Why Hispanics Use Facebook and Twitter:
A Uses and Gratifications Approach
by
Michael Radlick
A Capstone Project
Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Strategic Communication
Supervisor: Dr. Joseph Erba
American University
April 24, 2014
COPYRIGHT
Michael R. Radlick
2014
Abstract:
Social networking sites are integral to strategic communication plans. This study explores what
gratifications Hispanics receive from using social networking sites, namely Facebook and
Twitter with the hope of better understanding how to reach this rapidly growing population.
Because both the Hispanic population and the rate with which it uses social networking sites are
growing rapidly, it will be important to strategic communicators to know how to reach Hispanics
via two of the most popular platforms available. This study seeks to answer two important
research questions. First, it seeks to answer: What gratifications do Hispanics receive from their
use of Facebook and Twitter? Second, this study seeks to answer the question: Do Hispanics
perceive users of Facebook differently than users of Twitter? In order to answer these questions,
this study takes a Uses and Gratifications theory approach to the social networking use of
Hispanics. Uses and Gratifications theory studies how individuals choose to use mass media and
other communication channels and what gratifications they receive from doing so. It posits an
active audience that picks different media for different purposes, in this case Facebook and
Twitter. These research questions are especially important due to the almost complete lack of
Hispanic-focused literature available in the field. Very few social networking site-related Uses
and Gratifications studies have large Hispanic samples, and only one focuses completely on the
Hispanic population (Wasike & Cook, 2010), which this study seeks to build on. This study
attempts to remedy that gap in Uses and Gratifications research by surveying 183 participants
(47% Hispanic, 53% non-Hispanic) about their uses of the two social networks and their
perceptions about Facebook and Twitter users. Distribution of the survey was done via Facebook
and Twitter, as well as via email. Key influencers were asked to spread the survey over their
social networking profiles. Results suggest that Hispanics use Facebook and Twitter mainly for
passing time, advocacy, and information seeking. Data also suggest that Hispanics use Facebook
and Twitter significantly more for advocacy and identity purposes than non-Hispanics. Finally,
the data regarding perceptions of users suggest that Hispanics do, in fact, perceive users of
Twitter in a slightly more positive light than those of Facebook. This study adds an additional set
of data to the field regarding Hispanic social networking site use. Even more, it provides future
researchers with two new, reliable categories to use in future Uses and Gratifications research
regarding minorities: advocacy and identity. Overall, this study supports and expands upon
previous research in the field regarding Hispanic social networking site use and posits new
avenues of research for future Uses and Gratifications studies. Most importantly, the implications
of these results for strategic communication professionals are discussed, and a number of
suggestions for reaching Hispanics via social networking sites are offered.
i
Acknowledgments
I would like to dedicate this capstone to my parents, who have believed in me since day
one. Your patience, wisdom, and love have made me the man I am today. I would also like to
thank my rock in life, Paola. Your love and support have challenged me and inspired me. I love
you. Finally, to Professor Joseph Erba, thank you for all of the suggestions, insight, and support
you provided over the course of this capstone. Your guidance was second to none.
ii
List of Tables
Table 1 – Percentage of Internet Users That Use SNS ..........................................................6
Table 2 – Percentage of SNS Users That Use Twitter ...........................................................6
Table 3 – Hispanic-Specific Ethnicity by Percent .................................................................24
Table 4 – Gratification Dimension Means for Hispanics Across
All Dimensions Tested.........................................................................................27
Table 5 – Cronbach Alpha Scores for Combined SNS Use
Categories ..............................................................................................................28
Table 6 – Means of Hispanic SNS Use Categories by SNS Type .........................................29
Table 7 – Means of Non-Hispanic SNS Use Categories by SNS Type .................................30
Table 8 – t-Tests for Respondents’ Use of Facebook and Twitter
Based on Ethnicity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) ......................................................31
Table 9 – t-Tests for Respondents’ Combined SNS Use Based on
Ethnicity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) .....................................................................31
Table 10 – Means of Perceptions Scores for Hispanic Respondents .....................................32
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 5
Hispanic American Growth and Social Networking Site Use ................................................ 5
Social Networking Sites .......................................................................................................... 7
Facebook. ......................................................................................................................... 8
Twitter. ............................................................................................................................. 9
Uses and Gratifications Theory ............................................................................................. 10
Early Research. .............................................................................................................. 10
Internet and New Media................................................................................................. 15
Social Networking Sites. ................................................................................................ 17
Perceptions of SNS Users...................................................................................................... 20
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 23
Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 24
Sample Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 25
Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 26
Uses and Gratifications of SNS. .................................................................................... 26
Perceptions of Facebook and Twitter Users. ................................................................. 27
iv
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 29
RQ1: What Gratifications Do Hispanics Receive From Their Use of
Facebook and Twitter? ................................................................................................... 29
RQ1a: How Do Facebook And Twitter Gratifications Differ Between
Hispanics And Non-Hispanics? ..................................................................................... 30
RQ2: Do Hispanics Perceive Users of Facebook Differently Than Users
of Twitter? ..................................................................................................................... 34
Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 42
References .................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 48
1
Introduction
Social networking sites (SNS) have become a part of everyday life. Pew Research
Center’s Internet and American Life Project, which measures “the impact of the internet on
families, communities, work and home, daily life, education, health care, and civic and political
life” (Pew Research Center, 2013, para. 1), shows a 5 percent rise in SNS use by Americans in
the six months from December 2012-May 2013, reflecting a much larger 67 percent rise in SNS
use from 2005 to late 2012, bringing the percentage of Americans who use SNS to 72 percent
(Brenner & Smith, 2013; Duggan & Brenner, 2013). In addition to increasing SNS use among
Americans, the percentage of Hispanics with access to the Internet has also increased—both at
home and via mobile access—effectively closing the digital divide (Lopez, Gonzalez-Barrera, &
Patten, 2013). Furthermore, SNS now comprise 8 of the top 15 most visited sites in the world
and 4 of the top 10 sites visited in the U.S. (Alexa.com, 2013a, 2013b). Since mid 2013,
Facebook and Twitter have regularly been ranked the second and ninth most visited sites in the
states, behind media giants like Google, YouTube, Yahoo!, and Amazon. Put simply, the number
of Americans interacting on the Internet via SNS is growing rapidly, making it even more
important to understand why people use SNS and how communicators can reach them through
SNS.
The key to any good communications plan is identifying the target audience and how best
to reach it. With Hispanics in the United States totaling “16.3 percent of the total population . . .
[and] account[ing] for most of the nation’s growth—56%—from 2000 to 2010” (Lopez, Cohn, &
Passel, 2011, p. 1), the Hispanic population in America is clearly on the rise. Considering this
growth, it will be necessary for companies, political candidates, PR firms, sports teams, nonprofits, and other institutions to craft messages and strategies that will effectively reach this
2
growing segment of the population. Regarding SNS, then, it is important to note that studies
show that Hispanics are using SNS, particularly Facebook and Twitter more than any other
demographic—80% of Hispanics use SNS (Brenner & Smith, 2013; Duggan & Brenner, 2013;
Lopez et al., 2013). When describing this growing demographic, it is important to note that the
terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” refer to people from different countries, regions, and
backgrounds. The term “Hispanic” is an ethnonym that refers to language—it describes a person
whose ancestry is derived from any Spanish-speaking country (Diffen.com, 2014). Conversely,
“Latino” is an ethnonym which refers to geography—it describes people from South and Central
America and the Caribbean (Diffen.com, 2014). While the terms do refer to people from
different countries, regions, and backgrounds, this study is seeking to develop an understanding
of all those who consider themselves Hispanic and/or Latino. Therefore, for ease of reading, this
study will use the term Hispanic to include both Hispanic and Latino/a respondents.
Even though a significant amount of research has been done on the uses and gratifications
obtained by using the Internet (Eighmey & McCord, 1998; García Jiménez, Cruz López De
Ayala Lopez, & Gaona Pisionero, 2012; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; Papacharissi & Rubin,
2000) and using SNS (Chen, 2011; Gudelunas, 2012; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009; QuanHaase & Young, 2010; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Urista, Qingwen, & Day, 2009), very
little has been done using the Hispanic population as the sole or primary population (see Wasike
& Cook, 2010). Taking into account the rapid growth of the Hispanic population and statistics
that show that Hispanics are using the top two social networking platforms at higher rates than
any other demographic, more research clearly needs to be done to fill the gap between what we
know about uses and gratifications on a holistic level and what we do not know about uses and
gratifications for Hispanics. Wasike and Cook (2010) took a Uses and Gratifications Theory
3
(“U&G”) approach to Hispanic use of Facebook and MySpace by surveying 1660 students at a
Hispanic Serving Institution. In typical U&G fashion, the authors sought to determine why the
students chose Facebook and MySpace (uses) based on what they were using the platforms for
(gratifications). Their results—examined in more detail in the discussion of U&G, below—
showed that respondents used Facebook and MySpace mostly to pass time and for entertainment.
In that vein, this study mirrors the methodology of the Wasike and Cook (2010) study and seeks
to strengthen its the findings by not only determining why Hispanics use SNS, but by also
exploring the significance of those gratifications in comparison to non-Hispanics. By using the
U&G framework on a broader population of Latino respondents, this study attempts to answer
the following research question:
RQ1: What gratifications do Hispanics receive from their use of Facebook and
Twitter?
This study also seeks to expand upon the internet motive scale used in the Wasike
and Cook (2010) study by including two additional categories of computer mediated
communication (“CMC”) and several gratification dimensions to each category used in
the Wasike and Cook (2010) study. In doing so, this study endeavors to strengthen
previous findings regarding why Hispanics use SNS and allows for the possibility of new
gratifications to be discovered.
Wasike and Cook (2010) also found in their study that respondents, users of both
MySpace and Facebook, perceived users of Facebook as cooler, smarter, and more
interesting than users of MySpace. This is especially relevant due to the ever-changing
landscape of available SNS. Because new SNS are always emerging, it is important for
communicators to understand how populations perceive each SNS in order to most
4
effectively connect with users—in this case Hispanics. With that in mind, this study seeks
to expand upon the categories of user perception (cool, smart, interesting) that Wasike
and Cook (2010) used by including questions about whether respondents perceive other
Facebook or Twitter users to be: mainstream, informed, or influential. These categories
will be used to answer the following research question:
RQ2: Do Hispanics perceive users of Facebook differently than users of Twitter?
Since the growing Hispanic American population and its affinity for SNS use is
so crucial to this study, this literature review will begin by addressing that growth and
presenting the reader with statistical evidence to support its importance in relation to this
research. Furthermore, because this study focuses on why Hispanics use SNS, the
literature review goes on to provide information regarding how SNS are defined broadly
and to highlight important information about both Facebook and Twitter. This
information is essential for the reader to understand in order to grasp how the study uses
U&G to develop a framework for how users interact with both SNS. Once the reader has
a grasp on SNS, further reading will supply an understanding of the key concepts of
U&G and key findings in the field, all of which helped to shape this study. Finally, the
literature review addresses research regarding the perceptions people have of different
types of media users, shedding light on the thinking behind the importance of the second
research question.
5
Literature Review
Hispanic American Growth and Social Networking Site Use
The Hispanic population in America is growing at a rapid rate—46 percent in the last
decade (García & McCauley, 2011). As of July 1, 2012, there are 53 million Hispanics residing
in the U.S., comprising 17 percent of the entire country’s population (U.S. Census Bureau,
2013). More tellingly, the Hispanic population accounted for almost half of the total number of
people added to the U.S. population between July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2013—1.1 million
Hispanics out of 2.3 million total (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). These statistics alone suggest the
increasing power of the Hispanic voice in American culture. When coupled with research by the
Pew Hispanic Center regarding the growth of the Hispanic electorate, this phenomenon is made
even more relevant to those attempting to communicate with the Hispanic population. According
to Pew Hispanic Center projections, “Hispanics will account for 40% of the growth in the
eligible electorate in the U.S. between now and 2030, at which time 40 million Hispanics will be
eligible to vote, up from 23.7 million now” (Taylor, Gonzalez-Barrera, Passel, & Lopez, 2012, p.
6). In other words, by 2030 there will be another 16.3 million Hispanics ages 18 and over
available for communicators to reach.
The growth of this demographic is especially important to this research—and to other
communicators seeking to reach Hispanics via SNS—when you consider the data in Table 1.
This data, taken from a Pew Internet and American Life Project study published in August 2013,
shows that across Internet users of all races, Hispanics use SNS more than any other race and
SNS users 18-49 use SNS more than those 50 and up (Brenner & Smith, 2013). This data,
coupled with data that shows that 84 percent of Hispanic Internet users age 18-29 are using SNS,
further illuminates the importance of this growing demographic. As this demographic grows, our
6
country will be filled with more and more Hispanics who use SNS, making the growth of the
Hispanic population and the growth of the electorate as discussed by Taylor et al. (2012) even
more poignant.
Table 1: Percentage of Internet Users That Use SNS
All Internet Users
72%
Race/Ethnicity
Age
White, Non-Hispanic
70%
18-29
Black, Non-Hispanic
75%
30-49
Hispanic
80%
50-64
65 & Up
89%
78%
60%
43%
In addition to SNS use in general, Hispanics seem to be using Twitter and Facebook at
increasing rates, making the focus on these SNS an important one. The same Pew study shows
that Hispanics are using Twitter more than any other demographic and, while Facebook ethnic
data is not included in the study itself, according to Pew it “is consistent with overall social
network use” 1 (Bennet, 2013). Table 2, reflecting data from Brenner and Smith (2013), shows
the percentages at which these different groups are using Twitter.
Table 2: Percentage of SNS Users That Use Twitter
All Internet Users
18%
Race/Ethnicity
Age
White, Non-Hispanic
14%
18-29
Black, Non-Hispanic
27%
30-49
Hispanic
28%
50-64
65 & Up
1
30%
17%
13%
5%
At the time of this study, current ethnic data regarding Facebook use was not available in any
of the Pew Internet studies consulted, on Facebook, or via any other Internet sources.
7
What Table 2 does not reflect is the increase in the percentage of Hispanics using Twitter
between November 2012 and May 2013. Hispanic use of Twitter increased by 9 percent over this
period, an increase 9 times larger than that of Blacks and Whites combined over the same period
(Brenner & Smith, 2013; Duggan & Brenner, 2013).
When considering this information, it is important to note that the landscape of SNS use
can change quickly at any given time. Because social media was designed to be just that, social,
events in the world affect who is using SNS and how often. This means that while Hispanics
were using social media more than any other group at the time of these studies that could change
depending on a number of variables. What makes these numbers so important is the rate of
growth over a 5-month period and the high percentages of use within the Hispanic population
itself.
Among these Facebook and Twitter users, it is especially important to note that the 18-29
year old and 30-49 year old age groups use SNS the most, and that 84 percent of 18-29 year old
Latinos who use the internet use SNS (Brenner & Smith, 2013; Lopez et al., 2013). This suggests
that this population is the key to reaching Hispanics on Facebook and Twitter. Based on the
aforementioned findings regarding age, the current study focused on Latinos in the 18-40 age
range in order to attempt to provide future researchers with results based on the most active SNS
user population.
Social Networking Sites
Social networking sites are here to stay. The have become an integral part of the way we
communicate as human beings, and therefore, it is important that we understand the intricacies of
their makeup. SNS are defined as:
8
[W]eb-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semipublic profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with
whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections
and those made by others within the system. (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211)
These sites allow users to cultivate a friend list, broadcast personal information (in the form of a
profile), and communicate with friends in their network. SNS provide a bevy of different features
for users, including email and instant messaging integration, photo/document sharing, and
location-based commenting to name a few. However, despite all of the available features, the
“backbone [of SNS] consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends who are
also users of the system” (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211). Users’ ability to display and grow their
social networks through secondary and tertiary network ties set SNS apart from other forms of
CMC.
The first widely accepted SNS, SixDegrees.com, was launched in 1997, followed by an
explosion of sites throughout the early 2000s, including BlackPlanet in 1999, Ryze in 2001,
Friendster in 2002, LinkedIn and MySpace in 2003, Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005, and
Twitter in 2006, among others (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Since then, the number of SNS has
increased, as has the scope of the features they offer and populations they serve, exemplified by
the growth of Facebook over the past decade and reflected in the rapid growth of Twitter in the
last few years.
Facebook.
Facebook, launched in 2004, is a SNS used for communicating with friends, posting
photos and videos, and cataloging users’ lives. Facebook users “can also form and join virtual
groups, develop applications, host content, and learn about each others’ interests, hobbies, and
9
relationship statuses through users’ online profiles” (Quan-Haase & Young, 2010, p. 352). The
site’s mission is to “give people the power to share and make the world more open and
connected” (Facebook.com, 2013a). When launched, the site served only the Harvard population,
but by May 2005 it had expanded to over 800 universities, and by September 2006 registration
was open to everyone (Facebook.com, 2013b). The site, continuously ranked the second most
visited site in the world behind Google (Alexa.com, 2013a), boasts 732 million active daily users
and 1.19 billion active monthly users as of September 30, 2013 who spend an average of 20
minutes per visit and 700 billion minutes per month on the site (Facebook.com, 2013a;
StatisticBrain.com, 2013). Facebook encompasses the characteristics of SNS laid out by Boyd
and Ellison (2008), and provides users with a platform to network, share, and communicate.
Twitter.
Launched two years later in 2006, Twitter is a micro-blogging platform that allows users
to broadcast 140 character messages—called tweets—to other users that choose to follow them
(New York University, 2013). It offers the opportunity for users to: create a Following list of
friends, organizations, celebrities, etc.; broadcast text and photo messages to their Followers; and
search through their Followers’ friends, as well as the entire site’s population to make new
connections—all key characteristics of SNS as detailed by Boyd and Ellison (2008). The site
states that its mission is, “To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information
instantly, without barriers” (Twitter.com, 2013). Twitter currently has 232 million monthly
active users who spend an average of nearly 13 minutes per visit on the site and send an average
of 500 million tweets per day (Twitter.com, 2013; New York University, 2013). Currently, the
site is ranked ninth in the U.S. on Alexa.com’s most visited U.S. websites list (Alexa.com,
10
2013b), and the percentage of Internet users who use Twitter has grown 10 percent from May
2010 to May 2013 (Brenner & Smith, 2013), indicating steadily increasing use of this SNS.
Due to growing number of available SNS and the increasing importance of SNS in
individuals’ daily lives, it is essential that communicators understand why people—particularly
Hispanics—use SNS, so that they can make their communications more efficient. U&G provides
researchers with a framework for understanding just that.
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Uses and Gratifications Theory represents the study of how individuals choose to use
mass media and other communications channels, and what gratifications they receive from doing
so (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974; Rubin, 1984; Sherry & Boyan, 2008; Urista et al., 2009;
Wasike & Cook, 2010). The body of research began in the 1940s when researchers began to
study why and how individuals used certain forms of media like the newspapers, the radio, and
the television (Sherry & Boyan, 2008; Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). At the time, the focus of
research on media and their effects on audiences centered around a mechanistic process that
began with the media outlets, which influenced a passive audience that simply took in media as it
was presented (Urista et al., 2009). U&G theory, however, posits the existence of an active
audience where “viewers, listeners, and readers select and use various media options and
programming to gratify their needs” (DeSanto, 2009, p. 880).
Early Research.
Early research in the field focused more on collecting information from respondents on
their media uses and classifying them into useful, descriptive categories like news gathering,
entertainment, and opinion forming (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Katz & Lazarsfeld,
1955; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948; Merton, 1949). This qualitative research varied in
11
data gathering and sample population methodology and tended to simply identify motives of
media use rather than systematically describe the processes respondents went through in
choosing media, or the effects of that chosen media on the respondent (Rubin, 2008). The lack of
a systematic structure to early U&G studies meant that researchers did not have standardized set
of operating definitions, and therefore, researchers in the 60s and 70s began to criticize the
assumptions central to the theory (Anderson & Meyer, 1975; Carey & Kreiling, 1974; Elliot,
1974; Lometti, Reeves, & Bybee, 1977; Swanson, 1977). Critics cited theoretical and
methodological problems that included: (a) the lack of defined central constructs and
standardized meanings for key concepts like gratifications and motives, (b) the construct of an
audience that was overly active and rational in its media choices, (c) lack of a clear explanatory
apparatus, (d) a missing emphasis on the audiences’ perception of the content it was consuming,
(e) the reliance on self-reporting, and (f) the inability of researchers to generalize results to a
broader population (Rubin, 2008; Ruggiero, 2000). In response, U&G researchers throughout the
1970s sought to create a more strict theoretical framework that not only focused on the
gratifications respondents received, but on how those gratifications affected other aspects of their
lives, both psychologically and socially.
In 1974, Elihu Katz, who had been conducting U&G research for over a decade, along
with Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch, published a collection of articles titled The Uses of
Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research that includes what
Sherry and Boyan (2008) propose is the first real theoretical definition of U&G theory. Katz et
al. (1974) stated that U&G theory focuses on “the social and psychological origins of needs,
which generate expectations of the mass media or other sources, which lead to differential
patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in need gratifications
12
and other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones” (p. 20). In other words, the theory is
concerned with determining how mass media affect individuals from the consumer’s perspective,
and how that in turn affects society (Rubin, 1984). The societal implications of U&G theory
relate to how the gratifications received by an individual affect other aspects of their lives, and
therefore, the world around them. This definition was an early result of U&G researchers’
attempt to create a more rigid standard of research for U&G theory in response to criticisms. As
Katz et al. (1974) reported, recent studies had been attempting “to press towards a greater
systemization of what is involved in conducting [U&G research]” (p. 20).
Furthermore, Katz et al. (1974) proposed five elements key to understanding the “U&G
model,” a term used by Lundberg and Hulten (1968) to describe the five elements—the existence
of an active, goal-oriented audience being the first. Second, they stated that audience members
take initiative in choosing media that fit their need gratifications. Third, media compete with
various other types of gratifications for audience attention. The fourth element is that, throughout
the process of choosing media, individuals are self-aware enough of their motives for choosing
different media to be able to communicate them when asked about them. Finally, Katz et al.
(1974) stated in their fifth element of the U&G model that only by studying the motives of
audiences and the values they place on media can researchers fully understand the effects of the
media.
The systemization of U&G theory came about as researchers began to apply social and
psychological variables to their findings, which they felt were important in determining the
origins of gratification and consumption patterns (Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). These studies
left behind the methodologies of 1940s and 50s research—simply gathering qualitative data and
grouping gratifications into categories—and began linking gratifications to different sociological
13
and psychological phenomenon. For instance, researchers began looking at how race affected
media use choices (Gerson, 1966)—something this study hopes to do with Hispanics—and how
race and social class affected TV uses and gratifications (Greenberg & Dominick, 1969).
Greenberg and Dominick (1969) found that race and social class were good predictors of how
teenagers used television, with low-income Blacks relying on television more for learning uses
than low-income or middle-income Whites. This type of research linking variables like race,
social class, and thoughts-about-self continued through the 70s, 80s, and 90s with studies
regarding uses and gratifications of television (Bantz, 1982; Bryant & Zillmann, 1984; Eastman,
1979; McIlwraith, 1998; Rubin, 1984), radio (Armstrong & Rubin, 1989), the telephone
(Dimmick & Sikand, 1994; O'Keefe & Sulanowski, 1995), and computers (Flaherty & Pearce,
1998).
The aforementioned studies provided future researchers with a bevy of information that
would assist in shaping further U&G research throughout the years. Early research showed that
gratifications for TV use were correlated to different lifestyle types (Eastman, 1979). Results
showed, among other things, that “Experimental Shoppers” used TV for information gathering,
not background noise, and “Movers”—individuals who relocate often—do not use television for
information seeking about their new location (p. 498). Later research showed support for the
notion of ritualized (habitual) and instrumental (goal-oriented) media use (Rubin, 1984). This
research found several categories of TV use gratification, including info/learning, entertainment,
and relaxation, and strengthened the notion of the active audience by showing that users met
their need gratifications consciously in either a ritualized or goal oriented way. Bryant and
Zillmann (1984) found that respondents used television to alleviate stress and boredom, and that,
based on what need gratifications respondents wanted to fulfill, program choices differed. For
14
example, respondents looking to fulfill a de-stress need gratification were more likely to choose
relaxing programming, while respondents seeking to meet an arousal need gratification were
more likely to choose exciting programming. In other words, respondents used television
instrumentally to meet their need gratifications. McIlwraith (1998) found that, similarly,
respondents gratified passing time and mood distraction needs (i.e., they used television to
alleviate boredom).
At the same time, researchers were studying radio and television. Armstrong and Rubin
(1989) surveyed 159 radio talk show listeners to determine whether or not the need gratifications
differed between callers and non-callers. Results showed that the top gratifications were
convenience, information, entertainment, and relaxation. More importantly, respondents who
called in were more likely to be information seekers (instrumental use), whereas non-callers used
radio for passing time and relaxing (ritualized use). The authors also suggest that, because using
the telephone is a form of interpersonal communication, talk radio allows callers to meet an
interpersonal communication need. Along those lines, further research found that, on top of use
for interpersonal communication gratifications, telephone users seek entertainment, instrumental,
and social gratifications from television use (O'Keefe & Sulanowski, 1995). Additionally, the
authors found that “the greater the motives for entertainment, time management, and social
interaction, the more time people spent on the phone” (p. 930), showing that individuals
telephone behaviors may be influenced by the gratifications they seek. Throughout the 70s, 80s,
and 90s, researchers used the U&G theory to study various types of media, shaping the
framework into an important tool for studying new media and technologies.
15
Internet and New Media.
The next logical step, Ruggiero (2000) argued was for researchers to apply a U&G
framework to the newest form of mass communication, the Internet: “U&G has always provided
a cutting-edge theoretical approach in the initial stages of each new mass communications
medium: newspapers, radio, television, and now the Internet” (p. 27). During the new
millennium, the field responded.
Building on the motivations of traditional use described by Rubin (1994) (passing time,
information seeking, companionship, escape, and entertainment), Papacharissi and Rubin (2000)
researched motivations for Internet use among college students. They surveyed respondents
about their uses of the Internet and found five interpretable factors that made up users’ motives
for using the Internet: interpersonal utility, information seeking, passing time, convenience, and
entertainment—the strongest of which was information-seeking (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000).
Their results echoed those of previous Internet studies that described similar Internet use
motivation taxonomies. In addition to many of the categories outlined by Papacharissi and Rubin
(2000), other taxonomies included: diversion, personal identity, and personal relationships
(Svennevig, 2000); social escapism, and control of information (Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999);
searching (Stafford & Gonier, 2004); and personal relevance (Eighmey & McCord, 1998).
Researchers were using categories very similar to those used in traditional U&G media research
(interpersonal utility, relaxing, entertainment), but expanding them to account for new
possibilities (personal relevance, social escapism, diversion), all of which allowed U&G
researchers to create more complete taxonomies to study and set the stage for deeper research
into U&G theory as it applies to the Internet.
16
After determining motivation taxonomies, researchers began to seek to determine how
populations apply different taxonomy categories and how different demographics affect the
gratifications received from different types of use. For example, Papacharissi and Rubin (2000)
found that, among their respondents, mobility, economic security, higher satisfaction with life,
and strong interpersonal skills suggested, “more instrumental internet uses, such as information
seeking” (p. 192), while those who felt the opposite were focused more on using the Internet for
interpersonal communication and to pass time. In other words, economic status, satisfaction with
life, and interpersonal skills, along with other demographics affect what uses users have for the
Internet, and what gratifications they receive. Recent research with adolescents (ages 12-17) in
the Autonomous Community of Madrid supports this notion. García Jiménez et al. (2012)
showed that the Internet use motivators of their adolescent respondents were affected by age,
technical ability, gender, and parental relationships. In their study, older adolescents tended to
use the Internet more for audiovisual entertainment, and younger adolescents focused more on
Internet use for games. Moreover, female adolescents tended to use the Internet for information
seeking and communicating with friends, while male adolescents focused their use on looking
for new relationships, playing games, and performing economic activities. These examples show
the evolutionary process of U&G research regarding the Internet from simply determining
taxonomies of Internet motivators to investigating how individual and group characteristics
affect these motivations. Researchers later adopted a similar but more direct process for
investigating the uses and gratifications of SNS as they have become more and more
mainstream.
17
Social Networking Sites.
Social Networking Sites, as discussed above, have become a prominent part of our daily
lives. It is important then, to determine why people use SNS and what gratifications they
receive—both real and perceived—from doing so. Uses and gratifications researchers have done
just that by studying MySpace and Facebook (Ancu & Cozma, 2009; Park et al., 2009; QuanHaase & Young, 2010; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Urista et al., 2009; Wasike & Cook,
2010), and, to a lesser extent, Twitter (Chen, 2011) and other social networks (Gudelunas, 2012).
Much of the reviewed literature involving SNS in the U&G framework has focused on the
typical young adult/college user (Park et al., 2009; Quan-Haase & Young, 2010; Raacke &
Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Urista et al., 2009; Wasike & Cook, 2010) in order to develop a profile of
SNS users—mainly for Facebook and MySpace.
The majority of U&G studies investigating SNS begin with similar main categories for
SNS use motivators as Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) did when investigating the Internet. For
the most part, researchers ask respondents to answer questions about their SNS use that fit, in
some way, into the following categories: (a) information seeking, (b) passing time, (c)
interpersonal utility, (d) convenience, and (e) entertainment. For instance, Raacke and BondsRaacke (2008) showed that college students use SNS mostly for relationship maintenance
(interpersonal utility) and as a source for information. These findings were echoed by Urista et
al. (2009), who used focus groups to determine what gratifications university students received
from using MySpace and Facebook. They found that, because SNS make communication easy,
young adults are using them for “staying connected with the events of a friend’s life with ease,”
(p. 226) and to “convey impressions of themselves and occurrences in their lives” (p. 226) to
their extended network with ease. In the authors’ words, SNS are used to “to experience
18
selective, efficient, and immediate contact with others” (p. 226), which they find satisfying and
use to continuously meet the need for support and approval from others.
Further support for the importance of these categories was shown in the results of Park et
al. (2009), who found that—among 18-29 year old Facebook Groups users—the main
gratifications received were socializing, entertainment, self-status seeking, and information, as
well as by Wasike and Cook (2010), who found that Hispanic university students use MySpace
and Facebook for entertainment and passing time most often, followed by information seeking
and interpersonal utility. Another study investigating the uses and gratifications of Facebook and
Instant Messaging found that college students use Facebook for six factors: pastime, affection,
fashion, sharing problems, sociability, and social information (Quan-Haase & Young, 2010).
While at face value these categories seem different than those mentioned above, upon further
review of answers that made up the categories, one could argue that many of these factors are
related to interpersonal utility and information seeking. For instance, the dimensions “to make
friends of the opposite sex” and “to meet people” included in the Sociability category are often
times included in the interpersonal utility category used in the majority of the studies discussed.
However important these taxonomies of SNS use motivators are, these researchers were
not satisfied with merely providing a list of gratifications. Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) also
probed into gender differences in using SNS and found that men were more likely to use SNS for
dating and to learn about events. Conversely, Park et al. (2009) found that women in their study
were more likely to use Facebook for information seeking, including looking for events. This
difference shows one of the weaknesses of U&G theory; because samples are often small and
results not generalizable, results regarding similar demographics and SNS can differ—something
that will be addressed later in this literature review. Researchers have also shown a positive
19
correlation between Facebook group use for information gathering and political engagement
(Park et al., 2009), high levels of interaction with political candidate MySpace profiles based on
a need for social interaction with like-minded candidate supporters (Ancu & Cozma, 2009), and
that, when compared with Instant Messaging, Facebook fulfills “a unique social need by
allowing users to conveniently broadcast social information asynchronously via the wall” (QuanHaase & Young, 2010, p. 358).
In the fashion of the previous studies related to SNS, Chen (2011) studied Twitter use and
the gratifications that come from it. Results showed that extended use over the course of a
month—as opposed to increased use in hours per day—gratified users’ need for connection. As
Chen (2011) put it “[Users] actively seek out to gratify a need to connect with others” (p. 760).
Twitter, then, reflects the U&G framework in that users use it to gratify an interpersonal utility
need, and it reinforces the framework by showing that users (i.e., active audience) determine
their SNS medium based on a psychological need.
Wasike and Cook (2010) sought to establish a “profile of Hispanic student social network
users” (p. 9) in order to fill a gap in previous U&G research for the demographic. The authors
noted a lack of Hispanic respondents in college populations that included predominately white
and black respondents (Ancu & Cozma, 2009; Park et al., 2009; Quan-Haase & Young, 2010;
Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Urista et al., 2009), and therefore surveyed college students
from one South Texas institution (which included freshmen-graduate students). In addition to
finding that, unlike other populations, Hispanics in their study used Facebook and MySpace
mostly for entertainment and to pass time, the authors sought to determine what perceptions
Hispanics had about MySpace and Facebook users—discussed below.
20
Perceptions of SNS Users
Individuals perceive others in different ways based on the types of media they choose
(Hall, 2007; Mittell, 2003). For example, one study found that, based on the type of talk shows
one watches, others may perceive the viewer as classier (viewers of Late Night with David
Letterman) or older and more conservative (viewers of Regis and Kathie Lee) (Mittell, 2003).
Another more recent study found that the types of music one listens to and the genres of
television shows and movies one watches create a more positive or negative perception of that
individual (Hall, 2007). Hall (2007) found that “jazz music, comedy films, and comedy TV
programs,” (pp. 268-269) tended to have a positive effect on others’ perceptions of the
individual, while “heavy metal music, anime films, and soap operas,” (p. 269) tended to have
negative effects on how others’ perceive the individual. The suggestion that individuals are
perceived in a more positive or negative light based on the types of media they consume shows
the importance of determining what effect the choice between different media channels will have
on the perception of the user. It makes sense, then, to determine if SNS carry this same type of
perception changing power for the user.
Wasike and Cook (2010) sought to determine just that. The authors asked all
respondents—whether they used Facebook, MySpace, both, or neither—5-point Likert scale
questions to determine if they expected users of Facebook or MySpace to be cool, smart, or
interesting. They found that, despite MySpace being more popular than Facebook at the time,
people perceived those who used Facebook to be cooler, smarter, and more interesting. This
shows how the U&G theory can be used to determine not just why people use media, but how
the media affects them and their image, perceived or real. As communicators, this is important
because knowing your audience is the key to reaching that audience. In other words, by
21
understanding how Latinos perceive users of each SNS, communicators can build
communications strategies around those characteristics. For example, communicators can infer
from the Wasike and Cook (2010) study that Facebook communications should appear more
sophisticated, intelligent, and make those who read them feel more interesting. Building on this
theory, this current study seeks to broaden the scope of the perceptions tested by Wasike and
Cook (2010) and determine if, like Facebook at the time, Twitter will be perceived in a more
positive fashion, despite its being less popular. By expanding the perceptions tested to include
“mainstream,” “informed,” and “influential,” this study seeks to add more up-to-date dimensions
to the Wasike and Cook (2010) study and address issues that pertain to the definition of SNS.
While the Wasike and Cook (2010) study addressed one limitation of U&G research in
regards to SNS, it, and others, have still come up short in addressing one of the major critiques of
the theoretical framework—its inability to produce results that are generalizable to entire
populations. In general, studies using U&G theory are limited by their perceived inability to
produce results that can be generalized to overall populations. Most U&G studies rely on
sampling strategies that do not produce large, random samples. Because the samples are not
randomized, survey results cannot be generalized to describe the entire population. Additionally,
the small size of most U&G study samples makes drawing conclusions about general populations
difficult. Finally, because self-reports of behavior may be measuring a respondent’s awareness or
perception of his/her behaviors versus his/her actual behavior, results regarding a population
cannot be generalized like they can with observed behaviors. However, by duplicating results
among specific populations and expanding those populations to include other ages, education
levels, etc., researchers should be able to make and strengthen inferences regarding entire
populations.
22
Much like the researchers throughout the late 90s and early 2000s who sought to apply
U&G theory to the Internet, this study seeks to build upon the tested U&G framework by
applying it to SNS use. Moreover, it seeks to reinforce the methodology and results found in the
Wasike and Cook (2010) study, giving researchers a more complete view of the Hispanic
population’s SNS use. By focusing research on the fastest growing part of the population, one
that is underserved by current research; incorporating a well known CMC taxonomy and
expanding it to test for possible new uses and gratifications; and attempting to determine how
perceptions of SNS users differ from one SNS to the next, this study provides researchers with a
key building block for further research in the field and provides today’s communicators with a
window into the minds of the fastest growing population demographic, which will undoubtedly
be instrumental in shaping the consumer and political landscapes of the future.
23
Research Questions
RQ1: What gratifications do Hispanics receive from their use of Facebook and Twitter?
RQ1a: How do Facebook and Twitter gratifications differ between Hispanics and nonHispanics?
RQ2: Do Hispanic Americans perceive users of Facebook differently than users of Twitter?
24
Methods
Data Collection
In order to recruit participants for this study, a link to an online survey hosted by
Qualtrics was sent out via email, Facebook post, and Twitter with the intention of creating a
snowball sample. In order to increase the chances that Hispanic respondents would be exposed to
the survey, tweets, direct messages, and/or Facebook messages were sent out to Hispaniccentered Twitter users (e.g., @LatinoRebels, @ParrandaPR, @VotoLatino, @HispanicGenY),
Facebook groups (e.g., Being Latino, DC Social Media, American University Latino Alumni),
and email groups (Latinos in Tech Innovation & Social Media #LATISM, DC Hispanic
Employee Network) with large user bases. Additionally, invitations to take the survey were
distributed by CNN correspondent Nick Valencia—to several Hispanic organizations he is
associated with—and American University Associate Professor Rick Rockwell, who is the
executive producer and host of "Latin Pulse”—a weekly podcast distributed by Link TV, iTunes
& SoundCloud.
Respondents were surveyed between March 20, 2014, and April 2, 2014. As an incentive
for participating, each respondent was given the opportunity to enter an email address for the
chance to win one of two $25 gift cards from Amazon.com. Upon completion of the survey,
respondents were prompted to provide their email address—at their own discretion—to be
entered in the drawing for the gift cards. Before analyzing any data, each email address was
randomly assigned a number. In order to choose winners, an online random number generator
found at Random.org was employed to generate two random numbers, which were then matched
up with their counterparts on the email list. After choosing and contacting winners, email
addresses of all respondents and the physical addresses of the winners were deleted.
25
To begin, respondents were asked a series of key demographic questions that were used
to: (a) provide an overview of the composition of the sample, (b) focus data analysis on Latino
respondents between the ages of 18 and 40—the target population, and (c) allow the researcher
to the opportunity to analyze the data of respondents who exit the survey without finishing by
recording their race/ethnicity and age beforehand.
Following the key demographic questions, respondents were asked whether or not they
owned an account on Facebook and Twitter. If respondents did not have accounts on Facebook
or Twitter, they were sent directly to questions regarding their perceptions of Facebook and
Twitter users. If they did have a Facebook and/or Twitter account, respondents were asked to
answer a series of questions regarding their use of the respective SNS. For each SNS, after
answering the Likert scale questions, respondents were prompted to “Please list any other
reasons you use Facebook/Twitter that were not addressed.” This was done after each respective
SNS section in order to capture uses that were not considered in the creation of this survey and to
provide options for further exploration. Once questions regarding respondents’ uses and
gratifications were answered, they were asked to answer questions regarding their perceptions of
users of both Facebook and Twitter.
Sample Characteristics
Due to the nature of the survey distribution, data was collected for participants from all
backgrounds. A total of 183 survey responses were recorded, of which 47% (N=86) were
Hispanics and 53% (N=97) were non-Hispanic. The race/ethnicity breakdown of all respondents
was White, non-Hispanic 48.9% (N=87), Hispanic/Latino 47% (N=86), Asian/Pacific Islander
0.6% (N=1), Black or African American 0.6% (N=1), and other 2.9% (N=3) with 5 responses
missing. The Hispanic-specific race/ethnicity breakdown for respondents is shown in Table 3.
26
This table shows that the majority of Hispanic/Latino respondents considered themselves Central
American (20.2%), Hispanic (16.9%) and South American (13.5%).
Table 3: Hispanic-Specific Ethnicity by Percent
Race/Ethnicity
%
N
Central American
20.2%
18
Hispanic
16.9%
15
South American
13.5%
12
Caribbean
11.2%
10
Hispanic American
10.1%
9
Latin American
7.9%
7
Other
20.2%
17
Note: “Other” reflects text responses not provided as options to the respondent.
All “Other” categories have N values < 5.
The sample was 78.2% (N= 136) female and 21.8% (N= 38) male. The majority of respondents
(86.9%, N= 146) fit into the 18-40 year old range that this study sought to focus on. The mean
age of survey participants was 32.89 (SD = 9.03, range 19-66). Regarding income and education,
the sample consisted mostly of upper-middle class respondents —62.5% (N= 118) between
$40,000 - $84,999—with college degrees or more. A majority of respondents (57.8%, N= 93)
had college degrees, with another 34.8% (N= 56) either having some postgraduate work or
having received a postgraduate degree (a combined total of 92.6%).
Measurement
Uses and Gratifications of SNS.
Keeping consistent with Wasike and Cook (2010), this study used four of the same
categories—adapted from the internet motive scale developed by Papacharissi and Rubin
(2000)—of CMC: passing time, entertainment, interpersonal utility, and information seeking.
Additionally, an advocacy and identity category were added to better reflect the potential uses
27
for Facebook and Twitter based on the opportunities the two SNS provide users today. In order
to further set this study apart, gratifications from each of the original four main categories were
expanded, taking into account the development of each SNS over time. Some of these additions
include: adding “procrastinate,” “share entertaining stories, pictures, and videos,” “message with
friends,” and “find out more about companies and products” to the passing time, entertainment,
interpersonal utility, and information seeking categories, respectively. Respondents were asked
to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale identical to the one used in the Wasike and Cook
(2010) study (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) that gauged their agreement with a number
of gratification statements (dimensions) regarding their use of Facebook or Twitter. Using an
identical scale allowed for comparisons to be made between the two studies. Scores for each
dimension were then totaled and divided by the number of dimensions in a CMC (SNS use)
category. This calculation produced an average SNS use score between 1 and 5 for each
category, which helped indicate the most popular uses of Facebook and Twitter separately, and
SNS in general. For a full list of the questions asked, a copy of the survey can be found in the
Appendix.
Perceptions of Facebook and Twitter Users.
After answering questions regarding their use of Facebook and/or Twitter, respondents
were asked to indicate their agreement with statements concerning their perceptions of Facebook
and Twitter users. As discussed above, by determining how Latinos perceive users of each SNS,
communicators can better understand how best to reach the demographic. In order to achieve
this, respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 5,
strongly agree)—identical to the one used in the Wasike and Cook (2010) study—whether or not
they thought Facebook and Twitter users were cool, smart, or interesting—categories derived
28
from the Wasike and Cook (2010) study—and whether or not they thought Facebook and Twitter
users were informed, influential, or mainstream—categories created for this study. Responses
were then tallied and divided by six to produce an average perception score for each SNS, which
allowed for a ranking of the perceptions of users of each SNS and for comparison with the
Wasike and Cook (2010) study.
29
Results
RQ1: What Gratifications Do Hispanics Receive From Their Use of Facebook and Twitter?
Respondents were asked a series of questions about their uses for both Facebook and
Twitter in order to determine what gratifications they received from using the two SNS. Table 4
displays the results on a dimension-by-dimension basis. Hispanics use Facebook and Twitter the
most for keeping in touch with old friends (M = 4.47, SD = 0.85) and following their favorite
news sources (M = 4.30, SD = 1.15), respectively. They used both Facebook and Twitter the
least for playing social games (M = 1.34, SD = 0.91, M = 1.24, SD = 0.72, respectively). These
results show why Hispanics use SNS on a gratification-by-gratification basis. The following
section discusses why Hispanics use SNS at the categorical level in relation to Non-Hispanics,
and elaborates further on the reliability of the categories themselves.
Table 4: Gratification Dimension Means for Hispanics Across All Dimensions Tested
“I use Facebook/Twitter…”
Facebook
Twitter
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
M (SD)
M (SD)
SNS Use Category: Passing Time
To kill time
3.77 (1.43)
3.16 (1.42)
To relax
3.37 (1.28)
2.47 (1.21)
To keep myself from doing other work (procrastinate)
3.20 (1.53)
2.42 (1.42)
When I have nothing else to do
3.80 (1.35)
3.36 (1.47)
When I am bored
3.95 (1.28)
3.36 (1.50)
SNS Use Category: Entertainment
Because it is fun
3.47 (1.00)
3.22 (1.23)
As an escape from reality
2.42 (1.46)
2.08 (1.26)
To play social games
1.34 (0.91)
1.24 (0.72)
Because I enjoy using it
3.56 (1.09)
3.51 (1.23)
To watch videos
2.55 (1.23)
1.90 (1.11)
To share entertaining stories, pictures, and videos
4.12 (0.96)
3.28 (1.47)
SNS Use Category: Interpersonal Utility
I use Facebook/Twitter to meet new people
1.63 (1.08)
2.10 (1.33)
To share my feelings with others
2.33 (1.31)
2.60 (1.50)
30
To follow what other people are doing/saying
To participate in discussions
To message with friends
To connect with students in my classes
To connect with people I work with
To keep in touch with old friends
SNS Use Category: Information Seeking
To find out more about companies and products
To find information quickly
To follow my favorite news sources
SNS Use Category: Advocacy
To broadcast information I find important
To gather information about political candidates
To share information about international news
To share news I care about
To share content I feel the news is not reporting
SNS Use Category: Identity
To communicate with people of the same race/ethnicity
To communication with people of the same gender
To create a forum for people of my race/ethnicity to
communicate
To create a forum for people of my gender to communicate
To share content about my culture
3.69 (1.10)
2.89 (1.27)
4.07 (1.20)
2.49 (1.64)
2.75 (1.46)
4.47 (0.85)
4.04 (1.23)
3.14 (1.37)
2.26 (1.26)
1.82 (1.09)
2.02 (1.27)
2.00 (1.26)
2.44 (1.26)
2.56 (1.35)
2.56 (1.47)
3.02 (1.54)
3.60 (1.49)
4.30 (1.15)
3.59 (1.35)
2.17 (1.14)
3.08 (1.34)
3.63 (1.31)
3.17 (1.47)
3.92 (1.38)
3.00 (1.43)
3.64 (1.37)
4.02 (1.27)
3.60 (1.43)
2.69 (1.37)
2.31 (1.30)
2.65 (1.45)
2.14 (1.26)
2.24 (1.39)
2.00 (1.25)
3.18 (1.38)
2.43 (1.44)
1.98 (1.16)
3.06 (1.49)
RQ1a: How Do Facebook And Twitter Gratifications Differ Between Hispanics And NonHispanics?
In order to determine which SNS use categories Hispanics derive the most gratification
from, Cronbach’s alpha tests were run on each grouping of dimensions above to determine the
reliability that the dimensions making up each category were related. Table 5 shows the
Cronbach scores for each of the six categories across both types of SNS use. Each category
showed either “Acceptable” reliability (0.6 ≤ α < 0.7), “Good” reliability (0.7 ≤ α < 0.9), or
“Excellent” reliability (α ≥ 0.9) (George, 2003; Gliem & Gliem, 2003). Of all the SNS use
categories, Advocacy and Identity showed the strongest alpha scores for both Facebook and
31
Twitter. These results suggest that the two categories created for this study can reliably be used
as SNS use categories to reflect the dimensions used to create them.
Table 5: Cronbach Alpha Scores for Combined SNS Use Categories
SNS Use Category
Number of Items Facebook Cronbach α
Passing Time
5
0.79
Entertainment
Interpersonal Utility
Information Seeking
Advocacy
Identity
6
8
3
5
5
Twitter Cronbach α
0.86
0.64
0.72
0.74
0.84
0.88
0.68
0.81
0.70
0.88
0.90
Since all the SNS use categories showed at least acceptable reliability, composite scores
were created for each category. The means for each category reflect why the sample uses
Facebook and Twitter. Table 6 shows the means for Hispanic respondents for both Facebook and
Twitter separately and as a combined SNS use score (Facebook + Twitter) for each category. The
table suggests that Hispanics use Facebook mainly for Passing Time (M = 3.61, SD = 1.02) and
Advocacy (M = 3.13, SD = 1.03), Twitter for Information Seeking (M = 3.64, SD = 1.07) and
Advocacy (M = 3.64, SD = 1.08), and SNS overall—considering only Facebook and Twitter—
for Advocacy (M = 3.34, SD = 0.93) and Passing Time (M = 3.21, SD = 0.10).
Table 6: Means of Hispanic SNS Use Categories by SNS Type
Facebook
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
Advocacy
Passing Time
Information Seeking
Interpersonal Utility
Entertainment
Identity
M (SD)
3.13 (1.03)
3.61 (1.02)
2.52 (1.10)
3.02 (0.73)
2.92 (0.69)
2.48 (1.13)
Twitter
M (SD)
3.64 (1.08)
2.92 (1.11)
3.64 (1.07)
2.48 (0.85)
2.54 (0.77)
2.48 (1.16)
Combined SNS
Score
M (SD)
3.34 (0.93)
3.21 (.096)
3.03 (0.84)
2.76 (0.66)
2.68 (0.59)
2.46 (1.06)
32
Hispanic respondent SNS use is particularly interesting when compared to that of nonHispanic respondents. According to the data in Table 7, non-Hispanic respondents mainly use
Facebook for Passing Time (M = 3.38, SD = 0.90) and Interpersonal Utility (M = 3.13, SD =
0.66), Twitter for Information Seeking (M = 3.50, SD = 1.05) and Passing Time (M = 3.25, SD
= 1.04), and SNS overall—considering only Facebook and Twitter—for Passing Time (M =
3.30, SD = 0.83) and Information Seeking (M = 3.03, SD = 0.70). This data, coupled with
Hispanic use data, suggest that both ethnic groups use Facebook and Twitter mostly for Passing
Time and Information Seeking, respectively. However, the data also suggest that the groups use
SNS in general (Facebook + Twitter) for different reasons and that they order other gratifications
received from Facebook and Twitter differently.
Table 7: Means of Non-Hispanic SNS Use Categories by SNS Type
Facebook
Twitter
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
Passing Time
Information Seeking
Advocacy
Interpersonal Utility
Entertainment
Identity
M (SD)
3.38 (0.90)
2.47 (0.91)
2.66 (0.75)
3.13 (0.66)
2.89 (0.63)
2.06 (0.80)
M (SD)
3.25 (1.04)
3.50 (1.05)
3.15 (1.26)
2.65 (0.83)
2.77 (0.63)
1.95 (0.93)
Combined SNS
Score
M (SD)
3.30 (.083)
3.03 (0.70)
2.94 (0.73)
2.88 (0.55)
2.80 (0.52)
1.90 (0.81)
This study also seeks to determine whether or not the differences between Hispanic (N=
86) and non-Hispanic SNS (N= 97) use were statistically significant. In order to do so,
independent-samples t-Tests were conducted for each SNS Use category to compare SNS use in
Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents. Table 8 shows t-Test values for Facebook and Twitter
use based on ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic). Data suggest two key findings. First, the results
suggest a trend that Hispanic respondents in this study use Facebook significantly more for
33
Advocacy (M = 3.12, SD = 1.03) and Identity (M = 2.48, SD = 1.13) gratifications than nonHispanic respondents (M = 2.66, SD = 0.75 and M = 2.06, SD = 0.80, respectively). Second, the
data suggest that higher use by Hispanics of Twitter for Advocacy (M = 3.64, SD = 1.08) and
Identity (M = 2.48, SD = 1.16) gratifications were marginally significant. In other words,
regarding Facebook and Twitter use between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, this study shows that
Hispanics and non-Hispanics differ significantly in their motives to use motives for only two of
six categories—the two being studied here for the first time.
Table 8: t-Tests for Respondents’ Use of Facebook and Twitter Based on Ethnicity
(Hispanic/Non-Hispanic)
Facebook
Twitter
df
t
p
df
t
Passing Time
102
1.09
0.28
73
-1.26
Entertainment
101
0.14
0.89
70
-1.21
Interpersonal Utility
100
-0.76
0.45
70
-.77
Information Seeking
67.4
0.23
0.82
72
0.53
Advocacy
76.6
2.61
0.01
71
1.71
Identity
75.3
2.17
0.03
68
1.87
p
0.21
0.23
0.44
0.60
0.09
0.07
Similar to the SNS-specific results, running independent-samples t-Tests to compare
overall SNS use (Facebook + Twitter) in Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents yielded
comparable results regarding significance. Hispanics in this study used SNS significantly more
for both Advocacy (M = 3.44, SD = 0.93) and Identity (M = 2.46, SD = 1.06) gratifications than
non-Hispanic respondents (M = 2.94, SD = 0.73 and M = 1.90, SD = 0.81, respectively). Table 9
displays the t-Test values for combined SNS use based on ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic).
Most importantly, Table 9 shows that advocacy and identity are the only two categories in the
entire study where Hispanics and non-Hispanics differ significantly in their motivations for SNS
use.
34
Table 9: t-Tests for Respondents’ Combined SNS Use Based on Ethnicity
(Hispanic/Non-Hispanic)
df
t
Passing Time
63.0
-0.38
Entertainment
59.0
-0.72
Interpersonal Utility
59.0
-0.68
Information Seeking
63.0
0.01
Advocacy
62.0
2.12
Identity
60.0
2.07
p
0.71
0.47
0.50
0.99
0.04
0.04
RQ2: Do Hispanics Perceive Users of Facebook Differently Than Users of Twitter?
Like the Wasike and Cook (2010) study, this study explores what perceptions Hispanic
respondents have regarding those who use SNS. To explore this, scores from the sample were
tallied and means were analyzed. Additionally, an overall SNS perception score was created for
both Facebook and Twitter by combining the scores from each perception category to reflect
how respondents perceive users in general. Results showed that Twitter users were perceived
more positively in all categories but “Cool” and “Mainstream,” including the Overall perceptions
scores, as seen in Table 10. This data show that yes, users of Facebook and Twitter are perceived
differently. Moreover, it shows that Twitter is perceived slightly more positively than Facebook
among Hispanics.
Table 10: Means of Perceptions Scores for Hispanic Respondents
Facebook
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
M (SD)
Cool
2.91 (0.94)
Smart
2.90 (0.95)
Interesting
2.89 (0.96)
Informed
2.80 (0.91)
Influential
2.93 (0.95)
Mainstream
3.88 (0.99)
Overall
3.05 (0.74)
Twitter
M (SD)
2.86 (0.97)
2.97 (0.95)
2.94 (0.98)
3.06 (1.00)
3.04 (1.06)
3.72 (0.97)
3.09 (0.76)
35
Discussion
The purposes of this study were to strengthen and expand upon the findings of Wasike
and Cook (2010) by determining why Hispanics use Facebook and Twitter and investigating the
perceptions that Hispanics have of both Facebook and Twitter users—much like Wasike and
Cook (2010) did with MySpace and Facebook. However, unlike Wasike and Cook’s (2010)
study, this study did not stop at simply describing the gratifications Hispanic users receive from
the two SNS or the perceptions they have of users of the two SNS, it sought to establish if
ethnicity was a determining factor in those gratifications and perceptions. In that vein, this
discussion will compare the results of this study to those of Wasike and Cook (2010), introduce
two new SNS use categories that can be used in future studies, compare SNS gratifications
between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in terms of significance, and end by presenting the reader
with the limitations encountered in the execution of this study.
First and foremost, the findings in this study offer a slightly different point of view on
Hispanic SNS use than the one offered by Wasike and Cook (2010). This study adopted all four
of the Wasike and Cook (2010) SNS use categories—passing time, entertainment, information
seeking, and interpersonal utility—with the hope of making comparisons here. Both studies
found passing time to be in the top two overall SNS uses—second to advocacy in this study and
first in the Wasike and Cook (2010) study. Because Facebook in particular and SNS in general
offer so many different features to users, it makes sense that users would go to it as a way to pass
time. Information seeking and interpersonal utility had slightly higher means in this study, but
stayed in the same positions (third and fourth, respectively) as in Wasike and Cook’s (2010)
study. The biggest difference between the four overall SNS categories included in both studies
was related to entertainment. This study found that Hispanics use SNS at much lower levels for
36
entertainment than respondents in the Wasike and Cook (2010) study. In fact, Wasike and Cook
(2010) reported that entertainment was “one of the most salient motives for using social
networking sites a [sic] among Hispanic students” (p. 9), while this study found it to be second to
last in importance to Hispanics.
The two studies also differed slightly in their results for Facebook gratifications. This
study found entertainment to be the fourth most salient motive of Hispanic Facebook use behind
passing time, advocacy, and interpersonal utility, while Wasike and Cook (2010) found it to be
the most salient motive for Hispanic Facebook users—beating out passing time by a small
margin. In this study, Hispanic Facebook users even used Facebook for interpersonal utility—the
least salient Facebook gratification in the Wasike and Cook (2010) study—more than
entertainment. This is not only a noteworthy departure from the Wasike and Cook (2010) study,
but also from other studies that found entertainment to be one of the more important uses of SNS
for more general populations (García Jiménez et al., 2012; Park et al., 2009; Quan-Haase &
Young, 2010). One possible reason for the difference in entertainment as a gratification between
the two studies could be the variance in age between the two studies—this one having a mean
age almost seven years older than the Wasike and Cook (2010) study (32.89 versus 26.19). In
other words, younger Hispanics may be more likely to look to SNS in general and Facebook in
particular for entertainment purposes than older Hispanics.
Comparisons of the two studies show that passing time is a very salient motive for
Facebook use in particular and SNS in general. As discussed above, this makes sense due to the
vast array of features they provide users. Moreover, recent research shows that users are
accessing social media in more places than ever, suggesting that they are looking to social media
to pass their time. A recent Nielsen study found that 34% of young adults social network around
37
the table, and that they are 2 times more likely (40%) to use social media in the bathroom
(Nielsen, 2014). Facebook is providing users with a way to pass time without any particular
motive. Twitter, on the other hand, requires users to choose people to follow and to broadcast
short 140 character messages to the public. This makes it an optimal platform for advocacy and
information seeking, the top two gratifications Hispanics derive from its use. Advocacy, added as
a category for this study and discussed in further detail below requires conscious effort to curate
and broadcast information important to the user. When considering the motivations for using the
two SNS, this study’s findings lend more credibility to the aspect of U&G dedicated to an active
audience. That is, findings suggest a difference between the top uses of Twitter and Facebook on
a ritualistic and instrumental level. Rubin (1984) described ritualized use as passive, non-directed
use, and instrumental use as selective and intentional. Therefore, because passing time is just
that, passive in nature—in this case representing surfing Facebook and looking at pictures or
chatting—Hispanic Facebook use can be considered ritualized behavior, whereas the purposedriven nature of advocacy and information seeking suggest that Hispanics are using Twitter for
instrumental use. It is important to keep in mind, however, that because neither of these two
studies investigated the significance of the SNS gratification categories in comparison to one
another, creating the possibility that these results are due to chance. Future U&G studies should
consider testing SNS categories against one another to determine whether or not each category is
significant in relation to the others, i.e. do Hispanics use Facebook or Twitter significantly more
for passing time than advocacy or entertainment, etc. Because neither of these studies tested for
this form of significance, further testing with larger samples of Hispanic gratifications derived
from SNS use is needed to strengthen the results found in this study.
38
This study also investigated the perceptions Hispanics have of Facebook and Twitter
users. Results suggest that Hispanics do perceive Twitter in a slightly more positive light that
Facebook, but only by a small margin. Twitter users were perceived more positively across all
categories except for “Cool” and “Mainstream.” The perception scores were low in general, but
higher than the same perceptions studied in Wasike and Cook’s (2010) study, suggesting that
Hispanic perceptions of SNS users are becoming more positive. Considering the high rate of
increase in Hispanic SNS use discussed in the literature (Brenner & Smith, 2013; Duggan &
Brenner, 2013; Lopez et al., 2013) this finding is fairly simple to understand.
A second key finding of this study—and maybe the most important for future U&G
researchers—provides the field with two new categories to apply to future studies Tables 8 and 9
show that for advocacy and identity gratifications—both categories created for this study—there
is either a significant trend, marginal significance, or statistical significance between Hispanic
and non-Hispanic use. For instance, results suggest a trend that Hispanics use Facebook
significantly more for advocacy and identity gratifications than non-Hispanics. However,
because the variability between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic condition was significantly
different, this finding will have to be confirmed with more participants. Regarding Twitter,
marginal significance for both categories was found, suggesting, again, that the findings should
be confirmed with more participants. Despite the tentative significance found for advocacy and
identity in relation to the two individual SNS, results also suggest that Hispanics use SNS in
general (Facebook + Twitter) significantly more for advocacy and identity than non-Hispanics.
Additionally, advocacy and identity had higher Cronbach alpha scores than all other categories,
suggesting that these categories—used for the first time in this study—are more reliable
measures of the individual items they represent than the categories adapted from Wasike and
39
Cook’s (2010) study. While the identity category scored the lowest across the spectrum, aspects
of identity could also tie into advocacy. For instance, communicating with/creating a forum for
people of the same race and ethnicity could easily be covered by sharing information about
international news, news that is not being reported, or news the user cares about. Therefore, due
to their high reliability scores and the significance they showed between Hispanic and nonHispanic respondents, it would be wise for researchers to use these categories in future U&G
research, especially in relation to minority groups.
Advocacy was the most salient motive for overall Hispanic SNS use. Hispanics also
chose it, along with information seeking, as the number one gratification received from Twitter
use. These instrumental uses of Twitter suggest that Hispanics are using Twitter with the
intention of seeking out and spreading information that is important to them. Research shows
that social media is a growing instrument for social advocacy campaigns (Chao & Saxton, 2014;
Pasi, 2014) and social change (Beaumont, 2011; Harb, 2011; Rane & Salem, 2012), as well as
for creating slacktivism, “the act of passively supporting causes in order to tap into the
satisfaction that accompanies philanthropy, without having to do any heavy-lifting (or heavy
spending)” (Davis, 2011). It follows logically, then, that Hispanics, a minority group that
historically feels both under-represented and misrepresented in media (Katzew, 2011; Mendible,
2007), would take to social media to broadcast information and concerns, and to share news they
feel is not being reported on. For instance, in 2014, coverage of the crisis in Venezuela has been
almost completely absent from the national news cycle—including from CNN, considered one of
the top sources for international news. As a result, Hispanics have taken to Facebook and Twitter
to spread news stories and information and to support those involved in the crisis. This event
could be one possible reason for the high levels of advocacy gratifications in this study.
40
Further evidence for the importance of advocacy to Hispanic SNS users is found in the
number of Hispanic-centered social media accounts available on both Facebook and Twitter. For
example, Twitter accounts like @LatinoRebels, @ParrandaPR, @VotoLatino, and
@HispanicGenY, broadcast information that is important to particular Hispanic populations.
Additionally, Facebook pages like Hispanicize, Being Latino, and Latinos in Social Media
(#latism on Twitter), share Hispanic-centered news and provide platforms for members of
different Hispanic communities to locate and share information. Moreover, large news AND
entertainment organizations like CNN, E!, ESPN, and others all have Hispanic-specific Twitter
feeds. Hispanics are clearly using SNS—both in general and for Facebook and Twitter
individually—to advocate and share information important to them, and connecting with other
Hispanics in the process, lending support to the importance of these categories in U&G research
going forward.
The main limitations in this study were related to sample size and variety. This study set
out to recruit a large, diverse, mainly Hispanic sample. However, this demographic proved again
to be a difficult one to recruit—Wasike and Cook (2010) only managed a response rate of around
10 percent out of 10,000 participants. While the sample was fairly diverse in relation to Hispanic
ethnicity, the number of Hispanic participants was much lower than anticipated. Despite offering
the opportunity to win one of two $25 Amazon gift cards and targeting Hispanic content sharers
on Twitter, Facebook, and via email (with a combined following of well over 100,000
followers), this study only recruited a fraction of the potential Hispanic respondents (N=86).
Besides these avenues, CNN correspondent Nick Valencia also disseminated the survey to
several of the national Hispanic organizations that he is a part of, as did Professor Rick Rockwell
the host of a well-known national podcast (Latin Pulse). One way to combat this limitation in
41
future research would be to organize a distribution list and schedule for the survey well ahead of
making it active. In other words, future researches could recruit influencers in the Hispanic
community across different SNS and coordinate survey distribution at scheduled intervals
throughout the survey period. This would allow for a more structured survey distribution and
hopefully recruit more respondents.
The second limitation in this study relates to the sample makeup. By distributing the
survey using Hispanic-centered social media accounts, the survey sample may have skewed
towards people involved in social media for an occupation, an observation reinforced by
respondent responses to the open-ended questions regarding “other” uses for Facebook and
Twitter. For example, some respondents indicated that, regarding their Facebook use, “My job
requires that I post information on Facebook periodically,” “I use it for work (social media
marketing),” and “I work in social media so it's part of my job.” Respondents had similar “other”
uses for Twitter: “I use twitter frequently to disseminate information on my company and its
products,” “…I use Twitter for work, not personal use,” “It's part of my work as a social media
community manager.” These were only a small sample of work-related “other” uses. By
widening the field of potential respondents and using more diverse survey distribution
techniques, future researchers can avoid this type of sample skew and recruit a more varied
population. Additionally, to avoid the typical U&G study problem of non-generalizable results,
future researchers could attempt to procure a random sample of Hispanic respondent, which
would add more depth to the current research available on Hispanic uses and gratifications of
SNS.
42
Conclusion
This study sought to determine why Hispanics use Facebook and Twitter and whether or
not they perceive users of the two SNS differently. Moreover, it sought to strengthen and expand
upon what little knowledge about Hispanic SNS use there is available to researchers, and, for all
intents and purposes, it succeeded.
Hispanics use Facebook and Twitter for passing time and advocacy. They also do so for
advocacy significantly more than non-Hispanics. Additionally, they use Twitter equally for
advocacy and information seeking. But how does this help communications professionals? By
understanding why Hispanics use Facebook and Twitter, communicators can create more
efficient, targeted communications. Knowing that Hispanics use Twitter mainly to achieve
advocacy and information seeking gratifications empowers communicators to create content that
is important to Hispanics, their culture, and their information needs. For example, a brand that is
trying to attract Hispanic followers may want to start a Twitter discussion about a Hispanic
issue—especially if it is advocacy related—in order to draw interest in their brand.
Communicators could also capitalize on the Hispanic affinity for passing time on SNS by using
banner ads on Facebook or promoted Tweets on Twitter. This way, as Hispanic users are passing
time on their news feeds or scrolling through their latest tweets, they are exposed to the message
that communicators want them to hear, see, and share.
This study also showed that, while not statistically significant, Hispanics perceive Twitter
slightly more positively than Facebook, suggesting that the “latest and greatest” SNS may be on
the minds of users. Additionally, the results of this study suggest that, since Wasike and Cook’s
(2010) study, Hispanics are beginning to view SNS more positively in general. Not surprising
considering the rapid rate of Hispanic SNS adoption discussed in this study’s literature review.
43
Communicators can take advantage of this by understanding how Hispanics perceive SNS users
on a category-by-category basis. For example, by understanding that Hispanics view Facebook
as more mainstream than Twitter, communicators can suggest that edgier, more “mainstream”
media content be shared via Facebook instead of Twitter. Additionally, since Hispanics view
Twitter users as more informed and influential, communicators may want to start on Twitter
when looking for influencers to spread content.
More importantly for future research, this study did more than just answer the two
research questions. This study also provided researchers with two new, important SNS categories
to be used in future U&G research, and this importance cannot be ignored. The strong Cronbach
alpha scores and significance shown between Hispanics and non-Hispanics suggest that these
categories will be important when studying this demographic further. U&G researchers should
always be looking to determine new, more modern uses for media so that communicators can
better understand the active audience, especially in non-dominant groups. By adapting past use
scales and investigating potential new uses, this study found two untested SNS use categories
that will only benefit from further research, advancing the field’s understanding of Hispanic SNS
use gratifications.
44
References
Alexa.com. (2013a). Alexa top sites. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Alexa.com. (2013b). Alexa top sites in the US. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
Ancu, M., & Cozma, R. (2009). MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending
candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(4), 567-583. doi:
10.1080/08838150903333064
Anderson, J. A., & Meyer, T. P. (1975). Functionalism and the mass media. Journal of
Broadcasting, 19, 11-22.
Armstrong, C. B., & Rubin, M. M. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal
of Communication, 39(2), 84-94.
Bantz, C. R. (1982). Exploring uses and gratifications: A comparison of reported uses of
television and reported uses of television and reported uses of favorite program type.
Communication Research, 9(3), 352.
Beaumont, P. (2011). The Truth about Twitter, Facebook, and the uprisings in the Arab World.
Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/25/twitterfacebook-uprisings-arab-libya
Bennet, S. (2013). Social media 2013: User demographics for Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and
Instagram [INFOGRAPHIC]. All Twitter: The Unofficial Twitter Resource. Retrieved
October 23, 2013, 2013, from http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/social-media-userdemographics_b38095
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in
a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi: 10.1111/j.10836101.2007.00393.x
Brenner, J., & Smith, A. (2013). 72% of online adults are social media networking site users:
Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1984). Using television to alleviate boredom and stress: Selective
exposure as a function of induced excitational states. Journal of Broadcasting, 28(1), 120.
Bureau, U. S. C. (2013). Hispanic heritage month 2013: Sept. 15 - Oct. 15 Profile America Facts
for Features (Vol. 2013).
Carey, J. W., & Kreiling, A. L. (1974). Popular culture and uses and gratifications: Notes
towards un accomodation. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass
communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 215-248). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Center, P. R. (2013). Our mission. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/About-Us/Our-Mission.aspx
Chao, G., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing
nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57-79.
Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use
gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755-762.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023
45
Davis, J. (2011). Cause Marketing: Moving Beyond Corporate Slacktivism. Retrieved April 17,
2014, from http://evidencebasedmarketing.net/cause-marketing-moving-beyondcorporate-slacktivism
DeSanto, B. J. (2009). Media uses and gratifications. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st Century
Communication: A Reference Handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 506-515). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Diffen.com. (2014). Hispanic vs. Latino. Retrieved March 27, 2014, 2014, from
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hispanic_vs_Latino
Dimmick, J. W., & Sikand, J. (1994). The gratifications of the household telephone.
Communication Research, 21(5), 643.
Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users - 2012: Pew Internet
& American Life Project.
Eastman, S. T. (1979). Uses of television viewing and consumer life styles: A multivariate
analysis. Journal of Broadcasting, 23(4), 491-500.
Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: uses and gratifications
of sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research, 41(n-3), 187-194.
Elliot, P. (1974). Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alternative In J.
G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on
gratifications research (pp. 249-268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Facebook.com. (2013a). Key facts. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
https://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts
Facebook.com. (2013b). Timeline. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
https://newsroom.fb.com/Timeline
Flaherty, L. M., & Pearce, K. J. (1998). Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional
alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 250-268.
García Jiménez, A., Cruz López De Ayala Lopez, M., & Gaona Pisionero, C. (2012). A vision of
uses and gratifications applied to the study of Internet use by adolescents. Comunicación
y Sociedad, 25(2), 231-254.
García, J. V., & McCauley, A. K. (2011). Transforming a region. Change, 43(6), 6-13. doi:
10.1080/00091383.2011.618077
George, D. M., P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0
Update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gerson, W. (1966). Mass media socialization behavior: Negro-whites differences. Social Forces,
45, 40-50.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha
Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Paper presented at the Midwest Research to
Practice Conference in
Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Greenberg, B. S., & Dominick, J. R. (1969). Race and social class differences in teenager's use
of television. Journal of Broadcasting, 13(4), 331-344.
Gudelunas, D. (2012). There's an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social
networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16(4), 347-365. doi: 10.1007/s12119-0129127-4
Hall, A. (2007). The social implications of enjoyment of different types of music, movies, and
television programming. Western Journal of Communication, 71(4), 259-271. doi:
10.1080/10570310701653794
46
Harb, Z. (2011). Arab revolutions and the social media effect. M/C Journal: A Journal of Media
and Culture.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the
individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current
perspectives of gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly hills, CA: Sage.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence; the part played by people in the flow of
mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Katzew, A. (2011). Shut Up! Representation of the Latino/a body in Ugly Betty and their
educational implications. Latino Studies, 9(2/3), 300-320.
Korgaonkar, P. K., & Wolin, L. D. (1999). A multivariate analysis of web usage. Journal of
Advertising Research, 39(2), 53-68.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Lometti, G. E., Reeves, B., & Bybee, C. R. (1977). Investigating the assumptions of uses and
gratifications research. Communication Research, 4(3), 321.
Lopez, M. H., Cohn, D. V., & Passel, J. S. (2011). Hispanics Account for More Than Half of
Nation’s Growth in Past Decade: Pew Hispanic Center.
Lopez, M. H., Gonzalez-Barrera, & Patten, E. (2013). Closing the digital divide: Latinos and
technology adoption: Pew Hispanic Center.
Lundberg, D., & Hulten, O. (1968). Individen och massmedia. Stockholm, Sweden: EFI.
McIlwraith, R. D. (1998). `I'm addicted to television': The personality, imagination, and TV
watching patterns of. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(3), 371.
Mendible, M. (2007). Embodying Latininad. In M. Mendible (Ed.), From Bananas to Buttocks:
The Latina Body in Popular Film and Culture (pp. 1-28). Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Merton, R. K. (1949). Patterns of influence: A study of interpersonal influence and
communications behavior in a local community. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton
(Eds.), Communication Research, 1948-1949 (pp. 180-219). New York, NY: Harper.
Mittell, J. (2003). Television talk shows and cultural hierarchies. Journal of Popular Film &
Television, 31(1), 36.
Nielsen. (2014). The U.S. Digital Consumer Report - February 2014: The Nielsen Company.
O'Keefe, G. J., & Sulanowski, B. K. (1995). More than just talk: Uses, gratifications, and the
telephone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 922-933.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196.
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729-733. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0003
Pasi, E. (2014). Social media advocacy: Digitally sharing the story. Journal of Housing &
Community Developmnet, 71(1), 25-28.
Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison
of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5),
350-361. doi: 10.1177/0270467610380009
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and
gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
11(2), 169-174. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0056
47
Rane, H., & Salem, S. (2012). Social Media, Social Movements, and the Diffusion of Ideas in the
Arab Uprising. Journal of International Communication, 18(1), 97-111.
Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication,
34(3), 67-77.
Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses-and-effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. In J. Bryant
& D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, A. M. (2008). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B.
Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: advances in theory and research (3rd Edition). Florence,
KY, USA: Routledge.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication
& Society, 3(1), 3-37.
Sherry, J. L., & Boyan, A. (2008). Uses and gratifications. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The
international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 11, pp. 5239-5244). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Stafford, T. F., & Gonier, D. (2004). What Americans like about being online. Communications
of the ACM, 47(11), 107-112.
StatisticBrain.com. (2013). Facebook statistics. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/
Svennevig, M. (2000). Needs, not nerds: researching technological change. International Journal
of Advertising, 19(5), 645-663.
Swanson, D. L. (1977). The uses and misuses of uses and gratifications. Human Communications
Research, 3, 214-221.
Taylor, P., Gonzalez-Barrera, A., Passel, J. S., & Lopez, M. H. (2012). An awakened giant: The
Hispanic electorate is likely to double by 2030: Pew Hispanic Center.
Twitter.com. (2013). About Twitter, Inc. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
https://about.twitter.com/company
University, N. Y. (2013). Twitter explained.
http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/studentAffairs/images/Explained/twitter.pdf
Urista, M. A., Qingwen, D., & Day, K. D. (2009). Explaining why young adults use MySpace
and Facebook through uses and gratifications theory. Human Communication, 12(2),
215-229.
Wasike, B., & Cook, J. A. (2010). Hispanic students and social networking Web Journal of Mass
Communication Research, 25, 1-1.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
48
Appendix
Why Do Hispanics Use FB and Twitter?
Q1.1 Consent to Participate in Research Identification of Investigators & Purpose of
Study You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Michael R. Radlick
from American University. The purpose of this study is to determine why you use Facebook and
Twitter. This study will contribute to the student’s completion of his master’s capstone.
Research Procedures:
Should you decide to participate in this research study, simply click “>>” below to continue.
This study consists of a survey that will be administered to individual participants across the
country. You will be asked to provide answers to a series of questions related to Facebook and
Twitter use, as well as feelings re users of Facebook and Twitter.
Time Required:
Participation in this study will require 10-15 minutes of your time.
Risks:
The investigator does not perceive more than minimal risks from your involvement in this
study.
Benefits:
While there are no direct benefits to you, you will be given the opportunity to enter your email
address for the chance to win one of two $25 Amazon gift cards. Note: Your email address will
only be used for purposes of this drawing, and unless chosen, will be deleted once the winners
are picked.
Confidentiality: The results of this research will be presented in paper form to American
University faculty. The results of this project will be coded in such a way that the respondent’s
49
identity will not be attached to the final form of this study. The researcher retains the right to use
and publish non-identifiable data. While individual responses are confidential, aggregate data
will be presented representing averages or generalizations about the responses as a whole. All
data will be stored in a secure location accessible only to the researcher. Upon completion of the
study, all information that matches up individual respondents with their answers will be
destroyed.
Participation & Withdrawal:
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you
choose to participate, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any individual question without consequences.
Questions about the Study:
If you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study, or after its
completion or you would like to receive a copy of the final aggregate results of this study, please
contact:
Michael R. Radlick
Joseph Erba
School of Communication
School of Communication
American University
American University
Michael.R.Radlick@gmail.com
Tel: (212) 885-6680
Joseph.erba@American.edu
Questions about Your Rights as a Research Subject:
Anthony Ahrens
Matt Zembrowski
Chair, Institutional Review Board
IRB Coordinator
50
American University
American University
(202) 885-1714
(202) 885-3447
Ahrens@american.edu
irb@american.edu
Giving of Consent:
By clicking “>>” below I acknowledge that I have read this consent form and I understand what
is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I freely consent to participate. I have
been given satisfactory answers to my questions. I certify that I am at least 18 years of age.
Q2.1 Do you consider yourself (if other, please specify):







White, non-Hispanic (1)
Hispanic (2)
Latino (3)
Asian / Pacific Islander (4)
Native American / American Indian (5)
Black or African American (6)
Other (7) ____________________
Answer If Do you consider yourself (if other, please specify): Hispanic Is Selected Or Do you
consider yourself (if other, please specify): Latino Is Selected Or Do you consider yourself (if
other, please specify): Other Is Not Empty
Q2.2 Do you consider yourself (if other, please specify):








South American (1)
Central American (2)
Hispanic (3)
Brazilian (4)
Caribbean (5)
Latin American (6)
Hispanic American (7)
Other (8) ____________________
51
Q2.3 How old are you?






17 and under (1)
18-21 (2)
21-25 (3)
26-30 (4)
41-50 (5)
51 and over (6)
Q2.4 What is your gender? (if other, please specify):
 Male (1)
 Female (2)
 Other (3) ____________________
52
Q2.5 Now that I know more about you, you are going to be asked some questions regarding your
use of Facebook and Twitter.
Q3.1 Do you use Facebook?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To How often do you use Facebook? If No Is Selected, Then Skip
To End of Block
Q3.2 How often do you use Facebook?





1-2 times per month (1)
1 time per week (2)
2-3 times per week (3)
1-2 times per day (4)
3 or more times per day (5)
53
Q3.3 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Facebook. I use Facebook...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)

























To kill time
(1)
To relax (2)
To keep
myself from
doing other
work
(procrastinate)
(3)
When I have
nothing else
to do (4)
When I am
bored (5)
54
Q3.4 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Facebook. I use Facebook...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)






























Because it is
fun (1)
As an escape
from reality
(2)
To play social
games (3)
Because I
enjoy using it
(4)
To watch
videos (5)
To share
entertaining
stories,
pictures, and
videos (6)
55
56
Q3.5 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Facebook. I use Facebook...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)






























To meet new
people (1)
To share my
feelings with
others (2)
To follow
what other
people are
doing/saying
(3)
To participate
in discussions
(4)
To message
with friends
(5)
To connect
with students
57
in my classes
(6)
To connect
with people I










work with (7)
To keep in
touch with
old friends
(8)
58
Q3.6 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Facebook. I use Facebook...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)















To find out
more about
companies
and products
(1)
To find
information
quickly (2)
To follow my
favorite news
sources (3)
59
Q3.7 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Facebook. I use Facebook...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)

























To broadcast
information I
find
important (1)
To gather
information
about
political
candidates (2)
To share
information
about
international
news (3)
To share
news I care
about (4)
To share
content I feel
60
the news is
not reporting
(5)
61
Q3.8 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Facebook. I use Facebook...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)




















To
communicate
with people
of the same
race/ethnicity
(1)
To
communicate
with people
of the same
gender (2)
To create a
forum for
people of my
race/ethnicity
to
communicate
(3)
To create a
62
forum for
people of my
gender to
communicate
(4)
To share
content about
my culture
(5)





63
Q3.9 Please list any other reasons you use Facebook that were not addressed:
Q4.1 Do you use Twitter?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To How often do you use Twitter? If No Is Selected, Then Skip To
End of Block
Q4.2 How often do you use Twitter?





A. 1-2 times per month (1)
B. 1 time per week (2)
C. 2-3 times per week (3)
D. 1-2 times per day (4)
E. 3 or more times per day (5)
64
Q4.3 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Twitter. I use Twitter...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)

























To kill time
(1)
To relax (2)
To keep
myself from
doing other
work
(procrastinate)
(3)
When I have
nothing else
to do (4)
When I am
bored (5)
65
Q4.4 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Twitter. I use Twitter...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)






























Because it is
fun (1)
As an escape
from reality
(2)
To play social
games (3)
Because I
enjoy using it
(4)
To watch
videos (5)
To share
entertaining
stories,
pictures, and
videos (6)
66
67
Q4.5 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Twitter. I use Twitter...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)






























To meet new
people (1)
To share my
feelings with
others (2)
To follow
what other
people are
doing/saying
(3)
To participate
in discussions
(4)
To message
with friends
(5)
To connect
with students
68
in my classes
(6)
To connect
with people I










work with (7)
To keep in
touch with
old friends
(8)
69
Q4.6 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Twitter. I use Twitter...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)















To find out
more about
companies
and products
(1)
To find
information
quickly (2)
To follow my
favorite news
sources (3)
70
Q4.7 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Twitter. I use Twitter...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)

























To broadcast
information I
find
important (1)
To gather
information
about
political
candidates (2)
To share
information
about
international
news (3)
To share
news I care
about (4)
To share
content I feel
71
the news is
not reporting
(5)
72
Q4.8 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your use of
Twitter. I use Twitter...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)




















To
communicate
with people
of the same
race/ethnicity
(1)
To
communicate
with people
of the same
gender (2)
To create a
forum for
people of my
race/ethnicity
to
communicate
(3)
To create a
73
forum for
people of my
gender to
communicate
(4)
To share
content about
my culture
(5)





74
Q4.9 Please list any other reasons you use Twitter that were not addressed:
Q5.1 Now that I have learned a little more about your social media habits, I’d like to ask you
some questions about how you view people who use Facebook and Twitter.
75
Q5.2 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements.I think someone who uses
Facebook is...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)
Cool (1)





Smart (2)










Informed (4)





Influential (5)










Interesting
(3)
Mainstream
(6)
76
Q5.3 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements.I think someone who uses
Twitter is...
1 - Strongly
Disagree (1)
2 - Disagree
(2)
3 - Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
4 - Agree (4)
5 - Strongly
Agree (5)
Cool (1)





Smart (2)










Informed (4)





Influential (5)










Interesting
(3)
Mainstream
(6)
Q6.1 Thank you for your time up to this point. Please take just a few more moments to answer
some more demographic questions and enter your email for a chance to win one of two $25
Amazon gift cards.
77
Q6.2 What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently enrolled,
please mark highest degree received.







Some high school, no diploma (1)
High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent (for example: GED) (2)
Some college (3)
Trade/technical/vocational training (4)
College degree (5)
Some postgraduate work (6)
Postgraduate degree (7)
Q6.3 What is your income level?









Less than $10,000 (1)
$10,000 – $19,999 (2)
$20,000 – $39,999 (3)
$40,000 – $49,999 (4)
$50,000 – $64,999 (5)
$65,000 – $74,999 (6)
$75,000 – $84,999 (7)
$85,000 – $99,999 (8)
$100,000 and up (9)
78
Q6.4 What is your marital status?






Single (1)
Single, in a committed relationship (2)
Married (3)
Divorced (4)
Separated (5)
Widowed (6)
Q6.5 Are you currently...








Employed for wages (1)
Self Employed (2)
Unemployed (3)
A homemaker (4)
A student (5)
Military (6)
Retired (7)
Other (8) ____________________
Q7.1 If you would like to enter your email address for a chance to win one of two $25 Amazon
gift cards, please do so here. Note: Your email address will only be used for purposes of this
drawing, and unless chosen, will be deleted once the winners are picked. GOOD LUCK!