 2014; Park and Lee, 2014).
Despite the fact that a considerable amount of the prior literature has investigated Facebook U&G and different facets of
IFU, an important service use phenomenon, there are still many open research questions. For example, it is currently
unknown which specific Facebook U&G drive IFU among adolescent Facebook users. Furthermore, how do different Facebook
U&G of adolescents and young adults differentially predict IFU? Similarly, it is also unclear how adolescents and young-adult
Facebook users differ in terms of their sought Facebook U&G. It is important to understand these relationships since it will
enable scholars and practitioners to understand which media U&G translate into intensive service use. Furthermore, this
investigation gets to the heart of what it means to use SNS. Recent literature has suggested that adolescents are a dominant
and influential demographic group that is less researched in prior new media studies (Dhir, 2016a,b; Kaur, 2016a). Apart
from this, the recent Facebook-based literature has favored the need to examine culturally diverse study samples, unlike
the prior IFU literature. All of these open research gaps clearly suggest the need to investigate the relationship between Face-
book U&G and IFU among adolescents and young adults by recruiting culturally diverse Facebook users. This will enable the
research community to strengthen the empirical foundation of this important service use phenomenon, considered essential
for the viability of every online service. It will also enable scholars to better understand the conceptualization of intensive
service use. To achieve our research objective, a total of three different cross-sectional studies were carried out with adoles-
cent and young-adult (i.e., attending university) Facebook users. The present study utilized the U&G theory for understand-
ing different underlying U&G of Facebook use. The U&G theory is a popular theoretical framework which enables scholars to
understand how and why people tend to use a specific type of medium. We recruited two different user groups, adolescent
and young-adult Facebook users, in order to identify whether these population groups differ in terms of their IFU.
2. Background literature
2.1. Intensity of Facebook use (IFU)
The use of any service, platform or medium is often measured using traditional notions of total time spent, frequency, or
duration of service use. However, this traditional approach fails to take into account the richness of the user experience pro-
vided by today’s computer-mediated platforms (Valenzuela et al., 2009). To address this need, Ellison et al. (2007) developed
the IFU measurement scale which measures the complex integrated user engagement in Facebook-based activities. It repre-
sents a holistic concept that measures the emotional connectedness with Facebook use (Ellison et al., 2007). Furthermore, it
addresses an urgent need since the use of Facebook has become much more integrated into our daily lives. Prior literature
has shown that the IFU measure has sufficient internal consistency, and it has been evaluated with a variety of different Face-
book users (Ellison et al., 2007; Steinfield et al., 2008). Furthermore, it has been re-assessed and adapted by other researchers
(e.g., Tomai et al., 2010; Valenzuela et al., 2009). Binder et al. (2009) developed another measure using IFU for understanding
online tensions, representing two aspects of intensive use, namely traffic intensity (e.g., how many posts sent or received in a
week) and time spent on Facebook use. Similarly, the IFU measure was adapted to address the intensive use of Twitter
(Petersen and Johnston, 2015; Alhabash and McAlister, 2014; Buehler, 2014), micro-blogging sites, e.g. Weibo (Mo and
Leung, 2014), and other SNS (Phua and Jin, 2011).
2.2. Adolescent Facebook users
Prior literature has argued that adolescents are technologically savvy, dedicated and are known for their innovation
regarding technology use (Kaur, 2016a). Adolescents are valued as an important customer segment that can play a key role
in the early adoption of any product, service or brand through their own family and friend networks (Lapowsky, 2014; Kaur,
2016a,b). Furthermore, adolescents are considered loyal users of mobile-based applications and SNS (Dhir and Al-kahtani,
2013). Facebook has been recognized as still the most popular and actively utilized SNS among adolescents (Hofstra et al.,
2015). According to various recent studies, nearly 81% of adolescents are using some form of SNS, and nearly 94% of these
adolescent SNS users are using Facebook (Madden, 2012). Lenhart (2015) found that a staggering 71% of adolescents were
using Facebook in 2015. Similarly, 93% of Indian pre-teens and adolescents were using Facebook in 2014 (McAfee, 2014).
A. Dhir, C.-C. Tsai / Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3
Despite all of these facts, there is still little understanding of adolescents’ attitudes and behavior regarding IFU. Our
review of the prior literature examining IFU revealed that it has predominantly focused on undergraduate or college-
attending Facebook users (see Tables 1 and 2). Prior developmental literature has suggested that adolescents are different
from young adults since the former are in the process of developing cognitive maturity and psychosocial skills (see
Piaget, 1970; Leontjev, 1978). Similarly, prior limited literature examining adolescents’ behavior in computer-mediated
environments also suggests significant differences in the SNS use behavior of adolescents and young adults. For instance,
Christofides et al. (2012) found that adolescents are less likely to restrict the visibility of their online-shared content (e.g.,
changing privacy settings), and tend to disclose much more information than young adults do. Similarly, Dunne et al.
(2010) and Leung (2014) found that adolescents have relatively much deeper interest in developing online self-
presentation. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that findings of the prior literature on IFU and related behavior
among college-attending users (i.e., young adults) might also be applicable in the context of adolescents. The present study
also addresses this research gap in the prior literature concerning computer-mediated environments where young adults
and older adults are much more studied compared with adolescents (see Mäntymäki and Salo, 2011; Mäntymäki and
Riemer, 2014; Dhir, 2015; Dhir, 2016a,b). Therefore, the present study is valuable since it investigates the relationship
between IFU and Facebook U&G in the context of an important yet mostly ignored demographic group of Facebook users.
2.3. Culturally diverse Facebook users
Recent literature has pointed out that most existing Facebook-based research consists of US-only samples (Kaur et al.,
2016a,b; Dhir et al., 2016d; Dhir and Torsheim, 2016). Similarly, the majority of the previous investigations on IFU were car-
ried out with Facebook users based in the United States (US) (see Table 1). Consequently, limited understanding exists of user
behavior in the context of IFU among Facebook users from other cultures and geographical regions. Therefore, scholars must
examine Facebook-related use behavior (such as IFU) in other cultural and geographical settings. This observation is also
consistent with the recent statistics revealed by the Facebook company i.e., over 83.5% of Facebook users are dwelling out-
side of the US (Facebook Newsroom, 2015). To address this research gap concerning the lack of cultural and geographical
diversity in the prior Facebook-based research, the present study focuses on Indian Facebook users. India is a rapidly devel-
oping Asian country with over 1.25 billion people and currently hosts over 402 million Internet users, second only to China
(India Internet usage, 2015). Similarly, in terms of Facebook use, there are over 135 million Facebook users in India, second in
the whole world, and it is expected to cross the 200 million mark by 2017 (Wade, 2014). Despite this, only limited under-
standing exists of Facebook use behavior in the context of this important and dominant cultural group of Indian Facebook
users. The present study provides a good opportunity for scholars and practitioners to understand Facebook use behavior in
the context of a rarely studied cultural group.
2.4. U&G and IFU
According to U&G, consumers play an active role in the choosing or selecting of media, and their motivations to use that
medium entirely depends on the gratification of their internal needs (see Katz and Blumler, 1973; Quan-Haase and Young,
2010). Consequently, the U&G of any media use will likely affect the user’s attitude, perceived importance or affinity with
that specific medium (Park and Lee, 2014). Several previous studies have agreed that computer-mediated communication
platforms make it nearly impossible for users to remain passive while using them (Dicken-Garcia, 1998; Morris and
Ogan, 1996; Newhagen and Rafaeli, 1996; Rayburn, 1996). One of the main assumptions of U&G is that motives behind
media use actually predict an individual user’s media use in terms of choice of that medium and time spent using it
(Anderson and Meyer, 1975; Blumler, 1979; Carey and Kreiling, 1974; Elliot, 1974; Katz, 1959; Ruggiero, 2000; Swanson,
1979). The prior literature has also classified the U&G of computer-mediated communication platforms into three broad cat-
egories, namely content (e.g., information seeking and exposure), process (e.g., social influence, escape and entertainment),
and social U&G (e.g., connecting and coordination) (Stafford et al., 2004).
Only recently have scholars examined the relationship between different Facebook U&G and IFU (see Table 2). According
to Park and Lee (2014), the conceptualization of the IFU shares similarities with the concept of television affinity coined by
Rubin (1983) and Rubin and Rubin (1982). Television affinity aims at understanding the importance of television viewing
and related motivations. Rubin (1983) found that the content (information seeking), process (pass time/habit and entertain-
ment) and social (companionship) U&G of television viewing significantly influenced television affinity. The first empirical
investigation for examining this relationship between Facebook U&G and IFU was carried out by Sheldon (2008), which sug-
gests that process (i.e., passing time, coolness and entertainment) and social (namely relationship maintenance, companion-
ship and participation in a virtual community) U&G of Facebook, predicted Facebook users’ tendency to use Facebook. Later,
Alhabash et al. (2010) found that content, social (social investigation and social connections) and process (status update and
photographs) U&G predicted IFU. In another study, Alhabash et al. (2012) observed that content, social (i.e., social connec-
tion) and process (namely shared identities, photographs, social network surfing and status updates) U&G were significantly
correlated with IFU. Furthermore, process U&G, namely posting and viewing status updates, were strong predictors of IFU
(Alhabash et al., 2012). The recent study by Alhabash et al. (2014) found that the process U&G (i.e., entertainment and
self-expression) were strong predicting factors of IFU, consistent with prior studies. All of these studies have consistently
shown that process U&G drive IFU among Facebook users. Similarly, Park and Lee (2014) found that process (entertainment
Table 1
Prior literature on the IFU measure.
Author Study Sample Study measures Study focus

(Year) context
*
Valkenburg SNS 881 Dutch adolescents (45% SNS usage (a = 0.61) The study investigated the relationship
et al. male) with average age between intensive use of SNS (i.e.,
(2006) 14.8 years MySpace, Friendster) on self-esteem and
well-being
Ellison et al. Facebook 286 US-based university IFU (a = 0.83) The study examined the relationship
(2007) students (34% males) with Social capital was accessed by bridging between intensive Facebook use and
average age of 20.1 years (a = 0.87), bonding (a = 0.75) and psychosocial aspects of well-being (e.g.,
maintaining social capital (a = 0.81). formation and maintenance of social
Facebook use for contacting offline capital, bonding and bridging of social
contacts (a = 0.70) capital)
Steinfield Facebook 286 US-based students IFU in 2006 (a = 0.84) and 2007 (a = 0.88) This longitudinal study investigated the
et al. participated in a survey in relationship between IFU and aspects of
(2008) 2006 psychological well-being (such as bridging
477 US-based students social capital)
participated in a survey in
2007 18 in-depth interviews
Valenzuela Facebook 2437 Facebook users IFU (a = 0.89) and Intensity of Facebook This study investigated the use of Facebook
et al. attending US college (66.6% Groups use (a = 0.82) for civic and political participation
(2009) females) with average age of
20.71 years
166 non-Facebook-using
students attending US
college (55.5% females) with
average age 23.74 years
*
Binder et al. Facebook 184 participants (63% were Facebook traffic intensity (a = 0.83) The study investigated whether intensive
(2009) females) with average age Time spent on Facebook use of Facebook results in increased levels
26.1 years of online social tensions
*
Ross et al. Facebook 97 Canadian university Attitudes towards Facebook use (adapted The study examined the relationship
(2009) students (15 men) with by Ellison et al., 2007) (a = 0.85) between the Big Five personality factors
average age 21.69 years and attitude towards Facebook use
Kalpidou Facebook 70 US-based undergraduate IFU (a = 0.89) The study investigated the relationship
et al. students (67% females) with Facebook for connecting or maintaining between Facebook use and attitude and
(2011) average age of 19.61 years offline connections (a = 0.70) psychosocial well-being aspects (e.g., self-
esteem, college and emotional adjustment)
Phua and Jin SNS 114 US-based participants Intensity of SNS usage (a = 0.95) The study examined the relationship
(2011) (56.1% males) with average between intensity of SNS usage, collective
age of 21.9 years self-esteem, social identification, online
bridging and bonding of social capital
Lampe et al. Facebook Study 1: A total of 302 US IFU (a = 0.86) The study investigated if Facebook can be
(2011) university students (66% Facebook communication self-efficacy used as an informal learning tool.
females) with average age (a = 0.81), interest self-efficacy (a = 0.83) Consequently, it examined the relationship
20.5 years and privacy self-efficacy (a = 0.73) between IFU and classroom collaboration
Study 2: A total of 214 US activities
university students (65%
males) with average age
20 years
Johnston Facebook 383 South African IFU (a = 0.84) The study examined the IFU and
et al. participants Facebook use for offline to online (a = 0.60) maintenance of social capital
(2013)
Liu and Yu Facebook 330 Taiwanese college IFU (a = 0.89) The study examined the relationship
(2013) students with average age between IFU, online and general social
18–23 years support and psychological well-being
Labrague Facebook 76 students from IFU (a = 0.83) The study investigated the relationship
(2014) Philippines (81% females) Facebook usage: How people used between IFU and various emotional states
aged 16–20 years Facebook to meet new people (on to of stress, depression and anxiety
offline) (a = 0.68)
Petersen and Facebook 110 South African IFU (a = 0.79) and Twitter use (a = 0.90) The study examined the impact of intensity
Johnston & Twitter participants (51% males) (Ellison et al., 2007; Johnston et al., 2013) of Facebook and Twitter use on social
(2015) with mean age of 22.5 years (a = 0.79) capital
*
Note. The following study did not utilize IFU for measuring intensive use of the proposed platform or service.
and self-expression) and social (relationship maintenance and communication) U&G share significant positive relationships
with IFU. Furthermore, process U&G (i.e., entertainment) shared the strongest relationship with all the different Facebook
U&G. In the case of other SNS, Buehler (2014) found that IFU and intensity of Twitter use were associated with the content,
social, process and technology U&G, while Mo and Leung (2014) found that the content and social U&G of Weibo predicted
the intensity of Weibo use.
Table 2
Prior literature examining the relationship between Facebook U&G and IFU.
Author (Year) Study Sample Study measures Study focus

context
*
Sheldon Facebook 172 US-based university students (43% males) Facebook U&G were assessed using a 38-item measure The study examined the relationship between the
(2008) with average age of 20 years adapted from prior literature (Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000). unwillingness to communicate attribute and different
A. Dhir, C.-C. Tsai / Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

The measure addressed six U&G, namely relationship main- Facebook U&G. Furthermore, it examined the relationship
tenance, passing time, virtual community, entertainment, between the unwillingness to communicate attribute and
coolness and companionship behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, e.g. IFU
Frequency of Facebook use was assessed by asking partici-
pants their total hours spent on Facebook use per day, how
often they log into their account, when the account opened,
i.e. number of years and months of Facebook use
Kwon et al. Facebook 152 US college students (69.1% females) with Facebook U&G measure was adapted from Papacharissi and The study investigated the relationship between different
(2013) average age of 20.2 years Rubin (2000). Total of six U&G, namely information seeking Facebook U&G and bridging and bonding of social capital
(a = 0.76), entertainment (a = 0.79), communication
(a = 0.77), social relations (a = 0.66), escape (a = 0.81) and
Facebook applications (a = 0.71)
IFU
Alhabash Facebook A total of 3172 Facebook users from Taiwan Facebook U&G were assessed using a 19-item scale derived The study examined the relationship between motivational
et al. (49.70% males) with average age of 33 years from Liu et al. (2010). It measured six different Facebook reactivity, Facebook U&G and IFU
(2014) U&G, namely information sharing (a = 0.92), self-documen-
tation (a = 0.89), socialization (a = 0.85), entertainment
(a = 0.76), escapism (a = 0.75), self-expression (a = 0.86),
medium appeal (a = 0.86)
IFU (a = 0.93)
Alhabash and Facebook Study One: A total of 365 US-based students Study One: Facebook U&G was measured using 19 items The study investigated the relationship between viral
McAlister & Twitter (63.3% females) with average age of 21 years (Liu et al., 2010) that represented seven dimensions, namely behavioral intentions (VBIs) in SNS use (e.g., Twitter and
(2014) Study Two: A total of 164 US based students information sharing (a = 0.91), self-documentation Facebook) and related different SNS U&G
(73.5% female) with average age of 21 years (a = 0.88), social interaction (a = 0.79), entertainment
(a = 0.93), escapism (a = 0.80), self-expression (a = 0.92) and
IFU (a = 0.93)
Study Two: Twitter U&G were measured using 19 items
derived from Liu et al. (2010). It represented seven U&G,
namely information sharing (a = 0.83), self-documentation
(a = 0.81), social interaction (a = 0.74), entertainment
(a = 0.87), escapism (a = 0.65), self-expression (a = 0.83), and
The intensity of Twitter use (a = 0.94)
(continued on next page)
5
6
Table 2 (continued)
Author (Year) Study Sample Study measures Study focus

context
Buehler Facebook 202 US-based adolescents and young adults The U&G of Facebook and Twitter use were separately The study examined the relationship between self-
(2014) & Twitter (33.7% males) with average age of 17.85 years measured using 22 items adapted from Liu et al. (2010). The presentation, audience perceptions and U&G of Facebook and
Facebook U&G measure represented four different Facebook Twitter
U&G, namely content (a = 0.75), social (a = 0.64), process
(a = 0.79) and technology U&G. Similarly, Twitter U&G mea-
sure represented four dimensions, namely content (a = 0.83),
social (a = 0.60), process (a = 0.85) and technology U&G
The intensity of using Facebook (a = 0.23) and Twitter
(a = 0.79)
Mo and Leung Sina A total of 431 Weibo users from mainland The U&G of Weibo was measured using items adopted from The study investigated how U&G of micro blogs (i.e., Weibo)
(2014) Weibo, China (44.4% males) predominately Liu et al. (2010). The measure assessed four different U&G, influences perceived social capital, affinity-seeking and
micro- representing University students. Over 41% namely social need (a = 0.87), convenience need (a = 0.75), interpersonal relationships
content need (a = 0.89), and process needs (a = 0.74)
A. Dhir, C.-C. Tsai / Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

blog were in the age range of 21–25 years
The intensity of Weibo use was measured using a single item
asking participants to list the amount of time they spend on
Sina Weibo use per day
Park and Lee Facebook 246 US-based university students (59.8% Facebook U&G were assessed using 16 items drawn from The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
(2014) females) with average age of 21.40 years Jung et al. (2007). A total of five Facebook U&G, namely between IFU, psychological outcomes (e.g., sense of
entertainment (a = 0.88), communication (a = 0.88), belonging, life satisfaction), impression management and
relationship maintenance (a = 0.85), self-expression Facebook U&G
(a = 0.86), professional use (a = 0.92)
IFU (a = 0.92)
*
Note: The following study did not utilize IFU for measuring intensive use of Facebook.
In our systematic review, we observed several inconsistencies in the findings of the prior literature examining Facebook
U&G and IFU. For example, several studies including Alhabash et al. (2010), Buehler (2014) and Mo and Leung (2014), found
that content U&G are significantly linked with IFU. However, Park and Lee (2014) found no relationship between professional
use of Facebook and IFU. Park and Lee (2014) reasoned that the heavy reliance of college-attending young adults on Facebook
use is not due to its use for professional reasons such as seeking career opportunities or looking for resources for professional
purposes. Similar discrepancies were observed in the context of the relationship between IFU and process U&G. For example,
Mo and Leung (2014) found that process U&G had no significant impact on the intensity of Weibo use. In contrast, several
other studies found that process U&G significantly predicted IFU (Sheldon, 2008; Alhabash et al., 2010, 2012, 2014; Park and
Lee, 2014). According to Mo and Leung (2014), Weibo is a well-known computer mediated platform primarily for socializa-
tion and information exchange, and thus does not offer fun, due to which process U&G was not a significant predictor of
Intensity of service use. This suggests that the medium itself and its utilities also play an important role in determining
which U&G significantly predict intensity of service use. It is important to understand these quantitative differences, but
at the same time, readers should also exercise caution while interpreting these findings. There could be different potential
reasons behind the differential effects on IFU which cause these inconsistencies in the findings of the prior literature. For
example, the context of the studies (e.g., the differences between SNS platforms like Twitter, Weibo and Facebook, which
all have different U&G), differences in the factorial structure of the utilized Facebook U&G inventory, and possible cultural
and demographic differences in the study samples.
In terms of cultural differences, Alhabash et al. (2012) highlighted the underlying cultural differences as a possible reason
for inconsistent findings in the prior literature. They found that status updates are an important Facebook U&G, and were the
strongest predictor of IFU among Asian Facebook users. However, in another study, Alhabash et al. (2010) found that shared
identities and content features did not significantly predict the IFU of American undergraduate students. These cultural dif-
ferences found resonance with the prior Internet literature; for example, Ishii and Ogasahara (2007) found that Internet U&G
are culture specific, and computer-mediated platforms serve different functions in different social and cultural settings. On
this issue, Alhabash et al. (2012) recommended that further research must address cross-cultural differences in the U&G of
SNS. Such cross-cultural examinations will contribute to the U&G literature since U&G is a global theoretical framework, and
empirically testing the validity of this framework implies advancing its applicability in the field of SNS (Alhabash et al.,
2012). In addition to this, Alhabash et al. (2012) also emphasized that scholars must re-assess and even reinvent the way
motives and uses underlying media use are interpreted at present. Furthermore, re-assessment of the current theoretical
frameworks in the context of media use is also needed. The present study addresses these urgent needs by examining Face-
book U&G among adolescents and young adults representing a diverse cultural group, that is, Indian Facebook users. This
will enable us to examine the cross-cultural differences in the relationship shared between U&G and IFU. Based on the
literature review, the main research questions (RQ) of the present study are:
RQ1 How do adolescents differ from young adults in their sought Facebook U&G?
RQ2 How do the different Facebook U&G of adolescents and young adults differentially predict IFU?
3. Study methodology
3.1. Data collection & study participants
The data collection process was composed of three different cross-sectional studies. Study A was comprised of 373 ado-
lescent Facebook users (aged 13–17 years) recruited from four different schools in the State of Punjab, northwestern India.
Study B was comprised of 107 adolescent Facebook users (aged 14–18 years) representing two different schools from the
State of Tamil Nadu, southern India. The participating schools of study A as well as study B were private junior and senior
high schools with English as the medium of instruction which cater to students from middle to upper income economic
groups. However, the participating schools in study A and study B had great differences in their attitude towards the use
of SNS and mobile phones among adolescents. The study A schools did not influence the decisions and choices of adolescents
concerning their use of SNS and mobile phones, unlike study B in which the participating schools discouraged the use of SNS
and mobile phones. Furthermore, the students of study B were repeatedly warned against creating their own accounts on
SNS such as Facebook on different occasions, for example morning assembly prayers, extra-curricular workshops, etc. Due
to this, it was observed during the informal interviews that the study B participants had negative attitudes towards the uti-
lization of SNS by adolescents.
The research process followed for the data collection is as follows: a list of potential schools was randomly drawn from an
online directory, and they were contacted and informed about the proposed research study including its aims, objectives and
anticipated research process. After receiving formal approval from the interested schools, the study was advertised among
the target population of Facebook users. The students from the participating schools were clearly informed about the
research study, its aims and objectives, anticipated benefits, and related research process. The interested students were
invited to answer the cross-sectional study in specifically allocated classrooms. The lead author along with a few school
teachers administered the pen-and-paper study inside the classrooms. Participation was kept voluntary and anonymous,
and no personal identifiable information was collected from the participants.
The third cross-sectional data set, Study C, was composed of 105 young-adult Facebook users (aged 19–21 years) from a
large university in northwestern India. The research process for participant recruitment and data collection for this study
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic profile.
Items Category Percentage (frequency)

Study A Study B Study C
Age 13 20.9 (78) – –
14 35.9 (134) 10.5 (11) –
15 37.3 (139) 14.3 (15) –
16 5.1 (19) 19.0 (20) –
17 0.8 (3) 49.5 (52) –
18 – 3.8 (4) –
19 – – 11.2 (12)
20 – – 65.4 (70)
21 – – 20.6 (22)
Gender Male 66.0 (246) 62.9 (66) 69.2 (74)
Female 33.8 (126) 35.2 (37) 29.9 (32)
Excessive Facebook use Always 2.1 (8) 6.7 (7) 2.8 (3)
Very often 11.5 (43) 12.4 (13) 5.6 (6)
Sometimes 39.1 (146) 42.9 (45) 37.4 (40)
Rarely 28.7 (107) 21.0 (22) 35.5 (38)
Never 16.4 (61) 8.6 (9) 17.8 (19)
Frequency of Facebook use Many times daily 8.6 (32) 6.7 (7) 13.1 (14)
Almost daily 34.6 (129) 20.0 (21) 30.8 (33)
Once in 2–3 days 36.5 (136) 21.0 (22) 23.4 (25)
Once in a week 13.7 (51) 33.3 (35) 18.7 (20)
Once in a month 5.9 (22) 17.1 (18) 11.2 (12)
Overall Facebook activity Very active 4.8 (18) 7.6 (8) 2.8 (3)
Active 23.1 (86) 26.7 (28) 14.0 (15)
Neutral 34.6 (129) 28.6 (30) 21.5 (23)
Less active 19.0 (71) 13.3 (14) 26.2 (28)
Don’t use much 16.1 (60) 19.0 (20) 35.5 (38)
was similar to that of Studies A and B. A pen-and-paper survey was utilized for collecting all three data sets during December
2014–January 2015. The demographic distribution of the study participants is presented in Table 3.
3.2. Study measures
3.2.1. Demographic attributes

The study participants were asked to respond to five demographic attributes, namely age (measured using an open-ended
question), gender (evaluated as Male = 1 and Female = 2), excessive Facebook use, frequency of Facebook use, and overall
Facebook activity, which were accessed using five-point response scales (see Table 3).
3.2.2. Facebook U&G

A total of 18 items representing five different U&G of Facebook use were utilized; they were anchored on a five-point
response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The five Facebook U&G were escape, entertainment,
information seeking, social influence and exposure. These specific five U&G were chosen due to two main reasons: first, the
study context was a formal educational setting, and the main target populations were high school and university attending
adolescents and young adults. Consequently, content Facebook U&G were chosen since they were relevant for educational
contexts, that is to say, information seeking and exposure play crucial roles in the informal learning and academic well-
being of students (see Vrocharidou and Efthymiou, 2012). Similarly, process U&G, namely escape, entertainment and social
influence, have been recognized as important U&G associated with the well-being of young people, e.g. building self-identity,
self-expression, etc. (see Dunne et al., 2010; Langstedt, 2013; Apaolaza et al., 2015; Tanta et al., 2014; Quan-Haase and
Young, 2010; Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2011; Smock et al., 2011). Second, prior literature examining the relationship
between Facebook U&G and IFU has utilized similar U&G. Consequently, in order to investigate the external validity of
the prior literature findings, it was important to utilize similar Facebook U&G.
3.2.3. Intensity of Facebook use

This was measured using six statements given by Valenzuela et al. (2009) modified from Ellison et al. (2007). The items
were (1) ‘‘Facebook is part of my everyday activity,” (2) ‘‘I am proud to tell people I am on Facebook,” (3) ‘‘Facebook has
become part of my daily routine,” (4) ‘‘I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a day,” (5) ‘‘I feel I am
part of the Facebook community on the campus,” and (6) ‘‘I would be sorry if Facebook shut down”. All six statements were
anchored on a five-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The internal reliability of the
IFU was satisfactory (a = 0.81, 0.77, 0.71).
3.3. Data analyses
The data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 22.0. In the beginning, Z-scores for all the survey items
were calculated across all three data sets. The examination of Z-scores is important for the detection of outliers, if any.
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommended the threshold limit of 3.29 for confirming the presence of outliers. This process
led to the deletion of nine, six and four user cases from the three studies, Studies A, B & C, respectively. The effective sample
size was Study A (N = 373), Study B (N = 107) and Study C (N = 105). Afterwards, the examination of the skewness and kur-
tosis for the survey items confirmed that the data were normally distributed (Byrne, 2010; George and Mallery, 2003). The
missing data from three cross-sectional data sets were imputed using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) algorithm of SPSS 22.0.
Later the imputed data sets were utilized for further analysis. Afterwards, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 18-item
Facebook U&G measure was performed using each of the three cross-sectional data sets. It involves the examination for the
goodness of model fit, convergent and discriminant validity, besides other forms of instrument validity. In the end, linear
regression analysis was performed in order to examine the differential role of Facebook U&G in predicting the IFU among
adolescents and young adults.
3.4. Factorial structure for Facebook U&G
The confirmatory factor analysis of the 18-item Facebook U&G measure was performed using the Maximum Likelihood
(ML) algorithm. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was not performed due to the presence of an a priori factorial structure.
It was hypothesized that the 18-item measure would represent a five-factor structure. The standardization regression
weights and square multiple correlation values for all items were examined. The recommended values for the goodness
of model fit are: v2/df < 3, comparative fit index (CFI) P 0.92, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) P 0.92, goodness-of-fit index
(GFI) P 0.92, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08 (Byrne, 2010; Hu and Bentler, 1999). The results
suggested that Study A (v2/df = 3.95, GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.09), Study B (v2/df = 1.68, GFI = 0.93,
CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08) and Study C (v2/df = 1.80, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09) possess satis-
factory model fit. Furthermore, Study A possessed a four-factor, Study B suggested a five-factor, and Study C indicated a
three-factor structure for Facebook U&G (see Table 4). The remaining data analyses, namely independent t-test and linear
regression analysis, were also carried out using four, five and three factor structures for Facebook U&G respectively in Studies
A, B and C.
The different forms of instrument validity and reliabilities were examined using three study samples in the context of the
obtained factorial structure for Facebook U&G. The study utilized the various recommended criteria from the structural
equation modeling (SEM) research for the examination of validity and reliability of the Facebook U&G measure (see Dhir
et al., 2016a).
3.4.1. Discriminant validity

This investigates the degree to which the theoretically dissimilar measures are not related to each other (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988). The different established criteria for ensuring the presence of sufficient discriminant validity includes cor-
Table 4
Confirmatory factor analysis using three cross-sectional studies.
Study variables Confirmatory factor analysis

Study A (N = 373) Study B (N = 107) Study B (N = 105)
Beta R2 Beta R2 Beta R2
Escape
D1: I use FB to play roles different from those played in real-life – – 0.85 0.72 – –
D2: I use FB to put off something I should be doing – – 0.64 0.41 – –
Entertainment
D5: I use FB because it is entertaining 0.89 0.78 0.88 0.77 0.83 0.69
D6: I use FB because it is fun 0.81 0.66 0.95 0.90 0.93 0.87
D7: I use FB because I enjoy it 0.78 0.62 0.91 0.82 0.69 0.48
Information seeking
D8: Through FB, I can get information 0.85 0.73 0.88 0.78 0.63 0.40
D9: Through FB, I can provide others with information 0.74 0.54 0.88 0.78 0.80 0.63
D10: Through FB, I can learn how to do things – – 0.73 0.53 0.77 0.57
D11: Through FB, I learn about the latest news 0.61 0.37 0.78 0.61 0.76 0.59
Social influence
D14: I use FB to look stylish as it matches my lifestyle 0.57 0.32 0.59 0.35 – –
D15: FB broadens my thinking and lifestyle 0.89 0.79 0.96 0.93 – –
Exposure
D16: One gets to learn about colleges of higher education using FB 0.79 0.63 0.80 0.64 0.81 0.65
D17: One can get to know about educational opportunities using FB 0.80 0.64 0.84 0.71 1.01 1.01
D18: FB provides a wide range of exposure (lots of information) 0.74 0.55 0.72 0.51 0.66 0.43
Table 5
Examining convergent and discriminant validity using three study samples.
Study variables Study A (N = 373) Study B (N = 107) Study C (N = 105)

Mean (SD) CR AVE MSV ASV Mean (SD) CR AVE MSV ASV Mean (SD) CR AVE MSV ASV
Escape – – – – – 2.31 (1.03) 0.72 0.57 0.32 0.26 – – – – –
Entertainment 3.51 (0.94) 0.87 0.69 0.32 0.24 3.60 (1.27) 0.94 0.83 0.55 0.32 3.31 (0.88) 0.86 0.68 0.25 0.17
Information Seeking 3.53 (0.88) 0.78 0.55 0.44 0.33 3.56 (1.06) 0.89 0.68 0.55 0.37 3.51 (0.79) 0.83 0.55 0.38 0.31
Social Influence 2.43 (0.99) 0.70 0.56 0.38 0.27 2.75 (1.14) 0.77 0.64 0.46 0.25 – – – – –
Exposure 3.10 (0.97) 0.82 0.61 0.44 0.34 3.27 (1.12) 0.83 0.62 0.46 0.36 2.83 (0.91) 0.87 0.70 0.38 0.24
relation between any pair of constructs not exceeding 0.60 (Campbell and Fiske, 1959), and the average variance extracted
(AVE) being greater than the average shared variance (ASV) and the maximum shared variance (MSV) (Barclay et al., 1995).
The statistical evidence supports that the Facebook U&G measure possesses sufficient discriminant validity across the three
study samples (see Table 5).
3.4.2. Convergent validity

This indicates the degree to which the theoretically similar constructs are in fact related to each other. The prior SEM-
based literature suggested various criteria for establishing convergent validity. These include: standardized estimates for
the different items possessing significant loadings, i.e., above 0.50 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), the composite reliability
(CR) value being greater than 0.70 for different constructs (Molina et al., 2007; Nunnally, 1978), and the AVE being greater
than 0.50 but not exceeding the CR value (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Kline, 1998). The different statistical evidence sug-
gests that the Facebook U&G measure possesses sufficient convergent validity (see Table 5).
3.4.3. Instrument reliability

This investigates the degree to which the different study constructs possess sufficient internal reliability with low mea-
surement error (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Prior literature has suggested that Cronbach’s
alpha can overestimate or underestimate the true reliability of an instrument or measure (Raykov, 1998; Peterson and
Kim, 2013). Consequently, composite reliability (CR) should be evaluated compared to the Cronbach’s alpha for the study
constructs. The CR values for the different Facebook U&G were well above the recommended threshold value of 0.80
(Peterson and Kim, 2013) (see Table 5). This suggests that the Facebook U&G measure possesses sufficient internal reliability.
4. Results
4.1. Comparing Facebook U&G among the three studies
The independent sample t-tests were carried out in order to understand the differences between the adolescents from
studies A and B, and between the adolescents and young adults (i.e., Studies A & C) in the sought Facebook U&G. The t-
test results suggest that the adolescents (Study A) and the young adults (Study C) did not differ in the entertainment
(t = 1.97, df = 181.2, p = 0.05) or information seeking U&G (t = 0.19, df = 189.9, p = 0.85). However, the adolescents sought
higher exposure U&G compared to the young adults (t = 2.68, df = 179.48, p = 0.01, Mean (SD) = 3.10 (0.97) vs. 2.83
(0.91)). Similarly, the t-test results suggested that the adolescents from studies A and B did not differ in the entertainment
(t = 0.85, df = 476, p = 0.40), information seeking (t = 0.30, df = 476, p = 0.77) or exposure U&G (t = 1.49, df = 476,
p = 0.14). However, the adolescents from Study A sought higher social influence U&G compared with those from Study B
(t = 2.84, df = 476, p = 0.01, Mean (SD) = 2.43 (0.99) vs. 2.75 (1.14)).
Table 6
Linear regression analysis for predicting intensity of Facebook use.
Facebook U&G Intensity of Facebook use (IFU)

Study A (N = 373) Study B (N = 107) Study C (N = 105)
Beta t-value p-value Beta t-value p-value Beta t-value p-value
Escape – – – 0.19 2.05 0.04 – – –
Entertainment 0.36 7.35 0.01 0.39 3.48 0.01 0.40 4.24 0.01
Information seeking 0.08 1.49 0.14 0.06 0.50 0.62 0.27 2.47 0.02
Social influence 0.34 7.16 0.01 0.35 3.62 0.01 – – –
Exposure 0.03 0.57 0.58 0.09 0.86 0.39 0.16 1.58 0.12
R2 value 0.39 0.40 0.27
4.2. Predicting IFU using Facebook U&G
The different linear regression analyses were performed using data sets from three studies (see Table 6). The dependent
variable was IFU and the independent variables were the different Facebook U&G. The analyses examined the differential
effect of different Facebook U&G on the IFU of adolescents (i.e., Studies A & B) and young adults (i.e., Study C). The corre-
sponding percentages of variance explained in the IFU were 39%, 40% and 27% respectively for Studies A, B and C. The study
results suggest that across both adolescent studies, content U&G, that is the information seeking and exposure U&G, played a
non-significant role in predicting IFU. However, in the case of the young adults, exposure U&G was non-significant but infor-
mation seeking was a strong predictor of IFU. The process U&G, that is entertainment, was the strongest predictor of IFU
across all three studies. Furthermore, social influence was a significant predictor of IFU among adolescents only. The results
also suggest that the escape U&G was a significant predictor of IFU in Study B. It should be noticed that the escape U&G was
not part of the Facebook U&G factorial structure in the case of Studies A and C.
5. Discussion
The present study has addressed different open research gaps concerning an important service use phenomenon by inves-
tigating the differential effect of content and process Facebook U&G on the IFU of adolescents and young adults. A total of
three different cross-sectional studies were utilized. These data sets represented high school-attending adolescents and
university-attending young-adult Facebook users from India.
The first research question (RQ1) examines the differences in the sought U&G among adolescents from two different
types of schools, and between adolescents and young-adult Facebook users. Three separate confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) for the 18-item Facebook U&G measure were performed using the Study A, B and C data sets. It was hypothesized
that the 18-item Facebook U&G measure would possess a five-factor structure, which suggests five different Facebook
U&G. Consequently, it was important to investigate the factorial structure of Facebook U&G and the associated instrument
validity and reliability using the three different data sets. The results revealed four-, five- and three-factor Facebook U&G
structures for Studies A, B and C, respectively. It should be noted that the CFA examines the content validity of the items,
not whether the participants possess the trait. Furthermore, if a factor or construct is missing, then it shows that those speci-
fic items cannot represent the construct. Therefore, the fact that there are missing factors in the CFA results does not suggest
that participants of Study A were not seeking escape U&G or that the Study C respondents were not seeking escape and social
influence U&G. The young adults sought entertainment, information seeking and exposure U&G through Facebook use,
which is consistent with the prior literature (see Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2011; Smock et al., 2011; Park and Lee,
2014; Nelson, 2015).
The study results suggest that neither of the adolescent groups differed in the content (i.e., information seeking and expo-
sure) or process (i.e., entertainment) Facebook U&G. This is consistent with the recent literature, which also suggests that
adolescents actively seek content and process U&G through Facebook use (see Apaolaza et al., 2015; Dunne et al., 2010;
Langstedt, 2013; Tanta et al., 2014). However, the adolescents from study A sought higher social influence U&G than those
from study B. Social influence refers to broadening one’s thinking, lifestyle, and most importantly, influencing one’s own peer
group. The possible reasons behind this difference could be: first, the adolescents from ‘study A’ did not have any fear or
pressure from their respective schools about using SNS for seeking social influence U&G, unlike the students in Study B.
Due to this, the study B participants were unlikely to openly seek social influence U&G due to the pressure and negative
school policy concerning SNS use. Second, the Facebook use among the adolescents from Study A has become relatively more
mature compared to that of the adolescents from Study B in recent years, due to the difference in the attitude of the schools
towards SNS use. This specific finding brings a newer understanding of the context of media U&G. It possibly suggests that
Facebook users representing two different school settings with similar age groups can also differ in their sought U&G. In
comparison to this, the t-test results have clarified that both adolescents (i.e., study A) and young adults (i.e., study C) seek
similar intensity of entertainment and information seeking U&G from Facebook use. However, adolescents seek higher expo-
sure U&G compared to young adults, and the possible reason could be the desperate need for developing self-identity among
adolescents, unlike young adults (Dhir, 2016a,b). Prior literature on computer-mediated communication and developmental
psychology suggests that adolescents are more likely to use SNS for self-presentation (Dunne et al., 2010; Leung, 2014) due
to their developing cognitive maturity (Piaget, 1970; Leontjev, 1978).
The second research question (RQ2) examined the differential effect of content and process U&G among adolescents and
young adults in predicting their IFU. Prior literature gave conflicting and inconsistent accounts of this relationship. The pre-
sent study results clarified that content U&G, namely information seeking and exposure, do not play any significant role in
predicting IFU among adolescents. This shows that content U&G do not drive IFU among adolescents. In the case of the young
adults, information seeking did, and exposure U&G did not, significantly predict IFU. This finding is partially consistent with
the prior studies of Alhabash et al. (2010), Buehler (2014) and Mo and Leung (2014) who have repeatedly emphasized the
significant linkages between content U&G and IFU among young adults. Similarly, at the same time, it is partially consistent
with the findings of Park and Lee (2014), who indicated a non-significant relationship between IFU and professional use of
Facebook. In the context of process U&G, several studies have found that different process U&G strongly predicted IFU (see
Alhabash et al., 2010, 2012, 2014; Park and Lee, 2014). However, Mo and Leung (2014) found no significant relationship in
the context of intensity of Weibo use. The present study revealed that the process U&G (e.g., entertainment) was the stron-
gest predictor of IFU across adolescent and young-adult Facebook users. This is consistent with several prior studies with
young adults that also suggested the significant role of the entertainment and social influence U&G (Sheldon, 2008;
Alhabash et al., 2010, 2012, 2014; Park and Lee, 2014) in predicting IFU. These findings are very important for educational
scholars and practitioners since they clearly suggest that process U&G (e.g., entertainment) do, while content U&G (e.g.,
exposure) do not, contribute towards the heavy reliance on Facebook use among adolescent and young adults.
6. Study implications
This study concludes with various theoretical and practical implications for both researchers and practitioners engaged in
the field of computer-mediated communication, developmental psychology and educational research.
To begin with, the present study has brought newer theoretical understanding and knowledge pertaining to several open
research questions in the prior IFU literature. First, the present study has examined the relationship between Facebook U&G
and IFU from the perspective of the broad classification of different U&G coined by Stafford et al. (2004). According to this
classification, different U&G can be grouped as content, process and social U&G. This classification is considered important
since it enables scholars and practitioners to obtain a deeper understanding of why people use a given media, which U&G
drive their core interest, and to what extent these specific U&G drive people towards the use of computer-mediated com-
munication platforms. Second, this investigation has paved the way towards resolving some of the existing inconsistencies
that were present in the prior IFU literature, for example, whether or not content and process U&G actually drive IFU among
young Facebook users. The content and process U&G hold special relevance for young people (i.e., adolescents and young
adults) due to several reasons such as developing cognitive maturity, their inquisitiveness to learn and know new facts,
and their desire to develop their own self-identity. Third, the study results have brought newer understanding of the IFU
of adolescent Facebook users, which were otherwise ignored in the prior literature. Fourth, this study has addressed the
urgent need for examining the cross-cultural validity of the existing findings on IFU and its relationship with Facebook
U&G by recruiting Facebook users from a rarely studied cultural group.
The examination of differences in the sought Facebook U&G and their differential effect on IFU between the adolescents
from two different school-settings and between adolescents and young adults has significant implications for U&G theory as
well as the foundation of intensive service use in general. First, the study results have shown that two groups of Facebook
users of similar age but belonging to two different school systems can actually differ in their sought Facebook U&G. Second,
the study results have shown that adolescents and young adults greatly differ from each other in their sought U&G, unlike
the findings of the prior literature. Consequently, these finding have significantly contributed to the further advancement
and applicability of the U&G theory.
The study findings have special relevance for the different stakeholders of education systems such as educators, parents,
scholars and practitioners. Furthermore, there are practical implications for educators, information technology designers and
administrators. The study findings clearly suggest that heavy reliance on Facebook use among adolescents is not due to con-
tent gratifications such as information seeking and exposure. Rather, adolescents and young adults engage in intensive Face-
book use due to its entertainment U&G. Similarly, social-influence U&G is an important reason for IFU among adolescents.
Given the fact that Facebook is the most popular computer-mediated platform today, and young students tend to spend an
increasing amount of their daily time on its use, the current study findings suggest the need to re-examine and also re-visit
the influential role of Facebook in informal learning. Similarly, e-learning system designers should re-design their existing
offerings so as to offer different process U&G to students in order to motive them towards its intensive usage for academic
reasons. Similarly, educators who are planning to utilize Facebook as a pedagogical tool must realize that entertainment U&G
actually drive the use of such systems. Therefore, they should try to offer content U&G, which are also entertaining in nature.
7. Study limitations and future work
The present study has some limitations which other scholars can address in future studies. The present study utilized only
a limited number of Facebook U&G (i.e., five) for examining its relationship with IFU. Therefore, future studies should include
a more exhaustive set of Facebook U&G in order to investigate which ones play an influential role in predicting IFU. The tar-
get user groups for the present study were adolescents and young adults; the study findings might thus not be applicable to
adults or older Facebook users. Furthermore, general Facebook users, i.e. those older than 25 years, should also be recruited.
We recommend various directions for future studies. First, longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies are required for
examining the trends and change in IFU over time. Second, future studies should investigate the intensity of use of specific
Facebook activities such as photo sharing, photo tagging, commenting, liking, etc. These investigations will enable scholars to
gain deeper understanding of the nature of the complex tensions that exist in the computer-mediated world. Third, future
studies should examine the relationship between IFU and an exhaustive set of psychosocial and personality attributes. In
addition to this, educational scholars should investigate the impact of IFU on the degradation in academic performance
among school- and college-attending Facebook users.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the financial support received from the Academy of Finland, Mind the Gap (Project Number 1265528)
and Researcher’s Mobility grants (Decision No. 277571, 278832, 290038, 290822, 298098, 299265). The generous support
provided by Finnish Cultural Foundation and Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES) funded Beam
Project Sustainable Education Design (SED) (Project No440176) are duly acknowledged.
References
Alhabash, S., McAlister, A.R., 2014. Redefining virality in less broad strokes: predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook
and Twitter. New Media Soc., 1–23
Alhabash, S., Park, H.J., Lee, Y.A., 2010. Facebook and the self: how self-esteem, satisfaction with life, self-consciousness, and general affect inform
motivation and intensity of Facebook use. In: Paper Presented to the Communication Technology Division at the 94th Annual Conference of the
Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Denver CO.
Alhabash, S., Park, H., Kononova, A., Chian, Y., Wise, K., 2012. Exploring the motivation of Facebook use in Taiwan. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15 (6),
304–311.
Alhabash, S., Chiang, Y., Huang, K., 2014. MAM & U&G in Taiwan: differences in the uses and gratifications of Facebook as a function of motivational
reactivity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 423–430.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–442.
Anderson, J.A., Meyer, T.P., 1975. Functionalism and the mass media. J. Broadcast. 19, 11–22.
Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., He, J., Barrutia, J.M., Echebarria, C., 2015. Shanghai adolescents’ brand interactions on the Chinese Social Networking Site Qzone:
a uses and gratifications approach. Revista Espaň ola de Investigacion en Marketing ESIC 19 (1), 62–70.
Barclay, D.W., Higgins, C., Thompson, R., 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adaptation and use as
illustration. Technol. Stud. 2 (2), 285–309.
Binder, J., Howes, A., Sutcliffe, A., 2009. The problem of conflicting social spheres: effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites.
In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing System, New York, ACM, 965–974.
Blumler, J.G., 1979. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Commun. Res. 6, 9–36.
Buehler, E.M., 2014. Factors Influencing Adolescent Impression Management on Social Networking Sites. Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Wake
Forest University. Graduate School Of Arts And Sciences.
Byrne, M.B., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, New York.
Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W., 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multi-method matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56 (2), 81–105.
Carey, J.W., Kreiling, A.L., 1974. Popular culture and uses and gratifications: notes toward an accommodation. In: Blumler, J.G., Katz, E. (Eds.), The Uses of
Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 225–248.
Christofides, E., Muise, A., Desmarais, S., 2012. Hey mom, what’s on your Facebook? Comparing Facebook disclosure and privacy in adolescents and adults.
Soc. Psychol. Personality Sci. 31 (1), 48–54.
Cronbach, J.L., Meehl, E.P., 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52 (4), 281–302.
Dhir, A., 2015. On the Nature of Internet Addiction: What is it and How is it Measured? University of Helsinki, Finland (Published Doctoral Dissertation).
Dhir, A., 2016a. Exploring Online Self-presentation in Computer-mediated Environments: Motives and Reasons for Photo-tagging and Untagging. Aalto
University, Finland (Published Doctoral Dissertation).
Dhir, A., 2016b. Why do young people avoid photo tagging? A new service avoidance scale. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0894439316653636.
Dhir, A., Al-kahtani, M., 2013. Ubiquitous computing for teenagers: a new perspective on child-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of IEEE International
Symposium on Technology and Society, 126–135, Toronto.
Dhir, A., Torsheim, T., 2016. Age and gender differences in photo tagging gratifications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 630–638.
Dhir, A., Chen, G.M., Chen, S., 2015. Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale. New Media Soc., 1–18
Dhir, A., Chen, S., Nieminen, M., 2016a. Development and validation of the internet gratification scale for adolescents. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0734282916639460.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Chen, S., Lonka, K., 2016b. Understanding online regret experience in Facebook use – effects of brand participation, accessibility &
problematic use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 59, 420–430.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., Nieminen, M., 2016c. Why do adolescents untag photos on Facebook? Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 1106–1115.
Dhir, Pallesen, Torsheim, Andreassen, 2016d. Do age and gender differences exist in selfie-related behaviours? Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 549–555.
Dicken-Garcia, H., 1998. The Internet and continuing historical discourse. J. Mass Commun. Q. 75, 19–27.
Dunne, A., Lawlor, M., Rowley, J., 2010. Young people’s use of online social networking sites – a uses and gratifications perspective. J. Res. Interact. Market. 4
(1), 46–58.
Elliot, P., 1974. Uses and gratifications research: a critique and a sociological alternative. In: Blumler, J.G., Katz, E. (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications:
Current Perspective on Gratification Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 249–268.
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C., 2007. The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’ Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J.
Comput.-Mediated Commun. 12, 1143–1168.
Facebook Newsroom, 2015. Available at: <http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/> (accessed 10 October 2015).
George, D., Mallery, P., 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Update, 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Gonzales, A., Hancock, J., 2011. Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (1–
2), 79–83.
Hofstra, B., Corten, R., Tubergen, F.v., 2015. Who was first on Facebook? Determinants of early adoption among adolescents. New Media Soc., 1–19
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
6, 1–55.
India Internet Usage, 2015. India’s Internet User Base to Hit 402 Million http://www.iamai.in/media/details/4490 (Last accessed 10, January 2016).
Ishii, K., Ogasahara, M., 2007. Links between real and virtual networks: a comparative study of online communities in Japan and Korea. CyberPsychol. Behav.
10 (2), 252–257.
Johnston, K., Tanner, M., Lalla, N., Kawalski, D., 2013. Social capital: the benefit of Facebook ‘‘friends”. Behav. Inform. Technol. 32 (1), 24–36.
Junco, R., 2012. Too much face and not enough books: the relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 28 (1), 187–198.
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., Morris, J., 2011. The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychol. Behav.
Soc. Netw. 14 (4), 183–189.
Katz, E., 1959. Mass communication research and the study of daily serial listeners: an editorial note on a possible future for this journal. Stud. Publ.
Commun. 2, 1–6.
Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M., 1973. Uses and gratifications research. Publ. Opin. Q. 37, 509–523.
Kaur, A., 2016a. Underpinnings of User Participation in Innovation on Online Communication Platforms (Published Doctoral Dissertation). Aalto University,
Finland.
Kaur, P., 2016b. Underpinnings of User Participation in Service Provider-hosted Online Communities. Service Science (in press).
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Chen, S., Rajala, R., 2016a. Understanding online regret experience using the theoretical lens of flow experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 57,
230–239.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Chen, S., Rajala, R., 2016b. Flow in context: development and validation of the flow experience instrument for social networking. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 59, 358–367.
Kirschner, P.A., Karpinski, A.C., 2010. Facebook and academic performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (6), 1237–1245.
Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York.
Kwon, M.-W., D’Angelo, J., McLeod, D.M., 2013. Facebook use and social capital to bond, to bridge, or to escape. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 33 (1–2), 35–43.
Labrague, 2014. Facebook use and adolescents’ emotional states of depression, anxiety, and stress. Health Sci. J. 8 (1), <http://www.hsj.gr/
medicine/facebook-use-and-adolescents-emotional-states-of-depression-anxiety-and-stress.pdf>.
Lampe, C., Wohn, D.Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B., Wash, R., 2011. Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. Int. J. Comput.-
Supported Cooperative Learn. 6 (3), 329–347.
Langstedt, E., 2013. An examination of the role of the communicator on gratifications attained on social network sites. J. Soc. Media Soc. 2 (1), 126–143.
Lapowsky, I., 2014. Why Teens Are the Most Elusive and Valuable Customers in Tech <http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/inside-massive-tech-land-grab-
teenagers.html> (Last accessed on 10th October, 2015).
Lenhart, A., 2015. Teens, Social Media, and Technology Overview 2015. Pew Research Center. Available at: <http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-
social-media-technology-2015/>.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., Zickuhr, 2010. Social Media & Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project,
Washington, DC.
Leontjev, A.N., 1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Leung, L., 2014. Predicting Internet risks: a longitudinal panel study of gratifications-sought, Internet addiction symptoms, and social media use among
children and adolescents. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 2 (1), 424–439.
Liu, C.Y., Yu, C.P., 2013. Can Facebook use induce well-being? CyberPsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 16, 674–678.
Liu, I.L.B., Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O., 2010. Understanding Twitter usage: What drive people continue to Tweet. In: Presented at the Pacific Asia Conference
on Information Systems (PACIS). Taipei, Taiwan.
Madden, M., 2012. Privacy Management on Social Media Sites. Pew Internet Report.
Mäntymäki, M., Riemer, K., 2014. Digital natives in social virtual worlds: a multi-method study of gratifications and social influences in Habbo Hotel. Int. J.
Inf. Manage. 34 (2), 210–220.
Mäntymäki, M., Salo, J., 2011. Teenagers in social virtual worlds: continuous use and purchasing behavior in Habbo Hotel. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 2088–
2097.
McAfee, 2014. Tweens, Teens and Technology Available at: https://cybermumindia.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ttt-2014-infographic-final.pdf.
Mo, R., Leung, L., 2014. Exploring the roles of narcissism, uses of, and gratifications from microblogs on affinity-seeking and social capital. Asian J. Soc.
Psychol. 18 (2), 152–162.
Molina, L.M., Montes, J.L., Ruiz-Moreno, A., 2007. Relationship between quality management practices and knowledge transfer. J. Oper. Manage. 25 (3), 682–
701.
Morris, M., Ogan, C., 1996. The Internet as a mass medium. J. Commun. 46, 39–50.
Nelson, D.W., 2015. Millennial Social Networking Behavior from a Uses and Gratifications Perspective (Doctoral Dissertation). North Carolina State
University.
Newhagen, J.E., Rafaeli, S., 1996. Why communication researchers should study the Internet: a dialogue. J. Commun. 46, 4–13.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.
Nunnally, C.J., Bernstein, H.I., 1994. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
Papacharissi, Z., Mendelson, A., 2011. Toward a New(er) sociability: uses, gratifications, and social capital on Facebook. In: Newer Sociability Media
Perspectives.
Papacharissi, Z., Rubin, A.M., 2000. Predictors of Internet use. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 44 (2), 175–196.
Park, N., Lee, S., 2014. College students’ motivations for Facebook use and psychological outcomes. J. Broadcast. Electr. Media 58 (4), 601–620.
Pempek, T.A., Yermolayeva, Y.A., Calvert, S.L., 2009. College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. J. Appl. Develop. Psychol. 30 (3), 227–238.
Petersen, C., Johnston, K.A., 2015. The impact of social media usage on the cognitive social capital of university students. Inform. Sci.: Int. J. Emerg.
Transdiscipline 18, 1–30.
Peterson, R.A., Kim, Y., 2013. On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. J. Appl. Psychol. 98, 194–198.
Phua, J., Jin, S.A., 2011. ‘‘Finding a home away from home”: the use of social networking sites by Asia-Pacific students in the United States for bridging and
bonding social capital. Asian J. Commun. 21, 504–519.
Piaget, J., 1970. Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. (D. Coltman, Trans.). Orion Press, New York.
Quan-Haase, A., Young, A.L., 2010. Uses and gratifications of social media: a comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30 (5),
350–361.
Rayburn, J.D., 1996. Uses and gratification. In: Salwen, M.B., Stacks, D.W. (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication and Research. Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 97–119.
Raykov, T., 1998. Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 22 (4), 375–385.
Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G., Orr, R.R., 2009. Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 25, 578–586.
Rubin, A.M., 1983. Television uses and gratifications: the interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. J. Broadcast. 27, 37–51.
Rubin, A.M., Rubin, R.B., 1982. Contextual age and television use. Hum. Commun. Res. 8, 228–244.
Ruggiero, T.E., 2000. Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Commun. Soc. 3, 3–37.
Sheldon, P., 2008. The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’ Facebook use. J. Media Psychol. 22, 67–75.
Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Wohn, D.Y., 2011. Facebook as a toolkit: a uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 27 (6), 2322–2329.
Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R., Schkade, L.L., 2004. Determining uses and gratifications for the internet. Decision Sci. 35 (2), 259–288.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., 2008. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Develop.
Psychol. 29, 434–445.
Swanson, D.L., 1979. Political communication research and the uses and gratifications model: a critique. Commun. Res. 6, 37–53.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson, New York.
Tanta, I., Mihovilović, M., Sablić, Z., 2014. Uses and gratifications theory – why adolescents use Facebook? Medijska istraživanja 20 (2), 85–110.
Tomai, M., Rosa, V., Mebane, M.E., D’Acunti, A., Benedetti, M., Francescato, D., 2010. Virtual communities in schools as tools to promote social capital with
high schools students. Comput. Educ. 54, 265–274.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., Kee, K.F., 2009. Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use, and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and
participation. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 14 (4), 875–901.
Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J., Schouten, A.P., 2006. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem.
CyberPsychol. Behav. 9, 584–590.
Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr Ellison, N., Lampe, C., 2011. It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychol.
Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (3), 107–114.
Vrocharidou, A., Efthymiou, I., 2012. Computer mediated communication for social and academic purposes: profiles of use and university students’
gratifications. Comput. Educ. 58 (1), 609–616.
Wade, N.J., 2014. The first scientific ‘‘selfie’’? Perception 43 (11), 1141–1144.
Zanno, M.L., 2013. Factors Associated with Young Adult Use of Facebook for Emotional Support (Master thesis). Smith College School for Social Work
Northampton, Massachusetts, <https://dspace.smith.edu/bitstream/handle/11020/24266/ZannoMfinalthesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

Telematics and Informatics: Amandeep Dhir, Chin-Chung Tsai

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Telematics and Informatics: Amandeep Dhir, Chin-Chung Tsai

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics

Understanding the relationship between intensity and

Article history: Facebook is a well-known computer-mediated communication platform considered popu-

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland.

2.1. Intensity of Facebook use (IFU)

2.2. Adolescent Facebook users

2.3. Culturally diverse Facebook users

2.4. U&G and IFU

Author Study Sample Study measures Study focus

Author (Year) Study Sample Study measures Study focus

A. Dhir, C.-C. Tsai / Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

(continued on next page)

Author (Year) Study Sample Study measures Study focus

A. Dhir, C.-C. Tsai / Telematics and Informatics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

3.1. Data collection & study participants

Items Category Percentage (frequency)

3.2. Study measures

3.2.1. Demographic attributes

3.2.2. Facebook U&G

3.2.3. Intensity of Facebook use

3.3. Data analyses

3.4. Factorial structure for Facebook U&G

3.4.1. Discriminant validity

Study variables Confirmatory factor analysis

Study variables Study A (N = 373) Study B (N = 107) Study C (N = 105)

3.4.2. Convergent validity

3.4.3. Instrument reliability

4.1. Comparing Facebook U&G among the three studies

Facebook U&G Intensity of Facebook use (IFU)

4.2. Predicting IFU using Facebook U&G

7. Study limitations and future work

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi