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
    ---><---

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.