Advertisement

Media Selection: A Method for Understanding User Choices Among Popular Social Media Platforms

  • Brian Traynor
  • Jaigris HodsonEmail author
  • Gil Wilkes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9751)

Abstract

How a person perceives social media platforms should provide insight on the platforms they choose to use or not. Literature reviews highlight studies focused on demographic, familiarity, social influence, application, and usefulness as a means to differentiate choice/use. This study combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to examine Social Media Platform (SMP) preferences.

Using a web-based card sorting application, 59 participants completed an open sort activity on 19 SMPs. Information was also collected on SMP usage, age and gender. The strength of the paired-relationships between SMPs is presented in the form of a similarity matrix and a dendogram (hierarchical cluster analysis). A set of decision rules were developed in order to arrive at 44 standardized categories. A matrix of categories and SMPs provides means to explore associations. These relationships are examined for overlap and absence. This allows researchers to discuss findings in terms of current theory and practice.

Keywords

Pile sort Media richness theory Media synchronicity theory Social media platforms 

References

  1. 1.
    Chen, G.M.: Why do women bloggers use social media? Recreation and information motivations outweigh engagement motivations. New Media Soc. 17(1), 24–40 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J.: The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 8(3) (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C.: Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 29(6), 434–445 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saul, D.J: 3 Million Teens Leave Facebook In 3 Years: The 2014 Facebook Demographic Report – ISL (2014). https://isl.co/2014/01/3-million-teens-leave-facebook-in-3-years-the-2014-facebook-demographic-report/. Accessed 10 Feb 2016
  5. 5.
    Chan, T.K.H., Cheung, C.M.K., Shi, N., Lee, M.K.O.: Gender differences in satisfaction with Facebook users. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115(1), 182–205 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malone, E.L., Kinnear, S.: How and why: complementary analyses of social network structures and cultural values: improving flood response networks in Queensland, Australia. Qual. Quant. 49(1), 203–220 (2015). Springer, NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hagag, W., Clark, L., Wheeler, C.: A framework for understanding the website preferences of Egyptian online travel consumers. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 9(1), 68–82 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell, C., Fausset, C., Farmer, S., Nguyen, J., Harley, L., Fain, W.B.: Examining social media use among older adults. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media - HT 2013, pp. 158–163 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    eMarketer: Why are moms so social? http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Why-Moms-Social/1009855. Accessed 10 Feb 2016
  10. 10.
    Correa, T., Hinsley, A.W., de Zúñiga, H.G.: Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(2), 247–253 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sánchez-Franco, M.J., Buitrago-Esquinas, E.M., Yñiguez-Ovando, R.: What drives social integration in the domain of social network sites?: Examining the influences of relationship quality and stable and dynamic individual differences. Online Inf. Rev. 39(1), 5–25 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, K.-Y., Lu, H.-P.: Predicting mobile social network acceptance based on mobile value and social influence. Internet Res. 25(1), 107–130 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cataldi, M., Aufaure, M.-A.: The 10 million follower fallacy: audience size does not prove domain-influence on Twitter. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 44(3), 559–580 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palazon, M., Sicilia, M., Lopez, M.: The influence of ‘Facebook friends’ on the intention to join brand pages. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 24(6), 580–595 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrero, Ã., Martín, H.S., Hernández, J.M.: How online search behavior is influenced by user-generated content on review websites and hotel interactive websites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27(7), 1573–1597 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.B.: Social network sites definition history and scholarship. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 13(1), 210–230 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Obar, J.A.: Canadian advocacy 2.0: an analysis of social media adoption and perceived affordances by advocacy groups looking to advance activism in Canada. Can. J. Commun. 39(2), 211–233 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gomes, A.K., da Pimentel, M.G.C.: Measuring media-based social interactions provided by smartphone applications in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Workshop on Social and Behavioural Networked Media Access - SBNMA 2011, pp. 59–64 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin, K.-Y., Lu, H.-P.: Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(3), 1152–1161 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dennis, A.R., Kinney, S.T.: Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Inf. Syst. Res. 9(3), 256–274 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S.: Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proc. MIS Q. 32(3), 575–600 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chan, M.: Shyness, sociability, and the role of media synchronicity in the use of computer-mediated communication for interpersonal communication. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 14(1), 84–90 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taipale, S.: Synchronicity matters: defining the characteristics of digital generations. Inf. Commun. Soc. 19(1), 80–94 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maiolo, J.R., Young, M.M., Glazier, E.W., Downs, M.A., Petterson, J.S.: Pile sorts by phone. Field Methods 6(1), 1–2 (1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dongre, A.R., Deshmukh, P.R., Garg, B.S.: Perceptions and health care seeking about newborn danger signs among mothers in rural Wardha. Indian J. Pediatr. 75(4), 325–329 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siar, S.V.: Knowledge, gender, and resources in small-scale fishing: the case of Honda Bay, Palawan, Philippines. Environ. Manag. 31(5), 569–580 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yeh, H.-W., Gajewski, B.J., Perdue, D.G., Cully, A., Cully, L., Greiner, K.A., Choi, W.S., Daley, C.M.: Sorting it out: pile sorting as a mixed methodology for exploring barriers to cancer screening. Qual. Quant. 48(5), 2569–2587 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neufeld, A., Harrison, M.J., Rempel, G.R., Larocque, S., Dublin, S., Stewart, M., Hughes, K.: Practical issues in using a card sort in a study of nonsupport and family caregiving. Qual. Health Res. 14(10), 1418–1428 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boster, J.: The successive pile sort. Field Methods 6(2), 11–12 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tullis, T., Albert, W.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics, 2nd edn. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, Boston/Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkes, G., Traynor, B., Hodson, J.: Folk classification of social media services as grounds for explaining or predicting trends in use. In: 2014 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), pp. 1–5 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bloor, D.: Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. Columbia University Press, New York (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carley, K.M., Pfeffer J., Reminga, J., Storrick, J., Columbus, D.: ORA User’s Guide 2012. No. CMU-ISR-12-105. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Pittsburgh, PA, Inst. of Software Research Internat (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mount Royal UniversityCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Royal Roads UniversityVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations