The role of Uses and Gratifications in inappropriate social media posting
An exploratory study
Keywords:
Social Media, Inappropriate Posting, Cybervetting, Uses and GratificationsAbstract
This study explores uses and gratifications (U&G) as a mechanism to better understand inappropriate posting by students on social media platforms. A cross-sectional survey of undergraduate college students (N=152) measured participants’ motivations for using different social media platforms and their degree of inappropriate posting on each platform. Specifically, the current research explores the relationship between students’ motivations to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat and their level of general inappropriate posting. Further research was conducted to investigate the relationship between students’ motivations to use each social media platform and eight specific types of faux pas content. Findings show that U&G motivations differ by platform with some motivations being significantly related to general inappropriate posting. The results also indicate that U&G motivations are significantly related to specific types of inappropriate content. These relationships differed by platform, with Twitter having the most relationships between motivations and inappropriate content. The study results will inform future studies while also making it possible to design better interventions to prevent further faux pas posting by students.
References
Alhabash, S. and Ma, M. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social Media + Society, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117691544
Berkelaar, B.L. & Buzzanell, P.M. (2015). Online employment screening and digital career capital: Exploring employers’ use of online information for personnel selection. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 84-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914554657
CareerBuilder. (2018, August 9). More Than Half of Employers Have Found Content on Social Media That Caused Them NOT to Hire a Candidate [Press Release]. https://press.careerbuilder.com/2018-08-09-More-Than-Half-of-Employers-Have-Found-Content-on-Social-Media-That-Caused-Them-NOT-to-Hire-a-Candidate-According-to-Recent-CareerBuilder-Survey
Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023
Duffy, B. E., & Chan, N. K. (2019). “You never really know who’s looking”: Imagined surveillance across social media platforms. New Media & Society, 21(1), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818791318
Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., Giotopoulos, K., & Vlamos, P. (2013). Using Facebook out of habit. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(6), 594-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.659218
Griffith, E. (2020, June 29). Social Privacy Is on the Rise: Almost Half of Social Media Accounts Are Kept Private. PC Magazine. https://www.pcmag.com/news/social-privacy-is-on-the-rise-almost-half-of-social-media-accounts-are
Gruzd, A., & Hernández-García, Á. (2022). A balancing act: how risk mitigation strategies employed by users explain the privacy paradox on social media. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2152366
Hollenbaugh, W.E. and Ferris, A.L. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.055
Jobvite. (2017). 2017 Recruiter Nation Report. https://web.jobvite.com/rs/328-BQS-080/images/2023-01-2017RecruiterNationReport.pdf
Jobvite. (2022). Staying the Course In a Challenging Labor Market Employ Quarterly Insights Report | Q3 2022. https://www.jobvite.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Jobvite-Employ-Quarterly-Insights-Report-Q3-2022.pdf
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Schlaegel, C. (2010). Who’s posting Facebook faux pas? A cross-cultural examination of personality differences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00499.x
Katz, E. Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2747854
Kim, B. & Kim, Y. (2019). Facebook versus Instagram: How perceived gratifications and technological attributes are related to the change in social media usage. The Social Science Journal (Fort Collins), 56(2), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.10.002
Lee, E., Lee, J. A., Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words: Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 18(9), 552-556. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0157
Miller, R. (2020). College students and inappropriate social media posting: Is it a question of personality or the influence of friends? Personality and Individual Differences, 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109857
Miller, R. & Melton, J. (2015). College students and risk-taking behavior on Twitter versus Facebook. Behavior & Information Technology, 34(7), 678-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.1003325
Peluchette, J. & Karl, K. (2010). Examining students’ intended image on Facebook: “What were they thinking?!” Journal of Education for Business, 85, 30-37. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/08832320903217606
Pew Research Center (2021). Social Media Use in 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/#:~:text=Majorities%20of%2018%2D%20to%2029,%25)%20or%20TikTok%20(55%25)
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041
Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016). “What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.026
Quan-Haase, & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380009
Ryan, Chester, A., & Reece, J. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016
Robards, B., & Graf, D. (2022). “How a Facebook update can cost you your job”: News coverage of employment terminations following social media disclosures, from racist cops to queer teachers. Social Media+ Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221077022
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0479
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594-601. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
