Do They?
About the Possible Motive-related Influence on User Behavior in
(Business-) Social Network Sites: A Theroretical State of Research
Jana-Eva Dietel
Work- and Organizational Psychology, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 11, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Keywords: Social Network Sites, Xing, LinkedIn, User Behavior, Motive Influence, Affiliation Motive, Achievement
Motive, Power Motive.
Abstract: Social network sites (SNSs) - as an application of the Web 2.0 - play an important role in the redefinition of
communication and social networking. Despite the massive influence of SNSs regarding our networking-
behavior in terms of both, private and business matters, little is known about how motivational components
(especially considering the affiliation-, achievement- and power motive) affect user behavior in SNSs. First
studies like those of Heser et al., (2015) showed first impressions of how a person’s motivational setup
influences the utilization of SNSs. However there is still a wide knowledge gap when applying the few
findings to SNSs such as Xing and LinkedIn, which focus on business-relevant usability. This article intends
to assess a theoretical overview, highlighting not only findings but also known gaps. We conclude with our
planned steps of future examinations and a recommendation for further research of the motive-related
influence on user behavior in (business-) SNSs.
1 INTRODUCTION
Web 2.0 has become an inherent part of everyday
life and opened up significant new ways of
accumulating information, entertainment and also
means of communication and social networking
(Heser et al., 2015; Richter and Koch, 2008;
Schaefer, 2008). In conjunction with these newly
defined means of online-communication, there was
also a shift in quality and quantity of social
networks, having them remarkably evolving due to
the rise of Web 2.0. This evolution is accurately
summarized by Di Gennaro and Dutton (2007: 591)
when they state that “Internet plays an important
role in reconfiguring the social networks of many
users”.
The basis of this reconfiguration of social
networking in Web 2.0 is provided mainly by social
network sites (SNSs) (Boyd and Ellison, 2007;
Schaefer, 2008). According to Richter et al., (2011),
SNSs offer a type of social software used in
accordance with the bottom-up approach, since users
partly define content, rules and reasons for using a
certain platform (Richter et al., 2011). Additionally,
SNSs act as an agent in connecting people, as well
as providing the means to maintain these
connections (Enders et al., 2008; Richter and Koch,
2008; Schaefer, 2008).
Summarizing the statements above, SNSs can be
defined as interactive platforms: their concept is
based on interaction and participation of their users
who, in turn, generate virtual contacts and contexts
(Enders et al., 2008; Richter et al., 2011; Richter and
Koch, 2008).
Despite the massive influence of SNSs regarding
our networking-behavior in terms of both, private
and business matters, little is known about how
motivational components of the user’s personality
(especially considering the ‘Big Three motives’)
affect user behavior.
This is, in fact, surprising, since motives are
widely accepted, well researched personality marks
with clear influence on our behavior and actions
(Koestner and McClelland, 1992; Schultheiss, 2008;
Schultheiss et al., 1999; Spangler et al., 2004;
Spangler, 1992; Winter, 1991).
Frankly, motives present an ideal way to
thoroughly assess user behavior when it comes to
SNSs.
Studies like those of Heser et al., (2015) offer
first impressions of how a person’s motivational
setup influences their utilization of SNSs. There is a
662
Dietel J..
Do They? - About the Possible Motive-related Influence on User Behavior in (Business-) Social Network Sites: A Theroretical State of Research.
DOI: 10.5220/0005527806620669
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (STDIS-2015), pages 662-669
ISBN: 978-989-758-106-9
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
huge blank space, though, when applying these
findings to SNSs with a focus on career-relevant
usability.
This article intends to assess a theoretical
overview, highlighting findings but also known gaps
regarding the function of motives when using
(business) SNSs. Based on this assessment, we
convey first relevant implications which are
illustrated in the article’s end.
The article itself is structured into three parts:
The first part is an overview of the theoretical
framework of SNSs, with focus on their functional
groups and their intended private and business-
related use. Following that, we, in accordance with
the ‘uses-and-gratification-approach’, present results
of studies that support theories connecting
personality-influence in terms of SNSs utilization.
To cast a solid foundation for our research's
implications, the second part of this article focuses
on an important personality trait: motives. Here, we
especially emphasize on affiliation, achievement and
power motive as assessed by Hester et al., (2015).
We conclude with our planned steps of future
examinations and a recommendation for further
research of the motive-related influence on user
behavior in (business-) SNSs.
2 SOCIAL NETWORK SITES –
NEW WAYS OF PRIVATE AND
BUSINESS-RELATED
NETWORKING
There is a multitude of SNSs and each service
provides a different approach on private (e.g.
Facebook, StudiVZ) or business-related intention of
use (see Table 1) (Enders et al., 2008; Richter and
Koch, 2008; Skeels and Grudin, 2009). For a better
differentiation, SNSs with a business-related
intention of use will be called social business
network sites (SBNSs) in the context of this article.
Intention of use, of course, also influences the
consumer; as Enders et al., (2008: 204) state, SBNSs
are “… active only in a business context, the target
group is limited to those willing to do business
online”.
SBNSs are, for example, LinkedIn or Xing.
Depending on account settings, users may create
profiles with CV-relevant information, create or join
theme-groups, use contact links, look for
professional employees or post job openings (Enders
et al., 2008; Schaefer, 2008) (see Table 1).
Table 1: Intention of use of popular SNSs and SBNSs
(Enders et al., 2008; Richter and Koch, 2008).
Name Intention of use Origin
Facebook private USA
StudiVZ private Germany
LinkedIn business USA
Xing business Germany
2.1 Functional Groups and Reasons
using SNSs and SBNSs
Independent of the intention of use, there are,
according to Richter and Koch (2008), similar
functional groups in all SNSs. Though similar, their
specifications remain in tune with the SNS’s
intention of use (private or business-related) (Richter
and Koch, 2008).
Functional Group 1 ‘Identity Management’. Identity
management is a basic function of any SNS/SBNS
and, according to Richter und Koch (2008), it is one
of the most significant reasons for users to log in
(regularly) to a certain network. The function offers
a controlled and directed presentation of personal
data through a user-created profile that is only
shown to a personally defined group of people
(Richter and Koch, 2008). The (tuned) profile and
the user’s contained data isn’t the only factor in
regards of identity management: there are even more
functions supporting a specific self-presentation
(Richter and Koch, 2008; Schaefer, 2008). For
example, users can join groups to represent personal
outlooks or interests (Richter and Koch, 2008); total
amount of contacts, sharing content or specific likes
and uploading pictures (of the user's choice)
contribute to identity management as well (Richter
and Koch, 2008).
Functional Group 2 ‘(Expert-) Search’. This
function enables SNS/SBNS users to search for
specific criteria (e.g. names, job experience,
company, position, or recommendations of other
contacts) in order to find matching persons or
companies (Richter and Koch, 2008). Contact
opportunities of interest will also be suggested
automatically by the network itself (Richter and
Koch, 2008). While this functional group has a
rather secondary role in private networks, it is
frequently used in SBNSs (Richter and Koch, 2008).
Functional Group 3 ‘Context Awareness’. Human
relationships are defined and shaped by trust
(Richter and Koch, 2008). To quickly establish trust
between two people, essentially strangers, via an
SNS/SBNS, mutual contacts will be visualized by,
for example, communication paths (Richter and
DoThey?-AboutthePossibleMotive-relatedInfluenceonUserBehaviorin(Business-)SocialNetworkSites:A
TheroreticalStateofResearch
663
Koch, 2008). Accordingly, trust and a potential
relationship are supposed to be established by
highlighting a shared personal context (Richter and
Koch, 2008). Connections of this quality are
ultimately beneficial to both, network (i.e. in the fact
that more connections bolster the platform’s overall
value) and user (i. e. in sense of the ‘strength-of-
weak-ties-theory’) (Richter and Koch, 2008).
Granovetter (1973: 1361) defines “the strenght of
a tie …” as “… a (probably linear) combination
of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the
intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal
services which characterize the tie”. The theory of
‘strength-of-weak-ties’ postulates that ties to loose
contacts (weak ties) also mean a vast pool of
information and thus an edge in terms of relevant
information gathered. The crucial dynamic in this
case originates from the fact that close contacts or
friends often share a similar milieu and thus also a
very similar pool of information (Granovetter, 1983;
Granovetter, 1973; Richter and Koch, 2008).
Loose contacts, however, have other contextual
frames and access to different pools of information
(Richter and Koch, 2008). Or, as Granovetter (1983:
209) states: “Weak ties provide people with access to
information and resources beyond those available in
their own social circle …”, though also adds “but
strong ties … are typically more easily available”
(Granovetter 1983: 209). This advantage of strong
ties, however, is at least partly compensated in
SNSs/SBNSs due to easily accessible relationships
even between strangers and loose contacts. This
way, the benefits of weak ties can still be utilized
(Richter and Koch, 2008).
Functional Group 4 ‘Contact Management’. The
functional group ‘contact management’ defines all
functions connected to maintain and manage one’s
own network. This manifests, for example, in
categorizing personal contacts, restricting certain
information to close contacts or customizing contact
information (Richter and Koch, 2008).
Functional Group 5 ‘Network Awareness’. ‘Network
awareness’ is the automatic, consecutive status
information (e.g. career changes, likes, birthdays) of
a network user’s personal contacts (Richter and
Koch, 2008). According to Richter and Koch (2008),
‘network awareness’ is a crucial factor in terms of
time spent interacting with a social online network
and thus the network’s success.
Functional group 6 ‘Exchange (Communication)’.
When it comes to exchange, SNSs/SBNSs utilize a
variety of tools like chats, newsfeeds or access to
contact data relayed through a user’s profile (Richter
and Koch, 2008).
Depending on intention of use (private or
business-related) as well as different specifications
of functional groups, the reasons for using a network
vary. Maintaining contacts, reactivating contacts and
searching for contacts are viable reasons for both,
private and business-related networks, as is self-
presentation (Schaefer, 2008). Reasons clearly
allocated to SBNSs are, for example, job offers, job
search, or the search for professionals (Richter and
Koch, 2008).
2.2 Personality and Use – Theories of
Technologic Determinism in a New
Light
The reasons for using SNSs/SBNSs have been
thoroughly analyzed since the emergence of the
corresponding platforms (Brandtzæg and Heim,
2009; Schaefer, 2008; Skeels and Grudin, 2009).
Having acquired a sophisticated foundation, research
now focuses on more in-depth analyses, for example
by examining socio-psychological principles, like
user personality, more closely (Heser et al., 2015).
This is a logical development, since Web 2.0 and
its applications (like SNSs/SBNSs) are no mere
artificial virtual reality, but can be understood as an
extension of the real world. In this extension, social
paradigms of human interaction (e.g. the
discriminating distinction between in-group and out-
group) are just as present as they are in the ‘offline-
world’ (Janneck et al., 2013).
To utilize user personality and how it is
influenced as a basis for research is no novelty
either: Early theories like the ‘uses-and-gratification-
approach’ have shown that socio-psychological
principles can influence individual media-use and its
outcome (Katz et al., 1973). “… the selection of
media and content, and the uses to which they are
put, are considerably influenced by social role and
psychological predisposition”, Katz et al., (1973:
165) explain this. How and if media is used, is no
automatic process, but happens individually and is
also shaped by the personality of any user (Amichai-
Hamburger and Vinitzky, 2010; Janneck et al., 2013;
Kalmus et al., 2011; Orr et al., 2009).
It is considerably self-explanatory, why the
theories of the 70s could not be taken into
consideration in terms of using SNSs or SNBSs.
Studies of today still show potential to be retro-fitted
to Web 2.0’s platforms (Amichai-Hamburger and
Vinitzky, 2010; Heser et al., 2015; Kalmus et al.,
2011; Schaefer, 2008). Orr et al., (2009), for
example, proved that shy individuals had
WEBIST2015-11thInternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies
664
significantly less Facebook friends but spend
proportionally more time visiting Facebook than
people who were not shy. Other authors also found
“A strong connection … between personality and
Facebook behavior” (Amichai-Hamburger and
Vinitzky, 2010: 1289).
It should be noted, though, that the term
personality on its own is no baseline for a
generalizing conclusion. After all, personality is
“… conceptualized from a variety of theoretical
perspectives, and at various levels of abstraction or
breadth” (John and Srivastava, 1995: 102).
Thus it makes sense, not only for economic
reasons, to utilize accepted and clearly distinct
personality traits for any assessment that is supposed
to turn out valid, reliable and objective.
Consecutively, the influence of personality traits
on the use of SNSs has been researched mainly with
the ‘Big Five personality traits’: extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and
openness (Correa et al., 2010; Gosling et al., 2011).
As Correa et al., (2010: 250) stated “People with
higher levels of extraversion tend to be heavier users
of social media” as well as Gosling et al. (2011) who
illustrated that extraversion is positively connoted to
the use of SNSs (like Facebook).
3 MOTIVES AS DETERMINING
FACTOR REGARDING THE
USE OF SNSs AND SBNSs?
Studies like those of Correa et al., (2010) and
Gosling et al., (2011) indicate that the ‘Big Five
personality traits’ can serve as a baseline explanation
for certain areas of SNSs use (Heser et al., 2015).
Yet, some authors prefer different personality
traits to explore even deeper layers of SNSs use
(Heser et al., 2015; Ross et al., 2009). Heser et al.
(2015) refer to Ross et al., (2009: 578), who,
concerning the ‘Big Five’, discovered that “…
personality factors were not as influential as
previous literature would suggest”.
Following this chain of thought, Ross et al.,
(2009: 578) postulate that motivational factors are
more practical to examine SNSs user behavior with
more extend and significance and eventually
conclude: “It is suggested that different motivations
may be influential in the decision to use tools such
as Facebook” (see also Heser et al., 2015). One
element of these motivational factors are motives
which are a central aspect of our article.
3.1 Motives – Definitions and
Distinctions
In contrast to the ‘Big Five personality traits’ which
are situationally comprehensive, motives are
situationally contextual: they have specific triggers
(Köhler, 2009; Sokolowski and Schmalt, 2010).
Although motives are well researched, stable
personality traits with a high degree of
generalization which are also applicable to a wide
spectrum of everyday situations (Köhler, 2009;
Rozhkova, 2011; Schultheiss, 2008), little is known
about their role in the use of SNSs (Heser et al.,
2015) or SBNSs; this is a factor that is discussed
again in point 4.
Motives can be defined as inner urges which
(together with skills and values) nudge and control
human behavior. Motives also influence selection of
information to reach motive-specific goals (see
Table 2) (Köhler, 2009; McClelland, Koestner and
Weinberger, 1989; Spangler, House and Palrecha,
2004; Spangler, 1992).
To understand how motives work, it is not only
recommended to define the term ‘motive’, but also
separate it from a similar term: motivation. Though
often used synonymously, motives are an aspect of
motivation (Köhler, 2009; Lallez, 1980).
Motivation has two components (Köhler, 2009),
as Lallez (1980: 58) postulates “... All motivated
behavior involves a motive and a drive”. The first
component is the motive, a stable personality trait,
defining what drives a human being in terms of a
goal. The second component consists of so called
‘motive-specific triggers’ which trigger the motive
(Köhler, 2009; McClelland et al., 1989).
Motives can be divided into independent classes:
implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious)
motives (Heser et al., 2015; Spangler et al., 2004;
Winter et al., 1998). Implicit motives manifest in
impulsive actions, triggered without a noticeable
influence, while explicit motives are controlled,
conscious actions, triggered by objective stimuli
(Heser et al., 2015; Köhler, 2009).
3.1.1 The ‘Big Three Motives’
The most frequently researched motives are the so
called ‘Big Three motives’, the affiliation motive,
the achievement motive and the power motive which
can be triggered in almost all everyday situations
and account for many aspects of behavior (Heser et
al., 2015; McClelland, 1985; Spangler, 1992; Winter
et al., 1998).
‘The Affiliation Motive’. Triggers concerning the
DoThey?-AboutthePossibleMotive-relatedInfluenceonUserBehaviorin(Business-)SocialNetworkSites:A
TheroreticalStateofResearch
665
affiliation motive can be found in situations where a
person interacts with strangers, loose contacts but
also friends (Koestner and McClelland, 1992;
Langens et al., 2005). A specific goal for the
affiliation motive can be the establishment and
upkeep of a positive, mutually beneficial and stable
relationship (Heser et al., 2015; Koestner and
McClelland, 1992). People with a distinct tendency
towards the affiliation motive have a strong desire
for warm, interpersonal relationships (McClelland et
al., 1989). They feel comfortable in company, go to
great lengths to maintain their networks, have more
social contacts than others and try to avoid solitude
and conflict, as well as competition (Koestner and
McClelland, 1992; Köhler, 2009; Stumpf et al.,
1985).
‘The Achievement Motive’. Generally speaking, the
achievement motive translates to “… the incentive
to do better …” (McClelland and Koester, 1992:
146) than others.
Situations triggering the achievement motive
when actions and their outcome can be labeled in
terms of quality (e.g. success/failure) (Langens et al.,
2005), or have competitive features. People
motivated by achievement strive to master and
prevail in challenging tasks (Schultheiss, 2008), or
as McClelland et al., (1992: 154) put it “…
achievement goal is meant success in competition
with some standard of excellence” (McClelland et
al., 1992: 154). They display a strong need for
feedback and try to avoid failure (Schultheiss, 2008).
‘The Power Motive’. According to Winter (1992a:
301), the power motive is best characterized as “...
the desire to have impact on other people, to affect
their behavior or emotions”. Power-motivating
situations are those offering the chance to control
other people, be it through persuasion, impression-
management, coercion or nurturance (Köhler, 2009;
Langens et al., 2005; Winter, 1992a). People with an
affinity for the power motive show a great craving
for prestige (Winter, 1992b; Winter, 1991).
Prestige however is prone to a ‘David vs.
Goliath-effect’ (Winter, 1992b). According to
Winter (1992b: 317) prestige can “[…] be scored if
a lower-status person is trying to exert power
against a higher-status person”.
3.1.2 Motive – Hope and Fear, or Why They
Are Acted Out; and Why Not
As elaborated, motives are stable personality traits
which aim to satisfy within the parameters of their
given goal and trigger (Schultheiss, 2008). Motives
are subject to a person’s individual variety which is
defined by two components: genetic predisposition
(Rozhkova, 2011; Winter, 1992b) and learning
experience (Schultheiss, 2008; Winter, 1992b).
This leads to motives that can’t or won’t be acted
out, even if they’re dominantly present. If, for
example, somebody with an affinity for the
achievement motive failed regularly in a competitive
context, they also failed to ‘be successful’, an
inherent requirement to satisfy achievement motive-
relevant goals. Failure in this case causes personal
inconsistence and thus negative emotion. The
negative experience combined with inner turmoil
may lead the affected person to avoid similar
situations or cause them to look for easier
challenges.
Table 2: Motives - Triggers, Goals and Components
(Langens et al., 2005; Stumpf et al., 1985; Sokolowski et
al., 2000; Sokolowski and Schmalt, 2010; Winter 1992a;
Winter, 1992b).
Affiliation Motive
Motive-
specific
triggers
Goal
Hope
component
Fear
component
Social
situations,
interaction
Establishing
positive, stable
relationships/
avoiding rejection
Hope of
bonding
Fear of
rejection
Achievement Motive
Motive-
specific
triggers
Goal Hope component
Fear
component
Competitive
situations,
with clearly
defined
success/
failure
outcomes
Successful
appraisal of
own
actions/
avoiding
failure
Hope of success
Fear of
failure
Power Motive
Motive-
specific
triggers
Goal Hope component
Fear
component
Situations
with the
chance to
exert power
over others
Controlling
and
influencing
others/
avoiding
loss of
control
Hope of control
Fear of
losing
control
As a result, we can assume that motives are
divided into two components: hope and fear (see
Table 2) (Schultheiss et al., 2008; Sokolowski et al.,
2000). The hope component has a tendency to gauge
the motivationally desired condition and prospect for
opportunities accordingly (Köhler, 2009; Langens et
WEBIST2015-11thInternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies
666
al., 2005). Fear, as a component, focuses on possible
failure and favors avoidance, as stated above
(Köhler, 2009; Langens et al., 2005; Schultheiss,
2008). These components can vary, depending on
person and situation (Köhler, 2009; Langens et al.,
2005). A person with a distinct affiliation motive
could be very outgoing when it comes to interaction
with close friends, but could at the same time be
rather shy and insecure when it comes to interaction
with strangers (Köhler, 2009).
4 WHAT OUR RESEARCH
IMPLIES - MOTIVES AND
THEIR USE IN SBNSs
The importance of motives in different aspects of
life (e. g. personnel assessment, career success) has
been researched and documented for decades
(McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982; Sokolowski et al.,
2000). But even though motives are accepted, stable
and genetically distinct personality traits which,
beyond dispute, influence our perception and the
way we act (Koestner and McClelland, 1992;
Schultheiss, 2008; Schultheiss et al., 1999; Spangler
et al., 2004; Spangler, 1992; Winter, 1991), there is
an empirical lack regarding the role of motives in
SNSs (Heser et al., 2015). A surprising
circumstance, as the influence of other personality
traits (the ‘Big Five’) has been thoroughly
researched (e. g. Correa et al., 2010; Gosling et al.,
2011). Ross et al. also postulated in 2009 that
motivational factors could very well explain the
behavior of SNSs users (see also Heser et al., 2015).
Following this concept, Heser et al., (2015)
succeeded in empirically assessing first approaches.
They studied the behavior of 57 Facebook and
StudiVZ users, as well as their explicit and implicit
motivational tendencies. Heser et al., (2015) have
been able to provide evidence that the explicit power
motive as well as affiliation motive were connected
to different kinds of user-behavior regarding SNSs.
The study showed a positive correlation between
the explicit power motive and the number of
network-friends as well as the amount of pictures
uploaded. The explicit affiliation motive has proven
to be a solid indicator in terms of daily use and time
spent on the network (Heser et al., 2015). However,
there was no consistent correlation in terms of
influence of implicit motives (Heser et al., 2015).
Up to this point, the possible motive-influenced
use of SBNSs, like Xing or LinkedIn, has not been
taken into account.
However, we think there is potential for
influence. The intention of use is different regarding
SNSs and SBNSs (private or business-related), but
functional groups are similar, for example ‘identity
management’ (Richter and Koch, 2008) which was
correlated to explicit power motive (uploading
pictures) in the study of Heser et al., (2015).
Also, motives do, due to their genetic basis, have
a high potential for generalization and can be
applied to a vast spectrum of everyday situations
(Köhler, 2009; Rozhkova, 2011; Schultheiss, 2008).
As mentioned, it is important that these situations
provide corresponding motive-specific triggers (see
Table 2) (Köhler, 2009; Langens et al., 2005;
Sokolowski and Schmalt, 2010).
We assume in this case, that SBNSs in fact do
provide these situational triggers.
Thus it is possible that people using SBNSs
contact strangers, communicate and build a network.
These are triggers for the affiliation motive
(Koestner and McClelland, 1992; Langens et al.,
2005; McClelland et al., 1989).
It’s also perfectly possible to compete with other
people, which is a trigger for the achievement
motive (Langens et al., 2005; McClelland et al.,
1992). In our opinion, it is conceivable to apply even
standards of quality by taking career parameters or
the total number of contacts into account, thus
creating abstract success and failure benchmarks.
Triggers for a power motive are also possible.
Direct identity management (concealment of
unemployment) or contact management and inherent
building of trust can be used to coerce others,
influence or manipulate them.
The ‘strength-of-weak-ties-theory’ also supports
that a vast network of loose contacts can give users
an edge in terms of information and thus also (even
subconsciously) strengthens one’s own position.
Since explicit motives are connected to
controlled actions, triggered by objective stimuli
(Heser et al., 2015; Köhler, 2009), we postulate that
the external ‘Big Three motives’ (affiliation,
achievement, power) have different effects on the
clearly visible, easily measureable behavior (e.g.
number of contacts, daily time spent using the
network) of SBNSs users.
Accordingly, we assume that different motive
tendencies cause different application of the various
functional groups like ‘identity management’
(Richter and Koch, 2008).
Here, we will start applying our research and
apart from the visible user behavior regarding
SBNSs, we will also, with the help of the German
Personality Research Form of Stumpf et al., (1985),
DoThey?-AboutthePossibleMotive-relatedInfluenceonUserBehaviorin(Business-)SocialNetworkSites:A
TheroreticalStateofResearch
667
take external motives components (including the
‘Big Three’) into account. This way, we want to gain
first impressions regarding a possible influence of
motives on SBNSs user behavior.
Furthermore we – even if Hester et al., (2015)
could not provide any significant effects – think
implicit motives may very well influence SBNSs
user behavior. However, this can only be assessed
by complex analyses. Analyzing networking
behavior (e.g. with focus on contact quality) may be
a promising approach in this case.
Winter (1992b), for example, states that the urge
for prestige (as a part of the power motive) is
defined by a lower status person who wants to exert
power over a person of higher status. It is possible,
that people with a distinct power motive prefer to
connect with people of a higher status than
themselves.
Additionally, in our opinion, implicit motive-
tendencies could be assessed by rating motive-
related keywords in postings or feeds.
We plan to begin further assessment here, in
order to shed more light on a possible implicit side
of motive-related SBNSs user behavior.
In conclusion we want to emphasize how
important it is to extend this research. SBNSs, as
well as SNSs play an important part in an economic
as well as in a social context.
To assess the mechanics which influence these
networks and their use, it is paramount to apply
classic mechanisms as well.
In tradition of the ‘uses-and-gratification-
approach’ and the current state of research, we, just
like Ross et al., (2009) and Heser et al., (2015), think
that accepted personality traits like the ‘Big Three
motives’ can help significantly to thoroughly,
empirically and soundly assess SBNSs and SNSs
user behavior.
REFERENCES
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Vinitzky, G. (2010) ‘Social
network use and personality’ Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 26, no. 6, November, pp. 1289-1295.
Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. B. (2007) ‘Social Network Sites:
Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 13, pp. 210–
230.
Brandtzæg, P. B and Heim, J. (2009) ‘Why people use
social networking sites, Proceedings of the HCI
International 2009. San Diego, CA, USA, 19-24 July’
in Ozok, A. A. and Zaphiris, P. (Eds.) Online
Communities, LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag, pp. 143–152.
Correa, T, Hinsley, A. W. and De Zuniga, H. G. (2010)
‘Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’
personality and social media use’, Computers in
Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 247-253.
Di Gennaro, C. and Dutton, W. H. (2007) ‘Reconfiguring
Friendships: Social relationships and the Internet’,
Information, Communication & Society, vol. 10, no. 5,
pp. 591-618.
Enders, A., Hungenberg, H., Denker, H.-P. and Mauch, S.
(2008) ‘The long tail of social networking: Revenue
models of social networking sites’, European
Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 3, June, pp. 199-
211.
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N.
and Gaddis, S. (2011) ‘Manifestations of personality
in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-
related behaviors and observable profile information’,
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
vol. 14, no. 9, September, pp. 483-488.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’,
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6, May,
pp. 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties: A
Network Theory Revisited’, Sociological Theory, vol.
1, pp. 201-233.
Heser, K., Banse, R. and Imhoff, R. (2015) ‘Original
Communication. Affiliation or Power. What Motivates
Behavior on Social Networking Sites?’, Swiss Journal
of Psychology, vol. 74, no. 1, January, pp. 37–47.
Janneck, M., Bayerl, P. S. and Dietel, J.-E. (2013) The
Minimal Group Paradigm in Virtual Teams, in
Holzinger, A., Ziefle, M., Hitz, M. and Debevc, M.
(Eds.) Human Factors in Computing and Informatics
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 457-476.
John, O. P. and Srivastava, S. (1995) The Big Five Trait
Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical
Perspectives, in Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. (Eds.)
Handbook of Personality. Theory and Research, 2
nd
edition, New York, London: The Guilfort Press, pp.
102-138.
Kalmus, V., Realo, A. and Sjibak, A. (2011) ‘Motives for
Internet Use and their Relationships with Personality
Traits and Socio-Demographic Factors’, Trames. A
Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, vol.
15, no. 4, pp. 385-403.
Katz, E., Gurevitch, M. and Haas, H. (1973) ‘On the Use
of the Mass Media for Important Things’, American
Sociological Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 164-181.
Köhler, A. (2009) ‘Zur Validität reaktionszeitbasierter
Motivmessung im Kontext der Personalauswahl‘, PhD
Thesis, Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Hamburg.
Koestner, R. & McClelland, D. C. (1992) ‘The Affiliation
Motive’, in Smith, C. P. (Ed.) Motivation and
Personality. Handbook of thematic content analysis,
New York, Victoria: Cambridge University Press, (pp.
205-210).
Lallez, R. (1980) ‘The elements of motivation: the
psychologist's viewpoint’, European Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53-68.
WEBIST2015-11thInternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies
668
Langens, T. A., Schmalt, H.-D. and Sokolowski, K. (2005)
‘Motivmessung: Grundlagen und Anwendungen’, in
Vollmeyer, R. and Brunstein, J. C. (Eds.)
Motivationspsychologie und ihre Anwendung,
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp. 70-89.
McClelland, D.C. (1985) ‘How Motives, Skills, and
Values Determine What People Do’, American
Psychologist, vol. 40, no. 7, July, pp. 812-825.
McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A. and
Lowell, E.L. (1992) ‘A scoring manual for the
achievement motive’, in Smith, C.P. (Ed.) Motivation
and Personality. Handbook of thematic content
analysis, New York, Victoria: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 153-178.
McClelland, D. C. and Boyatzis, R. (1982) ‘Leadership
motive pattern and long-term success in management’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 737-
743.
McClelland, M. C. and Koestner, R. (1992) ‘The
achievement motive’, in Smith, C.P. (Ed.) Motivation
and Personality. Handbook of thematic content
analysis, New York, Victoria: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 143-152.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R. and Weinberger, J. (1989)
‘How Do Self-Attributed and Implicit Motives
Differ?’, Psychological Review, vol. 96, no. 4, pp.
690-702.
Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G.,
Arseneault, J.M. and Orr, R.R. (2009) ‘The influence
of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate
sample’, CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol. 12, no. 3,
June, pp. 337-340.
Richter, A. and Koch, M. (2008) ‘Functions of Social
Networking Services’, Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on the Design of
Cooperative Systems, Carry-le-rouet, France, pp. 87-
98.
Richter, D., Riemer, K. and vom Brocke, J. (2011)
‘Internet Social Networking. Research State of the Art
and Implications for Enterprise 2.0.’, Business &
Information Systems Engineering, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 89-
101.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M.,
Simmering, M. G. and Orr, R. R. (2009) ‘Personality
and motivations associated with Facebook use’,
Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 2, March,
pp. 578–586.
Rozhkova, M. (2011) ‘Measurement of the implicit and
explicit Achievement Motive: New Perspectives’, PhD
Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
Schaefer, C. (2008) ‘Motivations and Usage Patterns on
Social Network Sites’, Proceedings of the 16th
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS
2008), Galway, Ireland.
Schultheiss, O .C. (2008) ‘Implicit Motives’, in John, O.
P., Robins, R. W. and L. A. Pervin, L. A (Eds.)
Handbook of Personality. Theory and Research, New
York: The Guildfort Press, pp. 603-633.
Schultheiss, O. C., Campbell, K. L. and McClelland, D. C.
(1999) ‘Implicit Power Motivation Moderates Men’s
Testosterone Responses to Imagined and Real
Dominance Success’, Hormones and Behavior, vol.
36, June, pp. 234-241.
Skeels, M. and Grudin, J. (2009) ‘When Social Networks
Cross Boundaries: A Case Study of Workplace Use of
Facebook and LinkedIn’, Proceedings of the ACM
2009 international Conference on Supporting Group
Work, Sanibel Island, USA.
Sokolowski, K. and Schmalt, H.-D. (2010) ‘MMG-C. Das
Multi-Motiv-Gitter für Anschluss, Leistung und Macht
in der Computerdarbietung, Mödling: Schuhfried.
Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H.-D., Langens, T. A. and Puca,
R. M. (2000) ‘Assessing Achievement, Affiliation, a
Power Motives All at Once: The Multi-Motive Grid
(MMG)’, Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 74,
no.1, pp. 126-145.
Spangler, W. D. (1992) ‘Validity of Questionnaire and
TAT Measures of Need for Achievement: Two Meta-
Analyses’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 112, no. 1,
July, pp. 140-154.
Spangler, W. D., House, R. J., and Palrecha, R. (2004)
‘Personality and leadership’, in Schneider, B. and
Smith, B. (Eds.) Personality and organizations,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 251-290.
Stumpf, H., Angleitner, A., Wieck, T. Jackson, D. N. and
Beloch-Till, H. (1985) Deutsche Personality Research
Form (PRF), Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Winter, D. G. (1991) ‘A Motivational Model of
Leadership: Predicting Long-Term Management
Success from TAT Measures of Power Motivation and
Responsibility’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 67-80.
Winter, D. G. (1992a) ‘Power motivated revisited’, in
Smith, C. P. (Ed.) Motivation and Personality.
Handbook of thematic content analysis, New York,
Victoria: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301-310.
Winter, D. G. (1992b) ‘A revised scoring system for the
power motive’, in Smith, C.P. (Ed.) Motivation and
Personality. Handbook of thematic content analysis,
New York, Victoria: Cambridge University Press, pp.
311-418.
Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C.
and Duncan, L. E. (1998) ‘Traits and Motives: Toward
an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality
Research’, Psychological Review, vol. 105, no. 2,
April, pp. 230-250.
DoThey?-AboutthePossibleMotive-relatedInfluenceonUserBehaviorin(Business-)SocialNetworkSites:A
TheroreticalStateofResearch
669
