European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 93–106 | Cite as

Learning and self-disclosure behavior on social networking sites: the case of Facebook users

  • Rui Chen
  • Sushil K Sharma
Empirical Research

Abstract

This paper studies Facebook users’ learning-based attitude formation and the relationship between member attitude and self-disclosure. Through the theoretical lens of learning theories, we recognize the key antecedents to member attitude toward a social networking as stemming from classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning-related factors. In addition, we explore the underlying process through which member attitude affects self-disclosure extent and theorize the mediating role of site usage rate on the relationship between attitude and self-disclosure extent. Analysis of 822 survey data results provides strong support for the role of learning theories in explaining Facebook members’ attitude development. The results also confirm a significant, partial mediating effect of site usage rate. A series of post-hoc analyses on gender difference further reveal that attitude formation mechanisms remain constant between male and female Facebook users; gender difference exists on the association between attitude and self-disclosure extent and the association between site usage rate and self-disclosure extent; and the mediating effect of site usage rate exists in male user group only. Our research, therefore, contributes to the literature on social networking sites, as well as providing behavioral analysis useful to the service providers of these sites.

Keywords

social networking sites learning theories mediation attitude self-disclosure gender difference 

References

  1. Al-Natour S, Benbasat I and Cenfetelli R (2009) The antecedents of customer self-disclosure to online virtual advisors. In International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
  2. Ashford W (2011) Facebook admits to 600,000 cyber attacks a day. Computer Weekly, TechTarget.Google Scholar
  3. Atakpa I (2011) Social networking – greatest invention of past decade. Suite 101, Suite101.com Media, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Barki H and Hartwick J (1994) Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly 18 (1), 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron RM and Kenney DA (1986) The moderator-mediater variable distinction in social psychological. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bella P (2006) Attitude acquisition. Motivation Peek.Google Scholar
  7. Bem DJ (1967) Self-perception: the dependent variable of human performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2 (2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benedict R (1934) Patterns of Culture. Houghton Mifflin, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Boyd D (2004) Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. In ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd DM and Ellison NB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications 13 (1), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandyberry AA, Li X and Lin L (2010) Determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in individual adoption of social network sites. In AMCIS2010, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  12. Brenner J (2012) Pew Internet: Social Networking. The Pew Research Center, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  13. Chen R (2013) Living a private life in public social networks: an exploration of member self-disclosure. Decision Support Systems 55 (3), 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chin W (1998) Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22 (1), 7–10.Google Scholar
  15. Chin WW (2000) Frequently asked questions – partial least squares and PLS-graph. [WWW document] http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm, (accessed 1 February 2012).
  16. Churchill G (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costa PT and McCrae RR (1992) Revised Neo Personality Inventory (Neo-Pi-R) and Neo Five-Factor Inventory (Neo-Ffi) Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.Google Scholar
  18. Costello CG (1967) Extraversion, neuroticism and the classical conditioning of word meaning. Psychonomic Science 8 (8), 307–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronbach LJ (1971) Test validation. In Educational Measurement (Thorndike RL, Ed), 2nd edn, American Council on Education, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. Currás-Pérez R, Ruiz-Mafé C and Sanz-Blas S (2013) Social network loyalty: evaluating the role of attitude, perceived risk and satisfaction. Online Information Review 37 (1), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dennis AR and Valacich JS (2001) Conducting research in information systems: tutorial. Communications of AIS.Google Scholar
  22. Deutsch M and Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3), 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EdisonResearch. (2013) Average Number of Facebook Friends of U.S. Users in 2013, by Age. Arbitron, Edison Research, Somerville, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. eNews. (2008) Educational benefits of social networking sites. eNews, Retrieved Feb 1, 2012 from. [WWW document] http://www1.umn.edu/news/features/2008f/UR_191308_REGION1.html, (accessed 1 February 2012).
  25. Eysenck HJ (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, Thomas.Google Scholar
  26. Eysenck HJ and Levey A (1972) Conditioning, introversion-extroversion and the strength of the nervous system. In Biologcal Bases of Individual Behavior (Nebylitsyn VD and Gray JA, Eds), pp 206–220, Academic Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Facebook. (2013) Key facts, Facebook.com, (accessed 1 August 2013).
  28. FacebookSecurity. (2013) Protecting people on Facebook, Facebook.com, (accessed 1 August 2013).
  29. Feist GJ and Rosenberg EL (2010) Psychology: Making Connections. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Fornell C and Larcker D (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Friedkin NE (2010) The attitude-behavior linkage in behavioral cascades. Social Psychology Quarterly 73 (2), 196–213.Google Scholar
  33. Gabriel B (2012) The Best Inventions of the 21st Century. eHow, Demand Media, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Gattiker UE and Kelley H (1999) Morality and computers: attitudes and differences in moral judgments. Information Systems Research 10 (3), 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gefen D, Straub DW and Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4 (7), 2–77.Google Scholar
  36. Geissser S (1975) The predictive samples reuse method with applications. Journal of American Statistical Association 70 (350), 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Golder SA, Wilkinson D and Huberman BA (2007) Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network. In The Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies, London.Google Scholar
  38. Google. (2013) Google Trends. Google, Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Grazioli S and Jarvenpaa S (2000) Perils of internet fraud: an empirical investigation of deception and trust with experienced internet consumers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 30 (4), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Griffiths M and Light B (2008) Social networking and digital gaming media convergence. Information Systems Frontiers 10 (4), 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gross EF, Juvonen J and Gable SL (2002) Internet use and well-being in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues 58 (1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hampton KN, Goulet LS, Rainie L and Purcell K (2011) Social Networking Sites and Our Lives. Pew Internet, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  43. Herman J (2012) Social networks and government. HowTo.gov, Federal Web Managers Council, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  44. Heron L (2010) Facebook Accounts Hacked; 1.5 Million Login IDs for Sale. ABC News, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Hovland CIL, Janis LI and Kelley HH (1953) Communication and Persuasion. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  46. Hsieh JJP, Rai A and Keil M (2008) Understanding digital inequality: comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly 32 (1), 97–126.Google Scholar
  47. Hsu CL and Lu HP (2004) Why do people play online games? An extended tam with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management 41 (7), 853–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Insko C (1967) Theories of Attitude Change. Appleton Century Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Jarvenpaa SL, Tractinsky N and Vitale M (1999) Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and Management 1 (12), 45–71.Google Scholar
  50. Junco R (2013) Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3), 626–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kang Y-S and Kim YJ (2006) Do visitors’ interest level and perceived quantity of web page content matter in shaping the attitude toward a web site? Decision Support Systems 42 (2), 1187–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kefi H, Mlaiki A and Kalika M (2010) Shy people and Facebook continuance of usage: does gender matter? In Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  53. Keil M, BCY Tan, Wei K-K, Saarinen T, Tuunainen V and Wassenaar A (2000) A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly 24 (2), 299–325.Google Scholar
  54. Kisilevich S, Ang CS and Last M (2012) Large-scale analysis of self-disclosure patterns among online social networks users: a russian context. Knowledge Information Systems 32 (3), 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krasnova H, Kolesnikova E and Guenther O (2009) ‘It won’t happen to me!’: self-disclosure in online social networks. In Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  56. Krasnova H, Kolesnikova E and Gunther O (2011) One size fits all? Managing trust and privacy on social networking sites in russia and germany. In ECIS2011. p 71.Google Scholar
  57. Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, Helgeson V and Crawford A (2002) Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues 58 (1), 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lampe C, Ellison NB and Steinfeld C (2007) A familar face(book): profile elements as signals in an online social network. In Conference on Human Factor in Computing Systems, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Lin KY and Lu HP (2011) Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (3), 1152–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lorge I (1936) Irrevelant rewards in animal learning. Journal of Comparative Psychology 21 (1), 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. MacKinnon DP (1994) Analysis of mediating variables in prevention and intervention research. In Scientific Methods in Prevention Research (Cazares Aab LA, Ed), pp 127–153, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  62. Malhotra NK and Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC). Information Systems Research 15 (4), 336–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Markus H and Nurius P (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41 (9), 954–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marwick A (2005) I’m a lot more interesting than a friendster profile: identity presentation, authenticity, and power in social networking services. In Internet Research 6.0, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  65. McGrath JE (1982) Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas. In (McGrath JE, Martin J and Kulka RA, Eds), pp 69–102, Judgment Calls in Research, Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. McKnight DH, Lankton N and Tripp J (2011) Social networking information disclosure and continuance intention: a disconnect. In 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  67. Medge. (2008) The Business Impacts of Social Networking. AT&T Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  68. Miltgen CL and Peyrat-Guillard D (2013) Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: a qualitative study in seven European countries. European Journal of Information Systems. advance online publication 30 July, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2013.17.Google Scholar
  69. Moon Y (2000) Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 26 (4), 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nierhoff MH (2013) Facebook Country Statistics March 2013. Quintly, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
  71. Nov O and Wattal S (2009) Social computing privacy concerns: antecedents and effects. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  72. Nunnally JC (1976) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Ormrod JE (1999) Human Learning. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  74. Pavlou PA (2003) Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7 (3), 101–134.Google Scholar
  75. Pavlou PA and El Sawy OA (2006) From it leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments. Information Systems Research 17 (3), 198–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Phillips B and Shipps B (2011) Frequency of usage: the impacts of technology acceptance factor versus social factors. In Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  77. Pike JC, Bateman PJ and Butler B (2009) I didn’t know you could see that: the effect of social networking environment characteristics on publicness and self-disclosure. In The Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  78. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 839–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Posey C, Lowry PB, Roberts TL and Ellis TS (2010) Proposing the online community self-disclosure model. European Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Prince B (2008) Researchers outline security risks of social networking sites. Ziff Davis Enterprise Holdings, Foster City, CA, eWeek.com, (accessed 1 November 2012).Google Scholar
  81. Raine A and Venables PH (1981) Classical conditioning and socialization – a biosocial interaction. Personality and Individual Differences 2 (4), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rickman J (2010) Facebook Social Media Cyber Security Tools. PR Log, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  83. Ritchie J (2012) Most U.S. companies listen to customers on social network sites. Business Courier, American City Business Journals.Google Scholar
  84. Roberson QM and Williamson IO (2012) Justice in self-managing teams: the role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal 55 (3), 685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Salehan M and Kim DJ (2012) The effect of attitude, social trust and trust in social networking sites on two dimensions of sharing behavior. In Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  86. Schroeder S (2010) ‘Omg guy’ attack spreads on Facebook. U.S.A. TODAY.Google Scholar
  87. Sengupta S (2011) Half of America is using social networks. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  88. Shin DH (2010) The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking. Interacting with Computers 22 (5), 428–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shipps B and Phillips B (2013) Social networks, interactivity and satisfaction: assessing socio-technical behavioral factors as an extension to technology acceptance. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 8 (1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sledgianoski D and Kulviwat S (2008) Social network sites: antecedents of user adoption and usage. In Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  91. Stone M (1974) Cross-validation choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 36 (2), 111–133.Google Scholar
  92. Taylor SE (1998) The social being in social psychology. In The Handbook of Social Psychology (Gilbert DT, Fiske ST and Lindzey G, Eds), pp 58–98, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  93. Templeton GF, Luo X, Giberson TR and Campbell N (2012) Leader personal influences on membership decisions in moderated online social networking groups. Decision Support Systems 54 (1), 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin YM and Lauro C (2005) PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48 (1), 159–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Theotokis A and Doukidis G (2009) When adoption brings addiction: a use-diffusion model for social information systems. In International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
  96. Thompson RL, Higgins CA and Howell JM (1994) Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems 11 (1), 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tow WN-FH, Dell P and Venable JR (2008) Understanding information disclosure behaviour in Australian Facebook users. In 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Christchurch.Google Scholar
  98. Valkenburg PM, Schouten AP and Peter J (2005) Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet. New Media & Society 7 (3), 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vasalou A, Joinson AN and Courvoisier D (2010) Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of ‘true commitment’ in Facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68, 719–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Venkatesh V and Morris MG (2000a) Why don’t mean stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Venkatesh V and Morris MG (2000b) Why don’t men ever stop to ask for dirrections? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23 (1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wang J, Chen R, Herath T and Rao HR (2009) Visual e-mail authentication and identification services: an investigation of the effects on e-mail use. Decision Support Systems 48 (1), 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Weiten W (1996) Psychology: Themes and Variations. Cole Publishing, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  105. Werts CE, Linn RL and Joreskog KG (1974) Interclass reliablity estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34 (1), 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wu HL (2009) Utilitarian and hedonic values of social network services. In Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  107. Young JR (2008) More colleges show interest in hooking up with YouTube. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Washington DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rui Chen
    • 1
  • Sushil K Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Miller College of Business, Ball State UniversityMuncieU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations