Research

FIIB Business Review

A Comparison of Psychological
7(2) 126–134
2018 Fortune Institute of
International Business
and Socio-economic Factors Affecting SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav

Individual User’s Social Media Behaviour DOI: 10.1177/2319714518789759

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/fib

Ravneet Singh Bhandari1

Ajay Bansal2

Abstract
Companies and business managers know about social media as a phenomenon and its power as a business tool. In various earlier
researches many viewpoints, theories and models on online behaviour of individual consumers have been put across and build upon
from time to time. However, keeping in mind the exponential growth in digital transactions in India, the digital platform managers
of various companies are still data hungry and want data analytics to be done to understand various parameters affecting consumer
black box. The focus of this study is on comparison of the psychological and socio-economic factors which affect the behaviour of
individual user on social media. A model is proposed here by integrating psychological factors, social media behaviour elements and
economic factors, and efforts to predict the impact for the social media usage are made. This research contributes by broadening the
paradigm of various learning theories and predicts the online social media usage attitude development factors. This study in particular
presents a different point of view about online social media behaviour by examining the effect of psychological and socio-economic
elements and the moderating role of individual characteristics. It is an attempt by authors to empirically integrate and understand
empirically, and draw a comparison between the impact of psychological and socio-economic factors that influence the consumers’
social media behaviour elements depending on their ability to affect the consumer’s attitude.

Keywords
Social Media Behaviour Elements, Psychological Factors, Socio-economic Factors, Social Media Sites, Online Behaviour

Introduction
The rapid proliferation and growing popularity of social
media, such as online social networking sites, have been
accompanied by rapid changes in consumer behaviour
(Yuksel, Milne, & Miller, 2016). As 2017, people spend
approximately 6 hours a day on social media to socialize,
share and communicate with members of their social network
(Noyes, 2016). This behavioural change towards dependence
on social media has magnified dramatically. A recent study
based on 170,000 Internet users in the United States
revealed that an average user spends 1.72 hours on social
networking and another 0.81 hours on microblogging each
day, which respectively account for 28 per cent and 13 per
cent, respectively, of all online activities (Terblanche, 2011).
Such a phenomenon is more pronounced for members of
‘Generation Z’, who live in the digital era. Research on young
social media users claims that users aged between 8 and
18 years on an average, spend more than 6.5 hours on social
media, whereas users aged between 19–29 spend more than
4.5 hours (Schweidel & Moe, 2014). These studies show that
social media has become an integral part of the lives of many
people, both adults and children. Approximately 45 per cent
of surveyed teens use social media every day and some even
check for more than 100 times on a daily basis (Safko &
Brake, 2012). A report shows that teen girls spend 1 hour and
32 minutes on social media, which is 40 minutes more than
boys who on an average spend 52 minutes on social
media. A similar pattern is also observed in Taiwan,
a leading economy in Asia (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds,
2007). As per a study by the Market Intelligence & Consulting
Institute (MIC), 92 per cent of the 2,187 respondents of
returned surveys from its online panel have used social
media recently. Among the various online social media

1 Research Scholar, Amity Business School, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

2 Assistant Professor, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Corresponding author:
Ravneet Singh Bhandari, Research Scholar, Amity Business School, F-3 Block, Amity University Campus, Sector-125, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201313, India.
E-mail: ravneetsinghbhandari@gmail.com
Bhandari and Bansal
services, Facebook still dominates the local market followed
by Google for social networking, while YouTube is on top as
the leading online multimedia platform for videos (Kietz-
mann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). Although
consumers are used to incorporating social media into
their daily lives to satisfy their need for networking and
affiliation, a majority fail to conduct behaviour through
this new avenue (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
This trend of consumer behaviour change coupled with
the novel potential of social media to stick users with the
platform have been well recognized by marketers, who
now embrace it as a tool to enhance customer acquisition
and management to increase sales prospects (Singh, 2016).
Moreover, equipped with analytical capability, social media
service providers are able to provide highly sophisticated
data for advertisers to effectively target customers and tailor
their product and service offerings to individual preferences
(Kao, Yang, Wu, & Cheng, 2016). The social media giant,
Facebook, is reported to have advertising revenue as a
massive portion of its sales. Nonetheless, the dependence
on advertising as the primary revenue source shows that a
majority of users do not contribute directly to social media
revenues through their purchase behaviour. If managers
of social media firms are able to identify a common factor
that simultaneously influences social media use and
consumer purchase behaviour, they may cultivate their
large customer base and convert users to purchasers (Drury,
2008). Investing in this common factor helps online service
providers in the social media sector to generate additional
value from active users. Thus, this approach also enhances
marketing effectiveness and is of practical and academic
significance (Manzoor, 2016).
Keeping the aforesaid in mind, we propose and empiri-
cally inspect an arrangement of socio-economic, psycho-
logical and social media elements that might be the
reason for motivating and instilling a certain behaviour in
members for online interpersonal interaction (Das, 2014).
Past researches have generated significant bits of knowledge
for the relationship between attitude, intention and conduct
in different environment of Internet and e-commerce
(Bochenek & Blil, 2013).
Literature Review
For the researchers, influence of psychological or economic
factors on online behaviour and state of mind has been an
important topic in the areas of socio-economic psychology,
marketing and information systems (Aral, Dellarocas, &
Godes, 2013). While it has been understood in many previ-
ous researches that many factors may affect state of mind
for a particular online behaviour, this study revolves around
comprehending the psychological and socio-economic
factors and their impact on social media behaviour (Ainin,
Parveen, Moghavvemi, Jaafar, & Shuib, 2015). All digital
media platform strategists need to consider some parts of
psychological conduct to comprehend the drivers of this
127
digital media. Social media may be a recent innovation in
the business world; however, the behavioural drivers that
clarify why and how the different stages are utilized are old
(Goh, Heng, & Lin, 2013).
Psychological Factors
‘Hedonism’ is when there is a belief that enjoyment or
pleasure is the main goal of life and social media is used for
entertainment purpose only (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds,
2007). Hedonism can influence social media behaviour in
the following ways: (a) humans enjoy media sharing social
media; and (b) humans utilize online networking in light
of the fact that it gives a novel method for getting to activ-
ities that give them pleasure, for example, collaboration
(Lee, Im, & Taylor, 2008). A study shows that youngsters are
using the digital platform mostly for brand monitoring and
pleasure tools such as movies, music, chatting and infor-
mation about sex and not for betterment of the world
strategies (Ross, et al., 2009).
Another psychological term called ‘altruism’ is the
selfless commitment to the benefit and well-being of others.
Users share data with different users on various social
networks for enhancing communication and collaboration,
and they share data essentially on the grounds that, they
trust, it might be useful as reviews (Stritzke, Nguyen, &
Durkin, 2004). This is done despite after not knowing who
gains by the data being shared for commercial purposes.
An investigation demonstrated that altruism is an essential
motivation behind why extensive travellers share experiences
to help other people have a more satisfactory vacations
(Kwak, Jaju, & Larsen, 2006).
Another parameter of psychology is ‘homophily’, the
inclination of individuals to connect with others like them
to communicate. Similar people are attracted to each other
for collaboration (Nosko, Wood, & Molema, 2010). People
of same interest tend to get attached and join social
networks for entertainment purposes where the likings and
beliefs are common. The researches have proved that many
people buy products and take other decisions of their lives
on the recommendations of peers who follow reviews and
monitor various brands online.
‘Memetics’ is the replication of thoughts and convictions
across people (Chu & Kim, 2011). For creating a buzz
around the web to enhance collaboration, the thoughts of
one user have to be retained in user’s memory and replicated
in some way so as to be picked up by others and further
transfer to more users (Attrill & Jalil, 2011).
‘Self-fascination’ is when social networking sites like
Facebook allow users to involve in promoting self. Recent
research demonstrated that self-obsessed personalities
are involved more in social action on the online group
(Chen, 2012).
‘Tribalis’ is an individual’s strong feeling of being alike
for a particular group (tribe) and collaboration (Rapp,
Beitelspacher, Grewal, & Hughes, 2013). People get social
128
value from taking part in that group. Social media allows
communication between supporters of a brand, and between
the buyers and the organizations, thus increasing engagement,
collaboration and brand monitoring. Researches state that
tribe members want their tribe to be successful (Oldmeadow,
Quinn, & Kowert, 2013).
Socio-economic Factors
Social Status: Social media emerges and then significantly
spreads exponentially because of its social networking
ability, which satisfies the need of users to maintain their
social identity. In a recent study, approximately 61, 36 and
21 per cent of teens reported that they frequently visit their
account on social media to check if they are getting likes on
their posts, if they are left out by friends and if their friends
say negative things about them, respectively (Selwyn &
Facer, 2007). Prior research has recognized the social
aspect of social media and empirically examined the role
and effect of social identity in driving consumer online
behaviour which are used for entertainment and learning
purposes (Oudshoorn & Rommes, 2004). If we take an
example, after examining online use intention, it was reported
that members of virtual community with a deeper sense of
social identity tend to have a stronger desire to participate
in an online community for communication. Similarly,
another study provided supporting evidence for the straight
influence of social identification motivation on the inten-
tion to collaborate in online communities (Preston &
Cawley, 2004). This line of research supports the proposi-
tion that social identity encourages online use behaviour
(Vanden, 2011).
Inflation and Internet Rates: Internet rate fluctuations
affect users’ spending because when rates are high, users are
less inclined towards net connection. Internet rates determine
a consumer’s purchasing power (Silverstone, 2005). Like-
wise, in a research penned, done by Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and
quoted by the (Bank, 2012) high-income countries with
low Internet rates saw contribution to gross domestic
product (GDP) growth rates increasing by 1.4 per cent.
When income does not keep pace with increase in prices,
inflation affects consumer behaviour whether online or
offline (Kerr, 2006).
Education: The education level of population affects
the use of technology and hence social media in this case.
Education will equip society with the skills and knowledge
required for not only the use but also understanding of all
aspects related to consumer behaviour (Asheim & Coenen,
2007). Education will also lead to a society where indi-
viduals are paid well in their jobs and hence are able to take
so-called risks of buying through Internet. Education of the
region also affects the usage of social media for learning,
media sharing and entertainment purposes (Barker, 2009).
Unemployment and Saving: The purchasing power is
decreased due to unemployment and hence the behaviour
FIIB Business Review 7(2)
on social media is also affected. The magnitude of savings
of a consumer out of his total income impacts his overall
behaviour including online behaviour (Clark, 2009).
Keeping the aforesaid in mind, a conceptual framework
is developed and analysis is done for finding which elements
of psychological or socio-economic factors impacts social
media behaviour more. This will help digital platform
managers to understand on which factor to focus more.
Proposed Framework and
Hypothesis Formulation
Information exchange is one of the key elements which
should be analysed so that a theoretical framework for
social media behaviour can be built upon. An opportunity
is provided by social media where latest updates and
information can be communicated by users. With the help
of users’ blogs and reviews, information can be collaborated
from various social media sites to have a deeper knowledge
of the behaviour and decisions can be taken accordingly.
The facility of media sharing on social media instigates
reviews as well as brand monitoring on the given platform.
The usage of social media in contemporary scenario is not
only limited to only entertainment purposes but is also
used as platform for learning. The author in this research
has tried to take the previous research work forward in
many ways. First, the data of online users which they seek
and share through social media has been examined. Second,
many elements were investigated by authors to check which
are closely influencing the social media behaviour.
Several theories on behaviour were studied to understand
how users of social media are affected by various elements
on different platforms. Two major factors were found through
literature review and psychological and economic elements.
The first theory of information processing by humans, that
is, psychological theory, explains how processing information
is affected by various factors such as informational and
normative factors, establishing its validity assessments,
and finally form decision outcomes. It is clear that in
information handling research for online media conduct,
the most predominant models are dual process models.
It can be interpreted by brain research of the individual that
state of mind and practices are affected by a message both
superficially and centrally. The first one involves high-
psychological endeavours to watch data, the second uses
the environment signs of the communication to shape
decisions. Psychological factors additionally set about two
sorts of online networking handling: systematic and heuristic.
Systematic handling inspects every single significant bit of
a message to shape a choice, though heuristic preparing
utilizes subjective heuristic or scholarly information structure
to evaluate a message. Different classifications have been
utilized i.e. urge for learning in social media spaces which
impacted by factors like environment, individual psychology,
interpersonal relationships and socio-cultural factors. It has
been examined that trust on content say blog, videos and
Bhandari and Bansal 129

pictures of the marketer also sources different psychological
characteristics..
Based on certain identified economic and psychological
parameters influencing social media behaviour, authors
have proposed a conceptual model to investigate various
factors that might affect social media usage in context with
the current scenario. With six types of characteristics of
both psychology and economic elements, authors have
tried to identify different activities on various platforms of
social media.
Authors have drafted a number of hypotheses keeping
in mind various categories as shown in Figure 1.
The character of social media behaviour revolves around
the comprehensiveness of the individual psychology and
economic condition of users. Perceived psychology is the
extent to which social media braces on beliefs, neutrality
and commitment to moral and ethical conduct, on the
other side, economic benignity is based on user needs and
availability of resources. Studies relevant to social media
behaviour have identified domains that have a significant
implications based on both psychological objectives and
economic results.
Hence, authors hypothesize the following:
• H2B: Economical factors positively affect the
collaboration element of social media behaviour
of an individual user.
H3: Reviews on social media influenced by psychological
and economic factors:
• H3A: Psychological factors positively affect the
reviews element of social media behaviour of
an individual user.
• H3B: Economical factors positively affect the
reviews element of social media behaviour of
an individual user.
H4: Brand monitoring on social media influenced by
psychological and economic factors:
• H4A: Psychological factors positively affect
the brand monitoring element of social media
behaviour of an individual user.
• H4B: Economical factors positively affect the
brand monitoring element of social media behav-
iour of an individual user.
H5: Entertainment on social media influenced by
psychological and economic factors:

H1: Communication on social media influenced by
psychological and economic factors:
• H1A: Psychological factors positively affect the
communication element of social media behav-
iour of an individual user.
• H1B: Economical factors positively affect the
communication element of social media behav-
iour of an individual user.
• H5A: Psychological factors positively affect the
entertainment element of social media behaviour
of an individual user.
• H5B: Economical factors positively affect the
entertainment element of social media behaviour
of an individual user.
H6: Media sharing on social media influenced by
psychological and economic factors:

H2: Collaboration on social media influenced by
psychological and economic factors:
• H2A: Psychological factors positively affect the
collaboration element of social media behaviour
of an individual user.
• H6A: Psychological factors positively affect the
media sharing element of social media behaviour
of an individual user.
• H6B: Economical factors positively affect the
media sharing element of social media behaviour
of an individual user.

H1A H1B
Communication
H2A H2B
Collaboration
H3A H3B
Reviews
Psychological factors Socio-economic factors
H4A H4B
• Altruism • Memetics Brand monitoring • internet pricing • Savings
• Hedonism • Tribalism H5A H5B • inflation • Social status
• Homophily • Self fascination Entertainment • unemployment • Education
H6A H6B
Media sharing
H7A H7B
Political activity/news
H8A H8B
Learning

Figure 1. Proposed Framework

Source: Author’s compilation.
130 FIIB Business Review 7(2)

H7: Political news on social media influenced by
psychological and economic factors
• H7A: Psychological factors positively affect the
political activity and news element of social
media behaviour of an individual user.
• H7B: Economical factors positively affect the
political activity and news element of social
media behaviour of an individual user.
H8: Learning on social media influenced by psychological
and economic factors:
• H8A: Psychological factors positively affect the
learning element of social media behaviour of
an individual user.
• H8B: Economical factors positively affect the
learning element of social media behaviour of
an individual user.
Research Methodology
Design of Questionnaire
Respondents were administered on components of social
media with respect to psychological and economic factors
in identified domains. Five point Likert scale (5 = ‘always’;
1 = ‘never’) was used. The identified domains were
selected for three reasons. First, in social media research
these domains are the recognized domains in most of
the studies. Second, these domains were identified as the
domains’ most voted by social media users in an interna-
tional study in Canada (Abels, White, & Hahn, 1997).
Finally, whether a frequent or non-frequent user, these are
the ace domains for information seeking. This piece of
work measures the effect of psychological factors, that is,
altruism, hedonism, homophily, memetics, self-fascination,
tribalis and economical factors, that is, social status,
inflation, Internet rates, education, unemployment and
saving characteristics on the domains mentioned. Social
media behaviour characteristics comprise communication,
collaboration, reviews, brand monitoring, entertainment,
media sharing, political activity and learning.
Sample and Data Collection
Authors conducted the study on the social media users of the
National Capital Region (NCR, India) and wanted to under-
stand social media behaviour of the users. Around 40 per
cent of people in NCR are regularly active on social media,
thus p = 0.4 and considering 95 per cent of confidence level
and at least 5 per cent—plus or minus—precision. A 95 per
cent confidence level gives us Z-values of 1.96, per the
normal tables, so we get ((1.96)2 (0.4) (0.6))/(0.05)2 = 369,
therefore any sample size more than the calculated sample
size would be appropriate for conducting survey. Data was
collected from social media users from the NCR. To validate
the questionnaire, a pilot study was done. As per the feed-
back of the pilot study, appropriate changes were made.
For random sampling, 400 hard copies of the questionnaire
were given to respondents in the NCR. Respondents were
briefed about the purpose of the study and clarity on ques-
tionnaire was given. A total of 372 responses were collected,
after discarding questionnaires not filled completely.
The final number of responses was 304, including 56 per
cent male responses and 44 per cent female responses, and
around 47 per cent were between 21–24 years age group,
22 per cent from 18–21 years age group and 16 per cent
from 24–27 years age group.
Hypothesis and Analysis of Data
Descriptive statistics conducted on the identified variables
of the content affecting viewer’s response and the result are
presented in Table 1.
Kaiser’s measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) is
described in Table 2. The overall MSA of 0.824 is an
acceptable value; and hence it can be interpreted that
confirmatory factor analysis can be conducted on data
collected. To measure the degree of variability in the

Table 1. Identified Variables with Descriptive Statistics

Variables Mean SD Max. Min. Skewness Kurtosis
Psychological factors
Altruism 2.8902077 1.5725867 5 1 0.4319878 –1.5341848
Hedonism 2.9080119 1.6239909 5 1 0.3004480 –1.6286583
Homophily 2.1008902 1.3212658 5 1 1.2773849 0.3740315
Memetics 2.3086053 1.5137318 5 1 1.0041360 –0.5808235
Self-fascination 2.1513353 1.3510158 5 1 1.2668193 0.2915188
Tribalis 2.3560831 1.4197481 5 1 1.0098814 –0.4315693
Economic factors 2.6023739 1.5340560 5 1 0.6638017 –1.1742650
Social status 2.1869436 1.3857508 5 1 1.2139107 0.0906895
Inflation and 1.9080119 1.1854128 5 1 1.6455954 1.8276837
Internet rates 3.3857567 1.2414609 5 1 –0.0416839 –1.6707497
Education 2.6617211 1.5014241 5 1 0.5641120 –1.2559521
Unemployment 2.8189911 1.2978444 5 1 0.9974832 –0.9416926
Saving
Source: Author’s compilation.
Bhandari and Bansal 131

variables, principal component analysis was done. The degree
of variability calculated from the initial value (= 1) and
variables with extraction value more than 0.5 would be
considered acceptable for factor analysis.
Hypothetical Testing and Findings
Model A: The hypothesized model for social media
behaviour (various elements of social media behaviour)
and psychological factors are represented in Table 3.
The variables with p values less than 0.0001 is acceptable,
therefore the authors accept the alternative hypothesis
for psychological factors with respect to communication,
collaboration, reviews, brand monitoring, entertainment,
media sharing and learning which means psychological
factors impacts the aforementioned aspects of social media
behaviour, and the authors reject the alternative hypothesis
for political news/activities which means psychological
factors does not impact the political news/activities aspect
of social media behaviour.
Predicted (impact of psychological factors) = 1.44805
+ (2.56582 × communication) + (1.83462 × collaboration)
+ (0.87632 × reviews) + (1.85343 × brand monitoring) +
(0.98232 × entertainment) + (0.72345 × media sharing)
+ (–4.98432 × political activity/news) + (0.45324 ×
learning)
Model B: The hypothesized model for social media
behaviour (various elements of social media behaviour)
and economical factors are represented in Table 4.
The variables with p-values less than 0.0001 is acceptable,
therefore the authors accept the alternative hypothesis
for economic factors with respect to communication,
brand monitoring, entertainment, learning which means
economic factors impacts the aforementioned aspects
of social media behaviour, and the authors reject the
alternative hypothesis for collaboration, reviews, media
sharing and political news/activities which means economic
factors does not impact the mentioned aspects of social
media behaviour.

Y = C + m1x1 + m2x2 + m3x3 + m4x4 + m5x5 + m6x6 Y = C + m1x1 + m2x2 + m3x3 + m4x4 + m5x5 + m6x6
+ m7x7 + m8x8 + m7x7 + m8x8

Table 2. Kaiser’s Measure of Sampling Adequacy: Overall MSA = 0.82392075

Final Communality Estimates: Total = 15.247175
Altruism Hedonism Homophily Memetics Self-fascination Tribalis
0.7023* 0.7704* 0.6492* 0.7959* 0.7098* 0.6268*
Social Status Inflation Internet Rates Education Unemployment Savings
0.7054* 0.5853* 0.6854* 0.8279* 0.8407* 0.6571*
Source: Author’s compilation.
Notes: Initial value = 1, * = Extraction value; Extraction method = Principal Component analysis.

Table 3. Results for Various Elements of Social Media Behaviour and Psychological Factors
Variable df Parameter Estimate SE T-value Pr > |t|
Intercept 1 1.44805 0.39727 3.650 0.0003
Communication 1 2.56582 0.12877 –0.152 < 0.0001
Collaboration 1 1.83462 0.17621 –0.027 < 0.0001
Reviews 1 0.87632 0.19269 0.453 < 0.0001
Brand monitoring 1 1.85343 0.23569 0.278 < 0.0001
Entertainment 1 0.98232 0.13489 0.678 < 0.0001
Media sharing 1 0.72345 0.76321 0.345 < 0.0001
Political activity/news 1 –4.98432 –0.23934 3.445 0.0345
Learning 1 0.45324 0.19236 0.168 < 0.0001

Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source df Squares Square F-value Pr > F
Model 10 230.12789 21.034256 28.19 < 0.0001
Error 293 245.34527 0.7693287 Depd. Mean 2.17542 R-Square 0.4485
Corrected total 303 476.92346 Root MSE 0.874321 Coeff. Var 46.05989 Adj R-Sq 0.4269
Source: Authors’ compilation.
132 FIIB Business Review 7(2)

Table 4. Results for Various Elements of Social Media Behaviour and Economic Factors
Variable df Parameter Estimate SE T-value Pr > |t|
Intercept 1 1.44805 0.39727 3.650 0.0003
Communication 1 3.34782 0.14627 2.341 < .0001
Collaboration 1 –4.6276 0.18311 –2.674 0.0324
Reviews 1 –0.8429 0.18168 –2.974 < .0545
Brand monitoring 1 1.5632 0.13568 1.473 < .0001
Entertainment 1 2.7432 0.13488 1.763 < .0001
Media Sharing 1 –3.9323 0.76321 –2.563 < .0496
Political activity/News 1 –4.6742 –0.23834 –6.532 0.2376
Learning 1 0.6247 0.18236 2.643 < .0001

Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source df Squares Square F –value Pr > F
Model 10 268.17329 19.0334756 28.19 < .0001
Error 293 279.52324 0.6978287 Depd. Mean 2.17542 R-Square 0.3484
Corrected total 303 496.714246 Root MSE Coeff. Var Adj R-Sq
0.938721 38.06629 0.3279
Source: Author, compilation.

Predicted (impact of economical factors) = 1.44805 +
(3.34782 × communication) + (–4.6276 × collaboration)
+ (–0.8429 × reviews) + (1.5632 × brand monitoring) +
(2.7432 × entertainment) + (–3.9323 × media sharing)
+ (–4.6742 × political activity/news) + (0.6247 × learning)
Discussion
This research article aimed to develop a comparative model
to measure implications of psychological and economic
factors on the social media behaviour. Based on instru-
ments of pro-social behaviour and items used in previous
research about online pro-social behaviour, two subs-
cales were constructed to assess how psychological and
economic factors impact and in the subject of (‘receive’)
online social media behaviour. To evaluate the scale’s
validity, the associations of these subscales with social
media behaviour and use of digital media were examined.
Parallel analysis of the two subscales on psychological and
economic factors suggested that they represent multidi-
mensional constructs. After confirmatory factor analysis,
six items were retained for each subscale. The factor struc-
ture of the scale was confirmed through confirmatory
factor analysis. As hypothesized, the subscales correlated
positively with social media behaviour and use of digital
media, supporting convergent validity of the social media
behaviour. Contrary to previous researches, significant
correlations were found between economic factors and
learning aspect of social media behaviour.
Although unexpected, previous research on online
social media behaviours has sometimes also found that
psychological and economic factors are positively related,
when the motivation underlying the social media behaviour
is instrumental or proactive. Because this research article
does not include the global measure of online social media
behaviour, as was not designed to identify the motivations
underlying global behaviour, unfortunately the authors have
no knowledge about the reasons behind the international
respondents’ behaviour. However, this positive association
with online social media behaviour and psychological
factors might indicate that self-interest can be an important
motivator of online pro-social media behaviour. Alternatively,
individuals who spend more time on social media sites are
likely to be engaged more in social media interactions
which lead to pro-social media behaviour. Another possible
explanation for the positive association between online
social media behaviour could be that increased communi-
cation in one’s in-group association is correlated with
increased collaborative social media behaviour towards
one’s online group. Social identity theory posits that people’s
sense of self depends on the groups to which they belong.
When people perceive themselves as part of a group, this
becomes an in-group for them, whereas other groups, to
which they do not belong, are out-groups. This psychological
versus economic phenomenon entails favouring the in-group
over the out-group, which might translate into increased
social media behaviour towards the in-group and increased
antisocial behaviour towards the out-group. Therefore,
future research could benefit from taking into account the
psychological and economical elements on the basis of
which people are interacting when they behave on social
media behaviour.
Bhandari and Bansal
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship and/or publication of this article.
References
Abels, G., White, D., & Hahn, K. (1997). Identifying user-based
criteria for web pages. Web Research: Electronic Networking
Applications and Policy, 7(4), 252–262.
Ainin, S., Parveen, F., Moghavvemi, S., Jaafar, N., & Shuib, N.
(2015). Factors influencing the use of social media by SMEs
and its performance outcomes. Industrial Management and
Data Systems, 115(3), 570–588.
Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., & Godes, D. (2013). Introduction to the
special issue: Social media and business transformation—
A framework for research. Information Systems Research,
24(1), 3–13.
Asheim, B., & Coenen, L. (2007). Face-to-face, buzz and knowl-
edge bases: Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation
and innovation planning. Environmentand Planning, 25(5),
655–670.
Attrill, A., & Jalil, R. (2011). Revealing only the superficial me:
Exploring categorical selfdisclosure online. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 27(5), 1634–1642.
Bank, W. (2012). Indian development report (pp. 1–15). Washington,
DC: World Bank Publications.
Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents’ motivations for social
network site use: The influence of gender, group identity,
and collective self-esteem. CyberPsychology and Behavior,
12(2), 209–213.
Bochenek, L. M., & Blil, S. (2013). Social media champions: Drivers
and sophistication process of social media strategic manage-
ment. Advanced Series in Management, 11(1), 143–167.
Chen, R. (2012). Living a private life in public social networks:
An exploration of member self-disclosure. Decision Support
Systems, 55(1), 661–668.
Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer
engagement in electronic word-ofmouth (eWOM) in social
networking sites. International Journal of Advertising,
30(1), 47–75.
Clark, L. S. (2009). Digital media and the generation gap.
Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 388–407.
Das, A. (2014). Social media and business: Time to embrace
change. FIIB Business Review, 3(3), 20–25.
Drury, G. (2008). Opinion piece: Social media—Should marketers
engage and how can it be done effectively? Journal of Direct,
Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 274–277.
Goh, K.-Y., Heng, C.-S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social media brand
community and consumer behaviour: Quantifying the relative
impact of user- and marketer-generated content. Information
Systems Research, 24(1), 88–107.
Kao, T.-Y., Yang, M.-H., Wu, J.-T. B., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2016).
Co-creating value with consumers through social media.
Journal of Services Marketing, 30(2), 141–151.
133
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite!
The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business
Horizon, 53(1), 59–68.
Kerr, A. (2006). The business and culture of digital games:
Gamework and gameplay. London: SAGE.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I., & Silvestre, B.
(2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the func-
tional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,
54(3), 241–251.
Kwak, H., Jaju, A., & Larsen, T. (2006). Consumer ethnocentrism
offline and online: The mediating role of marketing efforts
and personality traits in the United States, South Korea, and
India. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1),
367–385.
Lee, D., Im, S., & Taylor, C. R. (2008). Voluntary self-
disclosure of information on the Internet: A multimethod
study of the motivations and consequences of disclosing
information on blogs. Psychology and Marketing, 25(1),
692–710.
Manzoor, A. (2016). Is there a link between Facebook use and
student’s emotions? FIIB Business Review, 5(2), 71–77.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll
see you on ‘Facebook’: The effects of computer-mediated
teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective
learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education,
56(1), 1–17.
Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me:
Disclosure in online social networking profiles—The case of
Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(1), 406–418.
Noyes, D. (2016). The top 20 valuable Facebook statistics:
Updated January 2017. Sarasota: Zephoria Digital Marketing.
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment
style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers
in Human Behaviour, 29(1), 1142–1149.
Oudshoorn, N., & Rommes, E. (2004). Configuring the user
as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information
and communication technologies. Science, Technology and
Human Values, 29(1), 30–63.
Preston, P., & Cawley, A. (2004). Mis-understanding the mis-
understanding the knowledge economy in early 21st century:
Lessons from innovation in the media sector. Communication
and Strategies, 55(1), 119–145.
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. (2013).
Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and
consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 41(5), 547–566.
Ross, C., Orr, E., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J., Simmering, M., & Orr, R.
(2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook
use. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25(1), 578–586.
Safko, L., & Brake, D. K. (2012). The social media bible (3rd ed.).
NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Schweidel, D. A., & Moe, W. (2014) . Listening in on social
media: A joint model ofsentiment and venue format choice.
Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 387–402.
Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide:
Rethinking digital inclusion for the 21st century. London:
Futurelab.
Silverstone, R. (2005). Media, technology and everyday life in
Europe: From information to communication. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing.
134 FIIB Business Review 7(2)

Singh, A. (2016). Social media as an emerging management tool.
FIIB Business Review, 5(4), 16–19.
Stritzke, W. G., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness
and computer-mediated communication: A self-presentation
theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6(1), 1–22.
Terblanche, N. S. (2011). You cannot run or hide from social media:
Ask a politician. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(3), 156–167.
Vanden, B. I. (2011). The multidimensional nature and brand
impact of user-generated ad parodies in social media.
International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 103–131.
Yuksel, M., Milne, G. R., & Miller, E. G. (2016). Social media
as complementary consumption: The relationship between
consumer empowerment and. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
33(2), 111–123.

About the Authors

Ravneet Singh Bhandari is a PhD scholar at Amity Business School, Amity University, Noida.
He is a BBA graduate, MCom and PGDBA (marketing). He also holds a Post Graduate Diploma in
international business and certification in Russian language. He is a Google-certified digital
marketer and has partnered with Google for various global marketing assignments. He also holds
diploma certification for statistical tools, that is, SPSS, SAS and R studio. Out of total work experi-
ence spanning 6 years, he has been managing his own business of heavy commercial vehicle’s
parts, delivering services pan-India as well as abroad. His digital marketing experience of 4 years
as a freelancer with some of the best-known organizations handling big campaigns helps him to
bring a fine blend of conceptual and practical orientation in his work. He has published research
articles in various journals of repute. He has also presented his research work at various national as
well as international conferences. His areas of interest include digital marketing, social media, search engine optimization
and consumer behaviour. He can be reached at ravneetsinghbhandari@gmail.com

Ajay Bansal is Professor of Marketing at Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida. He is an

engineering (electronics) graduate and an MBA (marketing) from FMS, Delhi, and is currently
pursuing PhD in management. He has a total work experience spanning over 25 years, of which he
has spent 9 years teaching in marketing domain. His corporate experience of 16 years is in the field
of marketing and sales in the organizations such as Videocon Industries Ltd, Usha International Ltd,
Crompton Greaves Ltd and Modi Business Machines Ltd. He was the Co-Chair Placements for a
year, and a member in MDP committee at Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, previously.
He has authored few research papers, case studies and book reviews which have been published in
national and international journals of repute. His areas of interest include consumer behaviour and
social Media. He can be reached at ajay.bansal@jaipuria.ac.in