Traditionally, social networks refer to a set of social entities that connect individuals together by shared values, which reflects real-world friendship and face-to-face relationship [1]. In the last two decades, the notion of Web 2.0 resulted in the advent of online social network services, that expand traditional social network activities into a virtual world.
Social network sites changed people’s daily life significantly through online virtual communities and computer-mediated communication [1]. It provides Internet users with various types of services that allow them to create their own personal portfolios, share multimedia resources and interact with other SNS users [2]. People usually use these services to maintain relationships with real-world friends and to have opportunities to meet new friends online [3]. Some SNS enables users to create and join groups that help people with similar interests and hobbies to communicate with each other [1].
Network Externalities
There are many different types of services that will attract people to engage with various social networking sites. Several previous researchers have studied factors that influence people’s use of social media. Firstly, network externality is an important factor that influences the use of information technology [2]. The term Network externality is defined as “the value or effect that users obtain from a product or service will bring about more values to consumers with the increase of users, complementary product or service” [4].
Therefore, with the increasing number of SNS users, there will be more people to be attracted, and better services will also be provided. It is also suggested that when the number of users reached a critical number it will attract more people to use this social networking site because of social effect [5]. People will be affected by friends who join a social networking site because they would like to use this social network to keep a relationship with their friends; consequently, this will result in a significant increase of users.
Facebook, for example, expanded rapidly from 150 million to 350 million users between January and December 2019, which is more than twofold growth [2]. Furthermore, complementary services and products that users perceive also affect the intention of using social networking sites. For instance, additional services like social games and sharing supporting tools are used to enhance intention to engage in social networking sites [2].
Motivation Theory
Motivation theory is also applied to explain the acceptance of social networking sites. It studies motivations underlying people’s behaviours, which can be divided into extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation means “committing an action because of its perceived helpfulness in achieving” that is also referred to usefulness, while intrinsic motivation is “committing an action because of interests that represent enjoyment [2]. Both intrinsic (enjoyment) and extrinsic (usefulness) factors influence people’s engagement of information technology systems, including social networking sites [6].
Personality Factors
In order to provide social network users with better products and service, it is necessary to well understand Internet users’ personalities. A Five-Factor Model will be used to analyse users’ personality. The Five-Factor Model includes five-dimensional traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness [7].Three personality traits seem to be related to people’s intention of using social networking sites.
The first one, Neuroticism, refers to the degree that a person can bear psychological distress. People who have a high level of Neuroticism show high sensitivity to threats. They have strong interests in using the Internet to communicate with others; hence, those people may prefer to use the social network as a tool to avoid loneliness [8]. Researchers also suggested that people with high Neuroticism prefer Facebook’s Wall service, while people with low Neuroticism would like to use photos sharing service more [9].
Another trait that is related, Extraversion, describes people’s tendency to be sociable and be open to positive emotions and feelings. People with low extraversion may prefer to use technology information systems such as Social Networking Sites, whereas high extraversion would like to choose offline methods [9].
Openness to Experience reflects people’s acceptance of alternative approaches, which also reflects the acceptance of new communication channels [8]. Hence, new Social Networking Sites will be accepted easily by those people.
References
[1] Kwon, O. and Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), pp.254-263.
[2] Lin, K. and Lu, H. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), pp.1152-1161.
[3] Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), pp.210-230.
[4] Katz, M. and Shapiro, C. (1985). Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), pp.424-440.
[5] Lin, C. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2008). Elucidating Individual Intention to Use Interactive Information Technologies: The Role of Network Externalities. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(1), pp.85-108.
[6] Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of applied social psychology, 22(14), pp.1111-1132.
[7] McCrae, R. (1992). The five-factor model: Issues and applications [Special issue]. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
[8] Butt, S. and Phillips, J. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), pp.346-360.
[9] Ross, C., Orr, E., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J., Simmering, M. and Orr, R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), pp.578-586.