12-Gironda and Korgaonkar 2014 SNS Usage

Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Understanding consumers’ social networking site

usage
John T. Gironda & Pradeep K. Korgaonkar
To cite this article: John T. Gironda & Pradeep K. Korgaonkar (2014) Understanding consumers’
social networking site usage, Journal of Marketing Management, 30:5-6, 571-605, DOI:
10.1080/0267257X.2013.851106
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.851106
Published online: 08 Jan 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2130
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 13 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Journal of Marketing Management, 2014
Vol. 30, Nos. 5–6, 571–605, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.851106
Understanding consumers’ social networking site

usage
John T. Gironda, Huizenga School of Business & Entrepreneurship,
Nova Southeastern University, USA
Pradeep K. Korgaonkar, Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton, USA
Abstract The purpose of this research is to examine consumer motivations to

use social networking sites (SNSs) for three distinct activities: (1) general SNS
usage, (2) the joining of a business’s SNS page and (3) clicking on an
advertisement on a SNS. To assist with this exploration we draw upon the
decomposed theory of planned behaviour as a theoretical lens and conduct a
mixed-method study that utilises both an empirical investigation as well as
qualitative focus group interviews in order to delve deeper into specific
reasons why individuals engage in SNS activities. Results show that a number
of antecedents such as attitude, compatibility, relative advantage, complexity,
normative influences and self-efficacy come into play when determining SNS
usage activities. However, specific antecedents may vary according to the
explicit activity under investigation. This study’s main contribution involves
advancing our understanding of consumer behaviour as it relates to SNS
activities by examining not only antecedents to intention but also attitude,
subjective norms and behavioural control. Other contributions include
additional development of the SNS literature, integrating SNSs into a classical
theoretical framework and providing valuable insights and implications for both
practitioners and researchers alike.
Keywords social networking sites; social media; internet marketing; interactive

marketing; decomposed theory of planned behaviour; theory of reasoned action;
structural equation modelling
Introduction
The rise of social media has not only changed the internet as we know it, but has
also dramatically changed the way people communicate and interact (Anderson,
2008; Hung & Li, 2007; Petrescu & Korgaonkar, 2011). Under the larger
umbrella of social media, social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook,
MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter have had a particularly substantial impact. The
ascension to mainstream popularity of SNSs has been nothing short of incredible
considering that only 10 years ago these websites did not even exist and now the
© 2014 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
572 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30
estimate of the number of SNS users is over 1 billion people (Facebook, 2013; Shih,
2010; Twitter, 2012). In addition, Facebook the most popular SNS is accessed by
citizens of over 180 countries (Shih, 2010). Needless to say the dramatic rise in
popularity of this new medium has created huge opportunities for marketers.
Many marketers have begun to advertise on SNSs not only because of the large
audiences, but also because SNSs allow for very specific targeting of selected
individuals that fall within a marketer’s pre-specified characteristics. When listing
an advertisement on an SNS, a marketer can impute geographic, demographic and
psychographic variables into the system, and because the SNS has this information on
all users, the marketer’s advertisement will only be displayed to SNS users that fall
within those criteria.
In addition to advertising on SNSs, even more firms have developed their own
business pages and profiles on SNSs in order to better communicate, engage and
interact with current and potential consumers. In this way, SNSs provide a novel way
for marketers to build and maintain consumer–brand relationships. Furthermore,
SNS business pages and advertisements can act as a vehicle for marketers to
increase brand familiarity, which has been shown to have a positive impact on the
efficacy of brand-related messages (Delgado-Ballester, Navarro, & Sicilia, 2012;
Lange & Dahlén, 2003). Business pages on SNSs also provide an extremely
convenient platform for fellow consumers of a brand to generate word-of-mouth
among one another, which has been shown to provide key information to firms
regarding what consumers value (Dobele & Lindgreen, 2011) and to be a useful tool
for firms to enhance the effectiveness of firm generated marketing communications
(Hogan, Lemon, & Libai, 2004; Huang, Cai, Alex, & Tsang, 2011).
If marketers can develop a more comprehensive awareness of consumers’ SNS
activity intentions, and behaviours, they may be able to use these insights in the
development and implementation of more effective SNS advertisements, business’s
SNS pages and other marketing tools in order to better serve, attract and retain
customers.
The purpose of this study is to work towards developing a more thorough
understanding of consumers’ SNS usage by exploring the determinants of consumer
intention and behaviour in regard to three activities related to SNSs (1) general SNS
usage, (2) the joining of a business’s SNS page and (3) clicking on an advertisement
on a SNS (these three activities will frequently be referred to as the SNS behaviours
henceforth). These three types of activities represent some of the most relevant uses
of SNS sites from a marketer’s perspective, since many firms are trying to find ways
to encourage consumers to join their SNS business pages in order to better connect
and communicate with current and prospective customers as a way to foster ongoing
consumer–brand relationships with them. In addition, many marketers have begun
advertising on SNSs as a way to build awareness for their brands and eventually
generate sales via consumer click-throughs on these ads. Therefore, it stands to
reason that marketers would be interested in factors that contribute to consumers’
intentions with regard to these activities. Furthermore, advertisements and premium
SNS business pages also represent major sources of revenue for SNSs and thus these
sites should also be very interested in that information as well. Moreover, in order to
maximise the potential for these activities, marketers and SNSs themselves would also
benefit from a greater understanding of what drives consumers to use to these sites in
the first place. Hence, it is important to study the activity of general SNS usage as
well. Each of these activities represents an important and distinct behaviour. For
Gironda and Korgaonkar Understanding consumers’ social networking site usage 573
instance, individuals can simply use SNSs without joining a business’s SNS page or
clicking on an SNS advertisement. In that same vein, users can also join a business’s
SNS page without clicking on an SNS ad or vice versa. Therefore, we believe each
warrants inclusion in this study.
A theoretical lens that may be a particularly effective part of a conceptual
framework for exploring the above-mentioned SNS behaviours is the decomposed
theory of planned behaviour (DTPB) (Taylor & Todd, 1995). In addition to
examining many of the constructs contained in similar intention-based theories
such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the
technology acceptance model (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), the DTPB
includes similar constructs to those theories as well as antecedents to those
constructs. Therefore, the DTPB should not only provide insight into consumers’
attitudes and intentions with regard to SNS activities, it should also allow for a
deeper understanding since the antecedents to attitude and other constructs will be
examined as well.
Although the DTPB has been used in a wide variety of technological contexts
including internet usage (Choudrie & Dwivedi, 2006), online banking (Shih & Fang,
2004), and e-commerce adoption (Lim & Dubinsky, 2005; Lin, 2007), the unique
aspects of SNSs should warrant the application of the DTPB in this case while still
providing a novel contribution. For instance, due to their higher levels of interactivity
and consumer-control SNSs offer increased levels of engagement, relevance and
deliverability of targeted results over that of typical internet usage contexts
(Vollmer & Precourt, 2008). This increased interactivity, targetability and consumer
control is found via SNSs (1) offering users the ability to customise a unique personal
profile, (2) providing a unique platform for users to share and discuss ideas and (3)
the ability for users to ‘like’, ‘tag’ and ‘share’ other users’ comments and postings.
These unique elements of SNSs present an opportunity for consumers to remain in
control of the creation and the management of their experience. As a result SNSs are
able to offer a presence on the internet that is engaging, relevant and behaviour
oriented, while also transforming online activity from a more individual experience
to a more community oriented one (Hall & Rosenberg, 2009). In addition, the speed,
ease and sphere of influence of users’ actions on SNSs offer much greater viral
potential for the dissemination of electronic word of mouth (Qualman, 2012).
A study such as the one conducted here should lead to several contributions for
both marketing practitioners and scholars alike including (1) the advancement of our
understanding of consumer behaviour as it relates to SNS activities, by not only
examining antecedents to intention and behaviour, but also the respective
antecedents of attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. (2) In
addition, the mixed-method study to be employed here will also contribute to a
deeper knowledge of specific reasons as to why individuals engage in respective SNS
activities. (3) Furthermore, this study will also contribute to research and theory by
assisting with the further development of the SNS literature, as well as the integration
of SNSs into the classical theoretical framework of the DTPB, while also providing a
further test of that theory in the novel context of SNSs.
The remainder of this paper will be structured as follows; first, the paper’s
conceptual framework, research model and hypotheses will be discussed. Second,
results of an empirical study examining consumers’ SNS intentions and behaviours
will be reviewed. Third, the findings of a follow-up qualitative focus group
investigation will be presented. Finally, the paper will conclude with a discussion of
implications for marketing managers and academicians, and consider possible

directions for future research.
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
The decomposed theory of planned behaviour

The DTPB was developed by Taylor and Todd (1995) as an expansion of the theory
of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), which in itself was an extension of
the TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Each of the three theories involves using
measurements of attitudinal and personality variables to predict a behaviour based
on intention to perform that behaviour. The central factor in each theory is that of
intention since, as a general rule, the stronger the intention to engage in a behaviour,
the more likely the behaviour will actually be conducted (Ajzen, 1991). The
developmental sequence of the three theories begins with TRA followed by that of
TPB which is further expanded by the DTPB. In the TRA, the antecedents to
intention are (1) attitude towards the behaviour and (2) subjective norms. The TPB
adds one additional variable that of perceived behavioural control which was believed
to also be an important antecedent to intention and behaviour. Therefore, all of the
variables of the TPB are also a part of the TRA except for perceived behavioural
control.
The DTPB contains all of the variables of both the TRA and TPB and incorporates
additional antecedent variables that may provide more complete explanatory power
in terms of intention and usage that the TRA and TPB may not fully take into
account. Figure 1 displays this study’s conceptual model of SNS activity. Following
the figure, each variable will be briefly discussed along with the hypotheses for
investigation in this study.
Intention, behaviour and attitude towards SNS activity

Intention is an indicator of motivational factors an individual possesses that will
influence his or her behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Kim, Ferrin, & Rao, 2008; Sheppard,
Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Intentions are a signal of how much effort people are
planning to exert in performing a particular behaviour in question. For this paper’s
study, intention will be viewed as the strength of an individual’s indication of the
three SNS behaviours mentioned earlier (1) that he or she will engage in SNS usage,
(2) join a business’s SNS page and/or (3) click on a banner advertisement displayed on
an SNS. Intention is seen as a central factor, since it is the immediate antecedent to a
person’s behaviour; therefore, the stronger the intention to perform a behaviour the
greater the likelihood of a person actually performing that behaviour (Schifter &
Ajzen, 1985). In this case, the stronger the degree of a person’s intentions to engage
in the SNS behaviours, the more likely that individual will be to actually engage in the
SNS behaviours. While the link between intention and behaviour was assessed in this
study, the relationship between intention and behaviour was not hypothesised for two
reasons; first, given the great number of hypotheses to be tested in this study, and
second since the relationship between intention and behaviour has been empirically
supported in numerous studies, it seems appropriate to forgo hypothesising that
relationship here.
Figure 1 Conceptual model of SNS activity.

Adapted from: Taylor and Todd (1995)
Relative
advantage of
SNS activity
Compatibility Attitude
of SNS towards
activity SNS activity
Complexity of
SNS activity
Normative Subjective Intention to

influences of SNS activity
norms towards engage in SNS behaviour
SNS activity SNS activity
Self-efficacy
regarding SNS
activity Perceived
control over
Facilitating SNS activity
conditions of
SNS activity
Attitude towards the behaviour refers to an individual’s positive or negative

feelings in regard to performing the behaviour in question. Attitude towards a
behaviour is assumed to be positively related to intention to engage in a behaviour
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Regarding SNSs, the more favourable an attitude one has
towards a particular SNS activity, the greater their intentions towards engaging in the
activity should be. For instance, if an individual holds a positive attitude towards
using an SNS and/or the joining of businesses’ SNS pages, the greater their intentions
towards performing those behaviours should be. Thus, favourable attitude towards a
particular SNS behaviour is hypothesised to be positively related to SNS behavioural
intentions:
H1a: Favourable Attitude towards using an SNS will be positively related to intention
to use an SNS.
H1b: Favourable Attitude towards joining a business’s SNS page will be positively
related to intention to join a business’s SNS page.
H1c: Favourable Attitude towards clicking on an advertisement displayed on an
SNS will be positively related to intention to click on an advertisement displayed
on an SNS.
Subjective norms
The second antecedent to intention is subjective norms, which refer to an individual’s
perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). For
SNSs, an example of subjective norms would be how important individuals or groups
in a person’s life, such as friends and/or family members, would feel about them using
an SNS. The higher the perceived social pressure to perform (or refrain from
performing) each of the SNS behaviours, the higher the intentions should be. Since
SNSs are social in nature, it stands to reason that the influences of others and
perceived peer or family pressures will impact a person’s intentions. Therefore,
favourable subjective norms with regard to SNS activities are also hypothesised to
be positively related to a person’s intention to engage in SNS behaviours:
H2a: Favourable Subjective Norms in regard to using an SNS will be positively

related to intention to use an SNS.
H2b: Favourable Subjective Norms in regard to joining a business’s SNS page will
be positively related to intention to join a business’s SNS page.
H2c: Favourable Subjective Norms in regard to clicking on an advertisement
displayed on an SNS will be positively related to intention to click on an
advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Perceived behavioural control

Perceived behavioural control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing
a particular behaviour in question. It is assumed to reflect both past experience as
well as future hindrance involved in performing a behaviour (Ajzen, 1985). The
perceived behavioural control variable accounts for situations where the individual
does not possess complete control over his or her behaviour since the actual
performing of a behaviour may depend on other non-motivational factors such as
the availability of requisite opportunities and resources (Ajzen, 1985). Many times a
person may be highly motivated, but may lack opportunities and resources to carry
out a behaviour. In addition, an individual may have an interest in taking part in an
activity, but may lack the needed skills to do so, which could also affect their
intention and behaviour. In the context of SNSs, a person may be highly motivated
to engage in SNS-related behaviours, but may not possess the skills, opportunities
and/or resources to do so. Regarding an individual’s skills, a potential SNS user may
not have faith in their ability to properly use an SNS, which could thus affect their
intentions to do so. In the case of opportunities and resources, these could include an
individual not having regular access to a computer at home and being forced to only
be able to use an SNS while at a public library, university or some other computer
that is away from their home. Hence, this vastly limits their resources and
opportunities to use an SNS and in turn should lower that person’s perceived
control over using an SNS and subsequently their intention to do so as well.
Therefore, greater perceived behavioural control is hypothesised to have a positive
impact on intention in regard to SNS behaviours:
H3a: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to using an SNS will be

positively related to intention to use an SNS.
H3b: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to joining a business’s SNS

page will be positively related to intention to join a business’s SNS page.
H3c: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to clicking on an advertisement
displayed on an SNS will be positively related to intention to click on an
While perceived behavioural control may affect behaviour indirectly via intention,
it should be noted that perceived behavioural control may also directly influence
behaviour as well. It is believed that a direct path from perceived behavioural control
to behaviour will emerge when there is a higher level of agreement between
perceived behavioural control and actual behavioural control (Ajzen, 1985). In the
case of SNSs, it is believed here that greater perceived behavioural control will be
related to actual behavioural control since it should be relatively easy for an
individual to make an accurate judgement of their actual control over engaging in
each of the three SNS-related behaviours of this study. Therefore, we hypothesise:
H4a: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to using an SNS will be positively
related to the use an SNS.
H4b: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to joining a business’s SNS
page will be positively related to the joining of a business’s SNS page.
H4c: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to clicking on an advertisement
displayed on an SNS will be positively related to clicking on an advertisement
displayed on an SNS.
Antecedents to attitude
The attitude towards behaviour construct is said to have three antecedent belief
variables of (1) relative advantage, (2) complexity and (3) compatibility (Taylor &
Todd, 1995).
The relative advantage variable refers to the degree to which an innovation
provides benefits which supersede those of its predecessor and may incorporate
factors such as economic benefits, image enhancement, convenience and satisfaction
(Rogers, 1983). This is applicable to SNSs in which they may provide added benefits
that precursors such as telephone or email communication did not. For instance, an
individual may find that using an SNS is a more convenient and/or entertaining way
to keep in touch with friends and relatives versus that of other available
communication platforms. Relative advantage has been shown to be a significant
antecedent to attitude (Ching & Ellis, 2004), given that if an individual perceives an
innovation to be advantageous he or she will thus demonstrate a more favourable
attitude towards that innovation. In the context of SNSs, a number of expected
advantages or benefits should be perceived. Some of these benefits might include a
faster and more interesting way to communicate, and/or the ability to receive
important updates about friends, family members or even favourite brands. These
advantages afforded by SNSs should thus serve to subsequently increase an
individual’s attitude towards SNSs. Therefore, it is hypothesised that relative
advantage will be positively related to attitude with respect to the SNS activities of
this study:
H5a: Relative Advantage in regard to using an SNS will be positively related to

attitude towards using an SNS.
H5b: Relative Advantage in regard to joining a business’s SNS page will be
positively related to attitude towards joining a business’s SNS page.
H5c: Relative Advantage in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an
SNS will be positively related to attitude towards clicking on an advertisement
Compatibility refers to the degree to which an innovation matches a potential

user’s existing values, previous experiences and current needs (Rogers, 1983).
Compatibility or fit has been shown to be an important precursor to attitude
formation (Helmig, Huber, & Leeflang, 2007), in that if an individual perceives
there to be a strong fit between an innovation and their needs, the individual will
demonstrate a more positive attitude towards that innovation (Shih & Fang, 2004;
Taylor & Todd, 1995). Compatibility should be a factor in attitude towards using an
SNS given that if one feels that engaging in the use of SNSs is compatible with their
values and needs, such as the need to socialise with others or express oneself, this
should improve an individual’s attitude towards the practice. However, if an
individual views SNSs as being incompatible, possibly due to an increased need for
privacy or wanting to be left alone, then an individual will most likely have a
negative attitude towards using SNSs as individuals are not likely to engage in SNS
behaviour if they feel it is incompatible. Consequently, it is hypothesised that
compatibility will be positively related to attitude regarding this study’s SNS
behaviours in question:
H6a: Compatibility in regard to using an SNS will be positively related to attitude

towards using an SNS.
H6b: Compatibility in regard to joining a business’s SNS page will be positively
related to attitude towards joining a business’s SNS page.
H6c: Compatibility in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS
will be positively related to attitude towards clicking on an advertisement
Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to

understand or operate (Rogers, 1983). Higher levels of complexity are generally
related to lower levels of attitude towards a behaviour, since individuals generally
hold more negative feelings towards innovations that are seen as overly complex. In
the context of SNSs, if an individual believes that engaging in any of the three
activities studied here would be very difficult or complicated, then he or she would
most likely hold a negative attitude towards performing those activities. Thus,
complexity should be negatively related to attitude when it comes to SNS behaviours:
H7a: Complexity in regard to using an SNS will be negatively related to attitude

towards using an SNS.
H7b: Complexity in regard to joining a business’s SNS page will be negatively
related to attitude towards joining a business’s SNS page.
H7c: Complexity in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS will

be negatively related to attitude towards clicking on an advertisement displayed
on an SNS.
Antecedent to subjective norms

The antecedent to the subjective norms construct is that of normative influences
which is the combination of an individual’s beliefs about what others think
(normative beliefs) as well as how much value an individual places on what others
think (motivation to comply) (Ajzen, 1991). Normative influences are measured by
accounting for both normative beliefs and motivation to comply as both indicators
are combined to form a composite measure which has been shown to be positively
related to subjective norms (Taylor & Todd, 1995). In addition, normative influences
further deconstruct subjective norms into relevant reference groups such as an
individual’s family or friends. In the context of SNSs this should also hold, as an
individual’s SNS usage may be influenced differently by one reference group over the
other. For instance, ones friends may think it is a very good idea to use SNSs, while
their family may not think it is such a good idea to do so. In addition, an individual
may be aware of a certain referent group’s feelings, but may also not think it is very
important to comply with the wishes of that group. Therefore, even if ones family
does not approve of the use of SNSs, an individual with a low motivation to comply
may still use them. Together these normative influences serve to influence an
individual’s subjective norms, which in turn influence an individual’s intentions.
Thus, we hypothesise that favourable normative influences will be positively related
to subjective norms in relation to SNS usage:
H8a: Favourable Normative Influences will be positively related to subjective

norms in regard to using an SNS.
H8b: Favourable Normative Influences will be positively related to subjective
norms in regard to joining a business’s SNS page.
H8c: Favourable Normative Influences will be positively related to subjective
norms in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Antecedents to perceived behavioural control

The perceived behavioural control variable has two antecedents which are (1) self-
efficacy and (2) facilitating conditions Self-Efficacy is an individual’s self-confidence
in his or her ability to perform a behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy has been
shown to positively affect perceived behavioural control in that if an individual has a
greater confidence in their ability to perform an activity, he or she subsequently
perceives themselves as having greater control in that situation (Taylor & Todd,
1995). In the context of SNSs, some individuals may feel extremely self-confident
in their ability to conduct SNS activities. This confidence may stem from prior usage
of SNSs or simply a good deal of experience with computers and internet usage in
general. On the other hand, some individuals may not demonstrate such a high
degree of confidence in using SNSs, which may be due to their lack of experience
with these types of sites or their overall assessment of their computing abilities on the
whole. Therefore, individuals should be more likely to perceive control over using an
SNS behaviour if they have a higher level of self-efficacy with regard to SNS usage
and less likely to perceive themselves as having control when they display lower levels
of self-efficacy. Thus, it is hypothesised here that greater levels of self-efficacy will be
positively related to perceived behavioural control when it comes to SNS usage:
H9a: Greater Self-Efficacy will be positively related to perceived behavioural

control in regard to using an SNS.
H9b: Greater Self-Efficacy will be positively related to perceived behavioural
control in regard to joining a business’s SNS page.
H9c: Greater Self-Efficacy will be positively related to perceived behavioural
control in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Facilitating conditions refer to the availability of resources and opportunities

needed to engage in a behaviour (Triandis, 1979). In regard to SNSs individuals are
unlikely to perceive control over their behaviour if they do not have the needed
resources and opportunities such as a reliable computer and internet connection as
well as the perceived necessary free time to engage in SNS usage. Therefore, if an
individual does not possess these needed opportunities and resources required for
SNS usage, they should subsequently perceive to have a lower level of control over
using an SNS. However, if an individual has the needed resources and opportunities
he or she should perceive themselves as having a higher level of control when it
comes to using an SNS. Thus, we hypothesise that facilitating conditions will be
positively related to perceived behavioural control when it comes to SNS usage:
H10a: Facilitating Conditions will be positively related to perceived behavioural

control in regard to using an SNS.
H10b: Facilitating Conditions will be positively related to perceived behavioural
control in regard to joining a business’s SNS page.
H10c: Facilitating conditions will be positively related to perceived behavioural
control in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
For convenience, the above hypotheses are listed in Table 1.
Methodology
Study 1 – empirical investigation

Data for this study were collected via a self-administered online survey. The subjects
were students at a large urban university in the southeast United States. While
utilising a student sample may somewhat limit the generalisability of this study’s
results, the population is demographically similar to typical users of SNS sites in the
United States (Hampton, Sessions, Rainie, & Purcell, 2011; Li, Bernoff, Pflaum, &
Glass, 2007) and is thus an important target segment for SNS marketers. In addition,
the use of a homogenous student sample may also serve to reduce error variance and
therefore results in a stronger test of theory (Baek & Morimoto, 2012; DuFrene,
Table 1 Study hypotheses.
Attitude
H1a–c: Favourable Attitude will be positively related to intention to use an SNS, join a
business’s SNS page and click on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Subjective Norms
H2a–c: Favourable Subjective Norms will be positively related to intention to use an
SNS, join a business’s SNS page and click on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Perceived Behavioural Control

H3a–c: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control will be positively related to intention to
use an SNS, join a business’s SNS page and click on an advertisement displayed on an
SNS.
H4a–c: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control will be positively related to the

engagement of the SNS behaviours of using an SNS, joining a business’s SNS page
and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Relative Advantage
H5a–c: Relative Advantage will be positively related to attitude towards using an SNS,
joining a business’s SNS page and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Compatibility
H6a–c: Compatibility will be positively related to attitude towards using an SNS, joining
a business’s SNS page and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Complexity
H7a–c: Complexity will be negatively related to attitude towards using an SNS, joining a
business’s SNS page and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Normative Influences
H8a–c: Favourable Normative Influences will be positively related to subjective norms
in relation to using an SNS, joining a business’s SNS page and clicking on an
Self-Efficacy
H9a–c: Greater Self-Efficacy will be positively related to perceived behavioural control
Facilitating Conditions
H10a–c: Facilitating conditions will be positively related to perceived behavioural
control in relation to using an SNS, joining a business’s SNS page and clicking on an
Engelland, Lehman, & Pearson, 2005; Malhotra & King, 2003). Data analysis for
this study was carried out with the LISREL 8.8 software package (Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL, USA) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) using structural
equation modelling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation. A total of 489
surveys made up the initial sample size; however, 22 surveys were eliminated due
to incomplete responses reducing the final sample to 467 respondents. Table 2 lists
descriptive statistics of the sample.
Table 2 Sample characteristics.
Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 211 45.18
Female 256 54.82
Age
18–24 168 35.98
25–34 199 42.61
35–44 35 7.49
>44 20 4.28
Chose not to disclose 45 9.64
Ethnicity
White Non-Hispanic 190 40.69
African–American 53 11.35
Hispanic 154 32.98
Asian–American 13 2.78
Other 37 7.92
Chose not to disclose 20 4.28
Measures
Measures were developed from Taylor and Todd (1995) as well as based on the
recommendations of Ajzen (2012), and adapted to fit the context of this study. All
constructs were measured using multiple items per construct, with each item being
measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Given that this study employed numerous
constructs and examined three separate behaviours, the length of the survey instrument
was a consideration. In order to prevent the survey instrument from being too lengthy or
burdensome for respondents to complete some constructs were measured using only two
items per construct. While utilising three or more items per construct is sometimes
recommended, using two items per construct is still considered acceptable (Kenny,
1979; Kline, 2011). In addition, a number of studies have made the use of two item
constructs (Davis et al., 1989; Drolet & Morrison, 2001; Tan, Nguyen, Cardin, &
Jensen, 2006), thus their use in this study appears justifiable. Since this study examined
three distinct SNS behaviours, it was necessary to examine each measure as it related to its
specified SNS behaviour. Therefore, three separate confirmatory factor analyses were
conducted (one for each behaviour). Tables 3–5 present the measures, factor loadings
and reliabilities for each latent variable as well as goodness-of-fit statistics of the
confirmatory factor analysis model in regard to each of the three SNS behaviours of
this study.
Results
Measurement model evaluation
Prior to testing the hypothesised relationships between latent constructs, an analysis
was conducted to assess whether each of the measurement scales achieved satisfactory
Table 3 General SNS usage – measures, factor loadings, scale reliabilities and goodness-of-fit statistic.
Cronbach’s
Factors Alpha Measures t-value SE Std
Intention 0.88 INT1 I intend to use a social networking site in the next month r 0.87
(disagree/agree)
INT2 I intend to frequently use social networking sites (disagree/agree) 24.26 0.04 0.90
Behaviour 0.92 BEH1 I have used a social networking site within the last month r 0.94
(disagree/agree)
BEH2 I frequently use social networking sites (disagree/agree) 30.83 0.03 0.91
Attitude 0.81 ATT1 I feel using a social networking site is (bad/good) r 0.84
ATT2 I feel using a social networking site is (unpleasant/pleasant) 17.88 0.05 0.80
Subjective Norms 0.85 SN1 Most people who are important to me would feel that using a r 0.85
social networking site is (bad/good)
SN2 Most people who are important to me would feel that using a 15.85 0.07 0.86
social networking site is (unwise/wise)
Perceived Behavioural Control 0.86 PBC1 I am able to use a social networking site if I want to (disagree/ r 0.83
agree)
PBC2 I have the resources, knowledge and ability to use a social 19.08 0.05 0.93
networking site (disagree/agree)
Relative Advantage 0.93 RA1 b1: Using a social networking site has more advantages than not r 0.94
using one (disagree/agree)
e1: Having more advantages is (bad/good)
RA2 b2: Using a social networking site has more benefits than not 30.91 0.03 0.92
using one (disagree/agree)
e2: Having more benefits is (bad/good)
(Continued )
Gironda and Korgaonkar Understanding consumers’ social networking site usage
583
584
Table 3 (Continued).
Cronbach’s
Compatibility 0.90 COMP1 b1: Using a social networking site fits well with my lifestyle r 0.92
(disagree/agree)
e1: Something fitting well with my lifestyle is important to me
(disagree/agree)
COMP2 b2: Using a social networking site fits well with my needs 27.63 0.03 0.88
(disagree/agree)
e2: Something fitting my needs is important to me (disagree/
agree)
Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30
Complexity 0.95 CMPX1 b1: Using a social networking site is difficult (disagree/agree) r 0.99
e1: Something not being difficult is important to me (disagree/
agree)
CMPX2 b2: Using a social networking site is frustrating (disagree/agree) 15.69 0.06 0.86
e2: Something not being frustrating is important to me (disagree/
agree)
Normative Influences 0.90 NI1 nb1:My family thinks it’s a good idea to use a social networking r 0.99
site (disagree/agree)
mc1: Generally speaking, I want to do what my family thinks I
should do (disagree/agree)
NI2 nb2: My friends think it’s a good idea to use a social networking 18.34 0.05 0.83
site (disagree/agree)
mc2: Generally speaking, I want to do what my friends think I
should do (disagree/agree)
(Continued )
Cronbach’s
Self-Efficacy 0.91 EFF1 pf1: I could use a social networking site on my own (disagree/ r 0.98
agree)
cb2: Being able to use a social networking site on my own is
important to me (disagree/agree)
EFF2 pf2: I would feel comfortable using a social networking site on my 27.37 0.03 0.86
own (disagree/agree)
cb2: Feeling comfortable using a social networking site on my
own is important to me (disagree/agree)
Facilitating Conditions 0.87 FC1 b1: I have the necessary resources and opportunities to use a r 0.95
social networking site (disagree/agree)
cb1: Having the necessary resources and opportunities to use a
social networking site is important to me (disagree/agree)
FC2 b2: I have the equipment needed to use a social networking site 22.97 0.04 0.84
(disagree/agree)
cb2: Having the equipment needed to use a social networking site
is important to me (disagree/agree)
Notes: ‘SE’ refers to standard error; ‘Std’ refers to standardised coefficient.
– All coefficients are significant at ρ < .01 and generated from a confirmatory factor analysis.
r – Reference indicator. No t-value generated.
Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2(154) = 398.83, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.063.
585
586
Table 4 Joining a business’s SNS page – measures, factor loadings, scale reliabilities and goodness-of-fit statistics.
Cronbach’s
Intention 0.90 INT1 I intend to join a business’s social networking site page in the next month r 0.9
(disagree/agree)
INT2 I intend to frequently join business’ social networking site pages 23.15 0.04 0.91
(disagree/agree)
Behaviour 0.85 BEH1 I have joined a business’s social networking site page within the last r 0.82
month (disagree/agree)
BEH2 I frequently join business’ social networking site pages (disagree/agree) 18.28 0.05 0.92
Attitude 0.88 ATT1 I feel that joining a business’s social networking site page is (bad/good) r 0.89
ATT2 I feel that joining a business’s social networking site page is (unpleasant/ 22.89 0.05 0.89
pleasant)
Subjective Norms 0.93 SN1 Most people who are important to me would feel that joining a business’s r 0.93
social networking site page is (bad/good)
SN2 Most people who are important to me would feel that joining a business’s 29.24 0.03 0.95
social networking site page is (unwise/wise)
Perceived Behavioural 0.91 PBC1 I am able to join a business’s social networking site page if I want to r 0.88
Control (disagree/agree)
PBC2 I have the resources, knowledge and ability to join a business’s social 22.27 0.05 0.94
networking site page (disagree/agree)
Relative Advantage 0.93 RA1 b1: Joining a business’s social networking site page has more r 0.97
advantages than not joining one (disagree/agree)
RA2 b2: Joining a business’s social networking site page has more benefits 30.17 0.03 0.91
than not joining one (disagree/agree)
(Continued )
Cronbach’s
Compatibility 0.92 COMP1 b1: Joining a business’s social networking site page fits well with my r 0.92
lifestyle (disagree/agree)
e1: Something fitting well with my lifestyle is important to me (disagree/
agree)
COMP2 b2: Joining a business’s social networking site page fits well with my 28.96 0.03 0.92
needs (disagree/agree)
e2: Something fitting my needs is important to me (disagree/agree)
Complexity 0.94 CMPX1 b1: Joining a business’s social networking site page is difficult (disagree/ r 0.99
agree)
e1: Something not being difficult is important to me (disagree/agree)
CMPX2 b2: Joining a business’s social networking site page is frustrating 19.47 0.05 0.91
(disagree/agree)
e2: Something not being frustrating is important to me (disagree/agree)
Normative Influences 0.89 NI1 nb1: My family thinks it’s a good idea to join a business’s social r 0.99
mc1: Generally speaking, I want to do what my family thinks I should do
(disagree/agree)
NI2 nb2: My friends think it’s a good idea to join a business’s social 16.96 0.05 0.78
mc2: Generally speaking, I want to do what my friends think I should do
(disagree/agree)
(Continued )
587
588
Cronbach’s
Self-Efficacy 0.86 EFF1 pf1: I could easily join a business’s social networking site page on my r 0.95
own (disagree/agree)
cb2: Being able to join a business’s social networking site page on my
own is important to me (disagree/agree)
EFF2 pf2: I would feel comfortable joining a business’s social networking site 20.03 0.05 0.79
page on my own (disagree/agree)
cb2: Feeling comfortable joining a business’s social networking site page
on my own is important to me (disagree/agree)

Facilitating Conditions 0.90 FC1 b1: I have the necessary resources and opportunities to join a business’s r 0.93
social networking site page (disagree/agree)
cb1: Having the necessary resources and opportunities to join a
business’s social networking site page is important to me (disagree/
agree)
FC2 b2: I have the equipment needed to join a business’s social networking 24.94 0.04 0.88
site page (disagree/agree)
cb2: Having the equipment needed to join a business’s social networking
site page is important to me (disagree/agree)
– All coefficients are significant at ρ < 0.01 and generated from a confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 5 Clicking on an advertisement on an SNS – measures, factor loadings, scale reliabilities and goodness-of-fit statistics.
Cronbach’s
Intention 0.89 INT1 I intend to click on an advertisement on social networking site in r 0.95
the next month (disagree/agree)
INT2 I intend to frequently click on advertisements on social 24.76 0.03 0.84
networking sites (disagree/agree)
Behaviour 0.88 BEH1 I have clicked on an advertisement on a social networking site r 0.92
within the last month (disagree/agree)
BEH2 I frequently click on advertisements on social networking sites 24.66 0.03 0.86
(disagree/agree)
Attitude 0.91 ATT1 I feel that clicking on an advertisement on a social networking r 0.92
site is (bad/good)
ATT2 I feel that clicking on an advertisement on a social networking 27.55 0.04 0.91
site is (unpleasant/pleasant)
Subjective Norms 0.95 SN1 Most people who are important to me would feel clicking on an r 0.97
advertisement on a social networking site is (bad/good)
SN2 Most people who are important to me would feel that clicking on 36.85 0.03 0.95
an advertisement on a social networking site is (unwise/wise)
Perceived Behavioural Control 0.94 PBC1 I am able to click on an advertisement on a social networking site r 0.97
if I want to (disagree/agree)
PBC2 I have the resources, knowledge and ability to click on an 27.65 0.04 0.94
advertisement on a social networking site (disagree/agree)
Relative Advantage 0.92 RA1 b1: Clicking on an advertisement on a social networking site has r 0.96
more advantages than not clicking on one (disagree/agree)
RA2 b2: Clicking on an advertisement on a social networking site has 39.23 0.02 0.96
more benefits than not clicking on one (disagree/agree)
(Continued )
589
590
Cronbach’s
Compatibility 0.96 COMP1 b1: Clicking on an advertisement on a social networking site fits r 0.97
well with my lifestyle (disagree/agree)
e1: Something fitting well with my lifestyle is important to me
(disagree/agree)
COMP2 b2: Clicking on an advertisement on a social networking site fits 43.69 0.02 0.96
well with my needs (disagree/agree)
e2: Something fitting my needs is important to me (disagree/
agree)
Complexity 0.95 CMPX1 b1: Clicking on an advertisement on a social networking site is r 0.99
difficult (disagree/agree)
e1: Something not being difficult is important to me (disagree/
agree)
CMPX2 b2: Clicking on an advertisement on a social networking site is 22.39 0.04 0.93
frustrating (disagree/agree)
e2: Something not being frustrating is important to me (disagree/
agree)
Normative Influences 0.93 NI1 nb1: My family thinks it’s a good idea to click on an advertisement r 0.97
on social networking site (disagree/agree)
mc1: Generally speaking, I want to do what my family thinks I
should do
NI2 nb2: My friends think it’s a good idea to click on an advertisement 32.86 0.03 0.94
on social networking site
(disagree/agree)
mc2: Generally speaking, I want to do what my friends think I
should do
(disagree/agree)
(Continued )
Cronbach’s
Self-Efficacy 0.90 EFF1 pf1: I could easily click on an advertisement on social networking r 0.87
site on my own (disagree/agree)
cb2: Being able to click on an advertisement on social networking
site on my own is important to me (disagree/agree)
EFF2 pf2: I would feel comfortable clicking on an advertisement on 24.71 0.05 0.94
social networking site on my own. (disagree/agree)
cb2: Feeling comfortable clicking on an advertisement on social
networking site on my own is important to me (disagree/agree)
Facilitating Conditions 0.86 FC1 b1: I have the necessary resources and opportunities to click on r 0.87
an advertisement on a social networking site (disagree/agree)
cb1: Having the necessary resources and opportunities to click on
an advertisement on a social networking site is important to me
(disagree/agree)
FC2 b2: I have the equipment needed to click on an advertisement on 19.13 0.05 0.87
a social networking site (disagree/agree)
cb2: Having the equipment needed to click on an advertisement
on a social networking site is important to me (disagree/agree)
– All coefficients are significant at ρ < 0.01 and generated from a confirmatory factor analysis
591
levels of reliability as well convergent and discriminant validity. This is in accordance

with the two-step model-building approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), in which the measurement model is first analysed via confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), and then the structural model with the hypothesised relationships
between latent constructs is tested.
For this study, separate measurement models were analysed via CFA for each of
the three SNS behaviours. Thus, a total of three measurement models were generated
and analysed. Convergent validity was assessed by examining (1) the significance of
the loadings between observed variables and their corresponding latent constructs,
(2) the reliability of each of the measurement scales and (3) the average variance
extracted (AVE) by each construct.
As can been seen in Tables 3–5, examination of each of the measurement models
revealed that all indicators significantly loaded onto their respective latent construct at
the 0.01 level of significance. In addition, all standardised factor loadings exceeded the
recommended 0.70 value (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Furthermore, the reliability analysis on each of the measurement scales demonstrated
that all scales generated a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient greater than the recommended
0.70 value (Nunnally, 1978). Finally, the AVE for each of the constructs was all well
above the recommended 0.50 level (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Taken together these
results support the convergent validity of the measurement models and signify that the
scales possess reasonably adequate psychometric properties.
Table 6 displays the correlations between each of the constructs. In order to access
discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE is reported in the diagonal elements.
As shown in the table, when we compare the diagonal and non-diagonal elements, we
see that the square root of the AVE for any respective construct is greater than the
correlation between that construct and any other construct, thus providing evidence
for discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
The goodness-of-fit statistics for each measurement model were also fairly positive
with each of the nine models generating Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-normed Fit
Index (NNFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values greater than the benchmark of
Table 6 Correlation matrix.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. INT 0.91
2. BEH 0.67 0.88
3. ATT 0.57 0.45 0.89
4. SN 0.39 0.28 0.66 0.94
5. PCB 0.15 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.91
6. RA 0.36 0.31 0.57 0.53 0.38 0.94
7. CMPT 0.44 0.42 0.56 0.48 0.44 0.72 0.92
8. CMPX 0.09 0.12 0.01 0.12 –0.13 0.07 0.22 0.95
9. NI 0.34 0.41 0.39 0.45 0.08 0.36 0.45 0.22 0.89
10. SE 0.42 0.38 0.50 0.42 0.54 0.50 0.61 –0.06 0.42 0.87
11. FC 0.35 0.30 0.42 0.40 0.59 0.47 0.57 –0.03 0.38 0.72 0.91
Notes: INT = Intention; BEH = Behaviour; ATT = Attitude; SN = Subjective Norms; PBC = Perceived
Behavioural Control; RA = Relative Advantage; CMPT = Compatibility; CMPX = Complexity; NI =
Normative Influences; SE = Self-Efficacy; FC = Facilitating Conditions.
0.95 or higher recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). In addition, each model

also obtained an Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) stronger than
the recommended cut-off of less than 0.10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
Taken together the results for each of the CFA measurement models evaluated
here suggest that the measurement models are consistent with the data and there is a
good relationship between the indicators and their respective factors. This also serves
as a positive sign that the items used in this study did a good job of measuring their
respective latent constructs and that the scales assessed what they were intended to
measure and were reliable.
Structural model evaluation

Similar to the procedures followed in the CFA measurement model analysis, this
study analysed structural models with respect to each of the three SNS behaviours.
Thus, a total of three structural regression models were generated and analysed. The
goodness-of-fit statistics for each respective behaviour suggest that each of the
structural models fit the data fairly well. For instance, the CFI, NFI and NNFI for
each of the models were greater than the benchmark of 0.95 or higher recommended
by Hu and Bentler (1999), while the RMSEA for each model was below its
recommended cut-off of less than 0.10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Figure 2
displays a graphic representation of the structural model results for each of the
three behaviours examined in this study with path coefficients listed in the
following order: (1) general SNS usage, (2) joining a business’s SNS page and (3)
clicking on an ad displayed on an SNS.
As noted in Figure 2, it can be seen that the coefficients for the paths from
Attitude→Intention and Intention→Behaviour were significant and positive for each
of the three SNS behaviours. This signifies that attitude is positively related to
intention and intention positively related to behaviour in terms of the SNS
behaviours examined in this study. This means that the coefficients for those paths
were significant and positive in each of the three structural regression models tested
providing support for hypotheses H1a–c.
The coefficient for the path from Subjective Norms→Intention is significant for
only one of the three SNS behaviours, that of clicking on an advertisement on an
SNS. Thus, support was only provided for hypothesis H2c, while hypotheses H2a
and H2b were not supported.
The construct of perceived behavioural control was positive and significant in
terms of general SNS usage for the paths from Perceived Behavioural
Control→Intention and Perceived Behavioural Control→Behaviour meaning that
for general SNS usage perceived behavioural control appears to be positively
related to both intention and actual SNS usage. However, these same paths were
not significant for the behaviour of joining a business’s SNS site and significant but
negative for the behaviour of clicking on an ad on an SNS. Taking this into account
we can conclude that support was found for hypotheses H3a and H4a, whereas H3b,
H3c, H4b and H4c were not supported.
Taking a look at the antecedent constructs for attitude, we see that as anticipated
many of the hypothesised relationships are significant. In terms of relative advantage,
the path from Relative Advantage→Attitude is positive and significant for each of the
three SNS activities, thus suggesting that relative advantage is positively related to
attitude and providing full support for hypotheses H5a–c. In addition, with regard to
Figure 2 SNS behaviours structural model results.

Notes – Displayed path coefficients are standardised.
– Path coefficients are listed in the following order: 1. General SNS Usage, 2. SNS
Business Page, 3. SNS Ad Clicking
**Path is significant at ρ < 0.01, *Path is significant at ρ < .05
Goodness-of-fit statistics:
General SNS Usage: χ2(183) = 561.31, χ2/df = 3.07 CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97,
RMSEA = 0.069
SNS Business Page: χ2 (183) = 713.06, χ2/df = 3.90 CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.96,
RMSEA = 0.078
SNS Ad Clicking: χ2 (183) = 741.53, χ2/df = 4.05 CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.96,
RMSEA = 0.081
Relative
advantage of 0.24** (general SNS Usage)
SNS activity 0.29** (joining a business’s SNS page)
0.35** (clicking on an ad on an SNS)
0.57**
Compatibility 0.40** Attitude
of SNS 0.33**
towards SNS
activity –0.06 activity
–0.10**
0.66**
0.04
0.56**
Complexity 0.68**
of SNS
activity
–0.07 0.86**
0.05 0.66**
0.51**
0.12** 0.85**
Normative 0.44** Subjective Intention to
0.53** SNS activity
influences of norms towards engage in SNS
behaviour
SNS activity SNS Activity Activity
0.12**
0.31** 0.03
Self–efficacy
0.19** –0.08*
regarding SNS
–0.24**
activity
0.39** Perceived
0.46** control over 0.09**
0.50** SNS activity –0.02
Facilitating –0.13**
conditions of SNS
activity
the relationship between compatibility and attitude, we see that the path from
Compatibility→Attitude is also positive and significant for each of the three SNS
behaviours, therefore, providing full support for hypotheses H6a–c. Furthermore,
while the relationship between complexity and attitude was hypothesised to be
negative and significant for each of the SNS behaviours examined in this study, the
path from Complexity→Attitude was negative and significant for only one of the
three SNS activities that of joining a business’s SNS page. Therefore, support was
found for hypothesis H7b, while H7a and H7c were not supported.
For normative influences, the proposed antecedent to subjective norms, the path
from Normative Influences→Subjective Norms was significant for each of the three
SNS activities, thus suggesting that normative influences are positively related to
subjective norms and providing full support for hypotheses H8a–c.
Taking a look at the expected antecedents to perceived behavioural control, those
of self-efficacy and facilitating conditions, we see that the path from Self-
Efficacy→Perceived Behavioural Control is significant and positive for two out of
the three SNS activities, general SNS usage and joining a business’s SNS page, thus
providing support for hypotheses H9a and H9b. However, while the path from Self-
Efficacy→Perceived Behavioural Control is significant in regard to clicking on an SNS
ad, the coefficient is actually negative; as a result H9c is not supported. Finally, the
path from Facilitating Conditions→Perceived Behavioural Control is significant for
each of the three SNS activities, therefore providing full support for hypotheses
H10a–c.
Cross-validation
In order to further examine the above-mentioned results of this study, a cross-
validation procedure was performed by drawing a random sub-sample of 234
responses (50.11% of the original sample size) from the original sample of
responses, and the same analyses replicated on each of the three structural models.
Results of the analysis performed on this random sub-sample, matched those found in
that of the original analysis yielding the same significant (and insignificant)
relationships as displayed in Figure 2. Therefore, this provides initial cross-
validation evidence for the findings of our study.
For convenience, Table 7 contains a brief synopsis of the hypotheses testing
results.
Post hoc analysis

In addition to examining the hypothesised relationships of this study, we also tested
several other theoretically plausible relationships in an alternative model post hoc
analysis. This was done by adding paths to each model depicting direct
relationships between Complexity→Intention, Complexity→Behaviour, Relative
Advantage→Intention and Relative Advantage→Behaviour for each of the SNS
activities. These aforementioned relationships are consistent with many
depictions of the technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1989).
In examining this alternative model for each of the SNS activities, we conducted a
χ2 difference test for each and examined the coefficients for each of the newly tested
paths. The results of the χ2 difference tests showed no significant changes in χ2
between our original model and the alternative model. This suggests that no
significant differences exist between these two models for any of the SNS activities
examined in our study (Kline, 2011). In addition, none of the additional paths were
significant for any activity except for that of Complexity→Intention for the activity
of joining a business’s SNS page. Given that (1) only one of the 12 newly tested
relational paths (three models, four new paths for each) was significant and (2) the χ2
difference tests between our proposed model and the alternative model were
insignificant for each activity, we have strong evidence that our proposed model is
the better model across a wider range of SNS activities.
Table 7 Hypotheses results.
Attitude (H1a–c Supported)

H1a–c: Favourable Attitude will be positively related to intention to use an SNS, join a
business’s SNS page and click on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Subjective Norms (H2a–b Not Supported, H2c Supported)

H2a–c: Favourable Subjective Norms will be positively related to intention to use an
SNS, join a business’s SNS page and click on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Perceived Behavioural Control - (H3a Supported, H3b–c Not Supported)

H3a–c: Greater Perceived Behavioural control will be positively related to intention to
use an SNS, join a business’s SNS page and click on an advertisement displayed on an
SNS.
(H4a Supported, H4b–c Not Supported)

H4a–c: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control will be positively related to the
engagement of the SNS behaviours of using an SNS, joining a business’s SNS page
and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Relative Advantage (H5a–c Supported)

H5a-c: Relative Advantage will be positively related to attitude towards using an SNS,
joining a business’s SNS page and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Compatibility (H6a–c Supported)

H6a–c: Compatibility will be positively related to attitude towards using an SNS, joining
a business’s SNS page and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Complexity (H7b Supported, H7a & H7c Not Supported)

H7a–c: Complexity will be negatively related to attitude towards using an SNS, joining a
business’s SNS page and clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS.
Normative Influences (H8a–c Supported)

H8a–c: Favourable Normative Influences will be positively related to subjective norms
Self-Efficacy (H9a–b Supported, H9c Not Supported)

H9a–c: Greater Self-Efficacy will be positively related to perceived behavioural control
Facilitating Conditions (H10a–c Supported)

H10a–c: Facilitating Conditions will be positively related to perceived behavioural
control in relation to using an SNS, joining a business’s SNS page and clicking on an
Study 2 – qualitative investigation

In addition to the empirical study, a qualitative study was also undertaken in order to
further contribute to our understanding of why (or why not) individuals engage in
SNS usage. This type of mixed-method approach allowed us to not only ascertain
whether or not an individual engages in an SNS activity, but also permitted us to dig
deeper in order to uncover more specific reasons as to why they do so. Semi-
structured focus group interviews were conducted using an open-ended
questionnaire in which participants were first asked whether or not they engaged in
any of the three SNS activities of Study 1. Following that response, participants were
asked a series of open-ended questions as to why they did or did not engage in a
particular SNS activity.
A total of 85 participants took part in this study. Of those 85 participants, 79
(92.94%) said that they used some type of SNS. Among the participants that used
SNSs, 40 (50.63%) said they use them multiple times per day. This represented the
largest percentage by far as the next closest usage level was once per day, with 10
(12.65%) participants saying that they use SNSs at that level. This is an excellent sign
for SNSs themselves as well as marketers wishing to utilise SNSs; since not only are
there a great number of SNS users, these individuals also seem to be very heavy users
of SNSs, which affords even more opportunities to engage and interact with them.
As far as which particular SNS platforms respondents used, the majority of SNS
users (45 out of 79, or 56.96%) utilised at least two different SNSs. In addition, with
71 individuals (89.87%), Facebook was by far the most popular site, with Twitter and
Instagram being the second most popular having 26 users (32.91%) each and
LinkedIn closely behind with 24 users (30.38%). Other SNSs used included
Pinterest with 15 users (18.98%), Google Plus with 14 users (17.72%) and Tumblr
with 1 user (1.27%). This is also good news, since it seems that marketers should be
able to utilise a number of different SNSs as a way to make contact with current and
prospective customers.
When asked why they did (or did not) utilise SNSs participants gave a number of
interesting reasons, many of which coincided with a number of the constructs from
the empirical study. For instance, 60 individuals (70.59%) said they used SNSs
because they were a more convenient way to keep in touch with friends and family.
This seems to coincide with the relative advantage construct of our model, in that the
study’s participants found SNSs to offer additional advantages over other forms of
communication. In addition, 25 individuals (20 SNS users and 5 SNS non-users) or
29.41% of the study’s sample stated compatibility with their needs (or lack thereof)
as a reason for using or not using SNSs. This seems also to correspond well with the
empirical study’s results, as compatibility played a key role there as well.
Interestingly, the results of the qualitative study showed that two other factors,
subjective norms and complexity, seemed to play much larger roles in individuals’
decisions to use (or not use) SNSs than the empirical study originally suggested. For
example, 60 users (70.59%) said they used SNSs because their friends did. In
addition, 18 users (22.78%) mentioned they use SNSs to seek out the opinions of
others. Together these both suggest that subjective norms may be a much more
important factor when it comes to SNS usage than the results of the empirical
study initially demonstrated. Perhaps subjects were more willing to admit to the
influence of others in the format of the qualitative study, as opposed to that of the
empirical. In addition, 41 individuals (40 SNS users and 1 SNS non-user) or 48.24%
of the study’s sample stated they used (or did not use) SNSs because they were easy to
use and were not very complicated (or did not use because they were complicated).
This also suggests that complexity may be a more important factor than the results of
the empirical study originally showed. In examining the activity of joining a
business’s SNS page, 59 of the 79 SNS users (74.68%) stated that they had either
‘liked’, ‘followed’ or ‘friended’ a business or brand on an SNS. These results are a

good sign for marketers, as they indicate that while SNS users are interested in
utilising SNSs to socialise with friends, these users are also quite open to the
commercial side of SNSs. Of the individuals who have joined a business’s SNS
page, 41 (69.49%) said they did so because it was a better way to receive brand-
related promotions and/or special offers, while 37 (62.71%) stated that it was a better
way to receive news about their favourite brands. In addition, 7 individuals (11.86%)
mentioned it was a more effective way to communicate with their favourite brands
and 4 individuals (6.78%) said it was a better way to communicate with fellow
customers of their favourite brands. While these results demonstrate that
consumers are very willing to use SNSs to send and receive brand-related
communications, the results also seem to lend additional support to the importance
of the relative advantages that SNSs can provide since users also suggested that SNSs
were a more efficient way to conduct these activities. The results of the qualitative
study for this activity also demonstrated the further importance of subjective norms,
as 30 of these users (50.85%) stated that they joined a business’s SNS page in order to
show their friends that they liked or used a certain brand.
For the activity of clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS, 37 out of the
79 SNS users (46.84%) said they had done so. While this figure is not as high as the
percentage of individuals using SNSs or joining a business’s SNS page, it still shows
that many SNS users are open to advertisements on SNSs. Of the individuals who had
clicked on an SNS ad 17 (45.95%) stated that did so because the product in the ad
looked useful, 15 (40.54%) did so because the ad was for one of their favourite
brands, 14 (37.84%) did so because they thought the ad contained information that
was important, 10 (27.03%) did so because the ad was for a product they needed,
another 10 (27.03%) did so because the product in the ad was very compatible with
some of their other products, 8 (21.62%) did so because the product was one that
their friends use and 5 (13.51%) did so because the product in the ad looked easy to
use. In addition, 5 individuals (13.51%) mentioned they were tricked into clicking on
the ad because it was misleading and finally 2 (5.40%) clicked on an ad by mistake.
Discussion
Implications
The results of this mixed-method study have important implications for marketing
researchers and managers alike. First, this study helped to contribute to the
understanding of consumer behaviour as it relates to three distinct SNS behaviours
and in turn helped to reveal a number of valuable insights that can be utilised by both
practitioners and researchers in order to help better understand what motivates
consumers to click on SNS ads, seek out brand-related SNS content and engage in
general SNS usage in the first place. For instance, the results of the mixed-method
studies conducted here allowed us to delve deeper and garner a more thorough
understanding of specific reasons why individuals engage in SNS activities. For
instance, the empirical study demonstrated that attitude showed the strongest
relationship with intention in relation to the SNS behaviours, as a significant
relationship was found between attitude and intention for each of the three
structural models tested in this study. In addition, intention was also found to have
an extremely strong relationship with behaviour in regard to the SNS activities, as a

significant relationship was also found between intention and behaviour for each of
the three models. Given the robust relationships that were found between attitude
and intention and intention and behaviour, researchers and practitioners should
utilise this information in order to uncover the ways in which to improve
consumers’ attitudes towards SNS behaviours, for after all it appears that if
consumers possess a positive attitude towards an SNS behaviour that should lead to
an intention to engage in that SNS behaviour, which in turn should lead to actual
engagement in the SNS behaviour itself. In addition, the goal of SNS sites is not
simply to attract consumers but to want them to stay on the site as long as possible,
i.e. to improve the so called ‘stickiness’ of the site. The strong results presented here
along with the additional information provided by the findings of the qualitative
study, which uncovered further reasons as to why users engage in SNS activities, offer
possible ways in which to enhance the stickiness of SNSs.
One way to attempt to improve consumers’ attitudes is by examining antecedents
to those attitudes, which this study also investigated. This represents the study’s main
contribution, as the results not only demonstrated the importance of attitude and
intention, but also uncovered possible ways in which to meaningfully impact attitude
by way of its antecedents. The results of the empirical study revealed that relative
advantage and compatibility demonstrated a strong relationship to attitude with a
significant relationship being found for all three SNS behaviours examined. In
addition, the results of the qualitative study demonstrated further support for the
importance of relative advantage and compatibility, as many of the reasons given for
each of the SNS usage activities strongly coincided with these two factors. Therefore,
implications for researchers in this regard demonstrate the importance of including
relative advantage and compatibility in theories attempting to predict consumer
attitude. For practitioners, the significant relationships between relative advantage,
compatibility and attitude speaks to the importance of emphasising to users the
relative advantages of engaging in an SNS behaviour in order to contribute to a
more positive attitude towards that behaviour. For instance, a recent report
(Mendelsohn & McKenna, 2010) suggests that consumers use SNS sites to post
and view family photos and humorous videos, as well as share information
regarding coupons and discounts with others. This provides clues to practitioners
that by creating humorous videos featuring a brand or posting exclusive coupons/
discounts, companies could make use of these as relative advantages of using SNS
sites. In addition, practitioners should take steps to ensure consumers will view an
SNS behaviour as being compatible with their needs and lifestyle. Furthermore,
marketers may have to work towards emphasising this, as compatibility may not
always be readily apparent to consumers (Antioco & Kleijnen, 2010). The main draw
of the SNS sites is the ‘social’ aspect. So, postings that are socially entertaining,
rewarding and/or interesting are more likely to be perceived as compatible.
Complexity was also found to have a significant negative relationship with attitude in
our empirical study; however, this was the case for only one of the three behaviours
investigated; that of joining a business’s SNS page. Perhaps many users do not view the
other SNS behaviours investigated here (i.e. general SNS usage and clicking on an SNS ad)
as being complex and therefore complexity in regard to those behaviours may not have
affected attitude. In the same sense, perhaps many users viewed joining a business’s SNS
page as a more complex activity and thus it may have contributed to a negative relationship
between it and attitude. Therefore, it might behove practitioners to make joining a
business’s SNS page as relatively simple as possible, or to take steps to inform consumers
and emphasise the relative lack of complexity involved in joining their business’s SNS
page. Whichever the case, measures should be taken in order to ensure that users do not
view the joining of a business’s SNS page as being overly complicated as this could
negatively influence users’ attitudes, which in turn could decrease consumer intention to
engage in that behaviour. Furthermore, by making sharing less effortful (i.e. decreasing
complexity), firms could increase the stickiness of their SNS business pages. Crumlish and
Malone (2009) mention the ShareThis application as one illustration. For instance, many
smart phones have a share button which utilises the ShareThis application and makes
uploading and sharing information on Facebook and Twitter faster and easier, which in
turn should lead to increased usage and a greater amount of time spent on these pages. In
addition, the results of the qualitative study seemed to suggest that complexity (or lack
thereof) plays a much greater role in general SNS usage than was originally found in the
empirical investigation, since many participants stated that one of the main reasons they
utilised SNSs was because they were relatively easy to use. Thus, SNSs should still take care
in making sure that the use of their sites does not appear to become overly complicated in
order not to turn away current or prospective users.
While attitude appears to be strongly related to intention in regard to each of the
SNS behaviours, subjective norms only demonstrated a significant relationship with
intention to click on an advertisement on an SNS in the empirical study. This initially
suggests that individuals may not necessarily be influenced by perceived social
pressure when it comes to using an SNS or joining a business’s SNS page, but may
be influenced by social pressure when it comes to clicking on an SNS advertisement.
However, the results of the qualitative study seem to contradict those found in the
empirical investigation, as the great majority of individuals interviewed stated that
they used SNSs because their friends did. In addition, many of the users who had
joined a business’s SNS page mentioned that they did so in order to show their
friends that they liked or used a certain brand. Both of these reasons demonstrate that
subjective norms might play a much larger role in SNS usage then the empirical
results might originally suggest. A reason for this contradiction in findings might be a
case in which individuals may not have been as willing to admit that they were
influenced by social pressure in the setting of the empirical study but felt more
comfortable acknowledging the influence of social pressure in the setting of the
qualitative investigation. These results have implications nonetheless, especially
since normative influences were found to be strongly related to subjective norms
for each of the three SNS behaviours investigated. Therefore, since normative
influences are strongly related to an individual’s subjective norms, marketers might
be encouraged to utilise this. For instance, in attempting to increase user propensity
for clicking on an SNS ad, marketers could attempt to first influence subjective norms
by way of normative influences. One way of achieving this is to reward a user’s
friends as well as other significant SNS contributors who clicked on an SNS ad via so
called reputation indicators. By highlighting significant individuals in a user’s social
circle who have clicked on an ad, the activity becomes more acceptable and the social
pressure to partake is enhanced, which should thus lead to higher intentions.
Perceived behavioural control demonstrated a positive relationship with both intention
and behaviour when it came to general SNS usage. On the other hand, perceived
behavioural control was not significantly related to the behaviour of joining a business’s
SNS page and was negatively related to the activity of clicking on an SNS ad. A reason for
this might be that an individual’s perceived control does initially factor into play when
deciding on whether or not to use an SNS in the first place, thus demonstrating a positive
relationship with both intention and behaviour to use an SNS. However, perhaps once an
individual begins using and becoming more experienced with an SNS, activities on the site
become much easier and as such, perceived control may no longer be an issue when
deciding on whether or not to join a business’s SNS page or click on an SNS
advertisement. Another explanation could be that as consumers become more
experienced they may dislike or even avoid the commercial aspects of the SNS sites.
Many recent stories in the popular media regarding privacy issues with Facebook and
other SNSs suggest a possible backlash towards commercial interests of advertisers on SNSs
(Geron, 2012; Lewis, 2011). Moreover, the popularity of SNS sites may also attract
unscrupulous businesses, which might also contribute to the fuelling of a backlash.
Further research might re-examine the relationships between Perceived Behavioural
Control→Intention and Perceived Behavioural Control→Behaviour for the activity of
clicking on an SNS ad in order to determine if the negative relationships observed here
are demonstrated once again.
Additionally, it is also worth noting that facilitating conditions were positively
related to perceived behavioural control when it came to each of the three SNS
behaviours and self-efficacy was positively related to perceived behavioural control in
all but one of the behaviours, that of clicking on an SNS ad. A possible reason for the
lack of significance of self-efficacy with regard to this activity might be that the
activity of clicking on an SNS ad is viewed by most individuals as no different than
that of clicking on any other online advertisement and therefore, self-efficacy has no
impact on an individual’s perceived control when it comes to clicking on an SNS ad.
In terms of general SNS usage (the behaviour in which perceived behavioural control
was positively related to both intention and behaviour), both self-efficacy and
facilitating conditions were positively related to perceived behavioural control.
Therefore, when it comes to encouraging individuals to use an SNS, practitioners
could make use of these relationships by attempting to utilise self-efficacy and
facilitating conditions to increase users’ perceived behavioural control, which in
turn could lead to an increase in intention and usage of SNSs.
Limitations and directions for future research

While this study does provide many contributions, all studies have their boundary
conditions and this one is no exception. For one, while many of the relationships
hypothesised were found to be significant across all of the behaviours examined,
others were only significant across some of the behaviours, while some were actually
significant in the opposite direction of that originally hypothesised. This
demonstrates the need for further refinement of a theoretical framework related to
SNS behaviours, as we are not yet able to completely explain all of the relationships
involved in SNS-related activities.
For instance, intention to join a business’s SNS page appears to have been
explained the least, with only attitude demonstrating a positive relationship with it.
This is quite interesting as future research could investigate why this might have been
the case and try to determine if there is something about that behaviour in particular
that does not lead to a significant relationship between it and neither subjective
norms nor perceived behavioural control. In addition, while this study helped to
support the contention that normative influences demonstrate a strong relationship
with subjective norms, a significant relationship was only found between subjective
norms and intention for the activity of clicking on an advertisement on an SNS, with
no relationship found between those variables for the activities of general SNS usage
or joining a business’s SNS page. Thus, future research could also attempt to develop
a theory that better explains that relationship as well as the others investigated here.
In addition, while university students represent a large portion of SNS users, our
understanding of SNS behaviour would be further enhanced by a follow-up study
investigating a broader sample in order to compare those results with the ones obtained
here. Finally, while this study contributed to a more thorough understanding of consumer
attitude and some of its antecedents, other constructs such as, convenience or satisfaction
could also be examined as other possible antecedents to consumer attitude in order to
develop a more thorough theoretical framework. In addition, other constructs as well as
attitude should also be examined as they relate to SNS activities, since subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control did not appear to have as strong a relationship as attitude in
terms of either intention or behaviour when it came to certain SNS behaviours. Therefore,
future research should work to discover other constructs that might also be significantly
related to SNS intention and behaviour.
Contributions and conclusion

While this research does have its limitations, it also provides several contributions to both
practitioners and academicians alike. First, this study contributed to furthering our
understanding of consumer SNS usage by empirically and qualitatively examining three
distinct SNS activities. By conducting a mixed-method study such as this, we were not only
able to shed light into whether or not individuals use SNSs, but we were also able to further
discover specific reasons why consumers click on SNS ads, engage in general SNS usage and
join SNS business/brand pages. Second, results of the study revealed not only antecedents
to intention but also several important antecedents to attitude, subjective norms and
behavioural control that should be utilised by practitioners and incorporated by scholars
when it comes to studying SNS usage. Third, this research contributed to the further
development and refinement of the SNS literature. Fourth, by studying SNSs via a classical
theoretical framework, this research helped to contribute to theoretically integrating the
study of SNSs with that of previous research and theory. Finally, several research and
managerial implications were discussed to assist practitioners and researchers interested in
improving their understanding of the growing usage of SNSs.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments
and suggestions throughout the review process and Dr Tamara Mangleburg and Dr Maria
Petrescu for their valuable feedback on previous drafts of this article.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckman (Eds.), From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2012). Constructing a TPB Questionaire. Icek Ajzen Personal Web Site. Retrieved
from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/
Anderson, S. (2008). Using social networks to market. Rough Notes, 151(2), 114–115.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 3(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.103.3.411
Antioco, M., & Kleijnen, M. (2010). Consumer adoption of technological innovations:
Effects of psychological and functional barriers in a lack of content versus a presence of
content situation. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11), 1700–1724. doi:10.1108/
03090561011079846
Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me: Examining the determinants of
consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59–76.
doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367410105
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ching, H. L., & Ellis, P. (2004). Marketing in cyberspace: What factors drive e-commerce
adoption?. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(3–4), 409–429. doi:10.1362/
026725704323080470
Choudrie, J., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2006). Investigating factors influencing adoption of broadband
in the household. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(4), 25–34.
Crumlish, C., & Malone, E. (2009). Designing social interfaces. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly
Media.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., & Sicilia, M. (2012). Revitalising brands through
communication messages: The role of brand familiarity. European Journal of Marketing,
46(1), 31–51. doi:10.1108/03090561211189220
Dobele, A., & Lindgreen, A. (2011). Exploring the nature of value in the word-of-mouth
referral equation for health care. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(3–4), 269–290.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.545677
Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple-item measures in service
research?. Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 196–204. doi:10.1177/109467050133001
DuFrene, D. D., Engelland, B. T., Lehman, C. M., & Pearson, R. A. (2005). Changes
in consumer attitudes resulting from participation in a permission e-mail campaign.
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27(1), 65–77. doi:10.1080/
10641734.2005.10505174
Facebook. (2013). “Facebook Statistics.” Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from http://
newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
Fishbein, M. A., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The applications of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39,
291–314. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151312
Geron, T. (2012, May 17). After the IPO, What’s Next for Facebook. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/05/17/after-the-ipo-whats-next-for-facebook/
Hall, S., & Rosenberg, C. (2009). Get connected: The social networking toolkit for business.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hampton, K. N., Sessions, L. F., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and
our lives. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Helmig, B., Huber, J. A., & Leeflang, P. (2007). Explaining behavioural intentions toward co-
branded products. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(3–4), 285–304. doi:10.1362/
026725707X196387
Hogan, J. E., Lemon, K. N., & Libai, B. (2004). Quantifying the ripple: Word-of-mouth and
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 271–280. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021849904040243
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1),
1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, M., Cai, F., Alex, S. L., & Tsang, N. Z. (2011). Making your online voice loud: The
critical role of WOM information. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7), 1277–1297.
doi:10.1108/03090561111137714
Hung, K. H., & Li, S. Y. (2007). The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities:
Social capital, consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research,
47(4), 485–495.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causation. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2007.07.001
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equations modeling (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Lange, F., & Dahlén, M. (2003). Let’s be strange: Brand familiarity and ad-brand
incongruency. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(6/7), 449–461.
doi:10.1108/10610420310506010
Lewis, J. (2011, November 26). Facebook faces EU curbs on selling users’ interests to
advertisers. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/
facebook/8917836/Facebook-faces-EU-curbs-on-selling-users-interests-to-advertisers.html
Li, C., Bernoff, J., Pflaum, C., & Glass, S. (2007, June 21). How Consumers Use Social
Networks. Forrester Research Report. Retrieved from http://www.eranium.at/blog/upload/
consumers_socialmedia.pdf
Lim, H., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2005). The theory of planned behavior in e-commerce: Making a
case for interdependencies between salient beliefs. Psychology and Marketing, 22(10),
833–855. doi:10.1002/mar.20086
Lin, H. (2007). Predicting consumer intentions to shop online: An empirical test of competing
theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(4), 433–442. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.002
Malhotra, N. K., & King, T. (2003). Don’t negate the whole field. Marketing Research,
15(January), 43–44.
Mendelsohn, J., & McKenna, J. (2010, September). Social sharing research report. Chadwick
Martin Bailey. Retrieved from http://www.cmbinfo.com/cmb-cms/wp-content/uploads/
2010/09/Social_Sharing_Research_Report_CMB1.pdf
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Petrescu, M., & Korgaonkar, P. (2011). Viral advertising: Definitional review and synthesis.
Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(3), 208–226. doi:10.1080/15332861.2011.596007
Qualman, E. (2012). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do
business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Schifter, D. B., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An
application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(3), 843–851. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
2489467
Shih, C. (2010). The Facebook era (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shih, Y., & Fang, K. F. (2004). The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to
study internet banking in Taiwan. Internet Research, 14(3), 213–223. doi:10.1108/
10662240410542643
Tan, G., Nguyen, Q., Cardin, S. A., & Jensen, M. P. (2006). Validating the use of two-item
measures of pain beliefs and coping strategies for a veteran population. The Journal of Pain,
7(4), 252–260.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned
behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 12(2), 137–155. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(94)
00019-K
Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, belief, attitudes, and values (pp. 65–116).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Twitter. (2012). Twitter Statistics. About Twitter. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/about
Vollmer, C., & Precourt, G. (2008). Always on: Advertising, marketing and media in an era of
consumer control, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
About the authors

John T. Gironda is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Nova Southeastern University and a
marketing Doctoral Candidate at Florida Atlantic University. He received his B.A. and M.B.A.
from East Carolina University. His teaching and research interests include E-Commerce,
Internet Marketing and Advertising, Consumer Behaviour, Marketing Strategy, and Services
Marketing. He has presented papers at a number of academic conferences including the
American Marketing Association Summer Educator’s Conference, the Academy of Marketing
Science World Marketing Congress and the International Colloquium on Consumer Brand
Relationships.
Corresponding author: John T. Gironda, Huizenga School of Business & Entrepreneurship,
Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314-7796,
USA.
T +1-954-262-5055
E jgironda@nova.edu
Pradeep K. Korgaonkar is a Professor of Marketing at Florida Atlantic University. He received

his Ph.D. from Georgia State University. His teaching interests include Marketing
Management, Marketing Strategy, Direct Marketing and Services Marketing. His research
has been published in the Journal of Marketing Research, European Journal of Marketing,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of
Business Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Business and Psychology and Journal of
Direct Marketing. He has presented papers at academic conferences including the national
meetings of the American Marketing Association, Winter Educator’s Conference of AMA,
TIMS/ORSA and Decision Science National Conference.
E korgaonk@fau.edu

12-Gironda and Korgaonkar 2014 SNS Usage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12-Gironda and Korgaonkar 2014 SNS Usage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Understanding consumers’ social networking site

John T. Gironda & Pradeep K. Korgaonkar

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.851106

Published online: 08 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2130

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Understanding consumers’ social networking site

Abstract The purpose of this research is to examine consumer motivations to

Keywords social networking sites; social media; internet marketing; interactive

implications for marketing managers and academicians, and consider possible

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

The decomposed theory of planned behaviour

Intention, behaviour and attitude towards SNS activity

Figure 1 Conceptual model of SNS activity.

Normative Subjective Intention to

Attitude towards the behaviour refers to an individual’s positive or negative

H2a: Favourable Subjective Norms in regard to using an SNS will be positively

Perceived behavioural control

H3a: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to using an SNS will be

H3b: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control in regard to joining a business’s SNS

H5a: Relative Advantage in regard to using an SNS will be positively related to

Compatibility refers to the degree to which an innovation matches a potential

H6a: Compatibility in regard to using an SNS will be positively related to attitude

Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to

H7a: Complexity in regard to using an SNS will be negatively related to attitude

H7c: Complexity in regard to clicking on an advertisement displayed on an SNS will

Antecedent to subjective norms

H8a: Favourable Normative Influences will be positively related to subjective

Antecedents to perceived behavioural control

H9a: Greater Self-Efficacy will be positively related to perceived behavioural

Facilitating conditions refer to the availability of resources and opportunities

H10a: Facilitating Conditions will be positively related to perceived behavioural

For convenience, the above hypotheses are listed in Table 1.

Study 1 – empirical investigation

Table 1 Study hypotheses.

Perceived Behavioural Control

H4a–c: Greater Perceived Behavioural Control will be positively related to the

Table 2 Sample characteristics.

on my own is important to me (disagree/agree)

levels of reliability as well convergent and discriminant validity. This is in accordance

Table 6 Correlation matrix.

0.95 or higher recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). In addition, each model

Structural model evaluation

Figure 2 SNS behaviours structural model results.

Post hoc analysis

Table 7 Hypotheses results.

Attitude (H1a–c Supported)

Subjective Norms (H2a–b Not Supported, H2c Supported)

Perceived Behavioural Control - (H3a Supported, H3b–c Not Supported)

(H4a Supported, H4b–c Not Supported)

Relative Advantage (H5a–c Supported)

Compatibility (H6a–c Supported)

Complexity (H7b Supported, H7a & H7c Not Supported)

Normative Influences (H8a–c Supported)

Self-Efficacy (H9a–b Supported, H9c Not Supported)

Facilitating Conditions (H10a–c Supported)

Study 2 – qualitative investigation

‘liked’, ‘followed’ or ‘friended’ a business or brand on an SNS. These results are a