兩種影片分享方式：直接分享或附加分享

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學管理學院管理研究所碩士論文. Graduate Institute of Management College of Management National Taiwan Normal University Master Thesis. 兩種影片分享方式：直接分享或附加分享 Two forms of sharing online video: direct or attached 邱義恒 Chiu Yi-Heng. 指導教授：張佳榮博士 Advisor: Chia-Jung Chang Ph.D.. 中華民國 108 年 7 月 July, 2019.

(2) Two forms of sharing online video: direct or attached Abstract People spend more time on online video watching and also making. Companies invest more and more resources into this new media for marketing purpose. This research focuses on two ways that people share online video, direct share and attached share. Based on social influence theory, this research indicates that assessment-oriented people tend to do attached share, and locomotion-oriented people tend to do direct share. And also, this research tests the mediation role of self-disclosure between regulatory mode and sharing behavior. The findings address a research gap of people’s choice of two different ways to share online videos. And the linkage between regulatory mode and self-disclosure was also revealed. For practical implication, marketers and creators could have different strategy to promote or make voice online. Also, platform could adjust mechanisms of recommendation and provide more accurate promotion plan to customers. Keywords: sharing online video, regulatory mode, self-disclosure. i.

(3) Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ......................................................................................... ii Index of Tables ............................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 2 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 2 3 Method....................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Study 1 ................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.1 Participants and design .................................................................................. 8 3.1.2 Materials and procedure ............................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Result ............................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Study 2 ................................................................................................................. 10 3.2.1 Participants and design ................................................................................ 10 3.2.2 Materials and procedure ............................................................................. 11 3.2.3 Result ............................................................................................................. 12. 4 General discussion .................................................................................. 16 4.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Theoretical contribution..................................................................................... 16 4.3 Practical contribution ......................................................................................... 17 4.4 Limitation and future research ......................................................................... 18. Reference .................................................................................................... 19 Appendix 1 ................................................................................................. 21 Appendix 2 ................................................................................................. 22 Appendix 3 ................................................................................................. 23. ii.

(4) Index of Tables Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study 1 ........................................... 10 Table 2 Bivariate correlations for study 1 ......................................... 10 Table 3 Logistic regression results of share method on regulatory mode for study 1 ........................................................................... 10 Table 4 Descriptive statistics for study 2 ........................................... 13 Table 5 Bivariate correlations for study 2 ......................................... 13 Table 6 ANOVA test results of manipulation check for study 2 ........ 14 Table 7 Logistic regression results of share method on regulatory mode for study 2 ........................................................................... 14 Table 8 Mediation of Self-disclosure between regulatory mode and share method in study 2 ................................................................ 15. iii.

(5) 1 Introduction Online videos have grown rapidly these years. In 2014, 86 hours of contents were up-loaded to YouTube per minute, more than 300 in 2016, more than 500 in 2018 (James Calabrese, 2018). Sharing those videos is a common thing in nowadays. With a single click or a swipe, we can easily spread what we saw online to others. While people share online video, they perform two different ways, some of them share it directly to their social media, some of them share it by attaching thoughts or critics with the video. With attached share, people add more information and value to the content. It could be a new point of view, start a conversation, or make more voice online. Also, this kind of share could generate more social value for the sharer. In previous studies, why people shared online video have been researched. But, the reason people choose these two different ways to share is still unexplained. To better understand the two ways of share as above mentioned. This current research uses regulatory modes and self-disclose to explain the different choices. In previous studies, regulatory mode is used to explain why people perform different behaviors in some aspects, including consumer choices (Avnet & Higgins, 2006; Avnet & Higgins, 2003), task motivation (Pierro, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2006), and so on. Pierro et al., (2013) indicated that assessor preferred more detailed information than locomotor. Combining with social influence theory, we use it to explain the two different choices of 1.

(6) share. Also, social influence theory indicated that when people interact on social media, other people’s perspective would influence their behaviors. They would perform differently in different community to gain reputation and to play the role they want to be. Selfdisclosure indicates the different levels people present themselves in a social community, including thought, opinion, preference, and all the information related to them. Thus, combining with above mentioned theories, we infer that self-disclosure will mediates the effect between regulatory mode and share behavior.. 2 Conceptual Framework In previous studies, researchers have clarified that when people’s behaviors would be influence by others’ perspectives (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). When people were members in a community, they would tend to be a proper role and interact as expected by people (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Nowadays, people communicate and interact online and become part of these online communities. In recent studies, how people’s behaviors in online communities have been explored. When people interact online, their behaviors could be profoundly impacted by other people, like friends and group members. Cheung & Lee (2010) used social influence theory to explain why people perform communication and interaction on social network. The result indicated that both subjective norm and social identity were impotent factors determining the collective intention to use social network. That was, those behaviors people performed on social media, like posting, 2.

(7) commenting, and sharing, could be resulted from others’ expectations. And, people could deliver images on social media to build the identity they want to present in communities. Hsu & Lu (2004) explored the behaviors of people in online gaming community, and indicated that subjective norm affected people’s intentions to play, and critical mass would affect attitude toward playing it. Also, Zhang, Jiang, and Carroll (2012) adopted social identity theory to explain different self-presentations in social media, and showed that people present identities differently under different contexts. Another study using theory of planned behavior, TAM, and Palka et al.’s (2009) viral marketing model suggested that perceived pleasure, subjective norm positively influenced intention to share online videos (Yang & Wang, 2015). All above mentioned studies indicated that people’s behaviors would be impact by social influence. The interactions they performed and presented were influenced by the norms and perspectives around, also they tended to meet others expectation or formed the identity they want in online environment. Khan (2017) indicated that sharing YouTube videos was strongly predicted by information giving motive. When people watch video, they had thoughts about it, sometime they liked it, approved it, and felt great about it, and sometimes they disliked it, denied it, and criticized it. Then, they could share the video to other to give information, including the video itself and the thoughts they have. When people share online video, sometimes they share, or forward, the video directly, and sometimes they make some comments or 3.

(8) points along with the video. These two kinds of form present differently, when people share with self-generated contents, like some thoughts, a comment, or even an essay, they add more information and value. Also, it discloses their opinions and attitude more strongly, which brings different impacts and thoughts from others to the sharer. Combined with social influence theory, when people share directly, they perceive this video fit to their preference and this video fit the identity of them in the community. This direct sharing could help them to get the approval and value. When people do attached share, they tend to form a stronger image or make a clearer expression to obtain more approval form others. They add comment or experience to generate more discussion with other, or even they would give opposite opinion to stand out more firmly. Also, because of personality, some people tend to make more descriptive share or used to better evaluate and deliver detail information. When people pursue goal, they first evaluate the goals and means to attain the desired end-states. Then they decide which action to move toward it. Assessment and locomotion captured this whole behavior of goal pursuit. People assess which end-states to pursue and means of it, and locomote from their current state toward the desired endstate (Kruglanski et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2018). According to related works, assessment-oriented individuals evaluated goals and means, and compared alternatives before figuring out what to do which cost effort and 4.

(9) time (Kruglanski et al., 2000). Also, they tended to better understand and measure whatever they encountered (Avnet & Higgins, 2003). On the contrary, locomotion-oriented individuals were more willing to act than make evaluation, such as finding more alternative and comparing each other (Kruglanski et al., 2000). They tended to get right onto it while figuring out a way to move, with no necessary destination (Avnet & Higgins, 2003). Like Nike’s slogan, “Just do it.” For them, the movement in itself wass more important than the results (Kruglanski et al., 2013). In 2000, Kruglanski et al. revealed that assessor was positively associated with selfconsciousness and social comparison. That was, assessor was aware of who himself was in the social community and his inner feeling and thought. Also, he would try to compare with others around. Accordingly, assessor could know better who he is and what he tries to be in the community, and he evaluate more on how people would perceive from and critics his interactions on social media. Pierro et al., (2013) tested the advertisement effectiveness of comparative and noncomparative for different regulatory modes individuals. The study revealed that assessors prefer abundant and complicated information Comparatively, locomotors preferred dynamic and directive information. As above mentioned, attached sharing has more information than direct share and requires more effort and time to process, and also it would make more discussion and stronger image. Assessors know what they are in the community. And, by comparing with others, 5.

(10) they know what video to share and what information they attach could gain positive in fluence in the community. And also, when they tend to share online video, they would think how to make right and clear point. They would carefully structure what to say by this share, and attach it to the video. Locomotor, in the other hand, tend to make decision more directly in a simpler way. The moment they perceive the video is good and tend to share, they want to get the share behavior done without hesitation and evaluation of consequences. Thus, we infer that locomotor will tend to do direct share. H1: regulatory mode will moderate sharing behavior of online video. that is, the assessor will tend to do more attached sharing than the locomotor. Self-disclosure is the process that people make others know about himself, the true self, by any kinds of interactions (Cozby, 1973). This includes what people say, images, opinions, attitude, and so on. To disclose on social media, people present personal information, make comments and likes, share thoughts and critics, and so on (Cheung, Lee, & Chan, 2015). And, those contents will be viewed by others in their social communities. In previous literatures, few studies focused on sharing behaviors and self-disclose. Malik, Dhir, and Nieminen (2016) revealed that self-disclose positive predicted intention of photo sharing on Facebook. Also, Lee et al. (2011) indicated the same pattern of intention of music sharing on social network. These works indicated that self-disclose would influence share behavior on social media. 6.

(11) Combined with social influence theory, when people disclose, they wonder how others think about it, weather other people accept or not, and get approval from those who prefer them. They also try to identify who they are, and disclose more in the community which is similar to themselves. Cheung, Lee, & Chan (2015) indicated that social influence and perceived benefits were significant factors to determine self-disclosure on social network. It revealed that on social media, people tended to consider what benefits they could get by self-disclosure, but not what cost it would take. By deliver more their own opinions and information, they try to get more positive social influence from others. Combined with regulatory mode studies, assessors tend to compare themselves with others in the community, and find what to disclose which could collect acceptance to build the identity. Also, because they understand their inner feelings and thought, they could disclose themselves more clearly with proper ways, like words, photos, and things to share. Locomotors proceed more directly as above mentioned. When they interact on social media, they tend to do before thinking thoroughly. They post and share more intuitively, and sometimes they do not notice that they disclosure after doing it. Although they still disclose in the process, they do not evaluate as assessors and got to know what to disclose and what results it brings. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that self-disclosure will mediate the relationship between regulatory mode and share behavior.. 7.

(12) H2: self-disclosure will mediate the relationship between regulatory mode and sharing behavior.. 3 Method 3.1 Study 1 The purpose of study 1 was to test how regulatory mode would affect sharing behavior of online video.. 3.1.1 Participants and design 40 participants were included in this experiment. There were 15 males and 25 females, and the average age of participants was 22.8. We used a short video, around 5 minutes, from YouTube, which was about a YouTuber shared her life of using reusable strew, as video sample. And, we measured which way they wanted to share the video, and the assessment-oriented level.. 3.1.2 Materials and procedure First, participants were introduced what were attached share and direct share. The attached share was to share the video directly without adding opinion, point of view, or any description. The attached share was to share the video with some description, point of view, or comment. Then they would be asked to watch a short video from YouTube, which was about a YouTuber shared her life of using reusable strew. Then they needed to answer which form they wanted to share this video, direct share or attached share. After 8.

(13) that, they answered the assessment measurement. To measure which way participants shared, we used one question, that was “After watched the video, you want to share it to others. Which way do you want to share it?”. There were two options to choose, “Direct share without adding opinion, point of view, or any description.” And “Attached share with some description, point of view, or comment.”. We coded direct share 0 and attached share 1. To measure participants’ assessment-orientation, we used the measurement adopted from Kruglanski et al. (2000), which included 12 items. Ratings were made on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagreed) to 6 (strongly agreed). The items were showed in Appendix 2 (α=0.78). The composite score was computed by averaging responses to each item.. 3.1.3 Result First, we run a correlation test for share method and regulatory mode, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were given in Table 1 and Table 2 (r=0.344, p=.03). We run a logistic regression to predict share behavior on regulatory mode, results were showed in Table 3. As predicted, the regulatory mode was positive related with share behavior (β=1.479, p=.039).. 9.

(14) Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study 1 Mean. SD. Share method. 0.48. 0.506. Regulatory mode. 4.216. 0.535. Table 2 Bivariate correlations for study 1 1. 2. 1 Share method. 1. 0.344*. 2 Regulatory mode. 0.344*. 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.. Table 3 Logistic regression results of share method on regulatory mode for study 1 β Regulatory mode. SE. 1.479*. 0.718. p. Exp(β) .039. 4.389. *p < .05. **p < .01.. 3.2 Study 2 The purpose of study 2 was to test how regulatory mode would affect sharing behavior of online video. And, the mediating role of self-disclosure between regulatory mode and sharing behavior of online video.. 3.2.1 Participants and design 60 participants were included in this experiment. There were 19 males and 41 females,. 10.

(15) and the average age of participants was 24.6. All participants were randomly assigned into two groups (assessment and locomotion). We used a short video, like in study 1. And, we measured which way they wanted to share the video, the assessment-orientation, and self-disclosure.. 3.2.2 Materials and procedure First, participants in different groups were presented with different regulatory mode manipulation procedures. The regulatory modes manipulation was adopted from Avnet and Higgins (2003). The detail procedural was showed in Appendix 1. Participants in locomotion group were asked to recall three different experiences and describe what those were, including “Think back to the times when you acted like a ‘‘doer’’”, “Think back to the times when you finished one project and did not wait long before you started a new one”, and “Think back to the times when you decided to do something and you could not wait to get started”. Similar procedure was conducted in assessment group, but the experiences which were asked to recall were different, including “Think back to the times when you compared yourself with other people”, “Think back to the times when you thought about your positive and negative characteristics”, and “Think back to the times when you critiqued work done by others or yourself”. After finishing manipulation, participants were introduced what were attached share and direct share, which was the same as in study 1. Then they needed to answer which form they want to share this video, direct 11.

(16) share or attached share. After that, they answered the assessment measurement. Then, they answered the self-disclosure measurement. To measure which way participants shared, we used one question, that was “After watched the video, you want to share it to others. Which way do you want to share it?”. There were two options to choose, “Direct share without adding opinion, point of view, or any description.” And “Attached share with some description, point of view, or comment.”. We coded direct share 0 and attached share 1. To measure participants’ assessment-orientation, we used the measurement adopted from Kruglanski et al. (2000), which included 12 items. Ratings were made on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagreed) to 6 (strongly agreed). The items were showed in Appendix 2 (α=0.78). The composite score was computed by averaging responses to each item. To measure participants’ self-disclosure, we used the measurement adopted from Wang & Stefanone (2013), which include 4 items. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagreed) to 7 (strongly agreed). The items were showed in Appendix 3 (α=0.71). The composite score was computed by averaging responses to each item.. 3.2.3 Result First, we run a correlation test for share method and regulatory mode, descriptive 12.

(17) statistics and bivariate correlations were given in Table 4 and Table 5. Then, we run an ANOVA test to check manipulation. As expected, participants in assessment group tend to be more assessment-oriented than in the locomotion group, results were showed in Table 6. (Massessment=4.45, SD=0.63, Mlocomotion=4.09, SD=0.63, F=5.002 and p=.029). Table 4 Descriptive statistics for study 2 Mean Share method. SD 0.7. 0.462. Regulatory mode. 4.27. 0.650. Self-disclosure. 3.53. 1.287. Table 5 Bivariate correlations for study 2 1.. 2. 1 Share method 2 Regulatory mode 3 Self-disclosure. 3 0.282*. 0.282* 0.376**. *p < .05. **p < .01.. 13. 0.376** 0.343**. 0.343**.

(18) Table 6 ANOVA test results of manipulation check for study 2 SS. df. MS. F. p. Between group. 1.980. 1. 1.980. 5.002. .029. Within group. 22.960. 58. 0.396. Total. 24.941. 59. Then we run a logistic regression to predict share behavior. As expected, the regulatory mode was positive related with share behavior, results were showed in Table 7 (β=1.035, p=.036). Combined with result 1, we used two ways to test the relationship between regulatory mode and share behavior of online video. Table 7 Logistic regression results of share method on regulatory mode for study 2 β Regulatory mode. SE. 1.035*. 0.494. p. Exp(β) .036. 2.816. *p < .05. **p < .01.. To test the mediating role of self-disclosure between regulatory mode and sharing behavior, a mediation analysis was conducted based on Baron and Kenny (1986). The relationship between regulatory mode and share behavior have been tested (β=1.035, p=.036). We used linear regression to test the relationship between regulatory mode and self-disclosure. The regression analysis revealed that regulatory mode had significant effect on self-disclosure, results were showed in Table 8 (β=0.679, p=0.007). Finally, when 14.

(19) the sharing behavior was regressed on regulatory mode and self-disclosure, results were showed in Table 8. The coefficient of regulatory mode decreased from 1.035 (p=.036) to 0.789 (p=.144). The coefficient of self-disclosure remains significant (β=0.728, p=0.017). The result revealed that self-disclosure mediated the relationship between regulatory mode and sharing behavior. Table 8 Mediation of Self-disclosure between regulatory mode and share method in study 2 β. p. Regulatory mode→Self-disclosure. 0.679**. .007. Regulatory mode→Share method. 1.035*. .036. Regulatory mode→Share method. 0.789. .144. 0.728*. .017. Self-disclosure→Share method *p < .05. **p < .01.. 15.

(20) 4 General discussion 4.1 Conclusion This research examined the moderating affect of regulatory mode toward sharing behavior. The results of study 1 and study 2 supported that assessment-oriented people tend to perform attached share, and locomotion-oriented people tend to perform direct share. And, the result of study 2 demonstrated the mediating role of self-disclosure between regulatory mode and sharing behavior.. 4.2 Theoretical contribution According to the findings, this research extended the linkage between social influence and sharing behavior. The findings showed that other people’s point of view and people’s identities in the community would influence people’s choices of sharing behavior. And, it determined that different regulatory modes could influence people’s decision of choosing the method of share and the amounts of expression. This study also delivers a more detail understanding of sharing behavior of online video. Previous studies focused on why people interact and share on social media, but did not explore the detail of different sharing behavior. To address this gap, this study discusses the two different sharing, direct share and attached share, and indicate what determine people’s choice between them. Finally, lots of recent researches of self-disclosure focused on privacy issue, but this 16.

(21) research extended the self-disclosure literatures to sharing online video, which is unexplored and important nowadays. Combined with social influence theory, this research gives a news aspect to understand regulatory mode, and connect it to self-disclosure, a trait untested.. 4.3 Practical contribution By understanding the people’s tendency of two kinds of share, companies and creators could make different kinds of strategies on promotion, and use different stimulus to trigger sharing for different purposes. By increasing tendency of attached share, marketers could get more user feedback, which is generally important for new brand marketing. By increasing tendency of direct share, marketers could let viewers perceive the contents they produced and the message they want viewers to focus without additional interferes. And also, marketers could better predict viewers’ share reaction. By using different styles or tones in the post of social media, marketers could guide the audiences to different regulatory modes and influence the method of video sharing. A guide of recalling product using experience and comparison could lead audiences to an assessment-oriented thinking and make them share the experience of product or a story on their own. Platforms, like YouTube, could improve video recommendations and auto-play list by combining different stimulus videos or ordering adjustment to trigger a series of viewer’s sharing behavior. For entertaining contents, it could use a bunch of dynamic 17.

(22) videos to spread the videos faster with direct share. And, for instructive videos and unboxing videos, it is helpful to series of informative videos to gain more perspective and experience form viewers with attached share. That could get more discussion and extend the life cycle of videos, and benefit this kind of knowledge creators.. 4.4 Limitation and future research There are limitations in this research. First, we collected 40 samples for study 1, and 60 for study 2. but with a larger sample, a more robust results could be revealed. Second, this research uses one short online video form one YouTuber. Future research could include more kinds of video to extend the generality. Nowadays, the content creator, like youtuber, tend to make their videos longer and assert more ads to gain profit. In this research, we did not test the effect of those ads and video length. The further research could include these factors to test the result. In this research, we just had participants choosing direct share and attached share, we did not include no sharing option in studies. The future research could extend current study to test the affect of regulatory mode on sharing or not sharing. Taiwanese people tend to behave collectivism, compare to western countries, people behave more humbly and are shy to express themselves. The result indicates an important role of self-disclosure, which could differ in individualism countries. Future research could investigate the culture difference of social influence to get more results.. 18.

(23) Reference Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 525-530. Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing research, 43(1), 1-10. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. Calabrese, J. (2018, May 17). Re: State of the YouTube address — an overview of YouTube usage and growth [Web blog message]. Retrieved from https://blog.pex.com/state-of-the-youtube-address-an-over-view-of-youtube-usageand-growth-8d562d4b7fe Chen, C. Y., Rossignac-Milon, M., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). Feeling distressed from making decisions: Assessors’ need to be right. Journal of personality and social psychology, 115(4), 743. Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks. Decision support systems, 49(1), 24-30. Cheung, C., Lee, Z. W., & Chan, T. K. (2015). Self-disclosure in social networking sites: the role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. Internet Research, 25(2), 279-299. Cheung, C., Lee, Z. W., & Chan, T. K. (2015). Self-disclosure in social networking sites: the role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. Internet Research, 25(2), 279-299. Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: a literature review. Psychological bulletin, 79(2), 73. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629. Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. Small group decision making: Communication and the group process. 1994. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & management, 41(7), 853-868. Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236-247.. 19.

(24) Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Higgins, T. E. (2013). The distinct psychologies of “looking” and “leaping”: Assessment and locomotion as the springs of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 79-92. Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To" do the right thing" or to" just do it": locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 793. Lee, D., Yejean Park, J., Kim, J., Kim, J., & Moon, J. (2011). Understanding music sharing behaviour on social network services. Online Information Review, 35(5), 716733. Malik, A., Dhir, A., & Nieminen, M. (2016). Uses and gratifications of digital photo sharing on Facebook. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 129-138. Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth-A grounded theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology, 24(2), 172-185. Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Mannetti, L., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). When comparative ads are more effective: Fit with audience’s regulatory mode. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 90-103. Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: effects of ‘locomotion’and ‘assessment’on intrinsic and extrinsic task‐motivation. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 20(5), 355-375. Wang, S. S., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Showing off? Human mobility and the interplay of traits, self-disclosure, and Facebook check-ins. Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 437-457. Yang, H. C., & Wang, Y. (2015). Social sharing of online videos: Examining American consumers’ video sharing attitudes, intent, and behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 32(9), 907-919. Zhang, S., Jiang, H., & Carroll, J. M. (2012). Social identity in Facebook community life. In Technical, social, and legal issues in virtual communities: Emerging environments (pp. 101-114). IGI Global.. 20.

(25) Appendix 1 The instructions for the task, labeled ‘‘Behavior over time’’, began in the same way for all participants: This study is about how people recall their behavior over time. You are requested to recall three different behaviors you have used successfully in the past and to write a short example of each behavior. These are the kind of behaviors that you find people doing in everyday life. In the locomotion condition, participants were then asked to give a short example of the following three locomotion behaviors taken from the regulatory mode questionnaire (Kruglanski et al., 2000): Think back to the times when you acted like a ‘‘doer’’. Think back to the times when you finished one project and did not wait long before you started a new one. Think back to the times when you decided to do something and you could not wait to get started. For the assessment condition, they were asked to give a short example of the following three assessment behaviors taken from the same questionnaire: Think back to the times when you compared yourself with other people. Think back to the times when you thought about your positive and negative characteristics. Think back to the times when you critiqued work done by others or yourself.. 21.

(26) Appendix 2 Assessment items (6-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree) 1.. I never evaluate my social interactions with others after they occur. (reversescored). 2.. I spend a great deal of time taking inventory of my positive and negative characteristics.. 3.. I like evaluating other people's plans.. 4.. I often compare myself with other people,. 5.. I don't spend much time thinking about ways others could improve themselves. (reverse-scored). 6.. I often critique work done by myself or others.. 7.. I often feel that I am being evaluated by others.. 8.. I am a critical person.. 9.. I am very self-critical and self-conscious about what I am saying.. 10. I often think that other people's choices and decisions are wrong. 11. I rarely analyze the conversations I have had with others after they occur. (reversescored) 12. When I meet a new person I usually evaluate how well he or she is doing on various dimensions (e.g., looks, achievements, social status, clothes).. 22.

(27) Appendix 3 1.. I often talk about my feelings on social media.. 2.. I often post something about my relationships and private life on social media.. 3.. I often post photos of me and my friends on social media.. 4.. I often express my thoughts and true self completely on social media.. 23.

(28)