This article “strengthens the core” of uses and gratifications theory by offering reliance, credibility, and interactivity as measures of social media use. Although reliance is recognized as a predictor of media use, it has not been extensively studied in regard to social media. The findings indicate that reliance is the strongest predictor of motivations for using social network sites (SNS) and blogs but is a weak predictor of Twitter use. Although results are mixed on whether credibility influences media use, credibility is a significant and positive predictor of blog and SNS use. Importantly, this study introduces interactivity as a predictor of social media use. Interactivity is a strong and significant influence on SNS and Twitter but only weakly affects blog use. Results from an online survey support reliance as a measure of media use and suggests that credibility and interactivity are also effective measures that should be included in future studies.
AndzulisJ. M.PanagopoulosN. G.RappA. (2012). A review of social media and implications for the sales process. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32, 305–316.
2.
Ball-RokeachS. J. (1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency: A sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485–510.
3.
BeckerL. B.WhitneyD. C. (1980). Effects of media dependencies: Audience assessment of government. Communication Research, 7, 95–120.
4.
BlumlerJ. G.KatzE. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
boydd. m.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
6.
BrodieR. J.IlicA.JuricB.HollebeekL. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66, 105–114.
7.
BrownC.GrovesJ. (2010). New media, enduring values: How three news organizations managed change in an age of uncertainty. Electronic News, 4, 131–145.
8.
BucyE. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20, 373–383.
9.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new sources of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
10.
CamajL.WeaverD. H. (2013). Need for orientation and attribute agenda-setting during a U.S. election. International Journal of Communication, 7, 1442–1463.
11.
CorominaL.SarisW. E. (2009). Quality of media use measurement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21, 424–450.
12.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.
13.
DilliplaneS.GoldmanS. K.MutzD. C. (2013). Televised exposure to politics: New measures for a fragmented media environment. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 236–248.
14.
EvelandW. P.JrHutchenM. J.ShenF. (2009). Exposure, attention, or “use” of the news? Assessing aspects of the reliability and validity of a central concept in political communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 3, 224–244.
15.
FischerP.JonasE.FreyD.Schulz-HardtS. (2005). Selective exposure to information: The impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 469–492.
16.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J.PureR.MarkovA.HartsellE. (2014). Mitigating risk in ecommerce transactions: Perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-generated ratings in product quality and purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research, 14, 1–23.
17.
GazianoC.McGrathK. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451–462.
18.
HargittaiE.NeumanW. R.CurryO. (2012). Taming the information tide: Perceptions of information overload in the American home. The Information Society, 28, 161–173.
HilligossB.RiehS. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management, 44, 1467–1484.
21.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyJ. J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
JamesM. L.WotringC. E.ForrestE. J. (1995). An exploratory study of the perceived benefits of electronic bulletin board use and their impact on other communication activities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39, 30–50.
23.
JavaA.SongX.FininT.TsengB. (2007, 8). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56–65). ACM.
24.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2002). Webelievability: A path model examining how convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 619–642.
25.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 622–642.
26.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the internet among politically interested internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 175–182.
27.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2010). Still cruising and believing: An analysis of online credibility across three presidential campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 54, 57–77.
28.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2013, 8). Some like it lots: The influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
29.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2014). Credibility of social network sites for political information among politically interested internet users. Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication, 19, 957–974.
30.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2015). Reasons to believe: Comparing the influence of reliance and gratifications on credibility of social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 544–555. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.002
31.
KayeB. K. (2007). Blog use motivations: An exploratory study. In TremayneM. (Ed.), Blogging, citizenship, and the future of media (pp. 127–148). New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
KayeB. K. (2010). Between Barack and a net place: Users and uses of social network sites and blogs for political information. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), The networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 208–231). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
KayeB. K.JohnsonT. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the Web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 54–71.
34.
KayeB. K.JohnsonT. J. (2006). The age of reasons: Motives for using different components of the internet for political information. In WilliamsA. P.TedescoJ. C. (Eds.), The internet election: Perspectives on the role of the Web in campaign2004 (pp. 147–167). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
35.
KayeB. K.JohnsonT. J. (2011). Hot diggity blog: A cluster analysis examining motivations and other factors for why people judge different types of blogs as credible. Mass Communication & Society, 14, 236–263.
36.
KimY. (2015). Exploring the effects of source credibility and others’ comments on online news evaluation. Electronic News, 9, 160–176.
37.
LeeA. M. (2013). News audiences revisited: Theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 300–317.
38.
LiuI. L. B.CheungC. M. K.LeeM. K. O. (2010). Understanding Twitter usage: What drives people to continue to tweet. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) (pp. 928–939), Taipei, Taiwan.
39.
McLeodJ. M.BeckerL. (1981). The uses and gratifications approach. In NimmoD.SandersK. (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 67–100). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
MetzgerM. J., (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078–2091.
41.
MillerM. M.ReeseS. D. (1982). Media dependency as interaction effects of exposure and reliance on political activity and efficacy. Communication Research, 9, 227–248.
42.
MollenA.WilsonH. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63, 919–925.
43.
ParmeleeJ. H.BichardS. L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
44.
PriorM. (2009). Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. Journal of Politics, 71, 893–908.
45.
RobinsonM. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of The Selling of the Pentagon. American Political Science Review, 70, 409–432.
46.
RosengardD.Tucker-McLaughlinM.BrownT. (2014). Students and social news: How college students share news through social media. Electronic News, 8, 120–137.
47.
RubinA. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37–51.
48.
RubinA. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34, 67–77.
49.
RubinA. M. (1994). Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs, 60, 98–105.
50.
RuggieroT. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 3–37.
51.
SeidmanG. (2014). Expressing the ‘true self’ on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 367–372.
SundarS. S.LimperosA. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 504–525.
54.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 289–313.
55.
WeimanG.BrosiusH.-B. (2016). A new agenda for agenda-setting research in the digital era. In VoweG.HennP. (Eds.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp. 26–44). New York, NY: Routledge.
