Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Media Involvement Among College Students and General Population: Implications to Media Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Social Media Management

Part of the book series: Media Business and Innovation ((MEDIA))

Abstract

Social media have been becoming one of the hottest topics in the recent years and various media incorporate social media to drive traffic and build customer relationships. This book chapter introduces a new concept—social media involvement—and applied it to our research. Social media involvement refers to the extent to which people indulge in social media. And then, by employing an audience survey in Northwest Ohio, we examined which demographic characteristics can predict social media involvement among college students and general population and compared and contrast the difference in social media content consumption behavior between college students and general population. In addition, we analyzed the media content topic preference in audience with different SNS involvement; and how SNS involvement affect people’s online media use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aghazamani, A. (2010). How do university students spend their time on Facebook? An exploratory study. Journal of American Science, 6(12), 730–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alarcón-Del-Amo, M. D., Lorenzo-Romero, C., & Gómez-Borja, M. A. (2011). Classifying and profiling social networking site users: A latent segmentation approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 547–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-Esteem. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11, 9. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312

  • Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence, 14(1), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, J. (2008). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2010). Mobile communication and civic life: Linking patterns of use to civic and political engagement. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 536–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2009). The history and evolution of social media. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/10/the-history-and-evolution-of-social-media/

  • Chew, M., Balfanz, D., & Laurie, B. (2008). Undermining privacy in social networks. W2SP 2008: Web 2.0 Security and Privacy 2008. Retrieved October 27, 2011, from http://w2spconf.com/2008/papers/s3p2.pdf

  • Clancy, K. (1992). CPMs must bow to ‘involvement’ measurement. Advertising Age, 63(3), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, L., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A face (book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

    Google Scholar 

  • ComScore (2011, December 21). It’s a social world: Top 10 need-to-knows about social networking and where it’s headed. Retrieved January 2, 2011 from http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/2011/it_is_a_social_world_top_10_need-to-knows_about_social_networking

  • Constantinides, E., Carmen Alarcón del Amo del, M., & Romero, C. L. (2010). Profiles of social networking sites users in the Netherlands. In 18th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference, HTSF, 25–28 May 2010, Enschede, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and Marketing Issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, E., Lorenzo, C., & Gómez-Borja, M. A. (2008). Social Media: A new frontier for retailers? European Retail Research, 22, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored designed method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumenco, S. (2011, November 4). Fall TV update: Five social-TV successful stories (and one ratings disappointment). Retrieved January 2, 2012, from http://adage.com/article/trending-topics/fox-takes-top-spots-show-social-buzz-ranking/230843/

  • Ellison, N. B., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facebook.com. (2011). Retrieved December 20, 2011, from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

  • Fang, L., & Ha, L. (2011, August). Who are the heavy users of social network sites among college students? A study of social network sites and college students. Paper presented in AEJMC conference, St. Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Pre-proceedings version. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf

  • Ha, L., & Fang, L. (2012). Internet experience and time displacement of traditional news media use: An application of the theory of the niche. Telematics and Informatics, 29, 177–186. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2011.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, L., Leconte, D., & Savidge, J. (2012). From TV to online to mobile phones: A national study of US college students’ multiplatform video use and satisfaction. In F. L. Lee, L. L. Leung, J. L. Qiu, & D. S. C. Chu (Eds.), Frontiers in new media research (pp. 278–298). UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, K., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Socail networking sites and our lives. Retrieved December 25, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technology-and-social-networks.aspx

  • Hargittai, E. (2008a). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. (2008b). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. Grusky (Ed.), Social stratification. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helft, M., & Wortham, J. (2010, August 18). Facebook unveils a service to announce where users are. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/technology/19facebook.html

  • Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the ‘new’ Internet: Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 31, 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsia, L. (2010, December 10). How social media is changing the business of Television. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from http://mashable.com/2010/12/10/social-media-business-tv/

  • Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 2, 1. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html

  • Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or ‘CyberGhettos?’: A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junco, R., Merson, D., & Salter, D. W. (2010). The effect of gender, ethnicity, and income on college students’ use of communication technologies. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(6), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). The digital divide survey snapshot. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved December 21, 2011, from. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm?url1⁄4/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID1⁄446366

  • Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, N. H., Lauren, S. G., Lee, R., & Kristen, P. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved December 19, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP%20-%20Social%20networking%20sites%20and%20our%20lives.pdf

  • Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfeld, C. (2007, April). Profile elements as signals in an online social network. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2008). Teens, privacy and online social networks. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks.aspx

  • Lewis, C. C., & George, J. F. (2008). Cross-cultural deception in social networking sites and face-to-face communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2945–2964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, R. (2011, October 6). Social TV: How content producers can engage their audiences in new ways. Retrieved January 2, 2012 from http://mashable.com/2011/10/06/social-tv-intermedia-strategy/

  • Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media and Society, 10(3), 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, M. J., & Dundes, L. (2008). Gender differences in “social portraits” reflected in MySpace profiles. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(2), 239–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mithchell, A. (1979). Involvement: A potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. In W. L. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 6, pp. 191–196). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 441–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, A. A. (2011, August 4). Brands now direct their followers to social media. New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2011 from: http://0-web.ebscohost.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/ehost/detail?sid=ce7507d4-cd36-4ad0-94ee-57a9ac4a031e%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=9&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=63620002

  • Nielsen Media Research (2010, August 2). What Americans Do Online: Social media and games dominate activity. Retrieved December 17, 2011 from: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/what-americans-do-online-social-media-and-games-dominate-activity/

  • Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2005). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data.aspx

  • Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2007). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data.aspx

  • Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2011). Trends in teen communication and social media use. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2011/Feb/PIP-Girl-Scout-Webinar.aspx

  • Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Age differences in online social networking-A study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computer in Human Behavior, 25, 643–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robards, B. (2010). Randoms in my bedroom: Negotiating privacy and unsolicited contact on social network sites. PRism, 7, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008).The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Research Study, 8. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved December 22, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/ecar

  • Skog, D. (2005). Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(4), 464–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. R. (2002). Consumer behavior buying, having, and being (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1), 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2007, November 10). Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/ehost/detail?sid=8fe667fa-a095-4f2b-bf21-5a9142de7215 %40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=9&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXR l#db=a9h&AN=27504860

  • Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and business: A pointer to the intranets of the future. Business Information Review, 23(4), 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(2), 314–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utz, S., & Krämer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology, 3, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet: consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 35(2), 208–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121(2), 350–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct in marketing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding of this study from the Bowling Green State University Research Capacity Enhancement Grant and the Toledo Blade.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA

    Louisa Ha & Xiao Hu

Authors
  1. Louisa Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louisa Ha .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Media Business, Media Business Transfer Center, Berlin, Germany

    Mike Friedrichsen

  2. Humboldt Media Business School, Berlin, Germany

    Wolfgang Mühl-Benninghaus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ha, L., Hu, X. (2013). Social Media Involvement Among College Students and General Population: Implications to Media Management. In: Friedrichsen, M., Mühl-Benninghaus, W. (eds) Handbook of Social Media Management. Media Business and Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28897-5_44

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation