IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i2p21582440241255426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

So Similar, Yet So Different: How Motivations to Use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok Predict Problematic Use and Use Continuance Intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Saleem Alhabash
  • Tegan Marie Smischney
  • Anvita Suneja
  • Anish Nimmagadda
  • Linda R. White

Abstract

While much of the studies within the Uses and Gratifications (U&G) tradition were set to predict facets of media use, the current study examines how use motivations, nature of platform use, and privacy-related perceptions predict users’ use continuance intentions for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok and their problematic use (i.e., addiction), simultaneously. The study uses a cross-sectional survey of undergraduate students at a large Midwestern University ( N  = 685), where participants expressed their motivations to use each of the four platforms (depending on their active use of the platform), platform affinity and other usage factors, their intentions to continue using the platform, and their problematic use of the platform. Findings showed superiority of Instagram in terms of U&G. Regression models highlighted differences in the four platforms’ problematic use and continuance intentions. Findings are discussed within the framework of reconceptualizing U&G outcomes within the evolving social media environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Saleem Alhabash & Tegan Marie Smischney & Anvita Suneja & Anish Nimmagadda & Linda R. White, 2024. "So Similar, Yet So Different: How Motivations to Use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok Predict Problematic Use and Use Continuance Intentions," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241255426
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241255426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241255426
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241255426?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tamara Dinev & Paul Hart, 2006. "An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 61-80, March.
    2. Yi-Ting Huang & Sheng-Fang Su, 2018. "Motives for Instagram Use and Topics of Interest among Young Adults," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-12, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph A. Cazier & Benjamin B. M. Shao & Robert D. St. Louis, 2007. "Sharing information and building trust through value congruence," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 515-529, November.
    2. Corey Angst, 2009. "Protect My Privacy or Support the Common-Good? Ethical Questions About Electronic Health Information Exchanges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 169-178, November.
    3. Liu, Yu-li & Wu, Yanfei & Li, Changyan & Song, Chuling & Hsu, Wen-yi, 2024. "Does displaying one's IP location influence users' privacy behavior on social media? Evidence from China's Weibo," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5).
    4. Zhenhui (Jack) Jiang & Cheng Suang Heng & Ben C. F. Choi, 2013. "Research Note —Privacy Concerns and Privacy-Protective Behavior in Synchronous Online Social Interactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 579-595, September.
    5. David Harborth & Sebastian Pape, 2020. "Empirically Investigating Extraneous Influences on the “APCO” Model—Childhood Brand Nostalgia and the Positivity Bias," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Yi Sun & Shihui Li & Lingling Yu, 2022. "The dark sides of AI personal assistant: effects of service failure on user continuance intention," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 17-39, March.
    7. Baillette, Paméla & Barlette, Yves & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Aurélie, 2018. "Bring your own device in organizations: Extending the reversed IT adoption logic to security paradoxes for CEOs and end users," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 76-84.
    8. Jabbar, Abdul & Geebren, Ahmed & Hussain, Zahid & Dani, Samir & Ul-Durar, Shajara, 2023. "Investigating individual privacy within CBDC: A privacy calculus perspective," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. Jae Kyu Lee & Younghoon Chang & Hun Yeong Kwon & Beopyeon Kim, 2020. "Reconciliation of Privacy with Preventive Cybersecurity: The Bright Internet Approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 45-57, February.
    10. Grace Fox & Lisa van der Werff & Pierangelo Rosati & Patricia Takako Endo & Theo Lynn, 2022. "Examining the determinants of acceptance and use of mobile contact tracing applications in Brazil: An extended privacy calculus perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(7), pages 944-967, July.
    11. Tajvidi, Mina & Richard, Marie-Odile & Wang, YiChuan & Hajli, Nick, 2020. "Brand co-creation through social commerce information sharing: The role of social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 476-486.
    12. Matemba, Elizabeth D. & Li, Guoxin, 2018. "Consumers' willingness to adopt and use WeChat wallet: An empirical study in South Africa," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 55-68.
    13. Renata Benigna Gonçalves & Júlio César Bastos Figueiredo, 2022. "Effects of perceived risks and benefits in the formation of the consumption privacy paradox: a study of the use of wearables in people practicing physical activities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1485-1499, September.
    14. Michael Breward & Khaled Hassanein & Milena Head, 2017. "Understanding Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Controversial Information Technologies: A Contextualization Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 760-774, December.
    15. Goethner, Maximilian & Hornuf, Lars & Regner, Tobias, 2021. "Protecting investors in equity crowdfunding: An empirical analysis of the small investor protection act," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    16. Kim, Yeolib & Kim, Seung Hyun & Peterson, Robert A. & Choi, Jeonghye, 2023. "Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    17. Pilar Aparicio-Martinez & Alberto-Jesus Perea-Moreno & María Pilar Martinez-Jimenez & María Dolores Redel-Macías & Manuel Vaquero-Abellan & Claudia Pagliari, 2019. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Health Field Regarding Social Networks and Young People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-25, October.
    18. Tan, Wenying & Lee, Eun-Ju, 2024. "Neuroimaging insights into breaches of consumer privacy: Unveiling implicit brain mechanisms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    19. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    20. Pallant, Jason I. & Pallant, Jessica L. & Sands, Sean J. & Ferraro, Carla R. & Afifi, Eslam, 2022. "When and how consumers are willing to exchange data with retailers: An exploratory segmentation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241255426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.