Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The introduction of advanced technology and mobile instant messaging has constituted a novel social milieu which creates opportunities for individuals to initiate interactive and informative communications. Despite the benefits, negative consequences of social media use have been determined, some of which were presented through matters of concerns including isolation, information leaking, social media reliance, and mental devastation. The current study aimed to examine different types of concerns, namely fear of missing out (FoMO), compulsive usage, and privacy concerns, predicting LINE users’ motivations for information sharing intention and information sharing behavior. The data was collected from 562 LINE users with sharing experiences in Thailand. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) manifested that all adapted constructs were adequately reliable and valid. The structural modeling analysis (SEM) further revealed that only FoMO and compulsive usage influenced LINE users’ motivations for information sharing intention which in turn influenced their information sharing behavior. However, the three types of concerns did not have a direct relationship with information sharing behavior. In addition, when different types of shared information were examined, greeting messages significantly influenced information sharing behavior. The findings also yielded implications for understanding the roles of concerns on sharing information via mobile instant messaging (MIM).

Keywords

mobile instant messaging fear of missing out compulsive usage privacy concerns online information sharing

Introduction

The development of technology has considerably promoted social interactions and sharing of information among individuals with less geographical and temporal restrictions. With ubiquitous access to online communication through mobile instant messaging (MIM), information sharing is more prevalent both within and across communities (Kaufmann & Peil, 2020; Pimmer et al., 2018). MIM users tend to be provided with constant exposure to an abundance of information and multiple easy-to-access channels to establish connections with others (Cui, 2016; Tseng et al., 2017). However, there remains a number of drawbacks regarding MIM that substantively exert negative impacts on users’ psychological well-being, such as concerns regarding information breaches (e.g., Oghuma et al., 2016), social exclusion (e.g., Jung et al., 2022), excessive use (e.g., Bahri et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022), and low emotional support (e.g., Lee et al., 2016).

Despite the different maladaptive behavior and emotional problems caused by these concerns, individuals incrementally approach engage in activities, such as sharing and exchanging information, to compensate for their negative feelings (e.g., anxiety, disappointment, fear of missing out) (Fang et al., 2020; Franchina et al., 2018; Kaufmann & Peil, 2020), and improve psychological well-being (Shensa et al., 2020). For instance, the increase of the fear of missing out (FoMO) can increase the frequency of participation in information sharing activities, which enhances a sense of belonging and social involvement (Plaisime et al., 2020). Therefore, sharing information on MIM may potentially yield both positive and negative consequences on individuals’ mental and behavioral conditions. However, in this study, we specifically investigated different types of concerns which might be possible positive factors related to information sharing intention and behavior on MIM. Scholars, psychologists, and future investigations may benefit from understanding the patterns of how various concerns influence information-related activities on platforms that connect multiple users together. In particular, the emerging patterns would in some way inform them in finding solutions to cope with the unpredictability, stress, and other problems that originate from communication through MIM and thus deteriorating MIM users’ mental health and well-being.

Although previous studies (e.g., Khan & Idris, 2019; H.-S. Kim, 2016; Lutz et al., 2018) have examined various concerns as antecedents influencing information sharing behavior on SNSs, few have explicitly investigated how specific types of concerns, namely, FoMO (e.g., Elhai et al., 2020; Rozgonjuk et al., 2020), compulsive usage (Elhai et al., 2017; Loid et al., 2020), and privacy issues (e.g., Hoyle et al., 2017) structurally relate to sharing online information, especially in the context of MIM. This study specifically focused on sharing information via the LINE platform, particularly among MIM users in Thailand, as it is ranked as one of the most widely used messaging applications across Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia (Steinberg, 2020), with over 170 million monthly active users as of September 2021 and approximately 4 billion messages exchanged daily (Iqbal, 2022; Statista, 2021).

This study applied the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to examine how these three concerns predict motivations for sharing intention and in turn sharing behavior among LINE users in Thailand. The structural model in this study extends the current understanding of how MIM users’ concerns originate from their use experiences related to their motivations for information sharing intention and their information sharing behavior.

Literature Review

According to the TRA, an individual’s attitudes are defined as subjective evaluations of and, emotions toward particular objects, people, or activities that affects one’s intention to achieve and, as a consequence, elicit the actual behavior (Ajzen, 2005; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In this study, we refer to “concerns” as a type of “attitudes,” in the sense that the latter involves a person’s mentality and feelings, either positive or negative, which are shaped by various experiences in life (Perloff, 2016), while the former can be understood as an individual’s feeling of anxiety or unease attributable to a person or a specific event. It should be noted that attitudes in this study involve two types of concerns, psychological and behavioral. Psychological concerns include FoMO and privacy concern whereas behavioral concerns involve compulsive technology use.

Notably, although our research focused on sharing information through mobile instant messaging (MIM), the literature that provides explanations of the variables, concepts, and theories employed in this study has concentrated considerably more on social media (SM) than on MIM. We acknowledge this theoretical limitation, but we believe that to gain a better understanding of MIM users’ attitudes, motivations of the intentions to share information, and information-sharing behaviors, it is imperative to review prior studies that provided and examined both the theoretical and empirical backgrounds of the variables of interest in both MIM and SM contexts. It is notable that MIM evidently differs from SM in terms of the degree of specificity of the target audience. While SM allow users to share information through their page feeds rather than through chat boxes or messages, MIM allows users to separate the contexts of its use and limit audience size in accordance with their preferences. Among the many features offered by MIM is the ability to create multiple chat rooms for groups of varying sizes, such as family, friends, colleagues, and classmates. MIM audiences are therefore likely to demonstrate homogenous characteristics in each chat room (Baym & Boyd, 2012; Ihm & Kim, 2018). Despite the differences in terms of the degree of specificity of audiences, we estimated that the findings of previous research conducted in SM contexts may to some extent be comparable and serve as references for the formulation of the hypotheses in this study.

Fear of Missing Out

Fear of missing out (FoMO) is an urge to remain connected to activities or channels, such as communicative events or SM, to avoid negative feelings caused by not being involved in the rewarding outcomes that others experience (Buglass et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013; Scott & Woods, 2018). With the accessibility of internet connections and SM, the experience of FoMO appears increasingly prevalent among SM users (Barry & Wong, 2020). They often have a higher propensity to develop FoMO owing to the affordances that SM and MIM yield, including information sharing, relational maintenance, and escape from undesirable life events (Brown & Kuss, 2020; Coskun & Karayagız Muslu, 2019; C. S. Tang & Koh, 2017).

FoMO is a phenomenon developed from specific events or perceptions, such as losing social connection, and it poses a detrimental impact on individuals. Experiencing FoMO can be temporary, extensive, or permanent, which consequently results in malfunctions in social interactions. The maladaptive usage of SM and MIM further aggravates the condition (Burrow & Rainone, 2017; Casale et al., 2022; Stead & Bibby, 2017). For instance, individuals may unconsciously develop FoMO upon engaging in SM or MIM to compensate for undesirable relational conditions (Billieux et al., 2015; Hayran et al., 2020). Individuals with FoMO tend to exhibit distorted perceptions of social status, sense of belonging, or emotional states.

Moreover, we posit that FoMO also encompasses certain facets of the fear of not being included. Both constructs are potential psychological factors that provoke SM and MIM users, whether teenagers or adults, into mental health problems such as attention deficit, diminished self-esteem, insecurity, anxiety, and paranoid concerns (Buescher, 2018; Casale et al., 2022). The concerns and consequences of social exclusion, whether it occurs via face-to-face, text message, or on social media, affect how people engage in activities such as online information sharing in an ever-changing technological world (Bayer et al., 2019). For example, some people may share more online information to gain acceptance, stay connected with others, and maintain interpersonal relations (Bayer et al., 2019; Greene & Magsamen-Conrad, 2010).

Privacy Concerns

Privacy has been viewed as an individual’s right to manage and take full control over private information without consent from others, thereby being deemed as a process of anonymity preservation (Gupta & Dhami, 2015; Liou et al., 2016). Privacy concerns therefore refer to the concerns that an individual expresses regarding who may have the ability to access personal information or data and how it would be collected and utilized, especially by organizations (Liou et al., 2016; Tan et al., 2012). In addition, the idea of privacy concerns has recently been differentiated from the attitudes toward privacy in that the former seems to be more generic and is basically not restricted to any specific context whereas the latter indicates the contemplation of particular privacy behavior (Kokolakis, 2017). Moreover, studies have discussed the concept of a privacy paradox which refers to a contradiction between how individuals perceive privacy and their actual behaviors (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Dienlin & Trepte, 2015; Norberg et al., 2007; Young & Quan-Haase, 2013). In other words, it depicts the phenomenon in which individuals provide excessive amounts of information and take fewer protective measures despite acknowledging deep concerns that their personal information can be misused (Kokolakis, 2017; Norberg et al., 2007).

In the context of online information sharing, it has been acknowledged that the content that people share reflects and influences their opinions, emotional states, and activities performed in various aspects of life. Often they are less aware of the information being disclosed and how it might be utilized by third parties (Acquisti et al., 2015). Without greater awareness and sufficient knowledge of protective measures, one may feel insecure as to whether their personal identity would be revealed or whether their information would be stolen and subsequently used for certain undesirable purposes (Mitchell & El-Gayar, 2020), considering the nature of information sharing that involves voluntary exchanges of several types of information such as responses or suggestions with multiple unknown parties and geographical or pictorial contents with others (Cannon & Perreault, 1999; Dhir et al., 2017; Rafaeli & Raban, 2005; Y. Tang & Hew, 2022).

Compulsive Technology Usage

Compulsive behavior refers to an irresistibly chronic performance in response to obsessive and recurrent thoughts of activities (James et al., 2017). Such obsessions pertain to psychologically maladaptive reliance and oftentimes trigger detrimental subsequences (Andreassen, 2015; Turel et al., 2011). Compulsive behavior can take place in various daily contexts (e.g., food consumption or use of technology) (Nicholls et al., 2016; Zilberman et al., 2018). In the context of technology use, Clements and Boyle (2018) stated that it is a behavioral addiction in which a person engages with technology for relief, comfort, or stimulation, while discontinuing use results in discomfort or unease. Besides, such compulsive behavior in technology use can be developed persistently despite intention to withdraw or suppress the behavior (Gong et al., 2019).

Moreover, according to Clements and Boyle (2018), compulsive technology use is regarded as a context-driven behavior. For example, someone might be spontaneously checking in on Twitter while in a work meeting if he has become accustomed to sending tweets after work or buffering boredom during the wait of appointments. Also, compulsive technology use is argued to be an “unintentional, unplanned and unreasoned action” (p. 36) For example, one might find himself spontaneously checking in on Twitter during a work meeting, without having the intention to do so. The researchers also believe that compulsive use can occur in conjunction with other appealing and interactive features provided by certain technology platforms, thereby having a greater potential to result in exceptionally high levels of usage.

Research has documented that MIM users who engage frequently in sharing information such as news are likely to be among those who are obsessed with self-presentation, a type of personal characteristics whereby a person enjoys presenting their self-image to others (Ihm & Kim, 2018). Individuals possessing this self-presentation characteristic tend to express compulsions in activities in online social media and communication platforms (James et al., 2017). In particular, given that sharing information online has been considered an activity that helps individuals fulfill their psychological needs, such as relational connection, reduction of anxiety, and improved self-confidence (Coskun & Karayagız Muslu, 2019; Oberst et al., 2017), the development of compulsive usage may be instigated by factors such as information seeking, social recognition, and psychological need satisfaction (Park & Lee, 2011; Throuvala et al., 2019), especially among individuals with unsatisfactory life experiences who often seek compensatory mechanisms (Hsiao, 2017; Wang & Lee, 2020).

Motivations for Information Sharing Intention

According to the theory of reasoned action, an intention is defined as an individual’s willingness to engage in a certain behavior or the level of conscious planning that translates into such behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; F.-Y. Pai & Yeh, 2014). It can be shaped by a variety of factors, such as attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Moreover, it is common that the formation of behavioral intention is the outcome of generalized motivational processes that lead to the behavior of a person toward some specific aims (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Kidwell & Jewell, 2010). Motivational processes may be triggered depending on an individual’s confidence in the ability to perform the behavior successfully (Kidwell & Jewell, 2010). Such processes can also be shaped by rewards, goals, and cognitive controls toward particular objects or activities (S. I. Kim, 2013). In other words, the attitude toward a behavior or subjective norms predicts individuals’ behavior through the mediation of the intention, which are formed by the motivational processes, to undertake that behavior. In the present study, we specifically focused on how different concerns (attitudes) affect motivations for information sharing intention.

In the context of information sharing, MIM or SM users often develop their intention to share information through motivations related to social and supportive benefits (Tseng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2022), particularly when they believe the act of sharing would benefit themselves and others in some way. This includes exchanging updated information, maintaining social ties and recognition, and receiving promotional rewards (Ji et al., 2022; J. Kim et al., 2020; Liou et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2023). Further, research has shown that individuals tend to develop their motivational intentions to disseminate information when they believe that they can place great trust in the receivers, most of whom tend to be their confidants such as family members or close friends (Liou et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2023), or when they fear that they would miss out or not receive a reply (Lu et al., 2011; Neumann et al., 2023). In addition, Di Carlo et al. (2021) and Wallace (2014) indicated that concerns about compulsive behaviors appeared to be more prevalent among individuals who engage unconsciously in problematic use of the Internet (PUI) which includes sharing information and text messaging excessively. Therefore, in this study, we speculate that both psychological concerns (e.g., privacy concerns and FoMO) and behavioral concerns (compulsive use) may influence the way that MIM users formulated motivational intentions to share information.

Information Sharing Behavior

In general, information sharing is defined as a course of actions performed by individuals to provide information, either in a proactive or responsive manner, to reach intended audiences (Litt & Hargittai, 2016; Sonnenwald, 2006). Sun et al. (2023) asserted that MIM users commonly share a variety of content types, such as news, products, comments, personal experiences, or entertainment with other users for interactional, relational, and professional purposes. Scholars have maintained that information sharing can be situationally dependent, subjective, and unstructured since users perform information sharing differently in order to remain socially connected and updated (Kamboj et al., 2018; Lin & Wang, 2020).

The intensity in sharing information is said to be dependent on several factors such as emotional state or concerns over the consequences of sharing. For example, MIM users who experience positive emotions are likely to share information more frequently (Jung et al., 2022). Alternatively, information sharing can be reduced if one is apprehensive about negative consequences such as mental agitation, workplace conflict, or physical threat (Constant et al., 1994). Moreover, the propensity of reciprocally sharing information is expected to take place more frequently if the trust or interpersonal relationship is established (Kraut et al., 1990; Liou et al., 2016). It is evident that trust and social ties play a significant role in both information sharing intention and behavior.

Hypothesized Model

Despite a number of theoretical and empirical studies on the target variables, the way the three concerns (attitudes) influence motivations for information sharing intention and information sharing behavior, particularly through MIM platforms, remains unclear. We formulated hypothetical relations by synthesizing the literature on sharing information online, the theory of reasoned action (TRA), and the following three types of concerns: FoMO, compulsive usage concerns, and privacy concerns as attitudes according to TRA perspectives.

Empirical studies on the three types of concerns have shown that, first, individuals with high FoMO are inclined to engage in MIM activities, particularly sharing information, more frequently when they feel socially disconnected, lack physical connections or lose a sense of belonging (Blackwell et al., 2017; Brown & Kuss, 2020; Coskun & Karayagız Muslu, 2019). Second, it is likely that individuals who are concerned about reducing their consumption of SM will continue to share information on their social networks in order to satisfy their needs, such as establishing relationships, relieving anxiety, and enhancing their self-esteem (Coskun & Karayagız Muslu, 2019; Oberst et al., 2017). Third, online users who have many concerns about their privacy are less disposed to share information or place trust in platforms and their users (Baruh et al., 2017; Liou et al., 2016). However, it is feasible that online users express fewer concerns about the privacy risks when they do exert full control over the information that is shared (Hajli & Lin, 2016) and may be more likely to share information in the case which they gain trust in the platform that they are using (Buchanan, 2020; Gupta & Dhami, 2015). Therefore, as shown in Figure 1, we hypothesized that both FoMO and compulsive usage (CU) influence information sharing behavior positively (H5 and H6). Further, we postulated that privacy concerns (PC) demonstrate either a direct positive or negative influence on information sharing behavior (ISB) (H7).

Figure 1.

Proposed research model and hypotheses.

In the TRA, an individual’s intentions are considered to be a crucial factor in associating attitudes with behaviors. Intentions are determined by attitudes toward behaviors, which influence the likelihood that a behavior will be performed. In this study, our intentions refer specifically to intentions to share information determined by motivations related to social and supportive benefits (Tseng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2022). Based upon the empirical findings discussed in earlier sections, there may be a propensity for the three types of concerns, FoMO (H1) (Lu et al., 2011; Neumann et al., 2023), privacy concerns (PC) (H2) (Liou et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2023), and compulsive usage (CU) (H3) (Di Carlo et al., 2021; Wallace, 2014) to affect MIM users’ motivations for information sharing intention (MIS). Finally, as research has found that individuals’ intention to share information tends to exert a large influence on information sharing behavior (ISB), particularly in online social network communities (Liou et al., 2016), we assume that MIS (H4) influence ISB positively. Overall, we focused specifically in this study on the way the three concerns (attitudes) manifested in the context of sharing information via the LINE platform influenced users’ information sharing behavior via motivations for information sharing intention.

Methods

Research Design

The current study employed a quantitative research design with a convenience sampling method. This type of sampling method is principally purposed to render understanding of relational patterns existing between variables, as well as to allow researchers to accumulate data within several restrictions, such as temporal constrains, financial support, or geographical access (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). In this study, we collected data from LINE instant messaging users in Thailand through an online survey and analyzed the data using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. As a mobile application, LINE offers synchronous and asynchronous messaging with a variety of content, including texts, photos, stickers, and videos, as well as free-of-charge calls between LINE users. Other features of LINE include file storage, financial management, and group communication (Desjarlais, 2020; Sehl, 2021).

The participants were principally recruited from the LINE contact list and groups from two residential communities. The first community was the LINE group where the primary researcher belonged to. The researcher approached the group, explained the objectives of the study, and administered the link to the online survey to all 460 members, who voluntarily agreed to participate. The completion of the survey required approximately 20 min. From the first group, 351 responses were obtained. The other 224 responses were obtained from a LINE group of a nearby community where the researcher received permission to join from the community leader. Upon the recruitment, the researcher made a self-introduction and explicitly stated the agenda of the participation to 280 members. From the two LINE groups, out of 740 members, 575 surveys were completed and returned for a 77.70% response rate.

Participants and Procedures

This study was conducted in mid-2020 with 575 LINE users with sharing experiences. However, 13 survey results were excluded as they did not provide complete responses, thereby leaving a total of 562 surveys. The participants were Thai citizens residing in the Bangkok metropolitan region. The participants consisted of 143 males (25.44%) and 419 females (74.56%). The gender imbalance reflects the actual proportion of the respondents’ occupations, most of which are female-dominated such as housemakers, educational practitioners, and office personnel. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 76 years, with an average age of 40.16 years, and was broadly categorized into three groups, namely, 255 young adults (45.4%), 146 middle-aged adults (26%), and 161 older adults (28.6%). The categorization into three age groups was made considering the fact that each of the three groups tends to demonstrate varying levels of concerns (Van Den Broeck et al., 2015) and motivation (Jo et al., 2022) regarding the sharing of information online. Participation in this non-remunerated study was voluntary. Confidentiality was strictly enforced throughout the study. We informed all participants about the research purposes and assigned them a unique identification number to ensure anonymity. They were also asked to review and sign the consent form prior to their participation.

Furthermore, we broadly defined the characteristics of LINE users according to the amount of time spent using the LINE application per day. It was found that 17.3% (n = 97) were light users (less than 1 hr/day), 42.9% (n = 241) were moderate users (around 3 hr/day), and 39.8% (n = 224) were heavy users (around 5 or more hr/day). These three characteristics were applied from research on social media use (Twenge & Campbell, 2019; Twenge & Martin, 2020). Furthermore, the questionnaire asked the participants to provide additional information regarding what they had recently shared with their LINE contacts. The information being shared were classified into four categories: entertainment such as movies, music, and sport (87.01% of the respondents shared entertainment), general information such as news, travel, and promotional discounts (45.20% of respondents), knowledge and education such as health, weight loss, and food recipes (35.47% of respondents), and greeting messages such as daily and holiday wishes (30.25% of the respondents).

Moreover, prior to the survey administration, the researchers translated them into Standard Thai, the participants’ native language. The translated instruments were further verified by experts in translation to ensure the semantic parallelism of both languages. The translated instruments were then pilot-tested with 10 frequent LINE users. In addition, a team of experts reviewed all questionnaire items in several panel meetings. The primary focus of this evaluation was to ascertain that the translated questions were valid, captured the essence of the construct, and did not contain ambiguous meaning (DeVellis, 2017). Comments from the experts and feedback from the pilot test were then applied to the revision process of the survey. Moreover, an interrater reliability for the translated survey was also performed during the final panel discussion. This process involved three people including the first and second authors of the current study and one university lecturer specializing in the translation across English and Thai language. The result of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was .64, indicating that the three raters’ agreement of the translated instruments was of sufficient reliability (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981).

Instruments

We adapted valid and reliable items from multiple studies to measure how different types of concerns predict motivations for information sharing intention, and information sharing behavior of LINE users in Thailand. It should be noted that we did not select all items from the originally developed scales due to reliability and validity concerns. We considered the items that evidently measure the concept/facets of the target variable, that have sufficient factor loadings and contain no ambiguous meaning. In other words, the meaning of each selected item should not be understood in multiple ways. The adaptation of the items was performed to respond to the investigated context, such as rewording and inserting the word “LINE.” For example, “I often share various contents in my WeChat Moments to people” was reworded to “I often share messages on LINE.” Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Descriptions of the instruments are briefly described below.

FoMO Scale

Fear of missing out was assessed by a scale modified from Przybylski et al. (2013) with a wording modification to match the investigated context. The scale contained three items. The items were “I am afraid that no one will respond to the message I share (FoMO1),”“I am worried that no one will read the message I share (FoMO2),” and “I am afraid if I will not see someone else messages me (FoMO3).” The internal reliability of the modified scale was sufficiently high (Cronbach’s alpha = .92).

Compulsive Usage

A scale developed by Meerkerk et al. (2009) was adapted to measure compulsive usage in this study. Three items were included in the scale. The items are “I am concerned about trying to cut down on using LINE without success (CU1),”“I am concerned about becoming restless or troubled if I am prohibited from using LINE (CU2),” and “I am concerned about using LINE so much that it has had a negative impact on my family (CU3).” The scale yielded good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha of .79.

Privacy Concerns

Privacy concerns were measured by three items based on a scale modified from Dhir et al. (2017). The items were “I am concerned about my privacy on LINE (PC1),”“I am concerned that the information I submit to LINE could be misused (PC2),” and “I am concerned that a person can find my private information on LINE (PC3).” This adapted short-version scale exhibited high internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .86).

Motivations for Information Sharing Intention

Motivations for information sharing intention were assessed by using five items adapted from Chiu et al. (2006). The items measuring motivations in this scale were modified based on LINE users’ perceived social and supportive benefits. The items are “I believe that sharing information on LINE could consolidate me, my contacts, and connections (MIS1),”“I think if I could share more on LINE, I would be able to strengthen my relationships with others (MIS2),”“I believe that my relationship with others will be closer and tighter from sharing information on LINE (MIS3),”“I believe that I can get a lot of attention and friendship from sharing information on LINE more often (MIS4),” and “I believe that I can make more friends from sharing information on LINE more often (MIS5).” The scale possessed a high internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha of .93.

Information Sharing Behavior

Information sharing behavior was evaluated by a scale adapted from Chen et al. (2019). It consisted of three items, including “I often share messages on LINE (ISB1),”“I often upload pictures or videos to LINE (ISB2),” and “I often write down my thoughts, experiences, and opinions on LINE (ISB3).” The internal reliability of the scale was acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha of .77.

Data Analysis

We performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) through a maximum likelihood (ML) estimator to verify the underlying structure and the validity of the adapted constructs. We also used different forms to assess the proposed model’s construct validity and reliability. More specifically, we considered retaining items with factor loadings greater than 0.50. We also estimated the convergent validity of the model by means of composite reliability (CR) >0.07 and average variance extracted (AVE) >0.05 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2019;). In addition, we computed two additional criteria widely adopted in SEM literature to test discriminant validity, namely, the average shared variance (ASV) and the maximum shared variance (MSV). Both ASV and MSV values of all constructs included in the study should not exceed those of AVE (Barclay et al., 1995). These measures are commonly reported for covariance-based (CB) SEM. However, recent studies (e.g., Hair et al., 2017; Voorhees et al., 2016) suggested that the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) can be applied to CB-SEM approach as it is a more precise measure to assess the discriminant validity. Therefore, in this study we also reported the HTMT results as part of the measurement model.

Moreover, we assessed the overall model fit using multiple recommended criteria, namely chi-square (χ²) (significant p-values expected), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) >0.94, comparative fit index (CFI) >0.94 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <0.07, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤0.08. These recommended goodness-of-fit indices were suitable for a study with the participant number above 250 whereas the number of observed variables were within the range of 12 to 30 (Hair et al., 2019).

Subsequently, we conducted a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to examine the relationship among the three types of concerns, motivations for information sharing intention, and information sharing behavior on MIM. In the structural model, we also controlled the following categorical variables: age, gender, and time spent on MIM (Bowe & Wohn, 2015; Coyne et al., 2020; Lin & Wang, 2020) and types of shared information, namely entertainment, general information, knowledge and information, and greeting messages (Buchanan, 2020; S.-E. Kim et al., 2021) as they have been found to affect users’ information sharing behavior.

Results

Assessment of the Measurement Model

A summary of the measurement model’s construct validity and reliability is presented in Table 1. The values of skewness and kurtosis of the retained items were within the range of -1 and +1, suggesting no severe deviation of data from normality (George & Mallery, 2016). The data from the 562 participants were therefore suitable for subsequent analyses. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the measurement model demonstrated acceptable fit indices: χ² = 389.92, df = 125, χ² / df = 3.12, p < .05, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.04. As a good fitting model was reached on the first attempt of the analysis and the standardized factor loadings of the originally proposed 18 items were greater than the suggested cut-off value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2019), ranging from 0.65 to 0.93 (p < .001), no further modification of the measurement model was required.

Table 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Five Constructs (N = 562).

Items	Skew	Kurtosis	Loadings	Mean	SD	AVE	CR	MSV	ASV	α
Fear of missing out				2.31	1.11	0.81	0.92	0.75	0.65	.92
FoMO1	0.41	2.18	0.84
FoMO2	0.49	2.23	0.94
FoMO3	0.47	2.16	0.91
Compulsive usage				2.23	1.00	0.55	0.79	0.37	0.31	.79
CU1	0.37	−0.77	0.67
CU2	0.49	−0.89	0.77
CU3	0.91	−0.22	0.77
Privacy concerns				3.64	1.01	0.68	0.86	0.52	0.48	.86
PC1	−0.61	−0.32	0.83
PC2	−0.48	−0.43	0.77
PC3	−0.56	−0.51	0.86
Motivations for information sharing intention				2.94	0.99	0.73	0.93	0.72	0.52	.93
MIS1	−0.36	−0.31	0.65
MIS2	−0.09	−0.72	0.85
MIS3	−0.12	−0.68	0.92
MIS4	−0.07	−0.61	0.94
MIS5	−0.06	−0.78	0.88
Information sharing behavior				2.80	0.96	0.54	0.78	0.35	0.28	.77
ISB1	0.02	−0.79	0.70
ISB2	0.02	−0.82	0.76
ISB3	0.01	−0.74	0.74

In addition, the CFA results in Table 1 revealed that the values of composite reliability (CR) ranged from 0.78 to 0.93, exceeding the minimum value of 0.70. (Clark & Watson, 1995). The values of Cronbach’s reliability coefficients (α) were relatively high as well, ranging from 0.77 to 0.93. The values of average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.54 to 0.81, exceeding the recommended cut-off value of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The convergent validity and reliability of the measurement model were therefore adequate as evidenced by these statistical assessments.

Also noted in Table 1, the CFA results showed that the study constructs have sufficient discriminant validity as the square root of the AVEs exceeds the average shared variance (ASV) and the maximum shared variance (MSV). Moreover, as shown in Table 2, the correlation between any two constructs in the model was in the range of .06 and .65, which does not violate the suggested value of <.80 (Sarstedt et al., 2014). Moreover, as seen in Table 3, the discriminant validity of the model was also confirmed by the HTMT results, ranging from 0.08 to 0.74. This suggests that all constructs were distinguishable as the correlations between all pairs of conceptually different constructs were lower than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2014).

Table 2.

Results of the Correlations Among the Constructs.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. FoMO	1
2. CU	0.63**	1
3. PC	0.17**	0.17**	1
4. MIS	0.45**	0.43**	0.16**	1
5. ISB	0.40**	0.37**	0.06	0.55**	1

Note:*p < .05, **p < .01. FoMO = fear of missing out, CU = compulsive usage, PC = privacy concerns, MIS = motivations for information sharing intention, ISB = information sharing behavior.

Table 3.

Results of the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT).

	1	2	3	4	5
FoMO	1
CU	0.74	1
PC	0.18	0.21	1
MIS	0.48	0.50	0.18	1
ISB	0.47	0.47	0.08	0.65	1

Note: FoMO = fear of missing out, CU = compulsive usage, PC = privacy concerns, MIS = motivations for information sharing intention, ISB = information sharing behavior.

Structural Relationships Among the Latent Variables

Results of the SEM analysis revealed that the model fit was considered acceptable (χ² = 556.85, df = 177, χ² / df = 3.15, p < .05, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.07). The percentage variance explained in “Motivations for information sharing intention” was 28% and for “Information sharing behavior,” it was 45%. As shown in Figure 2, “FoMO” and “Compulsive usage” were the significant predictors of “motivations for information sharing intention” (path coefficient = 0.20, p < .01 and = 0.35 p < .001, respectively). However, “Privacy concerns” did not show a significant relationship with “motivations for information sharing intention.” The results suggested that individuals who fear that their shared messages may be ignored or receive no responses from their recipients and who use LINE regularly to an excessive amount are more likely to establish sharing intention motivations. Moreover, LINE users who consider data privacy as a primary concern may possess varying behaviors in terms of information sharing. A one-way ANOVA was further conducted to examine the difference among three generations of LINE users. The result demonstrated statistically significant differences between LINE users of the three generations (F = 7.29, p < .01, Table 4). According to a post-hoc analysis using the Scheffé test, middle-aged and older adult users were significantly more concerned about the privacy of their information shared via LINE instant messaging than their young adult counterparts. However, there were no significant differences in the privacy between the middle-aged and older adult groups.

Figure 2.

SEM results of the relationships among concerns, motivations for information sharing intention, and information sharing behavior.

Table 4.

Comparisons of LINE Users’ Three Generational Groups on Their Privacy Concern.

Age group	Mean (SD)
Young adults (a) (N = 255)	3.48 (1.02)
Middle-aged adults (b) (N = 147)	3.84 (0.92)
Older adults (c) (N = 160)	3.74 (1.05)
F(ANOVA)	7.29**
Post hoc (Scheffé)	(b) > (a) (p < .01); (c) > (a) (p <.05)

Note:*p < .05, **p < .01.

The SEM results also indicated that “Motivations for information sharing intention” was a significant predictor of “Information sharing behavior” (path coefficient = 0.49, p < .001). This result implied that when LINE users possess motivations for information sharing intention, they would further share information and respond to shared messages. These results support the proposed hypotheses H1, H2, and H4.

Furthermore, we investigated the direct relationships between the three types of concerns and the information sharing behavior. The results indicated that “FoMO,”“Compulsive usage,” and “Privacy concerns” had no significant direct relationship with “Information sharing behavior.” The results did not lend support to hypotheses H5, H6, and H7. Overall, three of the seven proposed hypotheses were supported in this study. In addition, although the potential confounding effect of the demographic factors such as age, gender, and time spent on MIM was controlled, we identified that the three factors had no significant confounding effect on the users’ information sharing behavior. Types of shared information were additionally observed. We found that greeting messages was the only type of the shared information which significantly related to the sharing behavior (path coefficient = 0.11, p < .05).

Discussion

The constant development of the internet and mobile technology has resulted in the prevalent connectivity of people regardless of geographical and temporal conditions. Such phenomenon has attracted attention among researchers to examine various facets of utilizations from behavioral and psychological perspectives (e.g., Brown & Kuss, 2020; Li & Lin, 2019). For example, due to the dramatic rise of the use of social media among users of mobile devices worldwide, some studies (e.g., Dhir et al., 2018; Rozgonjuk et al., 2020) examined factors that trigger detrimental psychological states and maladaptive behavior.

Our study further extended theoretical knowledge and understanding of mobile instant messaging and information sharing behavior by specifically investigating different types of concerns as antecedents influencing motivations for information sharing intention and information sharing behavior through LINE. We discuss the findings of the study in the following paragraphs.

The SEM analysis results support our hypothesis that LINE users’ concerns about FoMO (H1) and compulsive usage (H3) can positively predict their motivations for intentionally sharing information online. A possible explanation of our finding could be that LINE users who are concerned about FoMO might be induced to constantly engage in social gatherings, especially through sharing information, to prevent a feeling of disconnection, exclusion, and outdatedness. Moreover, LINE users who are anxious about compulsive usage may still hold positive perceptions of online information sharing. We conjecture that such perceptions could help them formulate positive motivations for sharing intention in the hope that certain consequences of sharing information online would yield benefits on relational formation and consolidation, either interpersonally or socially. In particular, people tend to have the intention to perform different activities on social media, including sharing information, to establish social connection and recognition as well as alleviate negative emotions (Bouffard et al., 2022; Wang & Lee, 2020).

In addition, our hypothesis that LINE users’ motivations for intention to share information can be a significant positive predictor of their actual information sharing behavior (H4) is also supported in this study. This finding is in line with the concept that individuals tend to engage in activities or behavior with positive attitudes if they believe that such performance will generate desirable outcomes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; J. Kim et al., 2020). Considering the characteristics of participants in the present study, more than three-fourths are considered moderate-to-heavy LINE users. Their frequent sharing behavior involves information that is commonly related to greetings. Salutation is a common daily practice in every culture. It is performed to facilitate conversational initiations and relational mediation (Nilsson et al., 2020). In an online environment, contents, including greetings, can be in various forms, such as textual or audiovisual messages and, with technological affordances, they are distributed effortlessly (Klein et al., 2020). Such information can be therefore viewed as tools that potentially trigger individuals to share information through visual platforms to achieve desirable outcome expectations (e.g., building up and consolidating relationships with others or receiving social recognition) (Cai & Shi, 2022; P. Pai & Tsai, 2016).

However, four of the proposed hypotheses were rejected in this study. The findings indicated that there was no significant relationship between LINE users’ privacy concerns and their motivations for sharing intention (H2). Also, we found that all three concerns did not have a direct relation to sharing behavior (H5–H7). In other words, the concerns about compulsive usage and FoMO indirectly influenced information sharing behavior via motivations for information sharing intention. This might be attributed to the possibility that individuals who are concerned with social connections, usage intensity, and informational privacy may be motivated differently to either engage in or refrain from activities on social media and MIM (Dhir et al., 2018; Roberts & David, 2020; Shim et al., 2017), one of which is sharing information. It could also be possible that the participants formulate and possess various perceptions of the three concerns when it comes to sharing information via MIM. Furthermore, with regards to the privacy aspect, we believe that it may not be appropriate to thoroughly assume that LINE users in Thailand do not experience the privacy paradox despite the insignificant results. It is therefore noteworthy that willingness to disclose information is personal- and context-dependent when it is sensitive to privacy or security issues (Hong et al., 2021; John et al., 2011).

Based on the specific observation on the privacy issue among the three user generations in this study, the middle-aged and the older adults appear to express more concerns toward privacy of their shared information than their younger counterparts. This finding is consistent with that of Van Den Broeck et al. (2015). However, there is some controversy about why young adults express fewer concerns about privacy issues than other age groups. Van Den Broeck et al. (2015) hypothesized that this may be attributable to a lack of personal awareness of information sharing and information literacy skills, which include knowledge of privacy protections. Alternatively, other research (e.g., Madden et al., 2013; Tufekci, 2021) has posited that growing up as digital natives, young adults tend to possess a greater capability to tailor their privacy settings in accordance with their own preferences and engage more frequently in privacy-protective behaviors. In some way, these complex privacy characteristics may reflect the privacy paradox phenomenon that occurs commonly among young adult users (Hargitttai & Marwick, 2016). However, additional research is required to validate this conjecture. Moreover, we speculate that there may be other environmental cues contributing to the relationship between privacy concerns and motivations for information sharing intention and behavior among MIM users.

Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Directions

Overall, it was found that, among these concerns, FoMO and compulsive usage significantly predicted LINE users’ motivations for information sharing intention whereas privacy concerns did not. Motivations for information sharing intention further significantly predicted the information sharing behavior. The three concerns, however, did not have a direct relationship with information sharing behavior.

The present study has some limitations. First, the generalization of the findings may be restricted as the data were collected from two specific urban communities in Thailand. As previous studies (e.g., Barry & Wong, 2020; Busch et al., 2021; Fatima et al., 2019) has revealed that people from different regions and cultures are likely to have various perceptions of the three concerns and information sharing behaviors through social media or mobile instant messaging platforms, further examination may be required to determine whether the relational patterns observed in this study are valid in other contexts or in other population groups with different cultural backgrounds.

Second, since the data of the study is based on individuals’ self-reported responses, the findings could be susceptible to bias to some degree while causal relationships could not be established among the variables. Despite these limitations, we decided to use the survey to collect data as it has potential to generate insights from a large number of participants (Cohen et al., 2018). Also, we suggest that additional research may consider employing other methods, such as interviews and observation. This will enable us to gain a deeper understanding of how psychological concerns influence the behavior of MIM users in sharing information.

Third, the scope of this study is limited to testing the structural relationships among the focused variables based on the perspectives of the whole group sample. However, as research has shown that age and gender could have a significant impact on privacy concerns (e.g., Dhir et al., 2017) and on MIM users’ information sharing behavior (e.g., Bowe & Wohn, 2015; Coyne et al., 2020; Lin & Wang, 2020), we suggest that future research may employ a more comprehensive technique, such as multigroup SEM, to examine the structural relations between the three concerns and to identify the role they play in information sharing and behavior across different genders and age groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Shray Presenger and Nicholas O. Awuor for support and encouragement.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Statement

All procedures in the current study were performed adhering to the ethical standards outlined by the Academic Research Ethics Board at the Navamindradhiraj University and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Thorough explanations regarding research purposes, relative procedures, and participatory anonymity were provided to the participants prior to the administration of the questionnaire. They were also informed that they could withdraw at any time. A written consent form was presented at the beginning of the questionnaire. The completion of the questionnaire indicated the acknowledgment and the participatory agreement of the participants.

ORCID iDs

Yossiri Yossatorn

Regina Juchun Chu

References

Acquisti

Brandimarte

Loewenstein

(2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465

Ajzen

(2005). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Andreassen

C. S.

(2015). Online social network site addiction: A comprehensive review. Current Addiction Reports, 2, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-015-0056-9

Bahri

Fauzi

Ahmad

N. S.

(2020). A communication overload scale for use with mobile instant messaging in work management. Digital Business, 1(1), 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2021.100003

Barclay

D. W.

Higgins

Thompson

(1995). The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.

Barry

C. T.

Wong

M. Y.

(2020). Fear of missing out (FoMO): A generational phenomenon or an individual difference? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(12), 2952–2966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520945394

Barth

de Jong

M. D. T.

(2017). The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013

Baruh

Secinti

Cemalcilar

(2017). Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. The Journal of Communication, 67(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12276

10.

Bayer

J. B.

Hauser

D. J.

Shah

K. M.

O’Donnell

M. B.

Falk

E. B.

(2019). Social exclusion shifts personal network scope. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01619

11.

Baym

N. K.

Boyd

(2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705200

12.

Billieux

Philippot

Schmid

Maurage

De Mol

Van der Linden

(2015). Is dysfunctional use of the mobile phone a behavioural addiction? Confronting symptom-based versus process-based approaches. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(5), 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1910

13.

Blackwell

Leaman

Tramposch

Osborne

Liss

(2017). Extraversion, neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social media use and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.039

14.

Bouffard

Giglio

Zheng

(2022). Social media and romantic relationship: Excessive social media use leads to relationship conflicts, negative outcomes, and addiction via mediated pathways. Social Science Computer Review, 40, 1523–1541. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211013566

15.

Bowe

B. J.

Wohn

D. Y.

(2015). Are there generational differences?: Social media use and perceived shared reality. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Social Media and Society, 17, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/2789187.2789200

16.

Brown

Kuss

D. J.

(2020). Fear of missing out, mental wellbeing, and social connectedness: A seven-day social media abstinence trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4566. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124566

17.

Buchanan

(2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. Plos One, 15(10), e0239666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666

18.

Buescher

B. B.

(2018). The power within: Guide to transformative healing. Lulu Publishing Services.

19.

Buglass

S. L.

Binder

J. F.

Betts

L. R.

Underwood

J. D. M.

(2017). Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.055

20.

Burrow

A. L.

Rainone

(2017). How many likes did I get?: Purpose moderates links between positive social media feedback and self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.005

21.

Busch

P. A.

Hausvik

G. I.

Ropstad

O. K.

Pettersen

(2021). Smartphone usage among older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 121, 106783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106783

22.

Cai

Shi

(2022). The influence of the community climate on users’ knowledge-sharing intention: The social cognitive theory perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 41, 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1808704

23.

Cannon

J. P.

Perreault

W. D.

(1999). Buyer–seller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600404

24.

Casale

Fioravanti

Gioia

Redditi

Spada

(2022). Fear of missing out and fear of not being up to date: Investigating different pathways towards social and process problematic smartphone use. Current Psychology. Advance onilne publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03368-5

25.

Chen

Sun

Song

X. Y.

(2019). Information-sharing behavior on WeChat moments: The role of anonymity, familiarity, and intrinsic motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2540. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02540

26.

Chiu

C.-M.

Hsu

M.-H.

Wang

E. T. G.

(2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001

27.

Cicchetti

D. V.

Sparrow

S. A.

(1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127–137.

28.

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309

29.

Clements

J. A.

Boyle

(2018). Compulsive technology use: Compulsive use of mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.018

30.

Cohen

Manion

K. Morrison

, (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.

31.

Constant

Kiesler

Sproull

(1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.4.400

32.

Coskun

Karayagız Muslu

(2019). Investigation of problematic mobile phones use and fear of missing out (FoMO) level in adolescents. Community Mental Health Journal, 55(6), 1004–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-019-00422-8

33.

Coyne

S. M.

Rogers

A. A.

Zurcher

J. D.

Stockdale

Booth

(2020). Does time spent using social media impact mental health?: An eight year longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106160

34.

Cui

(2016). Beyond “connected presence”: Multimedia mobile instant messaging in close relationship management. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157915583925

35.

Desjarlais

(2020). The psychology and dynamics behind social media interactions. IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

36.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

37.

Dhir

Torsheim

Pallesen

Andreassen

C. S.

(2017). Do online privacy concerns predict selfie behavior among adolescents, young adults and adults? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 815. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00815

38.

Dhir

Yossatorn

Kaur

Chen

(2018). Online social media fatigue and psychological wellbeing—A study of compulsive use, fear of missing out, fatigue, anxiety and depression. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.012

39.

Di Carlo

Pettorruso

Alessi

M. C.

Picutti

Collevecchio

Migliara

Baroni

Gambi

Cinosi

Martinotti

Grant

J. E.

di Giannantonio

(2021). Characterizing the building blocks of problematic use of the Internet (PUI): The role of obsessional impulses and impulsivity traits among Italian young adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 106, 152225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152225

40.

Dienlin

Trepte

(2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2049

41.

Eagly

Chaiken

(1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

42.

Elhai

J. D.

Hall

B. J.

Levine

J. C.

Dvorak

R. D.

(2017). Types of smartphone usage and relations with problematic smartphone behaviors: The role of content consumption vs. Social smartphone use. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2017-2-3

43.

Elhai

J. D.

Yang

Rozgonjuk

Montag

(2020). Using machine learning to model problematic smartphone use severity: The significant role of fear of missing out. Addictive Behaviors, 103, 106261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106261

44.

Fang

Wang

Wen

Zhou

(2020). Fear of missing out and problematic social media use as mediators between emotional support from social media and phubbing behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 107, 106430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106430

45.

Fatima

Yasin

Liu

Wang

Afzal

Yasin

(2019). Sharing information online rationally: An observation of user privacy concerns and awareness using serious game. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 48, 102351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2019.06.007

46.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

47.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

48.

Franchina

Vanden Abeele

van Rooij

A. J.

Lo Coco

De Marez

(2018). Fear of missing out as a predictor of problematic social media use and phubbing behavior among Flemish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(10), 2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102319

49.

George

Mallery

(Eds.). (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14th ed.). Routledge.

50.

Gong

Zhang

K. Z. K.

Chen

Cheung

C. M. K.

Lee

M. K. O.

(2019). Antecedents and consequences of excessive online social gaming: A social learning perspective. Information Technology and People, 33(2), 657–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2018-0138

51.

Greene

Magsamen-Conrad

(2010). Disclosure decisions in existing relationships online: Exploring motivations for CMC channel choice. In Park

Abels

E. G.

(Eds.), Interpersonal relations and social patterns in communication technologies: Discourse norms, language structures, and cultural variables (pp. 48–76). IGI Global.

52.

Gupta

Dhami

(2015). Measuring the impact of security, trust and privacy in information sharing: A study on social networking sites. Journal of Direct Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 17(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1057/dddmp.2015.32

53.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

54.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Matthews

L. M.

Matthews

R. L.

Sarstedt

(2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574

55.

Hajli

Lin

(2016). Exploring the security of information sharing on social networking sites: The role of perceived control of information. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2346-x

56.

Hargitttai

Marwick

(2016). What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. Journal of International Communication, 10(21), 3737–3757. https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-148157

57.

Hayran

Anik

Gürhan-Canli

(2020). A threat to loyalty: Fear of missing out (FOMO) leads to reluctance to repeat current experiences. Plos One, 15(4), e0232318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232318

58.

Henseler

Dijkstra

T. K.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Diamantopoulos

Straub

D. W.

Ketchen

D. J.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Calantone

R. J.

(2014). Common Beliefs and reality about PLS. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928

59.

Hong

Chan

F. K. Y.

Thong

J. Y. L.

(2021). Drivers and inhibitors of Internet privacy concern: A multidimensional development theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE, 168, 539–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04237-1

60.

Hoyle

Das

Kapadia

Lee

A. J.

Vaniea

(2017). Was my message read? Privacy and signaling on Facebook messenger [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17) (pp. 3838–3842).

61.

Hsiao

K.-L.

(2017). Compulsive mobile application usage and technostress: The role of personality traits. Online Information Review, 41(2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2016-0091

62.

Ihm

Kim

E. M.

(2018). The hidden side of news diffusion: Understanding online news sharing as an interpersonal behavior. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4346–4365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818772847

63.

Iqbal

(2022). Line revenue and Sage statistics (2022). BusinessofApps. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/line-statistics/

64.

James

T. L.

Lowry

P. B.

Wallace

Warkentin

(2017). The effect of belongingness on obsessive-compulsive disorder in the use of online social networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(2), 560–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334496

65.

Mieiro

Huang

(2022). How social media advertising features influence consumption and sharing intentions: The mediation of customer engagement. Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2020-0067

66.

Yang

Yan

(2022). Spreaders vs victims: The nuanced relationship between age and misinformation via fomo and digital literacy in different cultures. Advance online publication. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221130476

67.

John

L. K.

Acquisti

Loewenstein

(2011). Strangers on a plane: Context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 858–873. https://doi.org/10.1086/656423

68.

Jung

Kim

Lee

S. H.

(. (2022). The impact of belongingness and graphic-based emoticon usage motives on emoticon purchase intentions for MIM: An analysis of Korean KakaoTalk users. Online Information Review, 46(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2020-0036

69.

Kamboj

Sarmah

Gupta

Dwivedi

(2018). Examining branding co-creation in brand communities on social media: Applying the paradigm of stimulus-organism-response. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.001

70.

Kaufmann

Peil

(2020). The mobile instant messaging interview (MIMI): Using WhatsApp to enhance self-reporting and explore media usage in situ. Mobile Media & Communication, 8(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157919852392

71.

Khan

M. L.

Idris

I. K.

(2019). Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: A reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(12), 1194–1212.

72.

Kidwell

Jewell

R. D.

(2010). The motivational impact of perceived control on behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(9), 2407–2433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00664.x

73.

Kim

H.-S.

(2016). What drives you to check in on Facebook? Motivations, privacy concerns, and mobile phone involvement for location-based information sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.016

74.

Kim

Namkoong

Chen

(2020). Predictors of online news-sharing intention in the U.S. And South Korea: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Communication Studies, 71(2), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1726427

75.

Kim

S.-E.

Kim

H. L.

Lee

(2021). How event information is trusted and shared on social media: A uses and gratification perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(5), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2021.1943600

76.

Kim

S. I.

(2013). Neuroscientific model of motivational process. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(98), 98–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00098

77.

Klein

E. G.

Roberts

Manganello

Mcadams

Mckenzie

(2020). When social media images and messages don't match: Attention to text versus imagery to effectively convey safety information on social media. Journal of Health Communication, 25(11), 879–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1853282

78.

Kokolakis

(2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002

79.

Kraut

R. E.

Fish

R. S.

Root

R. W.

Chalfonte

B. L.

(1990). Informal communication in organizations: Form, function, and technology. In Oskamp

Spacapan

(Eds.) Human reactions to technology: The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 145–199). Sage Publications.

80.

Lee

S. B.

Lee

S. C.

Suh

Y. H.

(2016). Technostress from mobile communication and its impact on quality of life and productivity. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(7-8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1187998

81.

Lin

T. T. C.

(2019). Over-connected? A qualitative exploration of smartphone addiction among working adults in China. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2170-z

82.

Lin

Wang

(2020). Examining gender differences in people’s information-sharing decisions on social networking sites. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.004

83.

Liou

D.-K.

Chih

W.-H.

Hsu

L.-C.

Huang

C.-Y.

(2016). Investigating information sharing behavior: The mediating roles of the desire to share information in virtual communities. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(2), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0279-2

84.

Litt

Hargittai

(2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society, 2(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482

85.

Loid

Täht

Rozgonjuk

(2020). Do pop-up notifications regarding smartphone use decrease screen time, phone checking behavior, and self-reported problematic smartphone use? Evidence from a two-month experimental study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.007

86.

Lutz

Hoffmann

C. P.

Bucher

Fieseler

(2018). The role of privacy concerns in the sharing economy. Information Communication & Society, 21(10), 1472–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1339726

87.

Watanabe

Liu

Uji

Shono

Kitamura

(2011). Internet and mobile phone text-messaging dependency: Factor structure and correlation with dysphoric mood among Japanese adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1702–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.009

88.

Madden

Lenhart

Cortesi

Gasser

Duggan

Smith

Beaton

(2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center.

89.

McMillan

J. H.

Schumacher

(2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.

90.

Meerkerk

G. J.

Van Den Eijnden

R. J. J. M.

Vermulst

A. A.

Garretsen

H. F. L.

(2009). The compulsive Internet use scale (CIUS): Some psychometric properties. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0181

91.

Mitchell

El-Gayar

(2020). The effect of privacy policies on information sharing behavior on social networks: A systematic literature review [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–8).

92.

Neumann

Huddleston

P. T.

Behe

B. K.

(2023). Fear of missing out as motivation to process information: How differences in Instagram use affect attitude formation online. New Media & Society, 25, 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211011834

93.

Nicholls

Statham

Costa

Micali

Viner

R. M.

(2016). Childhood risk factors for lifetime bulimic or compulsive eating by age 30 years in a British national birth cohort. Appetite, 105, 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.036

94.

Nilsson

Norrby

Bohman

Marian

K. S.

Wide

Lindström

(2020). What is in a greeting? The social meaning of greetings in Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.007

95.

Norberg

P. A.

Horne

D. R.

Horne

D. A.

(2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x

96.

Oberst

Wegmann

Stodt

Brand

Chamarro

(2017). Negative consequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: The mediating role of fear of missing out. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.008

97.

Oghuma

A. P.

Libaque-Saenz

C. F.

Wong

S. F.

Chang

(2016). An expectation-confirmation model of continuance intention to use mobile instant messaging. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.05.006

98.

Pai

F.-Y.

Yeh

T.-M.

(2014). The effects of information sharing and interactivity on the intention to use social networking websites. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 48(4), 2191–2207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9886-5

99.

Pai

Tsai

H.-T.

(2016). Reciprocity norms and information-sharing behavior in online consumption communities: An empirical investigation of antecedents and moderators. Information Management, 53(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.08.002

100.

Park

B.-W.

Lee

K. C.

(2011). The effect of users’ characteristics and experiential factors on the compulsive usage of the smartphone. In Kim

T.-H.

Adeli

Robles

R. J.

Balitanas

(Eds.), Ubiquitous computing and multimedia applications: Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 151, pp. 438–446). Springer.

101.

Perloff

R. M.

(2016). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century. Routledge.

102.

Pimmer

Lee

Mwaikambo

(2018). Mobile instant messaging: New knowledge tools in global health? Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 10(3), 334–349.

103.

Plaisime

Robertson-James

Mejia

Núñez

Wolf

Reels

(2020). Social media and teens: A needs assessment exploring the potential role of social media in promoting health. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 205630511988602. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119886025

104.

Przybylski

A. K.

Murayama

DeHaan

C. R.

Gladwell

(2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

105.

Rafaeli

Raban

D. R.

(2005). Information sharing online: A research challenge. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2005.006251

106.

Roberts

J. A.

David

M. E.

(2020). The social media party: Fear of missing out (FoMO), social media intensity, connection, and well-being. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(4), 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1646517

107.

Rozgonjuk

Sindermann

Elhai

J. D.

Montag

(2020). Fear of missing out (FoMO) and social media's impact on daily-life and productivity at work: Do WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat use disorders mediate that association? Addictive Behaviors, 110, 106487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106487

108.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Smith

Reams

Hair

J. F.

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002

109.

Scott

Woods

H. C.

(2018). Fear of missing out and sleep: Cognitive behavioural factors in adolescents’ nighttime social media use. Journal of Adolescence, 68, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.009

110.

Sehl

(2021, April 29). What is the Line app? Everything brands need to know. Hootsuite. https://blog.hootsuite.com/line-app/

111.

Shensa

Sidani

J. E.

Escobar-Viera

C. G.

Switzer

G. E.

Primack

B. A.

Choukas-Bradley

(2020). Emotional support from social media and face-to-face relationships: Associations with depression risk among young adults. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 38–44.

112.

Shim

Shin

Lim

(2017). Moderating effect of motivation for MIM use on the association between MIM bullying opportunities and MIM bullying behaviours. Behaviour and Information Technology, 36(12), 1299–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2017.1384509

113.

Sonnenwald

D. H.

(2006). Challenges in sharing information effectively: Examples from command and control. Information Research, 11(4), 1–18.

114.

Statista. (2021, May 11). LINE - statistics & facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/1999/line/

115.

Stead

Bibby

P. A.

(2017). Personality, fear of missing out and problematic internet use and their relationship to subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016

116.

Steinberg

(2020). LINE as super app: Platformization in East Asia. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 205630512093328. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120933285

117.

Sun

Wang

Guan

(2023). How the strength of social ties influences users’ information sharing and purchase intentions. Current Psychology, 42, 7712–7726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02102-x

118.

Tang

C. S.

Koh

Y. Y.

(2017). Online social networking addiction among college students in Singapore: Comorbidity with behavioral addiction and affective disorder. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 25, 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2016.10.027

119.

Tang

Hew

K. F.

(2022). Effects of using mobile instant messaging on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00306-6

120.

Tan

Qin

Kim

Hsu

(2012). Impact of privacy concern in social networking web sites. Internet Research, 22, 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211214575

121.

Throuvala

M. A.

Griffiths

M. D.

Rennoldson

Kuss

D. J.

(2019). Motivational processes and dysfunctional mechanisms of social media use among adolescents: A qualitative focus group study. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.012

122.

Tseng

F.-C.

Cheng

T. C. E.

Teng

C.-I.

(2017). How does media richness contribute to customer loyalty to mobile instant messaging? Internet Research, 27(3), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2016-0181

123.

Tufekci

(2021). Facebook, Youth and Privacy in Networked Publics. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 6(1), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14270

124.

Turel

Serenko

Giles

(2011). Integrating technology addiction and use: An empirical investigation of online auction users. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1043–1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409972

125.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

(2019). Media use is linked to lower psychological well-being: Evidence from three datasets. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 90, 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-019-09630-7

126.

Twenge

J. M.

Martin

G. N.

(2020). Gender differences in associations between digital media use and psychological well-being: Evidence from three large datasets. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.018

127.

Van Den Broeck

Poels

Walrave

(2015). Older and wiser? Facebook use, privacy concern, and privacy protection in the life stages of emerging, young, and middle adulthood. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 205630511561614. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115616149

128.

Voorhees

C. M.

Brady

M. K.

Calantone

Ramirez

(2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4

129.

Wallace

(2014). Internet addiction disorder and youth. EMBO Reports, 15(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338222

130.

Wang

Lee

M. K. O.

(2020). Why we cannot resist our smartphones: Investigating compulsive use of mobile SNS from a stimulus-response-reinforcement perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00596

131.

Wang

Zhang

Lee

M. K. O.

(2022). Time flies when chatting online: A social structure and social learning model to understand excessive use of mobile instant messaging. Information Technology and People, 35, 2167–2192. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2020-0624

132.

Young

A. L.

Quan-Haase

(2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook. Information Communication & Society, 16(4), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2013.777757

133.

Zilberman

Yadid

Efrati

Neumark

Rassovsky

(2018). Personality profiles of substance and behavioral addictions. Addictive Behaviors, 82, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.03.007

Investigating the Relationships Among LINE Users’ Concerns,Motivations for Information Sharing Intention and Information Sharing Behavior

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Fear of Missing Out

Privacy Concerns

Compulsive Technology Usage

Motivations for Information Sharing Intention

Information Sharing Behavior

Hypothesized Model

Methods

Research Design

Participants and Procedures

Instruments

FoMO Scale

Compulsive Usage

Privacy Concerns

Motivations for Information Sharing Intention

Information Sharing Behavior

Data Analysis

Results

Assessment of the Measurement Model

Structural Relationships Among the Latent Variables

Discussion

Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Directions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics Statement

ORCID iDs

References