A SURVEY STUDY ON ONLINE

SHARING BEHAVIORS AND

MOTIVATIONS

PROVIDENCE

Predicting the online virality ofdigital entertainment and news content

Goal survey studystudy online sharing behaviors and motivations to share information online

STRUCTURE

1. Who are the respondents?i. Demographicsii. Media and news repertoireiii. ICT knowledge and experience

2. Motivations to share information online3. Four types of online sharers4. Predictors of online sharing activity

WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS?

I. DEMOGRAPHICS

N = 1237

Gender Men = 52.6%; Women = 47.4%

Age M=32 (SD=12.81)

Education

Higher education (33.4%); University (29.3%)

Profession

White-collar (39.7%); Student (33.7%)

II. MEDIA AND NEWS REPERTOIRE

▷ 85.9% own a smartphone▷ Online platforms

▷ Weekly to daily use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat

Facebook 96% Instagram 49.6%

Twitter 66.7% Snapchat 38%

LinkedIn 59% Foursquare 27.6%

II. MEDIA AND NEWS REPERTOIRE

▷ Following news Top 3 (scale 1-4)1. Reading news on computer (M=3.75; SD=.63)2. Following news on Facebook (M=3.67; SD=.77)3. Reading news on smartphone/tablet (M=3.65; SD.74)

▷ News interest Top 3 (scale 1-10)1. Societal issues (climate, economy, education, health…) (M=7.95; SD=1.8)2. Politics (parliament, ministers, elections, parties… (M=6.7; SD=2.31)3. Cultural activities (music, film, theater…) (M=6.49; SD=2.39)

▷ Overall, the respondents can be considered active news searchers (scale 1-5): M=4, SD=.67

III. ICT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

▷ ICT knowledge– Book restaurant/hotel online: 98.3%– Safe photo’s/documents in cloud: 83.9%– Install add blocker: 70.7%– Make a WIFI hotspot: 65.4%– Make website: 48.8%

▷ Overall, the respondents are confident in their online skills (scale 1-5): M=3.89; SD=.73

MOTIVATIONS TO SHAREINFORMATION ONLINE

“I share information online to …”

1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree

Feel important M = 2.59 (SD = 1.08)

Make a good impression M = 2.53 (SD = 1.02)

Gain status M = 2.42 (SD = 1.07)

Stay in touch with others M = 3.36 (SD = 1.08)

Exchange ideas M = 4.07 (SD = 0.74)

Interact with others M = 3.50 (SD = 0.97)

“I share an article online when …”Absolute numbers (N=1237)

Percentage (%)

I think the theme of the article is important 507 40.99

It can be useful for others 297 24.01

Others will find it interesting 275 22.23

It corresponds with my hobbies or interests 261 21.1

It deserves much attention 232 18.76

Others have to read it 186 15.04

It concerns something fun 150 12.13

Others will like it too 121 9.78

I’m indignant 114 9.22

It corresponds with my expertise 55 4.45

“I do not share an article online because…”

Absolute numbers (N=1237)

Percentage (%)

I don’t have a tendency to share much 581 47

I think it wont interest anyone else 556 44.9

It is too long/ complex 265 21.4

I’m afraid for negative responses 118 9.5

I don’t know how my friends will react 89 7.2

I’m afraid my friends will find it offensive 86 7

I don’t know how to share easily 16 1.3

Titles

I wouldn’t share

this

I would share this

Teenager develops technology to reduce plastic garbage in oceans 421 687

Strike on December 15th: how will it influence traffic? 587 521

Government campaign gives advise on power shortage 690 418

More and more children cannot find education in Brussels 739 359

How to keep your mind and body young 833 277

16 reasons why it’s awesome to have a sister 897 211

Should drinking during pregnancy be illegal? 931 177

Aggression in traffic in Belgium is declining 941 167

12 ideas for original Christmas lighting 971 137

6 easy dishes for people who are allergic to gluten 975 133

Belgian runner caught for doping 1026 82

FINDINGS

▷ The participants are more motivated to share information because of social connection than self-presentation

▷ The social component is an important motivator for both sharing and NOT sharing information online

▷ Informative and more serious information is preferred when sharing

FOUR TYPES OF ONLINE SHARERS

CLUSTER ANALYSES

▷ K-means clustering analyses based on – Online sharing activity

(i.e., status updates, likes, sharing online articles, songs, videos)

– Self presentation(i.e. gaining status, feeling important, make a good impression)

– Social connection(i.e. staying in touch with others, changing ideas)

FourSharingtypes

SOCIAL SHARERS(N= 330)

REFLECTIVE SHARERS

(N=353)

MODERATE SHARERS (N=299)

UNCARING SHARERS (N=255)

Online sharing activity

M=3.66SD=0.45

M=3.60SD=0.51

M=2.62SD=0.42

M=2.22SD=0.57

Self-presentation

M=2.03SD=0.49

M=3.59SD=0.45

M=2.66SD=0.47

M=1.46SD=0.43

Social connection

M=3.92SD=0.49

M=4.06SD=0.47

M=3.63SD=0.46

M=2.75SD=0.66

“15-35” VERSUS “35+”15-35 35+ Sig. level

Social connection scale M=3.66; SD=.69 M=3.75 SD=.69 p<.05* Self presentation scale M=2.59; SD=.91 M=2.48; SD=.89 p>.05 Online activity scale M=3.1; SD=.71 M=2.7; SD=.83 p>.05 Online platforms

Facebook 89.7% 83.5% p<.01** E-mail 35.8% 63.4% p<.001*** Twitter 44.8% 40.5% p>.05

LinkedIn 7.9% 13.3% p<.05* Blog 10.5% 12.9% p>.05

AudienceWide audience 25.3% 27.2% p>.05

Professional network 19.4% 28.7% p<.01* Personal network 70.1% 66.7% p>.05

Self-confidence scale M=4.01; SD=.63 M=3.78; SD=.77 p<.001***

PREDICTORS OF ONLINE ACTIVITY

REGRESSION ANALYSES

Online sharing activity

Socialconnection

Self-presentati

onSelf-confidence

News searcher

Age

Gender

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3

MODEL 4

TO CONCLUDE

▷ The ‘social’ in SNS make it preferred sharing platforms

▷ Viral might work best when it connects people through content

▷ Self-confidence, hence online experience could mark a ‘sharing divide’

▷ Thank you!▷ Ike Picone - @ikepicone – ike.picone@vub.ac.be▷ Sarie Robijt - @sarierobijt – sarie.robijt@vub.ac.be ▷ Ralf De Wolf - @R_dwlf – ralf.dewolf@vub.ac.be

SUMMARY OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR VARIABLES PREDICTING ONLINE ACTIVITY

Model 1B

(S.E.)

β

Model 2B

(S.E.)

β

Model 3B

(S.E.)

βModel 4B (S.E.)

β

Demographics

Gender-.142(.049)**

-.093**

-.120(.049)**

-.079**

.031(.048)

.02 -.023 (.044) -.015

Age.003(.002)

.045 .002(.002)

.027 .007(.002)***

.111***

.004 (.002)*

.07*

News searcher.148(.036)***

.131***

.102(.034)**

.09** .082 (.031)**

.072**

Self-confidence

.395(.035)***

.354***

.246 (.033)***

.221***

Gratifications

Self-presentation

.134 (.025)***

.16***

Social connection

.379 (.035)***

.342***

Constant 3.107 2.539 .932 -.034

R2 .01 .03 .14 .31

SOCIAL SHARERS

Social sharers (n=330) score high on online activity and are motivated to share for exchanging ideas and staying in touch with others. Self-presentation is less important. They especially use Facebook to share online articles and their intended audience primarily consists of family and friends. Similar to reflective sharers they are self-confident in their online activity (i.e. able to check the reliability of an internet source, participate in an online discussion, etc.) and have a positive view on ICT.

REFLECTIVE SHARERS

Reflective sharers (n=353) are also active online and are motivated to share because of social connection and self-presentation. Hence, making a good impression and gaining status is equally important as staying in touch with others. Facebook is the most important platform to share online articles, but in comparison with the other three types, Twitter, LinkedIn and Blog are also important. The personal network is the first intended audience, but sharing for a wide and professional network is significantly greater than in the other three types. They also have a positive view on ICT.

MODERATE SHARERS

Moderate sharers (n=299) score average for online activity and self-presentation and average to high on social connection. They share many characteristics with the uncaring sharers: e-mail is the second most important platform for sharing articles and their intended audience also consists of family and friends and those whom they share specifically. Their view on technology and experience is also similar to that of uncaring shares, but less pronounced. On all levels they are moderate.

UNCARING SHARERS

Uncaring sharers (n=255) rarely share information online and score low on self-presentation and social connection as motivators. They are less active on Facebook and Twitter for sharing online articles, while e-mail is still the second most important online platform (after Facebook). Their intended audience consists of family friends and one or two people with whom specifically they want to share. Although their ICT experience and vision on technology is not negative they are less self-confident and more worried about privacy than the social and reflective sharers.