See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278687073

Measuring Information Seeking through Facebook: Scale development and

initial evidence of Information Seeking in Facebook Scale (ISFS)

Article  in  Computers in Human Behavior · November 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.005

CITATIONS READS

18 1,960

1 author:

Hanan M. Asghar
Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich
19 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Masters thesis: Examining the role of personality towards value-based account of desired emotions: The transformational leadership paradigm View project

HR Dashboards View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hanan M. Asghar on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Measuring Information Seeking through Facebook: Scale development

and initial evidence of Information Seeking in Facebook Scale (ISFS)
Hanan M. Asghar ⇑
Center of Excellence in Writing and Speaking, Effat University, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The popularity of Facebook as a source of information has generated a need for reliable and valid infor-
mation seeking instruments. Current approaches to measure individual’s information seeking behaviors
and other motives (e.g., socialization, entertainment, self-seeking, diversion) behind Facebook usage have
Keywords: proved to be problematic as they use theorized variables, fail to measure information seeking, and exclu-
Information seeking sively take into account uses and gratifications theory (UGT) in social media. In the present study, a
Facebook 23-item scale of Information Seeking in Facebook (ISFS) reflecting the core information seeking behaviors
Facebook users
was developed to measure the information seeking in Facebook usage. The ISFS was administered to
Construct validity
Reliability
Facebook users (N = 150) in order to obtain item analysis and reliability estimates which resulted in a
refined 21-item scale. Several self-report measures (General Social Media Usage, Online Friendships,
Facebook Friendships, and Social Media Use Integration) were used to obtain construct validity evidence.
Strong reliability evidence was found in the data collected with the scale (a = .89) and the ISFS scores con-
verged with scores for other scales of Facebook activities. Given the reliability and validity results with
good factor loadings, the ISFS scale was suggested as a method of measuring information seeking in
Facebook. Implications for future research and practice are discussed in the light of information seeking
in Facebook usage.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Facebook user. Mark Zuckerberg (the founder of Facebook) said

‘‘this gives people more power to dig deeper into the topics they
Facebook is a social networking site (SNS) and is defined as a care about (Associated Press, 2013). Elaborating on the same,
social utility that aims to connect people and let them discover Zuckerberg added ‘‘that means that if businesses are sharing con-
what’s happening in the world. With 864 million active users on tent that is going to be useful to them (Facebook users), then we’ll
average for the month of September (Facebook, 2014), Facebook show that. But if that means that businesses are sharing content
tends to provide a pathway to dyadic interaction and informational that isn’t going to be useful for them, we may not show that,
cues. Moreover, with the introduction of Graph Search, the because it’s probably more important that they learn about a friend
‘‘Looking for’’ feature has not only allowed users to search for infor- who had a baby and their baby is healthy’’ (Dilip, 2014).
mation relevant to cognitive needs or interests, but has provided According to Scale (2008), Facebook is used as a tool for
an opportunity to maintain social ties or share and enlighten expe- resource discovery and the articulation of one’s information need.
riences for personal or professional gains. It is evident from the ‘‘Top Story’’, ‘‘Most Recent’’, ‘‘Trending’’ and
In addition to rampant interpersonal communication and ‘‘Most Shared’’ features of Facebook that make a user stumble upon
socialization (Ross et al., 2009), people use Facebook for news the serendipitous news from both social and public circles.
and information (Anderson & Caumont, 2014; Lampe, Vitak, Consequently, it has become such a powerful tool that several
Gray, & Ellison, 2012; Mitchell & Page, 2013). This is evident from countries (e.g., China, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan,
the introduction of the News Feed as a ‘‘personalized newspaper’’ etc.,) restricted the use by imposing bans. Frean (2011) stated that
(Facebook, 2014) that has redesigned ‘‘News Feed’’ to make it look if searching for news was the most important development of the
like a customized newspaper that suits particular interests of each last decade, sharing news may be among the most important of the
next.
⇑ Address: Enhancement Center, Effat University, PO Box 34689, Jeddah 21478, Further, according to recent Pew Survey’s findings, Facebook is
Saudi Arabia. already the news powerhouse and news generator among SNS,
E-mail address: [email protected] with half of its users sharing news stories, images or videos and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.005
0747-5632/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
260 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

around 46 percent of them discussing news issues or events Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) and enumerates different reasons for
(Anderson & Caumont, 2014). For example, Sydney Siege sprouted using media, e.g., entertainment, acquisition of information (about
a spontaneous #illridewithyou campaign on Facebook (Alexander, friends, events, trends, consumer products), diversion, making new
2014; Mckeith & Mann, 2014; Rizvi, 2014) and received over connections and sharing media (e.g., pictures and videos).
90,000 mentions while generating 1107 tweets per minute Consequently, it is considered an axiomatic theoretical approach
(Twitter Australia, 2014). because its principles are applicable to almost every type of com-
Therefore, Facebook provides an ample opportunity to examine puter mediated communication (Lue & Remus, 2014). In light of
people’s tendency to go over their News Feed as a source of infor- the UGT in Facebook, users are viewed as active, discerning and
mation, i.e., when you visit Facebook, you should see the things motivated (Quan-Hassee & Young, 2010), but does not exclusively
you are most interested in, like status updates from your family consider information seeking as an antecedent to Facebook use,
or close friends (Tonkelowitz, 2011). Who creates the ‘‘most shared lacks empirical evidence and robust measurement tools despite
story’’ and make it viral by reaching mass users may not necessar- the impending use of Facebook as a source of information.
ily be known, but makes ‘‘trending’’ news for us. That is, ‘‘on one Further, UGT motives are indelible sources of information, e.g.,
hand we have become free agents, choosing our own news. On general or product inquiry, socialization, group discussions, skim-
the other hand, we’ve become each other’s editors’’ (Doctor, 2010). ming News feed, or sharing posts (personal problems, location,
Recent Pew Survey findings also indicated that 44% of the quotes, visual media or scientific facts).
Facebook users ‘‘like’’ their friends’ posts at least once a day and Few examples illustrate the use of Facebook as an information
are comfortable with sharing their social activities (Smith, 2014). source. The public relations personnel are encouraged to capitalize
Desilver (2014) stated that Facebook has evolved from a college on consumers’ desire to stay informed about new products and
students’ social network to a source of information, connection, offers. For example, Baskin Robbins provides customer reviews,
entertainment and sometimes, news for 1.2 billion people around feedback and information on new flavors, with numerical ratings
the world. He further added that Facebook is constantly seeking and evaluations via Facebook. Content writing for such posts is
ways to encourage people to visit the site more often and stay rooted in the evidence that the consumers will not only engage
longer, and views news as a way to deepen user engagement. with the affiliates, but be more likely to seek out the stimuli rated
Consequently, Facebook has become a new source of knowledge, favorably by others i.e., the Facebook post will drive sales. It illus-
news consumerism, immediate support and engagement. trates Facebook’s extensive targeted advertising based on the
However, the extent to which such practices stimulate information ‘‘likes’’ of Facebook users (Knowles, 2014).
seeking in the context of Facebook usage has not attracted much Likewise, educational institutions do manage content and share
research. This represents a unique contribution to existing litera- news and information related to the campus events, miscellaneous
ture, as the present measure was developed to capture the broader campus news, and photographs as a mean to stay connected with
concept of information seeking exclusively in Facebook. their students or attract prospective students. Thus, important
The common motives behind Facebook usage are clearly identi- questions exist about the extent to which Facebook promotes
fied and well established in the existing literature (see Dogruer, information seeking in users.
Menevi§, & Eyyam, 2011; Hunt, Atkin, & Krishnan, 2012; Ross
et al., 2009). Despite this knowledge, most research on Facebook 1.1.1. Measuring information seeking in Facebook
has used psychometrically weak measures (Jenkins-Guarnieri, Information seeking is a purposeful act of seeking information
Wright, & Johnson, 2013). Moreover, the prominence of as a consequence of a need to satisfy some goal (Wilson, 2000). It
information seeking in Facebook is even newer and it has been refers to ‘‘active efforts to obtain specific information outside of
under analyzed in research and practice. Therefore, this current the normal patterns of exposure to mediated and interpersonal
research was designed to develop an instrument that could assess sources’’ (Niederdeppe et al., 2007). A few researchers have looked
information-seeking in Facebook to fill the gap and be used across at how Facebook is used for health information seeking (e.g.,
information-seeking paradigms in Facebook. Choudhury, Morris, & White, 2014; Greene, Choudhry, Kilabuk, &
Shrank, 2010; Shaw & Johnson, 2011; Wooley & Peterson, 2012)
1.1. Facebook as a source of information: Evidence from past studies both in chronic disease management (e.g., cancer and diabetes)
and patient support, more generally, to fill common information
Much of the research on Facebook invokes uses and gratifica- needs. The primary finding from these studies is that people use
tions perspective of mass communication (e.g., Bumgarner, 2007; Facebook for information seeking, and in particular, actively seek
Forget, Baghestan, & Asfarjan, 2013; Hunt et al., 2012; Leung, information about their respective illness. The results also suggest
2013; Park, Kerk, & Valenzuela, 2009; Quan-Hassee & Young, that Facebook is the top search tool with convenience of informa-
2010; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Wang, John, & Solloway, tion, social entertainment and personal or professional growth as
2012) and examines the motives behind using Facebook (e.g., Ali the primary motives (Campbell & Craig, 2014). Surveillance needs
& Kohli, 2013; Nakdarni & Hofmann, 2012; Stern & Taylor, 2007; also encompass information seeking in Facebook. For example, a
Thelwall, 2008). More recently, Aladwani (2014) coined the term study by Tong (2013) indicated that romantic ex-partners
Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB) to define perceived social employed information seeking foci after a relationship breakup.
experiences in Facebook and suggested that whilst some users Most notably, Facebook has also served as a medium for political
may be gravitated toward Facebook for connecting with people and social activism in several countries (Marichal, 2013).
or building social rapports, other users may like the technology Substantial research has examined the role of Facebook in civic
because it engages them in attractive learning experiences. engagement, social influence and political mobilization. For
Although, Aladwani’s (2014) conceptualization of Facebook insti- instance, Park et al. (2009) found that students’ civic and political
gates utilizing Facebook as a source of information but does not participation stemmed from socialization, entertainment, self-
provide any evidence on epistemic facet (e.g., get information) in status seeking and information via Facebook groups. Another
GoToFB. On the other hand, all the gratifications of GoToFB namely, intriguing finding of the study was, as opposed to recreational uses,
connecting, sharing, relaxing, branding, organizing, monitoring, information seeking was strongly associated with civic and politi-
expressing and learning tap on epistemic antecedents. cal action. Similarly, Bond et al. (2012) conducted an online exper-
Similarly, the Uses and Gratifications theory (UGT) seeks to iment on Facebook with 61 million users to examine the impact of
investigate the motive behind people’s use of media (Katz, political mobilization messages delivered during the 2010 US
 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270 261

congressional elections. The results indicated that the messages measurement error as it provided comparative evidence for infor-
directly influenced political self-expression, information seeking mation seeking strategies on social targets via ambiguous sam-
and voting behavior of users and their friends. pling. Similarly, Ellison et al. (2011) examined social information
Although Facebook usage has increased exponentially, research seeking in the context of Facebook’s social relationships but did
on Facebook as a source of information is still a developing field not provide any evidence on whether social information was linked
(Spiliotopoulos & Oakley, 2013). In a review of literature on UGT to consumer inquiry, hedonism or self-seeking.
in Facebook, several methodological and practical limitations in The present study extends this line of research by exploring the
existing measures assessing information seeking in Facebook were degree to which individuals engage with Facebook as a medium for
uncovered. First, a number of studies on UGT use items that in information seeking, as well as the reasons to which they engage in
essence assess social and psychological motives of using a range of information-seeking behaviors on the site. Existing
Facebook (e.g., ‘‘To feel involved with what’s going on with other research on the use of Facebook for ‘‘social search’’ functions differ-
people’’, ‘‘To make friends of the opposite sex’’ and ‘‘Because I need entiates information seeking from browsing, explores individual
someone to talk to or be with’’, items of the Gratifications Obtained and cultural differences in question-asking behaviors, and identi-
scale; Quan-Hassee & Young, 2010). Using items that tap states fies different types of information seeking strategies as well as
that are unique to information seeking, such as sociability and individual and personality traits associated with impression for-
sharing personal issues in Facebook is problematic, as these could mation, impression management and information seeking.
result from a variety of personal experiences and may depend on Another line of research has shown how Facebook use is related
the frequency and time spent on Facebook. Similarly, entertain- to perceptions of social capital, a construct that captures how likely
ment and leisure (e.g., ‘‘To entertain myself’’, and ‘‘To pass time individuals feel they are able to convert network connections into
when bored’’, items of Motives of Facebook scale; Forget et al., things like favors, self-construction, perceived warrant or informa-
2013) could be a result of diversion. tion in general. However, the extent to which Facebook is used for
Second, prior attempts to measure information seeking in seeking information has not been addressed through a robust
Facebook have failed to address the breadth of the construct. methodological approach.
Most measures have focused on gratifications sought and gratifica- Some researchers have developed novel measurement scales for
tion obtained (e.g., Karimi, Khodabandelou, Ehsani, & Ahmed, their studies involving information seeking in Facebook, but did
2014; Quan-Hassee & Young, 2010). The problem is that focusing not conduct rigorous psychometric analysis before utilizing gath-
on motives is different from focusing on information seeking. An ered data to answer subsequent research questions (e.g.,
individual scoring high on Facebook intensity or motivations to Doodson et al., 2013; Forget et al., 2013; Ge, 2010; Park et al.,
use Facebook does not necessarily prefer and seek out social or 2009; Wise et al., 2010). This method lacks methodological rigor
psychological facets. Rather, he may simply be a lurker (individuals as these authors did not provide detailed documentation on how
who visit SNS occasionally and read messages but do not post or they assessed information seeking in Facebook. Moreover, health
share on Facebook; Rau, Gao, & Ding, 2008) satisfying the need information seeking researchers (e.g., Choudhury et al., 2014;
to belong (see, Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005; Tobin, Greene et al., 2010; Shaw & Johnson, 2011; Wooley & Peterson,
Vanman, Verreynne, & Saeri, 2015). Therefore, a clear distinction 2012) relied on qualitative or descriptive methodology to acquire
is needed for examining information seeking, information and evidence on how Facebook is used for seeking information.
socio-psychological motives of Facebook or SNS use. Given the influx of Facebook posts providing information and
As can be seen from an overview of research on UGT in users’ search for information (e.g., Choudhury et al., 2014;
Facebook, there is a lack of methodological rigor in examining Doodson et al., 2013; Forget et al., 2013; Ge, 2010; Greene et al.,
Facebook as a source of information, use of narrow target audi- 2010; Park et al., 2009; Shaw & Johnson, 2011; Tong, 2013; Wise
ences (e.g., university students), weak psychometric evidence et al., 2010; Wooley & Peterson, 2012), it is imperative to use well
(negligible reliable and validity evidence support) and issues with developed measures to effectively investigate the information
administration standardization (see Table 1). seeking in Facebook. Thus, this research refines the existing studies
Reporting of internal consistency reliability is a necessary part by drawing on the framework of information seeking behavior
of the scale development process (Hinkin, 1995). However, instru- (Wilson, 2000 to construct a new, comprehensive measurement
ments utilizing UGT with information seeking have provided lim- tool i.e., Information Seeking in Facebook Scale (ISFS) that incorpo-
ited evidence on both reliability and validity. For example, Forget rates prior models for assessing self-reported information seeking
et al. (2013) conducted a study to apply UGT and examine the behaviors in Facebook, its usage as well as social media integration,
motives behind Facebook with use for entertainment, and informa- rather than relying on inaccurate self-reports of information seek-
tion with consumer motivations such as product inquiry and pro- ing using a variety of theory based strategies, e.g., UGT in Facebook
duct discussion as primary motives. While the items tapped on (Forget et al., 2013; Quan-Hassee & Young, 2010), active and pas-
epistemic facets, reliability evidence and research protocol were sive information seeking (e.g., Doodson et al., 2013).
not reported. Based on a thorough review of literature, to date, no published
Several other researchers have suggested that information seek- scale has been developed following more formal and rigorous
ing in social media is related to social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, & method of scale development and validation for measuring how
Lampe, 2011; Kwon, D’Angelo, & McLeod, 2013) and social uncer- Facebook is used for information seeking or the motive behind
tainty (Doodson, Gavin, & Joiner, 2013; Ramirez, Walther, information seeking in Facebook. Thus, the present study seeks
Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002). Social search and social browsing to create a novel measure of information seeking in Facebook,
has also attracted a considerable interest among social media and establishes initial validity evidence for the motives behind
researchers (e.g., Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006; Wise, information seeking. The contribution of this work is to extend
Alhabash, & Park, 2010). For example, Doodson et al. (2013) exam- scholarship on information seeking, provide additional evidence
ined the relationship between information seeking strategies and for the information seeking implications of Facebook use, and syn-
social uncertainty in Facebook by aligning active, passive, interac- thesize the research streams to explicate how information seeking
tive and extractive information techniques to behavioral aspects. affects social media use. As recent UGT approaches to Facebook
They randomly allocated information seeking strategies to incom- appear to suffer from a lack of methodological rigor, the present
ing undergraduate students and retrospectively rated their study was carried out to examine information seeking behaviors
responses to the information seeking techniques. This purports among Facebook users through an initial 23-item tool that spanned
262 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

Table 1
Measures of UGT in Facebook.

Authors & year Participants Mean age Sample Measure and subscale Response Reliability Number Methods
names format of items
Karimi et al. N = 320 24.11 yrs University students from Gratifications Obtained 5-point Neither 27 Descriptive and
(2014) four countries (Iran, Interpersonal utility Likert examined inferential
Malaysia, the UK, and Pass time scale nor statistics
South Africa) Entertainment reported
Information seeking
Convenience
Forget et al. (2013) N = 392 15–51 yrs Mauritian Facebook users Motivation to use Facebook 5-point Not 25 EFA and inferential
Use to meet people Likert reported statistics
Use for entertainment scale
Use to maintain
relationships
Use for social events
Use to share media product
Use for product inquiry
Use for discussion
Use for information
Quan-Hassee and N = 98 19.68 yrs University students Gratifications Obtained 5-point 25 Multi-method
Young (2010) Likert study based on 77
scale surveys and 21
interviews
Pastime a = .92 EFA and inferential
Affection a = .84 statistics
Fashion a = .90
Share problems a = .79
Sociability a = .70
Social information Not
reported

various UGT motives with the precept of providing preliminary for information in Facebook’’. This definition deals with ‘‘informa-
evidence for the internal structure as well as convergent and dis- tion seeking behaviors’’, is distinct from psycho-social motives, and
criminant validity of the ISFS. It also benefits from detailed psycho- is important to initiate research investigating the construct. The
metric evidence from diverse Facebook users. The ISFS was previously reported review of the relevant literature offered valu-
designed to assess information seeking in Facebook but was able help in defining ISFS as a construct. Using the ProQuest data-
intended to be flexible enough to be adapted to other SNS and base, several instruments measuring information seeking in
online social media such as Twitter, Pinterest and Instagram. Facebook were identified (see Table 1). The content of items mea-
suring information was content analyzed to identify information
seeking behaviors or dimensions. Based on the definitions and
2. Methodology the discussions in the previous sections, the author accumulated
a list of 23 items, reflecting core information seeking strategies.
2.1. Participants During the items generation process, a conscious effort was put
forth to include suggestions of Spiliotopoulos and Oakley (2013)
The participants of the study were adults (M = 31.39 years, to extend the prominent UGT study on Facebook (Joinson, 2008).
SD = 12.84 years) who had a Facebook account. The sample com- Bumgarner (2007) has also provided intensive empirical evidence
prised of 150 Facebook users (42 males, 108 females) who agreed on exploring UGT in Facebook and found that there are nine
and volunteered to take part in the study. Ages of the participants motives that fulfill Facebook users’ need. The most prevalent
ranged from 19 to 75 years. Thirty-eight percent of the participants motive was social activity followed by social directory, regulation,
were residing in Saudi Arabia, 24% in Pakistan, 11% in the United diversion, voyeurism, herd instincts, collection and connection,
States and others (27%) were relatively distributed across personal expression and initiating relationships. For the ISFS scale,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Georgia, India, Israel, Italy, Spiliotopoulos and Oakley’s (2013) recommendations on extending
Korea, Mauritius, New Zealand, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Slovakia, UGT to Facebook e.g., keeping up with news in general, entertain-
South Africa, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and ment and time-passing by reading posts, or links suggested by
Yemen at the time of responding to the form. friends were also incorporated (Example item texts: ‘‘Reading
Facebook Newsfeed is entertaining’’, ‘‘Facebook keeps me informed
2.1.1. Measures about the lives of my friends and/or family members’’, ‘‘In general, I
2.1.1.1. The Information Seeking through Facebook Scale read news, scientific facts or inspirational quotes shared on Facebook
(ISFS). Following the scale construction process identified by Furr because I find them informative’’).
(2011), the ISFS was developed and evaluated with the following The review of scales indicated utilizing 5-point Likert scale for
four step procedure: (1) articulation of the construct, (2) selection items measuring information in social media or Facebook.
of response format, (3) data collection, and (4) psychometric Consequently, the instructions on ISFS items for the participants
analysis. stated ‘‘Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the
Furr (2011) recommends beginning with articulating the target following statements’’, and a Likert-type response scale was pro-
construct to be measured. For the purpose of this study, the target vided for participants to indicate their level of agreement or dis-
construct, i.e., information seeking in Facebook is defined as ‘‘a util- agreement with each item’s statement using anchors ranging
itarian cognitive need that encompasses entertainment, social from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). All 23 original
experiences, question asking, acquisition of knowledge and search items are listed in Appendix A.
 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270 263

The ISFS was administered online and disseminated through variables and a description of the study. The form was dissemi-
Facebook. Furr (2011) states that by collecting data in a represen- nated through Facebook; all participants were provided the neces-
tative administration context and attending to dimensionality, reli- sary information about the purpose of the survey, and were
ability, and validity, researchers enhance the possibility that the instructed that they may choose not to participate. They were also
scale will be useful and psychologically informative. Statistical assured that their identity as well as responses will be kept strictly
analysis and statistical evidence of the construct forms the basis confidential and will be used only for the research purposes.
of psychometric analysis (Slavek & Drnovsek, 2012). Therefore,
dimensionality, reliability, and construct validity of ISFS was inves- 2.1.3. Data analysis
tigated to gather initial psychometric evidence of the construct. For the present analysis, participants’ responses on ISFS items
Facebook use was also examined along with time spent on were given a mean score and Social Media Use, Online
Facebook which proved to be helpful in providing preliminary evi- Friendships, Facebook Friendships, and SMUIS and Facebook time
dence on construct validity of the scale. was coded in line with the developers’ criteria. During the first
phase of data analysis, all responses were coded and compiled
2.1.1.2. Validity scales. Additional validity items were used to estab- for analysis via Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version
lish validity for ISFS. These included the following: 17 (SPSS v.17.0). The following procedures were carried out to
General Social Media Use. Facebook activities were measured by address the research aims:
General Social Media Use Subscale (Rosen, Whaling, Carrier,
Cheever, & Rokkum, 2013). Participants were asked to respond to
2.1.3.1. Tests of normality. To investigate the psychometric proper-
nine items concerning the frequency of activities in Facebook
ties of the ISFS and avoid basic assumptions underlying parametric
(checking Facebook and other social networks, checking from a
statistics, the distributional shape of ISFS was examined to deter-
Smartphone, checking from work or school, posting status updates,
mine the extent to which the assumption of normality was met.
posting photos, browsing profiles, reading posts, commenting on
Skewness ( .16, SE = .19), kurtosis (.11, SE = .39) were between
posts, clicking like). A 10-item frequency response scale was used
2 & +2 (George & Mallery, 2010), and the Shapiro–Wilk test of
for these items including: never, once a month, several times a
normality (S–W = .75, df = 150, p = .20) suggest that normality is
month, once a week, several times a week, once a day, several
the reasonable assumption. Visually, a relatively bell-shaped distri-
times a day, once an hour, several times an hour and all the time.
bution displayed in the histogram (reflected similarly in the box-
The reliability of the scale was a = .88 in the dataset.
plot). Further, Q–Q plot with points adhering closely to the
Online and Facebook Friendships. Four additional questions quer-
diagonal line also suggested evidence of normality. Additionally,
ied Facebook users on the number of people met online but never
the boxplot did not suggest the presence of any potential outliers.
met in person and the number of people regularly interacting with
These indices provide evidence that the assumption of normality
online but never met in person (Online Friendships Scale, Rosen
was met.
et al., 2013); the number of friends on Facebook and the number
of Facebook friends known in person (Facebook Friendships
Scale, Rosen et al., 2013). Each of these questions was answered 2.1.3.2. Reliability analysis. Reliability is a necessary pre-condition
on a 9-point numerical scale, including 0, 1–5, 51–100, 101–175, for validity (Nunnally, 1978). To assess the reliability of an instru-
176–250, 251–375, 376–500, 501–750 and 751 or more. These ment based on internal consistency, the minimum level of
scales were administered to provide discriminant validity evidence Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is .70 for basic research measures, fol-
for the ISFS. The reliability of the scales was a = .94 and a = .71 lowing Nunnally’s (1978) suggestion. Nunnally and Bernstein
respectively. (1994) also recommend that lower bound reliability should be at
Social Media Use Integration. To assess Facebook use integration, the minimum value of .70. Using the data collected from 150 par-
the researcher used a 10-item scale developed by ticipants, all 23 proposed items were subjected to item analysis.
Jenkins-Guarnieri et al. (2013). The Social Media Use Integration Field (2005) and Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) suggested that a
Scale (SMUIS) measures the integration of the social behavior reliable scale should have Corrected item-correlations above .30
and daily routines of users, along with the emotional connection and recommended dropping items below .30 thresholds.
to this use (Jenkins-Guarnieri et al., 2013). The values of the Consequently, the researcher dropped the items that had low or
response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly negative correlations. The Item-total correlation for all items is
agree) with higher scores reflecting the more engaged use and presented in Appendix A.
integration of social media (Facebook). The reliability of the scale
was a = .74 in the dataset. 2.1.3.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis. To identify a probable factor
Facebook minutes. To measure time spent on Facebook, the structure (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) of ISFS, Exploratory Factor
researcher used an item with custom answers from the Facebook Analysis (EFA) was performed. Cattell (1978) suggested three to
Intensity Scale (FBI; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). The ques- six subjects per variable, Gorsuch (1997) suggested this ratio be
tion asked participants about the average number of minutes spent at least five and both Barrett and Kline (1981) recommended the
actively using Facebook per week on an ordinal scale: 1 = 0– item ratio of at least 5:1 for running Exploratory Factor Analysis
14 min, 2 = 15–29 min, 3 = 30–44 min, 4 = 45–59 min, 5 = 60 min (EFA). Therefore, the sample size requirement for EFA was met.
or more. This question has been used in previous research Multiple criteria were used to determine retention of factors
(Jenkins-Guarnieri et al., 2013; Rosen et al., 2013; Wise et al., (Williams, Brown, & Onsman, 2010), including eigenvalues >1, a
2010) and seems to reflect Facebook users’ average time on visual analysis of the produced Scree plot, and interpretability of
Facebook in a week. the factor solutions. The Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) measure of
sample adequacy was assessed (KMO statistic >.80) and Bartlett’s
2.1.2. Procedure Test of Sphericity (p < .05) indicated that the sample was adequate
Ethics approval was obtained prior to commencing the study. for EFA. The analysis was conducted over a number of iterations
Participation in the study was voluntary. All data were collected and the total variation explained by the factors was set between
through a secure Web-based survey site hosted by Google Forms 50% and 75% (Williams et al., 2010). Tabachnick and Fidell (2001)
that had ISFS, scales for Social Media Use, Online Friendships, cite .32 as a good rule of thumb for the minimum loading of an
Facebook Friendships, SMUIS, Facebook time, demographic item, which equates to approximately 10% overlapping variance
264 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

with the other items in that factor. Consequently, an item with a reliability from .866 to .891. Only one item, ‘‘I do not like the
factor loading <.32 was not retained in the final scale. brand’s or the store’s pages for offers, sales, or new products’’
had an item-correlation of .27 and deleting this item would
2.1.3.4. Pearson Correlation. The construct validity of ISFS was increase the reliability from .891 to .894. Nevertheless, this
assessed through Pearson Correlation. There are two distinct types increase is not dramatic, and both values reflect a reasonable
of construct validity evidence described in the literature: conver- degree of reliability and therefore, the respective item was
gent and discriminant (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Convergent con- retained.
struct validity evidence is provided when test scores correlate
with other tests or variables that overlap with the construct. In this 3.2. Factor analysis
case, one measure of Facebook (ISFS) should be related to other
measures of Social Media Use, or to constructs that the theory sug- Both Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .001) and Kaiser–Meyer–
gests should be strongly related to Social Media (e.g., Facebook Oklin measure (KMO = .86) supported factor analysis for the data.
Usage, Social Media Use Integration). Consequently, the 21-item scale of ISFS was subjected to an
Since both measures, the ISFS, Social Media Use and SMUIS, are orthogonal factor analysis as the factors were not correlated.
supposed to be measuring the behaviors in the context of Using a factor loading cutoff of .32 and an eigenvalue of 1.0, all
Facebook, they should demonstrate moderate to high correlations items were worthy of retention. The initial results yielded five fac-
with each other. That is, an overall score on the ISFS should corre- tors with eigen values greater than 1. Therefore, using the Keiser’s
late significantly with an overall score on the SMUIS and Social criteria, the five factors were rotated using varimax rotation. These
Media Use. five factors, which accounted for 64.29% of variance, were easily
Discriminant validity evidence is demonstrated when the scores identifiable as representing information seeking in Facebook
on the measure do not correlate with variables that should differ, including Factor 1 (4 items accounting for 33.57% of the variance),
or are expected by theory to not correlate with the construct. For Factor 2 (4 items; 10.35%), Factor 3 (4 items; 8.36%), Factor 4 (5
example, information seeking should not significantly correlate items; 6.98%), and Factor 5 (4 items; 5.02%).
with Online Friendships or Facebook Friends as no theory suggests Factor 1, Social Searching (M = 2.61, SD = .88, a = .79) included 4
nor does evidence exist indicating that information seeking is asso- items (#2, #14, #20, #23). The name of the factor is derived from
ciated with Facebook friendships. work by Wise et al. (2010) on the extractive information seeking
strategy in using Facebook and is defined as ‘‘goal oriented act of
looking for specific information’’ (Wise et al., 2010). It included
2.1.3.5. Multiple regression. A hierarchical multiple regression was
items about ‘‘posting questions’’ or ‘‘receiving advice’’.
conducted to identify the predictors of ISFS. Preliminary analyses
Factor 2, Hedonic Proclivity (M = 3.48, SD = .86, a = .80) included
were performed to ensure there is no violation of the assumption
4 items (#8, #10, #17, #18) and is defined as a subjective feeling of
of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity.
pleasure or happiness in receiving information via Facebook’s
Additionally, the correlations among the predictor variables (ISFS
News Feed and included items about Facebook’s News Feed as a
factors) were also examined. All correlations were low to moder-
source of ‘‘fun’’ or ‘‘entertainment’’.
ate, ranging between r(148) = .35, p < .01 to r(148) = .56, p < .01.
Factor 3, Social Browsing (M = 3.57, SD = .84, a = .72) included 4
items (#7, #16, #21, #22). Again, the name of the factor is derived
2.1.3.6. Confirmatory factor analysis. To allow precision in evaluat- from work by Wise et al. (2010) on the passive information seeking
ing the new measure, as suggested by Hinkin (1995), confirmatory strategy in using Facebook and is defined as ‘‘a less particular act of
factor analysis (CFA) of the ISFS was conducted with Xnyx (free surfing general information involving more than one person or
graphical interface for creating and estimating structural equation type of information (e.g., the News Feed page, all friend page
models, SEM), utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation etc.’’ (Wise et al., 2010). It included items about reading ‘‘News
procedure. Feed’’ or ‘‘posts’’.
In addition to the goodness of fit (Chi-square statistic), the qual- Factor 4, Consumer Trends Information (M = 2.89, SD = 1.03,
ity of the model’s fit was assessed using multiple criteria such a = .79) included 5 items (#4, #5, #6, #9, #19) and is defined by
as, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), comparative the opportunities Facebook users have to inquire about trends or
fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation products. It included items about ‘‘product’s pages’’ or ‘‘following
(RMSEA). trends’’.
Good models have non-significant chi-square value (Barrett, The fifth factor was named as General Erudition (M = 3.50,
2007) while relative chi-square (v2/df) below 2 is considered to SD = .87, a = .80) and comprised 4 items (#1, #11, #12, #13). It is
represent a minimally plausible model (Byrne, 1998). CFI values defined as gaining general information for meaningful learning,
close to 1 i.e., greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), SRMR values either social or intellectual and included items about ‘‘friends’
lesser than .05 (Byrne, 1998; Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000) lives’’ or ‘‘subject knowledge’’.
and RMSEA value close to .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) represent a Table 2 provides scale items and factor loadings for 21-item five
well-fitting model. factor model.
Few items for consumer trend information (#6, #9) and social
3. Results browsing (#16, #22) were reverse scored and scattered throughout
the instrument in order to prevent response sets. Composite scores
3.1. Reliability of ISFS were created for each of the five factors, based on the mean of the
items which had their primary loadings on each factor. Higher
The reliability of the ISFS was assessed by using both internal scores indicated greater information seeking in Facebook.
consistency estimate (a = .87) and split-half (a = .86). The corrected Overall, results of EFA indicated that five distinct factors were
item-total correlation coefficients for all initial 23 items are pre- underlying Facebook users’ responses to ISFS items and that these
sented in Appendix A. Two items ‘‘I do not read quotes shared factors were moderately internally consistent. Reliability, as mea-
through Facebook’s photos or statuses’’ and ‘‘Reading Facebook sured by coefficient alpha, has been estimated as a = .89, with scale
posts is a waste of time’’ would substantially affect reliability if alpha coefficients ranging from .72 (Social Browsing) to .80
they were deleted. Therefore, dropping the items improved the (Hedonic Proclivity, General Erudition).
 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270 265

Table 2
Factor loadings for information seeking in Facebook factors (minimum factor loading .32).

Item Item text ISFS factors

Social Hedonic Social Consumer General
Searching Proclivity Browsing Trends Erudition
Information
14. Facebook helps me find answers to personal problems .83
23. The exchange of information offered through Facebook allows me to answer personal .82
issues effectively
20. The advice offered by friends/members allows interaction with people .64
2. I use Facebook to post questions because Facebook users (e.g., friends, group members or .61
others) provide me with better information than an Internet search
17. Reading Facebook newsfeed is entertaining .80
18. It is fun to go over Facebook posts. .79
10. I use Facebook to see new/cool photos/photo albums/videos .71
8. I have a good time reading posts shared through Facebook .53
16. I do not find informative posts on Facebook (R) .73
7. In general, I read news, scientific facts or inspirational quotes shared on Facebook because .68
I find them informative
22 I do not use Facebook as a source of information (R) .65
21. News, quotes and scientific facts shared through Facebook are informative .55
6. I do not use Facebook to follow a trend (R) .80
5. I feel that in order to know more about a brand or store, I have to like its page .74
9. I do not like the brand’s or store’s pages for offers, sales, or new products (R) .67
4. I use Facebook to follow new trends .63
19. Facebook groups/pages keep me informed about products, services and trends .51
12. Facebook keeps me informed about the lives of my friends and/or family members .77
13. I think reading Facebook feed is informative .67
1. Facebook makes me learn about a topic I am not familiar with .65
11. I believe that Facebook provides me with information on many subjects .60

Note. (R) denotes reverse scored item.

3.3. Convergent and discriminant validity Information and General Erudition) had low to moderate correla-
tions between each other and a negligible relation with Online
Table 3 shows the Pearson product-moment correlations and Facebook Friendships (r = .00 to .13, p = ns). This illustrates dis-
between ratings on the ISFS, the Social Media Use, Online criminant validity evidence of the ISFS.
Friendships, Facebook Friendships, Social Media Use Integration
and time spent on Facebook. 3.4. Hierarchical multiple regression
Examination of the Pearson correlations provides some initial
evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity. For exam- Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate
ple, for discriminant validity, there was a weak relationship the ability of Social Browsing, Hedonic Proclivity, Social Searching,
between ISFS and Online and Facebook Friendships. There were Consumer Trends Information, General Erudition (ISFS factors)
low to moderate correlations between the measures of Facebook and Facebook activities to predict levels of information seeking
activities and Online and Facebook Friendships. For convergent in Facebook. All correlations among predictor variables were weak
validity, it was expected that ISFS would have a positive correlation to moderate and tolerance value exceeded .10 threshold. All VIF
with time spent on Facebook, General Social Media Use and SMUIS. values were below 10 and this indicates that multicollinearity
The high correlations between ISFS factors and ISFS (r > .70), as was unlikely to be a problem (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
compared to the correlations between Facebook activities Therefore, data met the assumptions of normality, linearity and
(time spent on Facebook (r = .33), General Social Media Use homoscedasticity. With the exception of Online and Facebook
(r = .40) and SMUIS (r = .58) provide further evidence on construct Friendships, all variables were statistically correlated with
(convergent) validity. Moreover, the ISFS factors (i.e., Social information seeking in Facebook which indicates that the data
Searching, Hedonic Proclivity, Social Browsing, Consumer Trends was suitably correlated with the dependent variable for

Table 3
Pearson correlations among ISFS, SMUIS, Social Media Use, Online Friendships, Facebook Friendships and Facebook Time.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
1. ISFS – .71 .73 .73 .75 .77 .33 .40 .58 .13 .12
2. Social Searching – .44** .36** .38** .49** .26** .23** .54** .03 .11
3. Hedonic proclivity – .43** .36** .56** .32** .49** .45** .14 .01
4. Social browsing – .44** .55** .33** .25** .35** .13 .12
5. CTI – .35** .14 .20* .43** .00 .03
6. General erudition – .23** .36** .37** .25** .20*
7. Facebook time – .48** .39** .34** .38**
8. GMU – .45** .38** .28**
9. SMUIS – .13 .22**
10. Online friendships – .54**
11. Facebook friendships –

Note. ISFS = Information Seeking in Facebook Scale, CTI = Consumer Trends Information, GMU = General Social Media Use, SMUIS = Social Media Use Integration Scale.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
266 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

examination through multiple linear regression to be reliably

undertaken (see Table 3).
In the first step, Facebook Friends, Online Friendships, Social
Media Use, Social Media Use Integration and time spent on
Facebook was entered. The model was significant F(5, 142) =
19.21; p < .001 and explained 40% of the variance in information
seeking. After entry of ISFS factors, the total variance explained
by the model as a whole was 99.7%. Therefore, ISFS factors
accounted for 59.7% of the variance in ISFS scores. Further, only 5
out of 10 variables, i.e., the ISFS factors were statistically significant
predictors with both Social Searching and Consumer Trends
Information recording higher Beta values (b = .47, p < .001) than
Social Browsing (b = .46, p < .001), Hedonic Proclivity (b = .43,
p < .001) and General Erudition (b = .38, p < .001). The overall
adjusted R2 increased from .40 to .60 with ISFS factors significantly
contributing to information seeking in Facebook.
Table 4 presents a summary of regression analysis predicting
scores on the ISFS.

3.5. Confirmatory factor analysis

Fig. 1. Conceptual model for information seeking in Facebook. Note. SS = Social

The CFA indicated that the five-factor model with ISFS as a
Searching, HP = Hedonic Proclivity, SB = Social Browsing, CTI = Consumer Trends
higher order construct provides an excellent fit, with v2(8,N = 150) = Information, GE = General Erudition.
13.47, p = .31 (normed chi-square value (v2/df) = 1.68), RMSEA = .06,
SRMR = .04 and CFI = .98. All measured variables loaded strongly on
the latent variable (k range = .67 to .91). The model is depicted in failed to present adequate psychometric and validity evidence
Fig. 1. (e.g., Doodson et al., 2013; Ellison et al., 2007; Wise et al., 2010)
in measuring information seeking in Facebook. To address these
limitations, the author developed a 23-item scale of information
4. Discussion
seeking called the ISFS.
The ISFS was designed to capture the information seeking in
Attempts to examine Facebook as a source of information have
been widespread and no single measurement tool has been Facebook users. In its development, the author focused on
Facebook; however, the ISFS was designed to be adapted to other
adopted by more than a handful of descriptive or qualitative
studies on information seeking in Facebook. Therefore, they have forms of social media by replacing the word ‘‘Facebook’’ in the item
statements with the name of other SNSs such as Twitter, Instagram
suffered from a lack of detailed psychometric support and method-
ological evidence. Authors developing scales of social media have and Pinterest and benefits from detailed information about the
scale’s psychometric properties. The researcher performed item
mainly focused on behavioral frequency of use (e.g., Andreassen,
2012; Bumgarner, 2007; Ellison et al., 2007; Junco, 2011; Rosen analysis, EFA, bivariate correlation and linear regression to
establish reliability and validity evidence with the data collected.
et al., 2013; Ross et al., 2009; Yousefi-Nooraie, Dobbins, Broiwers,
& Wakefield, 2012) and used qualitative approaches (e.g., This study makes two notable contributions to the conceptual-
ization of information seeking in Facebook. First, it confirms that
Choudhury et al., 2014; Egan, Koff, & Moreno, 2013; Greene
et al., 2010; Shaw & Johnson, 2011; Wooley & Peterson, 2012) or the Information Seeking in Facebook Scale is a reliable and valid
tool for assessing Facebook users’ information seeking. The ISFS
consists of only 21 items, yet is internally consistent (a = .89) with
Table 4
Linear model predictors and 95% confidence intervals of information seeking in a robust factor structure containing five components, namely:
Facebook. Social Searching, Hedonic Proclivity, Social Browsing, Consumer
Trends Information and General Erudition which account for
Predictor b SE B b 95% CI for B
almost 60% of the variance in information seeking. The CFA also
Step 1
demonstrated that information seeking is a higher-order construct,
Constant 35.30 3.79 – [27.81, 42.79]
Facebook time .48 .74 .05 [ .98. 1.95]
so the mean scores on the ISFS can be utilized meaningfully. Fig. 1
Social media use .07 .06 .09 [ .06, .21] presents a model that can aid researchers in examining informa-
Social media use integration .86 .12 .56* [.62, 1.09] tion seeking in SNSs.
Online friendships .20 .31 .05 [ .40, .81] Additionally, the hierarchical multiple regression provides evi-
Facebook friendships .43 .39 .09 [ 1.21, .34]
dence on how distinct the ISFS is from other scales of Facebook
Step 2 activities (General Social Media Usage, Online Friendships,
Constant 66.83 .32 – [66.19, 67.47]
Facebook Friendships, and Social Media Use Integration, time spent
Facebook time .08 .05 .09 [ .03, .18]
Social media use .01 .01 .01 [ .02, .02] on Facebook). The Facebook activities scores contributed least to
Social media use integration .01 .01 .01 [ .01, .03] the ISFS scores while the five factors of ISFS i.e., Social Searching
Online friendships .01 .02 .00 [ .06, .03] (t = 96.41, p < .01), Hedonic Proclivity (t = 83.09, p < .01) Social
Facebook friendships .03 .03 .01 [ .02, .08]
Browsing (t = 99.27, p < .01), Consumer Trends Information
Social searching 6.61 .07 .47* [6.47, 6.74]
Hedonic proclivity 5.99 .07 .43* [5.84, 6.12]
(t = 102.17, p < .01), and General Erudition (t = 82.03, p < .01), con-
Social browsing 6.44 .07 .46* [6.32, 6.57] tributed most to the ISFS. This suggests that the five sets of predic-
Consumer trends information 6.57 .06 .47* [6.44, 6.70] tors (ISFS factors) significantly predicted the information seeking
General erudition 5.35 .07 .38* [5.22, 5.47] in Facebook.
Note. R2 = .40 for Step 1: DR2 = .60 for Step 2. Second, this study demonstrates that ISFS contributes substan-
*
p < .01. tially to the variation in Facebook usage, as well as users’ social
 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270 267

media integration and time spent on Facebook and, to a lesser study, these findings may have limited generalizability.
extent, their friendships in the context of both Facebook and online Furthermore, data were collected only from participants who had
environment. This significant contribution is over and above the a Facebook account, and research on the use of ISFS with other
amount of variance explained by ISFS factors. When users are SNSs is needed.
actively seeking information in Facebook, they are likely to inte- The current study also has several other obvious limitations,
grate social media (r(148) = .58, p = .00), spend more time including: (1) combining samples with different ethnic back-
(r(148) = .33, p = .00) and report more use of social media grounds or geographical locations, (2) using the online survey
(r(148) = .40, p = .00). This seeking extends beyond the frequency methodology to collect data and (3) data being collected through
or integration of social media, as users are more likely to befriend Facebook friends and family or friends of those same friends.
people on Facebook or in online environments. It appears that the Additional studies with different samples, collected from different
data do not support a significant relationship between ISFS, social parts of the country or the world, should be done to further vali-
media integration, social media use and Facebook friends date the ISFS.
(r(148) = .12, p = ns) or Online friends (r(148) = .13, p = ns). This Another avenue for future research is to conduct a large scale
finding is in compliance with Kim and Leen (2011) and Ellison comparative study on ISFS in Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and
et al. (2007), who found a negative curvilinear relationship Pinterest with young adults as its exclusive sample, utilize test–
between Facebook friends and perceived social support. retest reliability, and perform Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Similarly, Jenkins-Guarnieri et al. (2013) found weak correlations and/or Sequential Analysis (SEM) to establish further reliability,
between number of friends and social media integration. This validity and utility of the scale. This may confirm the reported psy-
demonstrates the validity evidence for ISFS as the researcher found chometric properties and identify the appropriateness of the mea-
significant positive correlations between Facebook activities and sure with the college or university students’ sample as majority of
non-significant correlations between Facebook and online friend- Facebook users are students. This could also provide a handy evi-
ships which provide convergent and discriminant validity evi- dence on whether information seeking in Facebook is associated
dence. In addition, ISFS scores indicated higher ratings on items with student engagement or performance. For example, work of
with Facebook activities (M = 5.30, t = 3.45, df = 149, p = .01) scores Junco (2012) indicated that collecting and sharing information
and SMUIS (M = 3.19, t = 15.26, df = 148, p < .01). through Facebook was a positive predictor of academic
The Consumer Information Trends category is intriguing performance (GPA). While socialization and time spent on
because it encapsulates the interplay between browsing and Facebook were negative predictors of GPA, time spent on
searching in Facebook. Users who seek information for following Facebook was only weakly related to the time spent preparing
trends or keeping themselves informed of products and services for class. This suggests that there is another mechanism that would
do not necessarily spend more time on Facebook (r = .14, p = ns) explain the relationship between Facebook use and GPA, a possibil-
nor have Online (r = .00, p = ns) or Facebook friends (r = .03, ity to be explored in future research on this topic (Junco, 2012).
p = ns). Albeit the present measure does not enable the researcher Therefore, the present pattern of findings and information seeking
to claim with certainty what they are doing with such ads or model (ISFS) could be utilized in educational settings and may
whether the pitched products preceded consumer behavior, it is serve as a mechanism to further explicate the relationships
speculated that floundering searchers may gain ideas on how to between frequency of Facebook usage, time spent on Facebook,
better express what they are looking for. Work of Kang, Tang, information seeking, academic performance and engagement in
and Fiore (2014) has shown that fan page members are more likely university students.
to visit the restaurant Facebook page when they obtain social, psy- Additional validity evidence is also needed to amass generaliz-
chological and hedonic benefits from their interactions on the ability of the findings to other SNSs. However, given the evidence
pages. This provides a practical foundation for community partici- of scoring, a liberal approach would entail the use of a polythetic
pation, brand trust and brand commitment from a marketing per- scoring scheme (e.g., scoring 3 or above on at least two of the four
spective, as well as brand management strategies for use in SNSs items), whereas a more conservative approach could be to use a
(Kang et al., 2014). monothetic scoring key (e.g., scoring 3 or above on all four items)
It is interesting to note that two items from the original item or a mean score of 2.5 or more on each factor. This would aid SNS
pool focused on more factual information on reading Facebook researchers in defining high and low information seekers in SNSs.
News Feed such as reading or time spent on reading posts. The Lampe et al. (2012) found that users who spent more time on
item analysis suggested that these items were not strong measures SNS reported higher perceptions of Facebook as useful for informa-
of information seeking, and that they were weaker than other tion seeking. One possible explanation lies in the conjecture that
items assessing the information seeking in Facebook. These results users who spend more time on SNS are exposed to more content
suggested either that information seeking is a separate construct and be likely to ‘‘read’’, ‘‘like’’, ‘‘tweet’’, ‘‘follow’’, ‘‘comment’’,
from affect, or that affect measures may be weaker means of oper- ‘‘post’’, ‘‘pin’’, ‘‘share’’ or use them as a source of information.
ationalizing information seeking in Facebook. It is likely that However, neither the present study nor Lampe et al. (2012) pro-
although the quantity of information seeking will vary depending vides definition of users as high or low information seekers in
on various factors such as the need for cognition, social connection SNS. Therefore, the usefulness of the proposed cutoff value for cat-
and perception towards Facebook usage. This may be an important egorization of information seeking in Facebook should also be pur-
area of study for future research. Finally, an independent samples sued in future studies to speak for a possible casual direction
t-test between the mean ISFS scores and gender did not indicate between information seeking and SNS activities.
significant relationship. Thus, the present study developed a novel Future research can expand on the contribution of ISFS to addi-
measure for assessing information seeking, with detailed psycho- tional motivational outcomes, including other types of cognitive
metric data from a diverse sample of Facebook users, and provides needs and social or personality traits associated with information
preliminary validity evidence for its use in Facebook. seeking. A focus on information seeking as a desired outcome itself,
Limitations to the study include the fact that the researcher rather than solely as a mean to investigate motives behind SNS
studied just one SNS, i.e., Facebook, and thus the results cannot usage, could generate additional research on the types of antece-
be generalized to other SNSs. Given the under representation of dents that may have the greatest impact on information seeking
male participants, age discrepancy and small sample in the present in SNSs as well as utilizing them for purposeful and meaningful
268 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

information gain. However, given the focus on Facebook in devel- for the ISFS model and could be adopted for other SNSs such
opment, more research is needed to establish validity evidence as Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest.
when adapting the ISFS to other types of social media, such as Further, information seeking has relevance to nearly all facets of
Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram. need for cognition and opportunities for future research extend
Similarly, when using this new scale, future researchers may beyond SNS to areas such as consumer behavior, learning and
want to examine the devices that are frequently used to access achievement, and mass communication. It will be important for
social media (e.g., desktops, laptops, phones, and tablets) to test future research to continue investigating educational, emotional,
for differences among platforms. Future research may also utilize social, and personality outcomes of information seeking using psy-
longitudinal design for more rigorous examination of positive or chometrically rigorous measurements.
negative associations between ISFS and other scales of social media Given this trend, it will also be important to investigate how
and may focus on ‘‘actual use’’ of information through experiments college users’ Facebook use behaviors are similar to, or different
and observations. from health information seekers in relation to their information
seeking levels. Large, prospective and multicenter cross cultural
studies are recommended to explore this relationship extensively,
5. Conclusion by re-evaluating the psychometric properties and establishing
norms for defining high and low information seekers in SNSs.
Facebook has become an increasingly popular source of infor- This could provide a bricolage of information on the motives
mation over the past decade. Several users are using it as a source behind information seeking in SNS as well as utilizing the gathered
of information and benefiting from the resources and communica- information for personal or professional use. Refinements in theory
tion via Facebook. However, negligible research has assessed infor- and measurement in SNSs will increase the likelihood that infor-
mation seeking in Facebook as well as other SNSs. The primary mation seeking is given its long overdue attention in basic and
purpose of this study was to provide a parsimonious measure tar- applied research.
geted towards measuring information seeking in Facebook, con- Another avenue for future research is to evaluate the differences
struct a reliable tool and propose a model for examining between the information seeking behaviors of lurkers and frequent
information seeking in SNSs. SNS users. Promising work has already shown that lack of informa-
The researcher believes the ISFS distinguishes itself from other tion sharing and feedback can threaten belonging needs (Tobin
UGT measures that tend to lack theoretical frameworks in et al., 2015).
Facebook, use idiosyncratic items that evoke nonrandom error, Overall, this study has given accounts of the problem that sur-
have negligible reliability and construct validity evidence, uncer- rounds the measurement of information seeking in Facebook and
tain incremental validity, and focus on items assessing general adds to the literature of scale use in Facebook. By increasing the
motives, information on social events, fashion, products or diver- size of the data collected, re-evaluating psychometric properties,
sion and not information seeking. To increase our knowledge of examining group differences among students and non-students,
information seeking, self-reports will need to be supplemented lurkers and non-lurkers, and age groups (emerging adult vs old)
by measures and paradigms that tap the cognitive, physiological will provide further evidence on the reliability and validity of
and neurological referents of information seeking. By grounding ISFS. Social media researchers are encouraged to use ISFS, evaluate
the constructs of Social Searching, Hedonic Proclivity, Social the psychometric properties and extend ISFS model to other SNSs
Browsing, Consumer Trends Information and General Erudition in such as Twitter, Pinterest and Instagram.
well-established theories of information seeking, results of the
Information Seeking in Facebook Scale can provide SNS researchers Acknowledgements
with helpful information about aspects of the information gaining,
information use and information search that can enhance users’ The researcher is thankful to Michael A. Jenkins-Guarnieri
engagement and identify the authentic triggers of information and Larry Rosen, who gave permission to use their Social
seeking in SNSs. Clearly, the prevalence of information seeking in Media Use Integration Scale (SMUIS) and The Media and
Facebook relates to Facebook use and integration. Technology Usage Scale for this research. The researcher is for-
The present findings are limited by reliance on self-report ever grateful to Tabassum Rashid, Associate Professor, Effat
scales, diverse nature of data, non-emerging adults’ participation University, for her scientific advice, knowledge and many
and should be interpreted in the light of a number of research lim- insightful discussions, guidance and suggestions. Without her
itations. First, as is typical of university students, emerging adults unstinting expert guidance and unceasing encouragement, I
and males are not well represented. Second, the data do not iden- would not be where I am today. She was and remains my best
tify lurkers nor indicate any causal relationship between lurking role model for a psychologist, mentor, teacher and researcher.
and information seeking. Finally, a small proportion of participants Dr. Tabassum is the reason why I have decided to go to pursue
from several countries participated in the study, so findings from a degree and career in psychological research. Her enthusiasm
this study are not necessarily generalizable to Facebook users as and love for learning and teaching as well as research and schol-
a whole. arship is contagious.
Another major limitation of this study is that it has a small The author is also grateful to three anonymous blind review-
sample size. However, the author would also note that this ers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this
sample was considered reasonable for running inferential statis- paper.
tics, included diverse Facebook users from several countries and Many thanks to Kimberly Hadley Mominah, PhD student,
has a methodological improvement over previous measures, Walden University for her insightful feedback and support. The
especially with regard to information seeking in Facebook and author would also like to extend gratitude to Anbreen Shaikh,
scale reliability. It is this aspect of the new measure, its Clara Pracana, Giovanni Rodriguez, Javeria Siddique, Kimberly
improved psychometric properties, which provides immediate Deathrage Mominah, Leigh Graham, Manal Iqbal, Omer Farooqui,
added value for researchers of social media and Facebook Simra Bashir, Tamas David-Barett and The Freedom Traveler for
motives. Also, the results of the study found strong support their efforts in collecting data for this research.
 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270 269

Appendix A. The Information Seeking in Facebook Scale: Items Alexander, R. (2014). Sydney café: Australians say to Muslims ‘‘I’ll ride with you’’.
<http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30479306> Retrieved 15.12.14.
and intercorrelations of ratings Ali, A. A., & Kohli, N. (2013). Social networking: Motives and social impact. Indian
Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 4(5), 1095–1098. <http://search.
Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the proquest.com/docview/1615264182?accountid=130572>.
Anderson, M., & Caumont, A. (2014). How social media is reshaping news. <www.
following statements.
pew.org>.
Andreassen, C. H. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological
Items Item-total Reports, 110(2), 501–517.
Associated Press (2013, March 08). Facebook redesigns News Feed to be like a
correlation ‘personalized newspaper’. NDTV. <http://gadgets.ndtv.com>.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality
1. Facebook makes me learn about a topic I .57
and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.
am not familiar with Barrett, P. T., & Kline, P. (1981). The observation to variable ratio in factor analysis.
2. I use Facebook to post questions because .50 Personality Studies and Group Behavior, 1, 23–33.
Facebook users [e.g., friends, group Bond, R. M., Farris, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., et al. (2012).
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization.
members or others] provide me with Nature, 489, 295–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11421.
better information than an Internet search Bumgarner, B. A. (2007). You have been poked: Exploring the uses and gratifications
3. I do not read quotes shared through .06 of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday, 12(11).
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS:
Facebook’s photos or statuses⁄ Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
4. I use Facebook to follow new trends .62 Erlbaum Associates.
5. I feel that in order to know more about a .54 Campbell, B. C., & Craig, C. M. (2014). Health professions students academic and
personal motivations for using social media. The International Journal of
brand or store, I have to like its page Communication and Health, 3, 26–33.
6. I do not use Facebook to follow a trend⁄ .34 Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
7. In general, I read news, scientific facts or .39 the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046016.
inspirational quotes shared on Facebook
Cattell, R. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum.
because I find them informative Choudhury, M. D., Morris, M. R., & White, R. W. (April, 2014). Seeking and sharing
8. I have a good time reading posts shared .53 health information online: Comparing search engines and social media. Paper
presented at the annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems,
through Facebook
Toronto, Canada.
9. I do not like the brand’s or store’s pages for .27 Desilver, D. (2014). Facebook is a news source for many, but only incidently. <www.
offers, sales, or new products⁄ pewresearch.org>.
10. I use Facebook to see new/cool .46 Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage
Publications.
photos/photo albums/videos Dilip, M. (2014, November 24). Will Facebook’s personalised newspaper be the
11. I believe that Facebook provides me with .63 death of traditional journalism and media? International Business Times. <http://
information on many subjects www.ibtimes.co.in>.
Doctor, K. (2010). Newsonomics: Twelve new trends that will shape the news you get.
12. Facebook keeps me informed about the .31 New York: St. Martin’s Press.
lives of my friends and/or family members Dogruer, N., Menevi§, I., & Eyyam, R. (2011). What is the motivation for using
13. I think reading Facebook feed is .65 Facebook? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2642–2646.
Doodson, J., Gavin, J., & Joiner, R. (2013). Getting acquainted with groups and
informative individuals: Information seeking, social uncertainty and social network sites. In
14. Facebook helps me find answers to .49 Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI conference on Weblogs and social media.
personal problems Egan, K. G., Koff, R. N., & Moreno, M. A. (2013). College students’ responses to mental
health status updates on Facebook. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34, 46–51.
15. For me, reading Facebook posts is a waste of .38
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’
time Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of
16. I do not find informative posts on .46 Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
Facebook⁄
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media &
17. Reading Facebook Newsfeed is .54 Society, 13(6), 873–892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389.
entertaining Facebook (2014). News Room. <http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/> Accessed
18. It is fun to go over Facebook posts. .56 22.10.14.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
19. Facebook groups/pages keep me .63 Forget, J. R. L., Baghestan, A. G., & Asfarjan, Y. S. (2013). A uses and gratification
informed about products, services and perspective on social media usage and online marketing. Middle East Journal of
trends Scientific Research, 15(1), 134–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.
15.1.2127.
20. The advice offered by friends/members .47 Frean, A. (2011, May 12). Social network or search engine? The Times.
allows interaction with people Furr, M. (2011). Core principles, best practices and an overview of scale
21. News, quotes and scientific facts shared .65 construction. In M. Furr (Ed.), Scale construction and psychometrics for social
and personality psychology (pp. 4–15). SAGE Publications Ltd.
through Facebook are informative. Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. (2005). Social snacking and shielding:
22. I do not use Facebook as a source of .45 Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K.
information⁄ D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social
exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227–241). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
23. The exchange of information offered .50
Ge, X. (2010). Information-seeking behavior in the digital age: A multidisciplinary
through Facebook allows me to answer study of academic researchers. College and Research Libraries, 435–455.
personal issues effectively. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Note. An asterisk in bold indicates that the item is reverse scored. The items in italics Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of
were not retained nor used for running any analysis. All items are scored on the fol- Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532–560.
lowing scale: 1: Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neither agree nor disagree, 4: agree, Greene, J. A., Choudhry, N. K., Kilabuk, E., & Shrank, W. H. (2010). Online social
5: Strongly agree with higher scores reflecting higher information seeking in Facebook. networking by patients with diabetes: A qualitative evaluation of
communication with Facebook. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(3),
287–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1526-3.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
References organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Aladwani, A. M. (2014). Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB): What it is? And
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
how can it be measured? Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 270–278.
270 H.M. Asghar / Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015) 259–270

Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2012). The influence of computer-mediated Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and
communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. Journal of gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyber Psychology &
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 187–202. Behavior, 11(2), 169–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0056.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. (2013). Development and Ramirez, A., Jr., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-
validation of a social media use integration scale. Psychology of Popular Media seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer mediated communication.
Culture, 2(1), 38–50. Human Communication Research, 28, 213–228.
Joinson, A. (2008). ‘‘Looking at’’, ‘‘looking up’’ or ‘‘keeping up with’’ people?: Motives Rau, P.-L. P., Gao, Q., & Ding, Y. (2008). Relationship between the level of intimacy
and use of Facebook. In Proc. CHI 2008 (pp. 1027–1036). ACM. and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,
Junco, R. (2011). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation 2757–2770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.001.
in Facebook activities and student engagement. Computer and Education, 58, Rizvi, J. (2014). Dear Australian Muslims: We will ride with you. Mamamia. <http://
162–171. www.mamamia.com.au/>.
Junco, R. (2012). Too much Face and not enough books: The relationship between Rosen, L., Whaling, K., Carrier, L., Cheever, N., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The media and
multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computer in technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198. Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501–2511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006.
Kang, J., Tang, L., & Fiore, A. M. (2014). Enhancing consumer–brand relationships on Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
restaurant Facebook fan pages: Maximizing consumer benefits and increasing Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
active participation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 145–155. Behavior, 25, 578–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024.
Karimi, L., Khodabandelou, R., Ehsani, M., & Ahmed, M. (2014). Applying the uses Scale, M. S. (2008). Facebook as a social search engine and the implications for
and gratifications theory to compare higher education students’ motivation for libraries in the twenty-first century. Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 540–556.
using social networking sites: Experiences from Iran, Malaysia, United Shaw, R. J., & Johnson, C. M. (2011). Health information seeking and social media use
Kingdom, and South Africa. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(1), 53–72. on the internet among people with diabetes. Online Journal of Public Health
Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by Informatics, 3(1), 1–9.
the individual. In E. Katz & J. Blumler (Eds.), The uses of mass communication Slavek, A., & Drnovsek (2012). A perspective on scale development in
(pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills: Sage. entrepreneurship research. Economic & Business Review, 14(1), 39–62.
Kim, J., & Leen, J.-E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the Smith, A. (2014). 6 new facts about Facebook. <www.pew.org>.
number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Spiliotopoulos, T., & Oakley, I. (2013). Replicating and extending a Facebook uses &
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. gratifications study: Five years later. In Proc. RepliCHI 2013. ACM.
Knowles, A. (2014). Facebook: Consumerism or community? The Pandeia Network. Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the
<http://www.pandeia.eu/the-watchdog/facebook-consumerism-or-community/>. Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9–20.
Kwon, M., D’Angelo, J., & McLeod, D. M. (2013). Facebook use and social capital: To Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York:
bond, to bridge or to escape. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(102), Harper and Row.
35–43. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A face(book) in the crowd. In Bacon.
Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer Supported Thelwall, M. (2008). No place for news in social network Web sites? Online
Cooperative Work - CSCW ’06. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180901>. Information Review, 32(6), 726–744.
Lampe, C., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Ellison, N. (2012). Perceptions of Facebook’s value as Tobin, S. J., Vanman, E. J., Verreynne, M., & Saeri, A. K. (2015). Threats to belonging
an information source. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual conference on human on Facebook: Lurking and ostracism. Social Influence, 10(1), 31–42. http://
factors in computing systems. New York: ACM. dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2014.893924.
Leung, L. (2013). Generational differences in content generation in social media: Tong, S. T. (2013). Facebook use during relationship termination: Uncertainty
The roles of the gratifications sought and of narcissism. Computers in Human reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
Behavior, 29(3), 997–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.028. 16(11), 788–793.
Lue, M. M., & Remus, W. (2014). Uses and gratifications and acceptance of Web- Tonkelowitz, M. (2011). Interesting news, any time you visit. <http://newsroom.
based information services: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, fc.com>.
38, 281–295. Twitter Australia [TwitterAU] (2014, December 15). UPDATE: There has now been
Marichal, J. (2013). Political Facebook groups: Micro-activism and the digital front more than 90,000 mentions of #illridewithyou tonight: http://reverb.guru/view/
stage. First Monday, 12(2). 697946497474885525 #amazing [Tweet]. <https://twitter.com/TwitterAU/
Mckeith, S., & Mann, T. (2014). Hashtags trends, racists rant about siege. National status/544451561414328320>.
News. Wang, Z., John, T. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of
Mitchell, A., & Page, D. (2013). The role of news on Facebook: Common yet incidental. social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in
<www.pew.org>. Human Behavior, 28(5), 1829–1839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.001.
Nakdarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Computers in Williams, B., Brown, T., & Onsman, A. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step
Human Behavior, 52(3), 243–249. guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3). <http://ro.ecu.edu.
Niederdeppe, J., Hornik, R. C., Kelly, B. J., Frosch, D. L., Romantan, A., & Stevens, R. S. au/jephc/vol8/iss3/1>.
(2007). Examining the dimensions of cancer-related information seeking and Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Sciences, 3(2), 49–55.
scanning behavior. Health Communication, 22(2), 153–167. Wise, K., Alhabash, S., & Park, H. (2010). Emotional responses during social
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Networking, 5(13), 555–562.
McGraw-Hill. Wooley, P., & Peterson, M. (2012). Efficacy of health-related Facebook social network
Park, N., Kerk, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking site on health-seeking behaviors. Social Marketing Quarterly, 18(1), 29–39.
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Dobbins, M., Broiwers, M., & Wakefield, P. (2012). Information
Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729–733. seeking for making evidence informed decisions: A social network analysis on
Quan-Hassee, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A the staff of a public health department in Canada. BMC Health Services Research,
comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & 12(118). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-118.
Society, 30(5), 350–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380009.

View publication stats