Sohn&kim(2012) attributes of social network services a classification and comparison

Attributes of Social Network Services: A Classification and Comparison

Jeong Woong Sohn and Jin Ki Kim

Department of Business Administration, Korea Aerospace University

100 Hanggongdae gil, Hwanjeon-Dong, Deogyang-gu, Goyang City, Gyeongg- Do 412-791, Korea

Tel: +82-2-300-0353 E-mail: [email protected]

Department of Business Administration, Korea Aerospace University

100 Hanggongdae gil, Hwanjeon-Dong, Deogyang-gu, Goyang City, Gyeongg- Do 412-791, Korea

Tel: +82-2-300-0353 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Since Social Network Services (SNSes) are considered as an effective means to communicate and

interact with customers, companies are trying to utilize SNSes effectively. However, there are

few studies on the features of SNSes which address how companies can better use SNSes for

specific purposes. This study aims to investigate the attributes and functions of SNSes to classify

SNS sites. Based on these attributes, this study tries to evaluate three major SNS sites to

differentiate them. This study finds the following: First, a factor analysis reveals seven attributes

that can be used to classify SNSes – these are Interaction, Communication, Entertainment,

Information, Share, Intimacy and Connection; and second, through an analysis of variance with

multiple comparisons, three attributes, Interaction, Communication and Connection, are found

to play differentiated roles depending on the SNS site. The result of this study will aid in

understanding the attributes that companies should take into consideration in order to operate

and manage SNS sites in the future by defining the SNS attributes and allowing the differences in

the attributes among SNS sites to be checked. From an academic perspective, this study provides

a foundation for the development of further research and has demonstrated the potential to

develop a general theory that can throw ideas into shape.

Keywords: Social Network Service (SNS), Media attributes, Social Network Theory, Factor

analysis, Analysis of variance, Multiple comparison

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

SNS Attributes – 2

1. Introduction

In the past Web 2.0, the users of the internet used and shared information passively, but

since social network services began, the technology that ensures convenience and real-time

service has made it easy for users to share and spread their opinions and activities(Java, Song,

Finin, & Tseng, 2009). At present, the social network internet is deeply rooted in our social lives.

Therefore, social network services are endlessly working to bring about a lot of changes in our

society.

The roles of enterprises, which acted as the main producers of internet information in the

past, have been reduced, while individuals as internet users have become information producers

and have expanded their roles. Now, individuals can mutually communicate and share their

experiences, thoughts, information, and various responses in virtual space.

Since Web 2.0 has become a social issue, the system of internet-based services has

developed rapidly. User created content (UCC) and social networking services (SNSes) are the

two service platforms which have attracted the most attention.

The services that form networks on the internet on the basis of contents produced online

by people have been conceptualized as social network services, and the sites which provide such

services have been conceptualized as social network service sites.

As a network of relationships between people, SNSes can be said to be the services that

are formed as communities with the same purposes or services form into groups in accordance

with their personal friendships or interests. Including Facebook and Twitter, SNSes are now

playing an important role for individuals, enterprises and societies (Beak, 2010).

Being different from traditional media such as TV or radio, SNSes constitute an internet-

based technology which makes it possible to interactively communicate between one and N, or


between N and N. Providing a variety of services, SNSes take up a large share of web services.

Some of them are very large and have a great ripple effect. Through SNSes, users pursue a lot of

purposes by sharing their personal information, expanding their social capital and retrieving

valuable information.

SNSes are growing rapidly, and many people are spending an increasing amount of their

time using these services (Hargittai, 2007). The raw numbers of active SNS users is impressive;

there were about 700 million users of Facebook (as of November 2011) and 150 million of

Twitter (as of May 2011).

SNSes are well-known as web-based services that help users to build a public or semi-

public profile over the internet. Users can share human connections with other users while

exchanging their lists of connections with each other within the same system (Boyd & Ellison,

2007). However, the properties of such connections can be different to some degree, depending

on which SNS site users belong to.

The reasoning behind the growing popularity of SNSes among the public is centered on

the ability of SNSes to extend and maintain a member’s offline social relationships to the virtual

realm, which is not bound by space or time (Lamp, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2005). Like in offline

communities, people in SNSes gratify their social and emotional needs that realize connections

in a person-to-person manner that is more direct and interpersonal (Rothaermel & Sugiyama,

2001). Rau, Gao and Ding (2008) argue that while SNSes are based on Computer Mediated

Communication (CMC), SNSes differentiate themselves from CMC in such a way that while

CMC centers on the online communities and blogs mainly for information sharing and exchange,

SNSes focus more on social emotional needs.


In the past, existing internet services were used to simply gather information and show

where individuals were allowed to access and share information. Since the development of the

SNS concept, the number of users of SNSes such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter and

so on has been increasing (Ko, Hwang, & Ji, 2010). Users are given similar means by different

SNS sites so that they may interact with each other over the internet, such as through e-mail,

instant messaging and even no-charge calls, and users are also allowed to share ideas, activities,

events and interests within the boundary of each site. Table 1 shows the functions of major SNS

sites.

Table1. Functions of major SNS sites

SNS Sites Functions

Facebook

Editing profiles (interests, workplaces, schools, etc.), instant messaging, receiving real-

time updates (news feeds / mini-feeds), checking friend statuses (recent statuses),

sharing content (videos, images, etc.), searching, commenting, managing contacts

(member group management), adding Facebook applications, cross linking with other

sites, receiving recommendations and comments from friends

Twitter

Editing profiles (interests, workplaces, schools, etc.), receiving RSS feeds, managing

follow/follower/retweet/reply functions, direct messaging, cross linking with other

sites, receiving recommendations for finding people/friends listed/friends, searching

interests field, using hash tags, writing (140 characters or less)

Cyworld

Editing profiles, sharing content (videos, images, etc.), searching, commenting,

recommendations for finding people/friends listed/friends, direct messaging, listening

to music, clipping

YouTube

Sharing/uploading/recommending videos, commenting on video bulletin boards,

categorizing videos, customizing video views, translating video captions, video RSS,

managing favorites, cross linking with other sites

Flickr

Uploading, sharing and modifying videos and pictures, commenting for videos and

pictures on bulletin boards, tag searching for videos and pictures, cross linking with

other sites

Recently, researchers have begun to use SNSes to investigate how companies interact

with one another, building many casual connections between executives, organizations and

individual employees working for different companies. Companies can even gather information

about other companies and devise strategies to gain a better position in the market or reformulate

pricing tactics through these kinds of networks.


With the worldwide emergence of smartphones, marketing strategies with respect to

SNSes will continue to spread. Companies are striving to create new revenue streams, including

advertisement sales, using the popularity and unique attributes of SNSes. SNSes are not only

attractive for their economic value as a means of advertising media, but also for the potential

impact they will have on social interactions. With SNSes, companies expect to gain benefits in

terms of increasing their brand image by connecting more directly with consumers, and also in

terms of using SNSes to achieve low-cost high-efficiency marketing. Compared to the attention

paid to the value of SNSes, there is a distinct lack of theory relating to the attributes and users of

SNSes.

Enterprises use SNSes for their product public relations and marketing, but many of

them do not have differentiated strategies in using SNSes. Therefore, their effect is very small –

certainly smaller than their expectations. In some cases, they feel skeptical about whether or not

they are really using SNS-related strategies properly. In the cases where they cannot produce

tangible results, SNSes increasingly having a negative influence on enterprises.

Even though SNSes are beginning to attract the attention of academic researchers,

discussions on SNSes have focused only on the ripple effect and expansion of SNSes, including

motives of use. Two noteworthy models are the diffusion of innovation model and the

technology acceptance model. Most studies conducted to date have focused on a single SNS site.

Few studies have compared attitudes and behaviors across sites (Facebook, Myspace, etc.).

Without considering the attribute as a medium which SNS sites have, many of these studies

regard SNS sites as relationship-oriented social network service media that facilitate information

expansion.


SNSes are not services that have been created recently. Existing media, communities,

websites and blogs have been developed and a variety of services and functions have been added

to create SNSes with their own unique values as online network services in which many people

can participate and make exchanges with each other. Therefore, this study will review the

functions and existing theories on SNS sites and investigate the attributes of SNSes.

Up until now, there has been no thesis that provides a framework which distinguishes

differences in the aspects and attributes of SNSes and differentiates their strategies. By isolating

the attributes of SNSes and the characteristics of SNS sites, we can understand the paradigm of

communication between people and save a lot of effort in forming and maintaining relationships.

Therefore, enterprises that use SNSes need strategic approaches on this basis and should find

improved solutions so that they can communicate with customers and meet their needs

satisfactorily.

This study aims at investigating attributes and functions of SNSes to classify SNS sites.

Based on these attributes, this study tries to evaluate three major SNS sites to differentiate them.

2. Social Network Service Sites

2.1 SNS History & Major SNS sites

The first social network site opened in 1997. With SixDegrees.com, users were able to

create their own profiles and build different groups of friends. In 1998, users were given a

chance to view other users’ lists of friends. In fact, some of the features that SixDegrees has at

present, such as profiling, existed on other sites like chatting or dating sites and community sites

(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Table 2 shows the launching years of major SNS sites.


Table 2. Launch dates of major SNS sites

1997 1999 ~ 2002 2003 ~ 2004 2005 ~ 2006

SixDegrees

Livejournal,

AsianAvenue,

Blackplanet, Lunarstorm,

Migente, Cyworld,

Ryzem, Fotolog,

Friendster, Skyblog

Couchsurfing, Linkedin,

Myspace, Tribe.net, Open

BC/Xing, Last.FM, Hi5, Orkur,

Dogster, Flickr, Piczo, Mixi,

Facebook (Harvard-only),

Multiply, Asmallworld,

Dodgeball, Catster, Hyves

Yahoo!360, Youtube, Cyworld

(China), Ning, AsianAvenue,

BlackPlanet (relaunch), Windows

Live Spaces, Cyworld (U.S.),

Twitter, MyChurch, Facebook

(open access)

Source: Boyd & Ellison (2007).

• Facebook

Facebook launched in February, 2004. Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, a

former Harvard student. It has over 900 million objects that people interact with (pages, groups,

events and community pages). Facebook is a social utility that helps people communicate more

efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers (Turban & Volinino, 2010).

Photos, groups, events, marketplaces, posted items and notes are the basic applications

already installed on Facebook. Apart from these basic applications, users can develop their own

applications or add any of the millions of Facebook available applications that have been

developed by other users.

In May 2012, Facebook was listed on the NASDAQ and closed at $38.23. After eight

years since its foundation, Facebook is now worth $1.046 billion in market capitalization.

A primary reason that Facebook expands is the network effect: that is, more users means

more value. The more users involved in the social space, the more they can connect to other

people. Facebook realized that by only focusing on college and university users, they could keep

them for only four years.

Facebook is encouraging organizations to open pages where they can post

advertisements and promotions. Also, the site is open to developers who create applications both

for entertainment and business. By 2011, Facebook had reached more than 750 million active


users with the average user having 130 friends. Also in 2011, there were more than 250 million

active users accessing Facebook through their mobile devices (Facebook, 2011).

• Twitter

Twitter is an SNS company providing a social network and personal blog service where

users can interact with other users, especially through messages called tweets. Tweets are text-

based messages, and users can write up to 140 characters per message, and the messages are

displayed on their profile pages. Tweets were originally designed to be open to the public, but

senders can put restrictions on message delivery. Users can subscribe to other users' tweets. This

process is known as following, and subscribers are known as followers in this case.

On August 31, 2010, OAuth became Twitter’s authentication method through which

users could access applications more conveniently without entering their passwords when using

the applications. Twitter expected that its change to OAuth would bring about increased security

and a better experience.

In April 2010, Twitter had 105 million registered users. New users were signing up at

the rate of 300,000 per day. Twitter users were, in total, tweeting an average of 55 million tweets

a day (Huffington Post, 2010).

•YouTube

Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim were the founders of YouTube, and in

November 2005, the site was first launched as a video sharing platform. All three members

previously worked for PayPal.

According to YouTube’s statistics, approximately more than one trillion hits were

tabulated in 2011. To put this number in perspective, it is equivalent to every person on Earth

watching one video 140 times. One video is uploaded every second, and there are more than 800


million net users visiting every month. YouTube has more than 30,000 partners in 27 countries

around the world. Partner revenue has increased by a factor of two in the last four consecutive

years.

Non-subscribers can only watch video clips, while regular subscribers are allowed to

upload as many video clips as they want. In May 2010, YouTube was providing over two billion

video clips per day, which is almost twice as many as a combination of the three major television

networks in the United States. In October 2010, Google published a report about its financial

performance for the third quarter of the year. According to the report, YouTube was providing

over two billion video clips a week, which included advertising. Back in October 2006, Google

Inc. announced that it had made an acquisition deal with YouTube for $1.65 billion, and they

completed the deal on November 13, 2006 (Thrusocial, 2011).

• Cyworld

Cyworld was founded in 1999 in South Korea. The original purpose of Cyworld was to

improve online dating and chatting services, making them similar to that of a matchmaking site,

and to provide users with an open public meeting place so that they could connect with each

other over the internet. Cyworld has two meanings: Cyber World and a world of relationships,

which have been the core concepts for SNSes thus far. Through the Cyworld service, users’

human relations are embodied by an ‘Ilchon’ link, which infers that there is a relationship as

close as that between family members (Kim&Yun, 2007; Skcoms, 2007).

One of the prominent features Cyworld possesses is that each user is allowed to create a

virtual homepage. In this way, social celebrities and politicians can use this platform to be much

closer to their fans and audience. The number of users started to increase rapidly from the end of

2003, eventually reaching the present level of approximately 23 million. In 2005, Cyworld was


the most successful messenger service company in Korea, thanks in part to its M&A with

NateOn, which enabled Cyworld to vault itself into the number one ranking (Skcoms, 2008). By

2010, Cyworld had pulled out of three markets, namely Germany, Japan and America. However,

overseas efforts continued in China and Vietnam. In 2009, the former had seven million

subscribers while the latter had 450,000 subscribers (Skcoms, 2008).

3. Theoretical Background

The concept of social and interpersonal relationships in a social network has been shifted

to the online SNSes where not only social infrastructures such as the networking and

management of human networks are supported, but also information is recommended and shared

as a one-man media function for interactive communication between members.

3.1 Social Network Theory

A social network is defined as a network of personal or business contacts, especially

promoted by social networking over the internet, where users interact with each other in sharing

their ideas, interests and activities (Barnes & Leinhardt, 1997; Kempe, Kleinberg, & Tardos,

2003; Kwon & Wen, 2010). By comparing a close-knit network with a loose-knit network at the

qualitative level, Bott (1977) develop an analytic concept. A close-knit network means a social

network in which not only are the members of a community connected around a central ego, but

they also closely interact with one another. Cheung, Chiu and Lee (2010) argue that the growth

and public popularity of social networks are creating a new world for communication and

cooperation, and that many people all around the world are using online social networks to share

information and knowledge.

Rice, Grant, Schmitz and Torobin (1990) argue that SNSes are the online services that

shift the concept of offline social relations into a virtual community which emphasizes the


gratification of motivations which are social network oriented rather than content oriented. The

social interaction in the context of SNSes may therefore be considered as the social impacts that

reflect communication established through networking and the maintenance of networks around

human interactions. The social impacts were defined as the influences by and between member

behaviors in social relations. However, a social relation cannot be maintained just by connecting

to others in an SNS site. Rather, a social relation requires various interactions between members

to form within an SNS site. The emergence of SNSes has not only created a new form of

relations, but also changed the lifestyles of modern people. SNSes transcend the mere concept of

an internet-based tool; they are building a new life paradigm through interactions between e-

services and their users. Although SNSes exist in the cyber world, they mirror real human

relations (Kwon & Wen, 2010).

Those more strongly tied between communicating pairs use more media to communicate

than those with weak ties. Media use within groups conforms to a uni-dimensional scale, which

shows a configuration of different tiers of media use supporting social networks of different tie

strengths (Haythornthwaite, 2005).

A sense of mutual engagement and openness among members are important factors that

form an online community (Bays & Mowbray, 2001; Rheingold, 1993), and SNS usage interacts

with measures of psychological well-being, suggesting that it might provide greater benefits for

users experiencing low self-esteem and low life satisfaction (Bateman, Gray, & Butler, 2006).

Scholars in many fields have begun investigating how such sites may play into issues of

identity, privacy, social capital, youth culture and education. In particular, Facebook is

increasingly becoming the object of scholarly research (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010;


Bateman, et al., 2006; Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Butler, 2001; Green-Hamann, Eichhorn, & Sherblom,

2011; Hargittai, 2007; Haythornthwaite, 2005).

Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky (2010) investigate the relationship between user

personalities and their behaviors on Facebook. In this research, five personalities were used for

evaluation: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to

experience. They argue that these personalities are strongly corelated with their behaviours on

Facebook.

Steinfield, Ellison and Lampe (2008) investigate the relationship between the intensity

of Facebook use, psychological well-being and bridging social capital. They found that the

intensity of Facebook use in the first year strongly predicted bridging social capital in the second

year, even after controlling for measures of self-esteem and satisfaction with life. The latter

psychological variables are definitely associated with social capital outcomes. Self-esteem plays

a role in moderating the relationship between Facebook usage intensity and bridging social

capital. That is, people with lower self-esteem gain more from their use of Facebook than others

with higher self-esteem in terms of bridging social capital. Facebook helps people improve their

self-esteem while building large and heterogeneous human networks that can be sources of

bridging social capital in the future (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008).

In most SNSes, users are allowed to join or create groups in order to interact with other

users with similar interests. In addition, the fact that people are joining and using SNSes may be

related to social capital. Social capital is an elastic construct used to describe the benefits one

receives from one's relationships with other people (Bateman, et al., 2006). For instance, self-

esteem has been regarded as a moderator of the relationship between social network site use and

social capital (Steinfield, et al., 2008).


Alexander and Michael (2008) and Ko, et al. (2010) define the functions of SNSes by

analyzing several SNS sites. The common functions are defined in Table 3.

Table 3. Functions of SNSes

Alexander & Michael

(2008) Ko, et al. (2010) Functions of SNS

Expert finding Expert search Function that enables you to search for those who have

expertise or things of interest, etc.

Network awareness Identity Function that enables you to express your status, mood

or feeling, etc.

Exchange Communication Function that enables you to share your messages or

conversations with others

Contact management Connection Function that enables you to establish, communicate

and manage a relationship with others

Alexander and Michael (2008) suggest the functions of SNSes could be categorized as

identity management (access rights can be direct or role based) and context awareness (the

awareness of a common context with other people). Ko, et al., (2010) put forward that SNSes

also provide the function of content sharing (the function that enables the sharing and

distribution of personal audio and video content).

3.2 Media attributes

Among the five major forms of media – print, video, audio, graphics and data – the last

four forms have been combined to constitute what is called multimedia. In other words,

multimedia is an integration of video, audio, graphics and data, mostly through a single computer

workstation. It was first intended to be differentiated from the existing media in terms of the

mode of delivery and presentation for teaching and training (Patrick, 2004).

Newspapers are one of the oldest forms of mass media, and this form holds a number of

advantages over other forms. They give more detailed story information, can be read and re-read

and can be circulated and stored for repeated readership, optimizing the information delivery (Jin,

2008). Mobility, which is an exclusive characteristic of newspapers, is keeping newspapers alive

and strong despite the emergence of more evolved forms of mass media such as TV and internet.


Regarding the effects of mass media by functional similarities, radio is very similar to

newspapers in that not only does it share the technical aspects with TV, which offers informative

and entertaining content, it also provides a massive amount of information (Katz, Gurevitch, &

Hass, 1973). Differences in motivation lead to different communication choices (Armstrong &

Rubin, 1989). Audiences listen to the radio to seek companionship and to overcome social

isolation, and this is why talk radio still serves as an alternative to other forms of mass media

(Avery, Ellis, & Glover, 1978).

In terms of motivation for use based on the characteristics of TV and internet, the

motivation to watch TV is thought to be connected to the concept of TV being conceived of as a

life companion, offering relaxation from stress, habituation, entertainment, enjoyment and the

obtainment of information and knowledge (Bantz, 1982; Conway & Rubin, 1991; Greenberg,

1974; Rubin, 1981). The motivation for internet use, which is characterized as interactions where

a sender of information can also be a receiver and vice versa, is centered on asynchronicity

unbound by time, multi dimensional communication, democracy in information generation and

distribution by the many and unspecified. Rafaeli and John (1995) identified motivations for

internet use as information acquisition, pleasure, socialization, social avoidance and job

exchange based on the democratic characteristic (Eighmey, 1997; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999;

Rafaeli, 1986). Differences in motivation between TV and internet also reflect the

complementary relationship between these two.

The study on the microscopic aspects of users regarding the appearance and use of new

media depends on the acceptability of people who use such media. The ‘Use and Gratification’

theory has been developed together with communication technology, explaining the motives of

users of traditional media. Whenever a new media technology enters into the communication


academy, researchers study the uses of gratification of the users of the new media (Elliott &

Rosenberg, 1987).

3.3 Internet Attributes

With the advent of computers in the second half of the twentieth century, network

systems were developed to link computers to one another. Subsequently, when human beings

desired to make information truly global, networks to connect countries together were needed.

This need gave way to the development and expansion of the internet.

With the exponential growth of information and communication, internet technology

made it possible for a lot of individual users to meet and talk in cyber space in a way that was not

possible in the real world in the past. Interactive exchanges can now be made between users,

each of whom has access to a variety of technical functions to enhance the experience. Functions

such as electronic bulletin boards, teleconferencing, chatting, Usenet and e-mail lists make

interactive communication possible and allow users to actively form virtual communities and

involve themselves in participation and association.

There are five motives for using the internet; interpersonal utility, passing the time,

seeking information, convenience and entertainment. As these five motives indicate, the internet

has a great influence on our daily lives (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000).

Research has shown that the motives for using the internet are related to use and

satisfaction. This research also notes that there are several specific motives such as

diversion/entertainment, a sense of identity, human relationships, social interaction and

monitoring/information (Parker & Plank, 2000). One study on the users of internet blogs related

to the news argued that the motives of using the internet are entertainment, hobbies, social

relationships, the acquisition of information and escapism (Yang, 2007). Another study put


forward that there are seven internet attributes; interaction, internationalization, communication,

connections, expense, fun and passing time(Jang, 1998).

Teo, Lim and Lie (1999) decided that the motives of using the internet are perceived

enjoyment (internal motive), perceived usefulness (external motive) and perceived ease of use.

They also argued that the use of internet would be on the increase if users thought that the use of

the internet was both easy to use and very helpful in carrying out business. They maintained that

along with business use and ease of use, the motives of using computers were connected to the

experience of enjoyment (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992), perceived usefulness and

perceived fun (Igbaria, Schiffman, & Wieckowski, 1994).

The main characteristics of mobile internet services are that these services maintain

attributes such as openness and interaction while users are on the move. Mobile internet services

emphasize mobility, portability and personalization (Durlacher Research, 1998).

With further developments in the study of motives for using the internet, studies on the

motives of using the information performance of online policies are being carried out in addition

to the studies on the internet itself (Kaye & Johnson, 2002).

3.4 Blog Attributes

The term ‘blog’ is a shortened form of ‘weblog’, which itself is a closed compound

formed by ‘web’ and ‘log’. It is the online equivalent of keeping a daily log (Blood, 2002). The

word ‘weblog’ was first used by John Barger in 1997 in the U.S. when he introduced a blog site

as a form of daily log in which a newly uploaded text was placed at the top line of the page. Peter

Merholz used the word ‘blog’ as ‘wee-blog’ on his site, but ‘wee’ was later removed, and the

simple form ‘blog’ was widely used after that. As blogs become a common means of delivering

thoughts on social events, bloggers are now playing an important role as ‘news guerillas’


(Wellman, et al., 2003). A blog is not only a user’s own space but also a place of mutual

exchanges, and is substituting the concept of existing online communities.

As more and more internet users are operating personal sites, or blogs, studies on the

motives of using blogs are also being carried out. Blogs contain records of personal life, reviews

and opinions, expressions of emotions, expressions of personal thoughts and community forums

(Nardi, Schiano, Gumbrecht, & Swartz, 2004).

Blogs are similar to existing homepages or online communities, but there are differences

between them. While existing homepages are unilateral, blogs and online communities are

relatively interactive. In terms of the distribution of communication, the communication

distribution of online communities is concentrated within the communities. In general, the

unilateral communication of existing homepages occurs within the relevant homepages. The

attributes of blogs include the trust of information, interaction, entertainment, intimacy and easy

accessibility (Lee, 2009).

One study showed that there are six main motives of American bloggers to use blogs.

These motives were information seeking and media checking, convenience, personal fulfillment,

political surveillance, social surveillance and expression and affiliation (Kaye, 2005).

3.5 Homepage Attributes

Homepages are web pages which appear when web users run a web browser such as

Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer.

Many internet users use internet web sites as a means of acquisition of reliable

information, electronic commerce and exchanges, pursuits of entertainment/enjoyment and fun.

A study on the behavior of 1993 internet users with respect to reliability showed that the users,

who believed through their previous experiences that the information obtained from the internet


was reliable, took a positive view of the acquisition of information through the internet in the

future. In another study, users who used online news a lot regarded the internet as a source of

information (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000). The study also said that institutional guarantees,

reputation and the benefits of use which customers perceive from web sites are the factors that

enhance reliability for web sites. It stressed that such factors make consumers want to buy

products through web sites (Xu, Kim, & Padmal, 2004).

In a typical study on personal homepages, Papacharissi (2002) asserted that among the

seven motives of opening and using homepages, namely entertainment, information, social

interaction, self expression, passing time, professional advancement and new trends, the highest

motives are entertainment and information, followed by self expression and communication with

friends and family.

Personal homepages are alternative media by which homepage openers can express

themselves in a different form of communication, saying that there is a correlation between the

characteristics of homepage openers and homepages. One study found that entertainment and

information proposed by Chen and Wells (1999) are the characteristics of internet media.

3.6 Communication Attributes

Communication is a social interaction through messages (Fiske, 1990). People not only

exchange information and communicate with each other through that means of communication,

but also make society a communal society by persuading each other. Communication, which

controls all the fields of a modern society in this way, is an important medium that helps people

to share their individual thoughts, influence each other and live together.

An older study asserted that people exchange and share information and opinions on

interesting subjects through communication, thus getting to know each other better and feeling a


sense of closeness (Bruckman & Resnick, 1993). A more recent study asserted that the perceived

interaction has a positive effect on satisfaction and continuous use even in the mobile service

environment (Lee, Ahn, & Jang, 2006). Therefore, it can be said that continued communication

has an effect on a sense of belonging.

Another study found that existing customers can speak positively or negatively about

companies and products produced by a lot of people or organizations through the internet

potentially and practically. It said that due to the development of technologies with new internet

communication tools, online word of mouth now has a much stronger effect than the traditional

offline word of mouth(Henning-Thurau, Kevin, Gianfranco, & Dwawne, 2004).

If you are absorbed in a community, community sentiment is formed and a sense of

closeness for community members increases. As a result, you will feel a sense of belonging(Bell

& Newby, 1992).

SNSes have the characteristics of virtual communities which are defined as a group of

people who interact with each other with common interests and experiences (Rheingold, 1993).

According to the social identity theory, social identity is created when people interact with each

other, and people try to square their target with the community’s target (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,

Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).

Mobile media are not only a means of people’s daily communication but also a tool

which reflects life styles. They play a variety of roles as a personal computer and are used as a

means of important communication with the development of technologies (Oksman & Turtianen,

2004).


In order to draw attributes of SNSes from the precedent documentary research, the

functions and attributes of SNSes, media, the internet, blogs, communication and homepages are

summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Functions and attributes of SNSes, media, the internet, blogs, communication and

homepages

Functions & Attributes Reference

SNS

Functions

Identity management, expert search, context awareness,

network awareness, exchange, contact management

(Alexander & Michael,

2008)

Expert search, communication, connection, content

sharing, identity (Ko, et al., 2010)

Media

Attributes

Interaction, hypertext, multimedia (Deuze, 2001; Walther,

Gay, & Hancock, 2005)

Interaction, asynchronism, one-to-many communication,

many-to-many multi-dimensional democracy (Rafaeli & John, 1995)

Interaction, demassification, asynchronism, connection,

digital (Morris & Ogan, 1996)

Message speed/pass time, activity, privacy of media,

interaction (Hoffman & Novak, 1996)

Personal communication, interaction of media, message

stream, message speed/time, knowledge of informer,

intimacy, feedback possibility, control, synchronism, easy

accessibility of media

(Reardon & Rogers, 1988)

Interaction, hypermedia (Bolter & Grusin, 1999)

Internet

Attributes

Interaction, internationalization, communication,

connection, expense, fun, passing time (Jang, 1998)

Blog

Attributes

Trust of information, interaction, entertainment, intimacy,

ease of accessibility (Lee, 2009)

Communicati

on Attributes Interaction, information, convenience of use, ease of use

(Preece, 2010; Wu &

Chang, 2005)

Homepage

Attributes

Ease of use, product information, entertainment, trust,

customer support, currency (Elliott & Speck, 2005)

Entertainment, information, homepage construction (Chen & Wells, 1999)

Convenience, interaction, private preferences (Ghosh, 1998)

Information, entertainment, interaction (Kim, 2005)

4. SNS Attributes Model

As a result of looking into existing studies, it was found that those studies contrasted

blog attributes from the attributes of homepages and web sites. They centered on the


characteristics and functions of blogs when analyzing the attributes of the most advanced blogs

as a means of media.

As the results of academic studies on the attributes of SNSes up until now were

insignificant, this study investigated the seven attribute of SNSes on the basis of the attribute

theories of media and communication as well as the attribute theories of online web service-

based media internet, blogs, and homepages when checking the functions and characteristics of

SNS sites, in the same manner that existing blog attributes were investigated. Figure 1 shows

these SNS attributes. As a result, we propose a list of basic SNS attributes:


Figure 1. SNS Attributes Research Model

Previous research has analyzed SNSes to identify their common functions as well as the

attributes of media, the internet, blogs, communication and homepages. Findings from these

analyses are the common components extracted and mapped to the tasks identified by theory.


Table 5. Mapped SNS Attributes

Attributes SNS Functions Attributes

Media Internet Blog Communication Homepage

Interaction

Exchange

(Alexander &

Michael, 2008)

Interaction (Rafaeli & John,

1995)

Interaction

(Jang, 1998)

Interaction

(Lee, 2009)

Interaction

(Preece, 2010; Wu

& Chang, 2005)

Interaction

(Ghosh, 1998)

Communication Communication (Ko,

et al., 2010)

Personal communication

(Reardon & Rogers, 1988);

Many to many multi-

dimensional democracy

(Rafaeli & John, 1995)

- - - -

Entertainment

Network awareness

(Alexander &

Michael, 2008)

Multimedia (Deuze, 2001;

Walther, et al., 2005)

Fun (Jang,

1998)

Entertainmen

t (Lee, 2009) -

Entertainment

(Chen &

Wells, 1999;

Kim, 2005)

Information

Communication,

content sharing (Ko,

et al., 2010)

Message speed/pass time

(Hoffman & Novak, 1996) ,

Knowledge of informer

(Reardon & Rogers, 1988)

- -

Information

(Preece, 2010;

Wu & Chang,

2005)

Information

(Chen &

Wells, 1999)

Sharing Content sharing (Ko,

et al., 2010)

Massage speed/pass time

(Hoffman & Novak, 1996) - - - -

Intimacy

Network awareness

(Alexander &

Michael, 2008);

Identity (Ko, et al.,

2010)

Intimacy (Reardon &

Rogers, 1988) -

Intimacy

(Lee, 2009) - -

Connection Connection

(Ko, et al., 2010)

Connection (Morris &

Ogan, 1996)

Connection

(Jang, 1998)

Easy

Accessibility

(Lee, 2009)

User convenience

(Preece, 2010;

Wu & Chang,

2005)

Ease of use

(Elliott&

Speck, 2005)


• Interaction

Attempts have been made since the 1950s to identify interactive features that can

complement the limit of the conventional unilateral mass media. Discussions on interaction

began as early as the 1980s when it drew attention from scholars as a new concept for new media

communication.

Rafaeli and John (1995) define interaction as something that enables a sender (producer)

to become a receiver (consumer) simultaneously. They further define that interaction enables a

degree of control in mutual disclosure and role exchange between the participants in the course

of communication. Rafaeli (1988) and Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) assert that the old concept

of interaction was an attribute that could be formed during communication between users, but it

is defined now as the inter-connectivity between a series of messages that are exchanged during

all forms and types of communication such as mass communication and internet. Deighton and

Blattberg (1991) define interaction as direct communication between individuals or groups of

people without limits of time and space.

Jang (1998) defines it as bilateral communication in virtual communities, while Lee

(2009) defines interaction for blogs as a quick response between users and a quick response by

administrators. With the SNS function of exchange, and attributes of media (interaction), the

internet (interaction), blogs (interaction), communication (interaction) and homepages

(interaction), the SNS attribute of interaction has been identified.

In SNSes, interaction enables a sender (producer) to become a receiver (consumer) at the

same time, and an individual or a group can modify the contents in SNSes or participate in topics

real-time without limitations in terms of time and space. Interaction is also defined as something


that can facilitate immediate actions between the users through user participation and real-time

feedback.

• Communication

In the cyber world, ‘word of mouth’ is often playfully dubbed ‘word of mouse’ (WOM).

In comparison with the conventional word of mouth, Gelb and Soundaram (2002) prefer the term

word of mouse, referring to the modern phenomenon of potential buyers collecting and sharing

information in chat rooms, news groups and bulletin boards (known collectively as internet

information sources), rather than from colleagues or peers. Traditional research placed an

emphasis on the characteristics of the communicator, on the premise that there exists a direct

contact between a communicator and receiver. For WOM in an online community, on the other

hand, communicators are unidentifiable, the relation between a communicator and its receiver is

made on an ad hoc basis and communication is anonymous. Borgida and Nisbett (1977) define

word of mouth as the face-to-face communication founded on individual experiences, and Bone

(1995) defines WOM as the interpersonal communications in which none of the participants are

marketing sources.

Hoffman and Novak (1996) argue that the marketing communication model via the

internet is interruption-free many-to-many communication, and that companies can provide

content to media, and so can consumers for the web-like hyper media computer mediated

environment (CME). Hangel and Armstrong (1997) define virtual communities as the computer-

mediated spaces where there is the potential for an integration of content and communication

with an emphasis on member-generated content. Fernbak and Thompson (1995) define online

communities as a social relationship forged in cyberspace through repeated contacts within a

specified boundary or place that is symbolically delineated by topic of interest. In SNSes, ideas


of an individual can be transmitted freely and swiftly to others. The delivery of messages and

responses is made quickly in SNSes as communities can be formed by linking the homepages of

others, or through WOM.

From the precedent documentary research and the communication and media attributes

(level of point-to-point and point-to-many communications, and inter-personal communication)

the functions of SNS communication has been identified as one of the attributes of SNSes.

Communication in SNSes is defined as having a multi-dimensional communication attribute

where point-to-point, point-to-many and many-to-many communications are enabled in a

continuous manner. It is further expressed as speed, range and mapping through communication

tools (such as bulletin boards, notes, chatting and other tools) in SNSes. In addition, text, picture

and video files can be transferred and be shared by people. Accordingly, the meaning of

information can be transferred easily to people.

• Entertainment

Entertainment involves all web site elements that promote enjoyment while using a site.

These include sensory and hedonic stimuli, like color, music, action and interactivity.

Kim (2005), Lee (2001) and Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) assert that the entertainment

attribute of homepages promotes enjoyment and pleasure to users. Lee (2009) claims that a blog

provides various events and interests. Jung and Park (2000) assert that the ability to provide

services that are fun or informative, as well as entertainment that can continuously attract users

and keep them connected on a homepage, is of help to build a continuous relation. Papacharissi

and Rubin (2000) find that archiving and entertainment are the major motivations for internet use

among alternative uses, archiving, passing time, convenience and entertainment.


Ducoffe (1996) asserts that consumers use the internet efficiently for entertainment and

the utilization of information, and Eighmey (1997), after an analysis of the degree of satisfaction

of website users, asserts that users are satisfied when their entertainment related motivation is

gratified.

From the precedent documentary research, the network awareness function of SNSes,

and the attributes of media (multi-media characteristics), the internet (fun), blogs (fun) and

homepages (fun), entertainment has been identified as one of the attributes of SNSes.

In SNSes, entertainment is defined as the attribute that provides enjoyment, interest and

useful information on key issues and concerns. Users can find fun factors in the use of SNSes,

and furthermore, they can form close relations with others. A relation formed through the fun

factor can last. It is also defined as a frequent connection without specific purpose.

• Information

The informativeness construct of the uses and gratifications theory can be defined as the

extent to which the web provides users with resourceful and helpful information (Chen & Wells,

1999; Ducoffe, 1995). Kim and Kim (2000) assert that information has meaningful influences

over user perceptions, behavior and intentions of behavior, and that it is reasonable to consider

information as important in the evaluation of the contents in a homepage. Lee (2009) categorizes

information on blogs according to that information’s specialty, availability and reliability.

Through recommendation and sharing functions, SNSes enable an easy and quick distribution of

information. The U.S. based Pew Research Center found that “75% of online news consumers

obtain news through email or SNS links, and 52% of them distribute the same in the same ways.”

SNSes like Twitter filter and redistribute news upon evaluation, and promote active participation

of the public in social phenomena (Pew Research, 2010).


From the precedent documentary research, the communication and content sharing

functions of SNSes, and attributes of media (message speed/pass time, information about the

communicator), communication (information) and homepages (information), information has

been identified as one of the attributes of SNSes. Extensive information can be collected on the

internet.

Information in SNSes is defined as the attribute where information is recommended by

other users, and real-time validation of desirous, variable and reliable information is easily

enabled.

• Sharing

Smith (2007) identifies sharing as an attribute of SNSes to share things that are

meaningful to the participants (like photos or videos) and asserts that exposure derived from

sharing or distribution in SNSes could generate a revenue stream at a different level than web

searching. Kim (2009) asserts that the chief dimensions that differentiate SNSes from earlier

forms of media are the ‘sharing’ of personal experiences with others, and that they are volatile

and spreadable.

SNS users can easily search information that is customized to their needs from the sea of

information on the internet, and they can share information with others through replies or store

content by scrapping. Through instant networking, the sharing and distribution of information is

extremely fast. For media seeking information, an extensive range of information available on

the internet can be shared and distributed via SNSes, meeting the demand of information seekers.

Visitors can leave messages on others’ homepages, and through the link function, various

information can be shared.


From the precedent documentary research, the content sharing function of SNSes, and

attributes of media (message speed/ pass time), sharing has been identified as one of the

attributes of SNSes. Sharing in SNSes is defined as the attribute that enables the easy and quick

posting of one’s thoughts and the sharing or distribution of personal content like music and

videos via web or mobile devices.

• Intimacy

Intimacy may be defined as the level of closeness felt by the members of a specific

community site. One may expect a high level of participation to a community when there exists a

high level of intimacy between the members within the community. Intimacy plays an important

role in user engrossment and community formation. Armstrong, Arthur and Hagel (1996) assert

that online communities can build and maintain close relations between members, share opinions

on products and services and affect the daily life of the individuals in terms of their purchasing

and consumption behaviors. Members of a virtual community obtain emotional satisfaction such

as closeness in their exchanges with other members of the community.

Lee (2009) defines intimacy for blogs as relation forming (such as ‘Ilchon’, ‘neighbor’,

‘friend’) between a blog and its visitors, or relation forming (such as ‘Ilchon’, ‘neighbor’,

‘friend’) between a brand blog and its visitors. SNSes facilitate expressions of one’s recent status,

moods and feelings and provides intimacy to a grouped community of the same hobbies,

companies or schools.

From the precedent documentary research, the network awareness functions of SNSes,

and attributes of media (friendliness) and blogs (intimacy), intimacy has been identified as one of

the attributes of SNSes.


In SNSes, intimacy facilitates relation building with other users online, enhances current

relations through an in-depth involvement in others’ daily lives and expands the depth of

relationship through exchanges of various news stories. Intimacy is defined as something that has

the potential to improve a relationship that already exists.

• Connection

Conventionally, connection has been viewed as something physical. With the emergence

of the internet, connection has evolved to facilitate the entering into a relationship between

individuals in virtual space through information.

Lee (2011) asserts that shareability between internet users, which is realized through

connection, can play a role as a sophisticated marketing tool by collectivizing the pattern of

internet media usage. Hook (1998) defines accessibility as the effective searching function and

efficient interface structure of the website user interface. Lee (2009) asserts that connection for

blogs refers to easy access without any joining procedures.

The open platforms in SNSes offer various application programs, simplify connection

and facilitate the easy manipulation of the content therein. Most SNSes can be connected through

a combination of various forms of media or links, and content can be shared with or distributed

to other SNSes. Various forms of connections, which have become available through evolutions

on the web, as well as through the increasing supply of smartphones, are becoming more

significant in societies and the economy in general, and they are demanding changes in consumer

relations, advertisement marketing strategies and organizational culture.

From the precedent documentary research, the connection function of SNSes, and

attributes of media (connection), the internet (connection), blogs (accessibility) and homepages

(ease of use), connection has been identified as one of the attributes of SNSes.


In SNSes, connection enables the creation of personal homepages to which personal

articles, photos and video files are posted without the need of joining a specific SNS, makes it

easier to build and manage personal homepages than the conventional methods and does not

require special skills, but enables the configuration of a variety of content instantly and easily.

Furthermore, the definition of connection includes the potential for assisting in information

searches without the worry of getting lost on the web.

5. Research methodology

5.1 Data collection

An online-survey was conducted to collect data. The sample was selected from among

individuals who are using social network services in Korea.

Initially, a pre-test, pilot test and main test were conducted. The pre-test was used to

refine a measurement instrument made by reviewing the previously available literature. Based on

the results of the pre-test, this study further developed an instrument to measure the major

constructs and then conducted a pilot test. In terms of methodology, this study carried out a

factor analysis three times (pre-test, pilot test and main test), surveyed data and then finalized the

constructs regarding measurement reliability and validity to verify a causal relationship model.

This study selected 239 (six survey responses removed) usable survey responses out of

245 for 10 days (from May 22 to 31, 2011) through an online survey which was conducted by

Embrain (www.embrain.com).

The sample consisted of 50.2% male and 49.8% female participants ranging from 15 to 55 years

old, the majority of which were in their twenties and thirties (49.7% and 27.6%, respectively).

Respondents mainly used Cyworld (46%), Facebook (24.7%) and Twitter (21.7%).

Most of the respondents have used SNSes heavily: 55% of the respondents use at least

http://www.embrain.com/


one of the services for more than one hour per day. Hence, the respondents seem to be qualified

to analyze attributes of SNSes. The demographics of the respondents are shown in Table 6.

Items to measure constructs in the model were mainly adopted from prior research.

Some minor wording changes were made for the SNS context. New constructs in the model,

however, had to be constructed.

All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 is disagree strongly and 5

is agree strongly. SPSS18 was used as a statistical package for testing. All items are shown in

Appendix A.

Table 6. Attributes of respondents (n= 239) Items Number Percentage (%)

Gender Male 120 50.21

Female 119 49.79

Age

Under 20 37 15.48

21-30 119 49.7

31-40 66 27.6

41-50 13 5.4

Over51 4 1.6

Education

High school or below 49 20.5

College 38 15.8

Undergraduate 114 47.6

Graduate 38 15.8

Occupation

Student 108 45.1

Manager 68 28.5

Specialized job 27 11.2

Service industry 8 3.3

Technical post 9 3.8

Housewife 8 3.3

Etc. 11 4.6

SNS Site

Twitter 52 21.7

Facebook 59 24.7

Cyworld 110 46

Flickr 4 1.6

YouTube 6 2.5

QQ 3 1.3

Etc 5 2.1

SNS use time (1 day)

Less than 1 hour 106 44.4

Less than 2 hours 80 33.4

Less than 3 hours 35 14.7

Less than 4 hours 12 5

Over 4 hours 6 2.5


6. Results

6.1 SNS attributes

Before running an exploratory factor analysis and reliability check, we checked where

the data satisfied the assumptions for factor analysis. The following three checks were performed:

the correlation coefficient among question items, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (MSA).

Validity is the extent to which a measure diverges from other similar measures. Testing

for validity involves checking whether the items measure the construct in question or other

constructs. With the exception of a strong correlation between some constructs (e.g., interaction,

information, connection, sharing, entertainment, intimacy and communication), correlations were

moderate, weak or nonexistent (Table 7).

Reliability is the most common index of the validity of measures. It is used to check

whether the scale items measure the construct in question or other (related) constructs; a value

of .70 or above is deemed acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha

was used to test the inter-item reliability of the scales used in this study. Cronbach’s alpha

assesses how well the items in a set are positively correlated with one another. In general,

reliability of less than .60 is considered poor, reliability in the .70 range is considered acceptable,

and reliability greater than .80 is considered good (Sekaran, 2003). As shown in Table 7, all of

the alpha values were greater than the recommended level and showed good reliability with

Cronbach’s alpha (>.70) in each construct.

Factor analysis was done using the data collected from the first version of the survey.

The cut-off criteria had a factor loading of 0.60. The analysis was done using a stepwise

approach. The question item which had the lowest maximum factor loading was removed. If the


lowest maximum factor loading was less than 0.60, the factor analysis was repeated until the

lowest maximum factor loading was greater than 0.60. Three items were finally omitted. Values

of 0.50 and above are recommended for factor analysis (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition,

factor analysis was used to examine construct validity. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity were first used to assess the appropriateness of the correlation

matrices for the factor analysis (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Lack, 1998).

Thus we can conclude that the data satisfies the assumption for the factor analysis. The

result of Bartlett's test of sphericity in this study shows that Sig (P) = 0.000 < α(=0.05) (χ

2=4066.056, df = 351). The result implies that there is no evidence that the correlation matrix is

an identity matrix. All seven factors showed a number of strong loadings, and all variables

loaded substantially on only one factor. The results of this analysis provided evidence of

construct validity (Table 7).


Table 7. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation and reliability check

Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cronbach’s

alpha

Interaction_2 .820 .075 .175 .117 .086 .114 .147

.872 Interaction_3 .817 .028 .172 .102 .114 .159 .180

Interaction_1 .770 .082 .008 .149 .042 .171 .233

Interaction_4 .748 .087 .112 .130 .195 -.022 .064

Information_2 .030 .843 .124 .117 .202 .218 .069

.906 Information_3 .116 .841 .200 .104 .179 .129 .070

Information_4 .081 .827 .090 .106 .109 .152 .083

Information_1 .057 .750 .186 .214 .158 .187 .216

Connection_3 .242 .248 .711 .086 .222 .164 .151

.838

Connection_1 .310 .086 .707 .104 -.084 .165 .154

Connection_2 .348 .041 .695 .191 .088 .125 -.022

Connection_5 -.062 .191 .690 .135 .260 .089 .135

Connection_6 -.125 .228 .673 .117 .376 .093 .164

Sharing_2 .053 .231 .050 .812 .116 .078 .137

.847 Sharing_1 .215 .198 .199 .795 .069 .001 .077

Sharing_4 .110 .067 .045 .768 .245 .169 .087

Sharing_3 .233 .009 .401 .666 .077 .132 .099

Entertainment_3 .137 .233 .145 .251 .777 .119 .075

.859 Entertainment_4 .231 .279 .197 .180 .746 .182 .116

Entertainment_2 .191 .177 .271 .106 .704 .235 .126

Intimacy_4 .218 .162 .186 .132 .176 .791 .064

.809 Intimacy_3 .091 .294 .123 .104 .057 .756 .119

Intimacy_5 .097 .208 .181 .094 .251 .743 .174

Communication_4 .165 .141 .068 .211 .123 .244 .792

.767 Communication_2 .265 .236 .189 .032 .084 .064 .723

Communication_5 .392 .021 .273 .195 .118 .070 .605

Number of items 4 4 5 4 3 3 3

Eigen-value 9.74 2.60 1.72 1.62 1.21 1.14 1.01

% of variance 37.46 10.03 6.62 6.23 4.67 4.40 3.91

KMO .897 Note. Numbers in bold show loading coefficients for items in each construct

6.2 SNS sites comparison in terms of attributes

The mean values of the independent variables were obtained based on 239 questionnaire

responses. The mean values of the independent variables refer to that of the score of items that

are grouped by attribute. The results of the mean values of the seven attributes of SNSes are

shown in Table 9. In order to see if there are variances in mean values between the chosen SNS

sites, it was further verified using ANOVA and a multiple comparison.


Upon examination of variances in attributes between the SNS sites with variance

analysis, there was a significant variance for interaction, connection and communication at the

significance level of 0.05. In other words, interaction, connection and communication attributes

from the seven attributes of SNSes showed a significant variance by SNS site. From the evidence,

it can be inferred that the attributes play differentiated roles in various SNS sites.

Table 8. ANOVA test result of SNS attributes

SNS Attributes IN IF CO SH EN IT CM

F. 5.71*** .34 10.67*** 1.20 .96 1.91 4.25**

IN: Interaction; IF: Information; CO: Connection; SH: Sharing; EN: Entertainment; IT: Intimacy; and CM:

Communication

Note(a) : *p < 0.1 , ** p <0.5 , *** p < 0.01

Further examinations are necessary to find to which extent variances in SNS attributes

exist by SNS site. One of the most common tools to verify such variances is multiple

comparisons. There are a number of methods in multiple comparisons, but for this research, that

of Scheffe was used to verify variances in the most commonly used SNS sites (Twitter,

Facebook, and Cyworld). Flickr (4), YouTube (6) and QQ (3) were excluded in the analysis as

the number of users of these sites is considerably low. From the results shown in Table 9 the

following was obtained:

Table 9. Attribute scores of SNS sites and multiple comparisons

SNS Attributes

SNS Sites

Factors AVG Twitter

(n=52)

Facebook

(n=59)

Cyworld

(n=110)

Interaction 3.87 a 4.20

b 3.79

a 3.95

Information 3.33 3.25 3.22 3.27

Connection 4.10 a 3.99

a 3.69

b 3.92

Sharing 3.51 3.71 3.55 3.59

Entertainment 3.68 3.84 3.67 3.73

Intimacy 3.63 3.68 3.44 3.58

Communication 3.79 a 3.93

a 3.57

b 3.77

1. Note: a and b indicate the group in which significant difference are identified by Sheffe’s multiple

comparison. Otherwise, there are no significant differences among SNS sites.

2. Bold: highest scored site of each attribute.


First, looking at the overall mean values of the SNS sites by attribute, interaction,

sharing, entertainment, intimacy and communication were relatively high in Facebook, while

information and connection prevailed in Twitter. The mean values of all seven attributes were

relatively lower in Cyworld than in Facebook and Twitter. These values present implications in

the light of management of and entry into an SNS, with thoughts on how much attention should

be paid to each of the services to be rendered.

Second, Facebook showed higher values in attributes of interaction, sharing,

entertainment, intimacy and communication than other SNSes. It can be inferred that the level of

satisfaction over the features of personal homepage building and the operation of personal

forums and various entertaining tools like social games and forums within the SNSes, which

make it easier to communicate with other users than other SNSes, is well manifested in the result.

Third, from the relatively high scores for information and connection in Twitter, it is

further observed that Twitter offers an easy user interface, facilitating the writing function on

‘Time line’ or the ‘Retweet’ function. Also, Twitter has an open policy by which the company’s

information is disclosed to the public through the Open API, enabling the writing only by simple

login to the Twitter account from an external site. While Facebook and Cyworld implemented

the two-way connection structure to link friends in a community, the one-way network

connection implemented by Twitter makes it faster to connect people, forming more chains of

connection.

Fourthly, regarding interaction, Facebook shows higher scores than Twitter and Cyworld,

which means Facebook is better in terms of user participation and immediate interaction than

Twitter and Cyworld. Fifth, for connection, Cyworld showed a significantly lower score than

Twitter and Facebook, which means Cyworld is lower in terms of platform openness, media


combination and connection to links than Twitter and Facebook. Sixth, Cyworld was separated

from the others in the light of communication. Cyworld is relatively weak in communication as it

is limited to the message exchanges by and between ‘Ilchons’ while many-to-many and constant

communication is enabled with Twitter and Facebook.

7. Conclusions

7.1 Implications

One of the important activities for businesses is to attract public attention to a product

or service through advertisements and commercials to the public. Prior to social networks, the

conventional means of successfully garnering public attention were time consuming and costly.

Recently, companies have expanded their business strategies through the adoption of

SNSes, which they utilize as an effective and indispensable marketing tool, particularly in the

past few years which have seen an explosion of SNSes and SNS use. However, businesses are

utilizing SNSes not only to attract more public attention and reduce the time and costs of

advertising, but also to interact with consumers and understand their reactions in real time. The

fact that there is no entry barrier for an SNS operation makes SNSes an open media with great

potential for growth, and SNSes are in particular emerging as the chief instruments for forming

public opinion. This in turn means that SNSes possess great influence over social issues, which

are circulated and discussed through SNS communities. SNSes are growing to become pivots of

modern life with ever increasing influence.

This research endeavored to analyze the attributes and functions of social network

service sites and investigated the most appropriate attributes and functions that companies should

have in order to increase their social marketing effects.

In summary the findings of this research are as follows:


First, in consideration of the precedent research in all their aspects and through factorial

analysis, seven attributes of SNSes were identified: Interaction, Information, Connection,

Sharing, Entertainment, Intimacy and Communication.

Second, looking at the overall mean values of SNS sites by attribute, interaction, sharing,

entertainment, intimacy and communication were relatively high in Facebook; while information

and connection prevailed in Twitter. The mean values of all seven attributes were relatively

lower in Cyworld than in Facebook and Twitter.

Third, following variance analysis of the seven attributes drawn from the study, the

attributes of interaction and connection showed a significant variance in the SNSes (Facebook,

Twitter and Cyworld). This implies that each SNS plays a differentiated role in virtual

communities and presents implications in the light of the management of and entry into an SNS

with thoughts as to how much attention should be paid to each of the services to be rendered.

Fourthly, through multiple comparisons, this study shows differences of perceived

attributes on SNS sites. For the interaction attribute, Facebook is better than Twitter and Cyworld.

From this result, this study concludes that Facebook is better in terms of user participation and

immediate interaction than Cyworld. For connection and communication, Twitter and Facebook

are better than Cyworld. Thus, this study shows in terms of platform openness, media

combination and connection to links, that Twitter and Facebook are evaluated more highly than

Cyworld. Also, Cyworld is relatively weak in communication as it is limited to the message

exchanges by and between ‘Ilchons’ while many-to-many and constant communication is

enabled with Twitter and Facebook.

This research was carried out to validate attributes of SNSes from a general perspective,

and the findings are of great significance for academic and application development. From the


academic perspective, these results provide a foundation for the development of further research,

and have demonstrated the potential to develop a general theory that can throw ideas into shape.

From the application perspective, this research is timely as SNSes are being established

as an effective two-way communication tool between companies and consumers. Variances in

attributes of SNS sites identified from the research are of significance from the application

perspective, and provide insight into the successful management of the attributes for current and

future SNS operators. In other words, an SNS administer would be able to recognize variances in

attributes from site to site in the operation of an SNS.

Such analyses will help SNS operators to gratify the attributes required by the SNS in

question in order to attract more members. Furthermore, by examination of user needs and

motivations for SNS use, they will be able to arrange gratifying information and provide data for

effective user management, thereby establishing strategies that can promote optimized

managerial performance.

7.2 Limitations and future research

This research drew attributes of SNSes based on the measurement items introduced in

the documents that were available at the time of research in order to add effectiveness to social

marketing. This study, however, had several limitations which must be noted.

First, the pattern of SNS use in consideration of user personalities, motivation for and

level of satisfaction from the SNS use were not applied to the research. There is a lack of

specified research relating to motivation for SNS use and the level of satisfaction by SNS use.

Second, in order to classify the types of SNSes, the surveyed respondents were asked to

select an SNS they mainly used. Cyworld (46%) was the one that is most used by the

respondents in Korea, which impairs explanation ability for the research findings.


Third, validation for the correlation between the seven attributes and their performance

in the actual operation of an SNS does not exist. The research sought to provide explanations on

the SNS attributes through multiple comparison of SNSes. It will be meaningful to verify

empirically how these attributes identified from this research can affect the operation of

communities in reality.

Fourthly, the SNS attributes are limited to seven in this research, but other attributes

such as ‘reliability’, ‘mobility’, ‘continuity’ and so on may also be considered.

Further study will be possible in the future based on the limitations of this research.

First, research on the relationship model relating to the correlation between an SNS and

the personalities of its users, type of the relationship therein, user satisfaction and intention of re-

visit from the marketing perspective and the like may be necessary. The role and importance of

SNSes will be clearly manifested to incorporate success in the additional research findings.

Second, in order to provide sound evidence for the SNS attributes, a survey of SNS

operators should be conducted to check if they experience more effectiveness after having

adopted an SNS strategy.

Appendix A.

The following is a summation of the question items used in the study.

All items solicited responses on a five-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =

neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

Interaction (Deuze 2001; Rafaeli & John 1995; Chen & Wells 1999; Ghosh 1998)

1. The SNS that I use enables me to participate in the conversation with other users through message

boards, communities and chatting.

2. The SNS that I use enables me to perform two-way communication.

3. The SNS that I use enables me to communicate with other people smoothly.

4. The SNS that I use is highly responsive to users.

Information (Ducoffe 2006; Chen & Wells 1999)


1. The SNS that I use offers reliable information that I need.

2. The SNS that I use offers in-depth information that I need.

3. The SNS that I use offers useful information that I need.

4. The SNS that I use offers useful information that I need.

Connection (Deuze 2001; Elliott & Speck 2005)

1. The SNS that I use is easy to access through mobile devices.

2. The SNS that I use is easy to manage in writing comments.

3. The SNS that I use allows easy access to information.

4. The SNS that I use allows easy distribution of content to general portals, sites or other SNS sites.

5. The SNS that I use allows me to work easily without a complicated registration process.

6. The SNS that I use allows me to access information easily without a complicated registration process.

Sharing (Deuze 2001)

1. The SNS that I use enables me to distribute video clips easily.

2. The SNS that I use enables me to distribute music easily.

3. The SNS that I use enables me to convey content (video, music, other content) links easily.

4. The SNS that I use enables me to easily scrap and save content (video, music, other content) on my

private homepage.

Intimacy (Armstrong & Hagel 1996; Lee 2009)

1. Through the SNS that I use, I intend to establish close relationships (neighbors, friends) with other

users.

2. The SNS that I use offers information to other SNS users who have similar interests.

3. Through the SNS that I use, I intend to participate in e offline meetings or events.

4. I am satisfied with the relationships (neighbors, friends) that I have cultivated through the SNS.

5. I believe the relationship with my offline friends has become closer because they were connected with

me through the SNS that I use.

Communication (Deuze 2001)

1. The SNS that I use allows easy communication among users.

2. The SNS that I use allows me to offer a lot of information because the message board is activated.

3. The SNS that I use enables me to write my ideas and opinions positively.

4. The SNS that I use is well equipped with communities, message boards, chatting and so on in which

the users can share opinions.

5. The SNS that I use enables me to send and receive my opinions to other people or groups easily.

6. The SNS that I use enables me to get feedback on my opinions promptly.

Entertainment (Elliott & Speck 2005; Hoffman & Novak 1995; Chen & Wells 1999)

1. The SNS that I use includes multi-media functions (photos, videos).

2. The SNS that I use is interesting.

3. The SNS that I use has a good design and good functions.

4. The SNS that I use is enjoyable.

5. Through the SNS that I use, I can participate in various events.

6. When I visit the SNS that I use, I can read interesting data and writing, and I can view interesting

photos.

References


Alexander, R., & Michael, K. (2008). Functions of Social Networking Services. Paper presented at the COOP08:

the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative System.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social Network Use and Personality. Computers in

Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289-1295. Armstrong, C. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1989). Talk Radio as Interpersonal Communication. Journal of

Communication 39(2), 84-94. Avery, R. K., Ellis, D. G., & Glover, T. W. (1978). Patterns of communication on talk radio. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 22, 5-17. Bantz, C. R. (1982). Exploring uses and gratifications: A comparison of reported uses of television and

reported uses of favorite program type. Communication Research, 9(3), 352-379. Barnes, & Leinhardt, S. (1997). Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. A Developing

Paradigm, 233-252. Bateman, P., Gray, P., & Butler, B. (2006). Community Commitment: How Affect, Obligation, and

Necessity Drive Online Behaviors. in Proceedings of the 27th ICIS. Bays, H., & Mowbray, M. (2001). Cookies, Gift-Giving, and Online Communities. (Eds,Werry, C. and

Mowbray, M.) Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Beak, M. J. (2010). A Study on Effective Social Network Service- interface Application method using

analysis of use-pattern of Internet User. Dep. Of Applied Arts, Hanyang University. Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1992). Community Studies: An Introduction to the Sociology of the Local

Community. Praeger Publishers, New York, NY, USA. Blood, R. (2002). The Weblog handbook;practical advice on creating and maintaining your blog.

PerseusBooksGroup, 76. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation Understanding New Media. MIT Press. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Bruckman, A. S., & Resnick, M. (1993). Virtual Professional Community: Results from the MediaMOO

Project. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/convergence.txt.

Butler, B. (2001). Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based

Model of Online Social Structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346-362. Chen, Q., & Wells, W. D. (1999). Attitude toward the Site. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(5), 27-37. Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation.

Communication Research, 18(4), 443-463. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use

Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111- 1132. Deuze, M. (2001). Online journalism : Modelling the first generation of new media on the world wide

web. First Monday, 6(10), Retrieved Aug. 28, 2005, from

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue2006_2010/deuze/index.html. Ducoffe, R. H. (1995). How Consumers Assess the Value of Advertising. Journal of Current Issues and

Research in Advertising, 17 (1), 1-18. Eighmey, J. (1997). Profiling user responses to commercial web sites. Advertising Research, 37(3), 59-66. Elliott, W. R., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). The 1985 Philadelphia Newspaper Strike: A Uses and

Gratifications Study. Journalism Quarterly, 64, pp. 679-687. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism &

Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable variables

and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/convergence.txt

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue2006_2010/deuze/index.html


Ghosh, S. (1998). Making business sense of the Internet. Harvard Business Review Harvard Business

Review, 126-135. Green-Hamann, S., Eichhorn, K. C., & Sherblom, J. C. (2011). An exploration of Why People Participate

in Second Life Social Support Groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 465~491.

Greenberg, B. S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In J.

G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives

on gratifications research, 71-82. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Lack, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276-297.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,

Communication, & Society, 8(2), 125-147. Henning-Thurau, T., Kevin, P. G., Gianfranco, W., & Dwawne, D. G. (2004). Electronicword-of-

mouthviaconsumer-opinion platforms;Whatmotivates consumers to articulate themselves on the

internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in Hypermedia Computer Mediated Environment:

Conceptual Foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 50-58. Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994). The respective roles of perceived usefulness

and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behavior & Information

Technology, 13(6), 349-361. Jang, D. R. (1998). Positioning effect of Internet advertising. Korea advertisement Research, 14(1), 425. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng (2009). Why we twitter: An analysis of a microblogging community.

Advances in Web Mining and Web Usages Analysis, 5439, 118~138. Jin, S. A. (2008). Newpaper, in hiding 'new growth': Oricom media. Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Hass, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American

Sociological Review. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164-181. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the Web for

political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 54-71. Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, E. (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social

network. Paper presented at the International conference on knowledge discovery and data

mining,137-146. Kim, M. J. (2005). The PR Effect of Company’s Hompage. Chung Ang University. Ko, S. M., Hwang, B. W., & Ji, Y. G. (2010). A Study on Social Network Service and Online Social

Capital：Focusing on a Korean and Chinese Case. Society for e-business Studies, 15(10), 103-

118. Korgaonkar, P. K., & Wolin, L. D. (1999). A Multivariate Analysis of Web Usage. Journal of Advertising

Research, 39(2), 53-68. Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use.

Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 254-263. Lamp, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2005). A face(book) in the cyworld: social searching vs. social

browsing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniverasary conference on

Computer supported cooperative work. Lee, S. H., Ahn, J. H., & Jang, J. J. (2006). The Effect of Perceived Interactivity's Mediator Role on

Mobile Contents Users' Attitude and Behavioral Intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Information

Systems, 16 (3).


Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996). The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 1(4), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-

6101.1996.tb00174.x/full.

Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the

ACM, 47. Oksman, V., & Turtianen, J. (2004). Mobile communication as a social stage : Meaning of mobile

communication in everyday life among teenagers in Finland. New Media & Society, 6(3),

319∼339.

Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting and

Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196. Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Perspective on the Internet as a New

Information Source. American Business Review, 18(2), 43-49. Patrick, F. (2004). Media characteristics and online learning technology. Preece (2010). Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success.

Behavior and Information Technology, 20(5), 347-356. Rafaeli, S. (1986). The electronic bulletin board: A computer-driven mass medium. Computers and the

Social Sciences, 2, 123-136. Reardon, K., & Rogers, E. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media communication: A false dichotomy.

Human Communication Research, 15(2), 284-303. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier: Massachusetts:

Addison-Wesley. Rothaermel, F. T., & Sugiyama, S. (2001). Virtual internet communities and commercial success:

Individual and community-level theory grounded in the a typical case of timezone.com. Journal

of management, 27(3), 297-312. Rubin, A. M. (1981). A multivariate analysis of 60 Minutes viewing motivations. Journalism Quarterly,

58, 529-534. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach NY: Wiley. Skcoms (2008). Evolution of social network service into media. Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social

network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29 (6), 434-445.

Turban, E., & Volinino, L. (2010). Information Technology for Management: Transforming Organizations

in the Digital Economy. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the

Social Group: A self-categorization Theory. New York: Blackwell. Walther, J. B., Gay, G., & Hancock, J. T. (2005). How Do Communication and Technology Researchers

Study the Internet? Journal of Communication, 55(3), 632-657. Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, A., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Diaz, I., et al. (2003). The Social

affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of computer-Mediated

Communication, 8(3), 55. Wu, J. J., & Chang, Y. S. (2005). Towards Understanding Member’s Interactivity, Trust and Flow in

Online Travel Community. Industrial Management & Data System, 15(7), 937-954. Xu, Y., Kim, H. W., & Padmal, V. (2004). Building Initial Online Trust: A Social Learning Theory

Perspective and Application on Brick-andClick Companies. National University of Singapore, 1-

38. Yang, K., C. C. (2007). Factors influencing Internet users' perceived credibility of news-related blogs in

Taiwan. Telematics and Informatics, 24(2), 69-85.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00174.x/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00174.x/full


Date post:	06-May-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	sohn-woong
View:	1,351 times
Download:	1 times