4.6 Article

Who Do You Think You Are? Common and Differential Effects of Social Self-Identity on Social Media Usage

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 71-101

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2017.1296747

关键词

reinforced use; relational identity; self-identity; social identity; social media; social media use; varied use

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71602063, 71332001]
  2. Modern Information Management Research Centre at Huazong University of Science and Technology (HUST)
  3. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Summer Writing Group Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intense competition requires that social media service providers execute two major business strategies: exploiting current functions while simultaneously exploring incremental innovation. Realization of these strategies is related to two types of member behavior: reinforced use and varied use. Drawing on identity theories, we examine the common and differential effects of two levels of social self-identity-relational identity and social identity-on reinforced and varied use and the moderating role of inertia on their effects on social media usage. Our results reveal that, although both identities have similar effects on usage behavior, users with higher social identities are more oriented toward variety seeking, while those with stronger relational identities are more oriented toward reinforcement. Inertia negatively moderates the impacts of social identity on social media use, but not the relationships between relational identity and social media use. The current research contributes to theory by decomposing social media usage into reinforced and varied use and reveals the common and differential influences of two levels of social self-identity on user behavior. Social media service providers should focus more on social identity to promote varied use and focus more on relational identity when they want to enhance reinforced use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据