Using the rational actor perspective (Markus, 1994a) as a guiding frame, this exploratory study examined individuals’ social media diet (i.e., amount, frequency, and duration of use) as a function of task load and expected goal attainment. Surveys were distributed (N = 337) focusing on Facebook and Twitter for informational and relational purposes. Increased task load – conceptualized as a cognitive cost – directly negatively influenced Twitter use but only indirectly influenced Facebook use as a function of perceived benefits. Across conditions, perceived self-efficacy was negatively associated with perceived task load and positively associated with goal attainment, and goal attainment was a significant correlate of increase social media usage. Interpreted, we see that a transparent technology such as Facebook (cf. Clark, 2003) has no cognitive costs associated with its use, while an opaque technology such as Twitter seems to have a salient cognitive cost element. Further, we found that older users of Facebook were more likely to judge the channel as more cognitively demanding and themselves as having lower self-efficacy in using it. Finally, results indicated that for both Facebook and Twitter, males perceived both channels as more cognitively demanding than females. Theoretical and practical explanations and applications for these findings are presented. Read more at: http://onmediatheory.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-demanding-is-social-media.html Citation: Bowman, N. D., Westerman, D. K, & Claus, C. J. (2012, April). How Demanding is Social Media: Understanding Social Media Diets as a Function of Perceived Costs and Benefits – a Rational Actor Perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Boston-Cambridge.

1. Bowman, N. D., Westerman, D. K, & Claus, C. J. (2012, April). How
Demanding is Social Media: Understanding Social Media Diets as a Function of
Perceived Costs and Benefits – a Rational Actor Perspective. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association,
Boston-Cambridge.
Why is
Twitter so
Demanding?
(for some)
Nicholas David Bowman, WVU
David Keith Westerman, WVU
Christopher James Claus, Towson U

2. Overview
• Rational Actor Perspective
(Markus, 1994) argues for
a goal-oriented, purposive
usage of communication
technology
• Differs from U&G (Katz et
al. 1974) in that it places
focus on cost and benefit
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 2

3. Overview
• Goals are a function of
costs and benefits
– Costs in SM might include
task demand
– Benefits in SM might be
informational or relational
• Self-efficacy should drive
perceptions of cost and
benefit
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 3

4. Theoretical Model
Task Load
Index
H2 (-) H4 (-)
Social Media Social Media
Self-Efficacy “Diet”
H1 (+) H3 (+)
Goal
Attainment
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 4

5. Method
• Survey administered at “large, Mid-Atlantic
University” completed in 15 minutes
• Course credit for participation
• N = 337
– 213 males, Mage = 20.3 (SD = 1.57)
– 176 in Facebook survey, 161 in Twitter survey
– 188 for informational goals, 149 for relational
goals
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 5

6. Method
• Spitzburg (2006) CMC self-efficacy, adapted
• COST
– Hart & Staveland (1988) NASA-TLX, adapted
• BENEFIT
– Eastin & LaRose (2000) goal attainment, adapted
• KMSK (2003) substance usage, adapted
– Amount + Frequency + Duration
• Controls included age, sex, usage (light v.
heavy), modality (mobile v. stationary)
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 6

7. (Pre) Results
• NASA-TLX and social media self-efficacy (r =
-.321, p < .001) and social media diet (r =
-.225, p < .001).
• Social media diet greater for mobile users
• Males, Older report + TLX, - self-efficacy
– Age unique given restriction (95% b/w 18-22)
• Neither goal seems harder to attain;
collapsed across goal attainment conditions
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 7

8. Results: Facebook
Task Load
Index
-.09
-.39***
R2 = .19
Social Media Social Media
Self-Efficacy -.22** “Diet”
.15* .44***
Goal
χ (2) = 1.78, p = .410
2
Attainment
CMIN/df = .891,
CFI ~ .999,
RMSEA ~ .000
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 8

9. Results: Twitter
Task Load
Index
-.18**
-.39***
R2 = .28
Social Media Social Media
Self-Efficacy “Diet”
.15* .44***
Goal
χ (2) = 3.13, p = .209
2
Attainment
CMIN/df = 1.57,
CFI = .982,
RMSEA = .059
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 9

10. Discussion
• Social media users seem to be rational actors
whose usage of Twitter and Facebook is a
function of a ‘lay’ cost/benefit analysis
• Facebook has no perceived cost qua task
demand, a transparent technology (Clark,
2003)?
“is so well fitted to, and integrated with, our own
lives, biological capacities, and projects as to
become almost invisible in use” (pp. 37).
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 10

11. Limitations
• Surveys establish correlation, not causality
• Post-hoc model fit (Facebook) in need of
replication
• Narrow set of costs and benefits;
– Privacy rules (CPM, Petronio, 2002)
• College-aged sample; heavy user base
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 11

12. Future Research
• Age effects, even with restriction of range
04/23/12
?
18 y.o.
22 y.o.
(c) ND Bowman, 2011 12

13. Future Research
• Sex differences, such that
males perceived both
programs as:
– More cognitively demanding
– Having less self-efficacy
• Technology usually masculine
(Henwood, 19980;
• relational maintenance more
prominent in women (sev.)
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 13

14. Conclusion
“For Facebook usage, perceptions of task load indirectly
influenced usage via a direct effect on benefits; for Twitter,
the influence was direct and negative. Applying Clark’s (2003)
of opaque and transparent technology provides a novel
explanation for this result. Based on anecdotal and empirical
evidence, it is plausible that Facebook – the elder statesman
of social media – is so engrained in one’s social media diet
that its usage is “invisible to us” (pp. 37). Conversely, Twitter
usage as a lesser-used technology is a more opaque
technology with a still-salient cognitive demand associated
with it.”
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 14

15. Thank you!
• In progress research, so for information:
Nicholas David Bowman, Ph.D.
Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu
@bowmanspartan
David Keith Westerman, Ph.D.
David.Westerman@mail.wvu.edu
@DKWesterman
04/23/12 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 15