Finding & Redefining Finstagram:
Multiple Instagram Account Use Among Emerging Adults
Brandi Burgus (11393947) Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science
University of Amsterdam
February 2, 2018
Abstract
On Instagram, some users have addressed the function of self-representation on social media to show their truest selves through the phenomenon called “Finstagram.” No known research has been completed about Finstagram despite its growth in popularity with emerging adults, thus this study can offer insight into social media needs, how they are fulfilled, and what areas technology could improve upon to address said needs. Thus the research goal of determining motivations for Finstagram and multi-account use emerged, along with the aim to (re)define “Finstagram.” Guided by the Uses & Gratifications theory and U&G 2.0, in-depth qualitative analyses were completed to address this gap. One focus group and seventeen individual interviews with emerging adults were conducted to explore the motivations. Results indicated that instead of Finstagram characterizing all additional account use on Instagram, Finstagram was only one type of additional account among the variety of others, which included hobby- and career-focused accounts. Motives for use aligned with past research and included self-expression, social interaction, and privacy. Additionally, the fulfillment of user needs versus audience needs in regard to maintaining multiple accounts was highlighted. All told, motivations behind additional account use including Finstagram are expansive but revolve around personalization and fulfilling personal needs, though there is much room to further understand multi-account use across social media.
Finding & Redefining Finstagram:
Multiple Instagram Account Use Among Emerging Adults
Social media has become the space where users show their true selves, or at least the truest form of self that they want the outside world to see. Having a personal profile on a social networking site (SNS) is now ubiquitous, and having multiple profiles across multiple platforms is just as commonplace (Social Media Market, 2016). Since most researchers and practitioners agree that each platform offers unique features that cater to users’ various needs in terms of self-expression through personal profiles, what does it mean when users maintains multiple accounts on one platform? A new use of Instagram utilizes this very feature.
A “Finstagram,” or “fake Instagram,” is a secondary account that is separate from a user’s main account, sometimes called a “Rinstagram,” or “real Instagram.” The core
characteristic of Finstagram is having multiple Instagram accounts, one of which is “fake” or hidden, while the other is public and generally more polished. On a user’s Finstagram, the posts are typically of a humorous, questionable, or incriminating nature and are only intended to be viewed by the user’s closest friends (Rich, 2017). There are no written rules to
Finstagram, but there are socially recognized understandings about the function and purpose of these additional accounts (Shah, 2017). Unhindered by the social constraints that
Instagram has – such as posting on a frequent but not overwhelming basis, editing photos to look as attractive as possible, and having a strong visual aesthetic – Finstagrams can be home to anything the user pleases without concern of posting frequency or content (Shah, 2017; Stadler, 2016). Essentially, Finstagram is seen as the place where users can be their truest, less-contrived selves that do not post for the sake of getting recognition through likes, comments, and new followers (Finstagram, 2013).
The term “Finsta” is generally associated with adolescents, though the concept of having a secondary or tertiary account besides a main Rinstagram is becoming increasingly
commonplace for older age groups, particularly emerging adults, suggesting that this function is fulfilling different needs for this audience as well. The question is: what are the motives for using multiple Instagram accounts? There are hundreds of social networking sites available for emerging adults to use, so what drives them to create multiple accounts on a platform that they have already established an identity on with their main accounts? Although the adoption of multiple account use has been growing in popularity, very little is known about the motivations behind the use of multiple accounts nor do we understand the extent to which these accounts are being used. Understanding the motives behind this practice, in addition to the behaviors that reflect this practice, is crucial in expanding our knowledge of the needs that emerging adults have from SNSs and the ways in which they fulfill these needs. Besides allowing for a more complete picture of emerging adults’ media habits, understanding these needs could highlight potential areas of exploration for new digital media products. To address these questions in this study, the use of multiple accounts on Instagram will be explored in order to determine motivations for this phenomenon. Specifically, guided by Uses and Gratifications (U&G; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973) and U&G 2.0 (Sundar & Limperos, 2013) theories, in-depth qualitative methods will be conducted to determine the motivations behind emerging adults’ use of Finstagram within the greater scope of multiple Instagram account management. The theoretical framework will be established to create a basis for the study, followed by the methodology to outline how the research was conducted. The findings will then be reported in order to fuel the discussion.
Theoretical Framework
In this study, Uses & Gratifications (U&G) provides a theoretical lens to examine social media motivations of emerging adults (Katz et al., 1973). This theory states that individuals have different social and psychological needs that affect their expectations of mass media, and thus influence which media outlets individuals choose to fulfill those needs (Katz et al.,
1973). Within this theory there are five assumptions: the user is active; the audience takes initiative to gratify their specific needs; media competes with other sources of need
satisfaction; people are self-aware of their needs and means to fulfill them; and the audience is the sole interpreter of the media’s value (Katz et al., 1973). Because emerging adults epitomize internal and external exploration through endless possibility to experience new things, they are eager for fresh experiences, particularly with and through technology, which gives reason for analyzing how and why this age group has adopted Finstagram and multiple account use (Arnett, 2006; Coyne, Padilla-Walker, & Howard, 2013).
Importantly, in U&G theory, gratifications are based on innate, pre-existing needs of the audience. However, in recent years, U&G scholars have argued that it is possible that digital media fulfill needs that users never knew they had or did not (initially) know could be fulfilled by digital media (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). In the early days of U&G, media referred to methods of mass communication, such as radio, newspapers, television, and film. The escalation of communication technologies has fueled the extensive list of what
technology encompasses now, including smart devices, channels such as Internet and cable, and venues on channels like social networks (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). With this growth, the audience has concurrently grown to have a deeper impact on and expectation of media, transforming them from that of a passive audience into engaged, deliberate users. The
affordances of technological innovations allow for richer experiences and deeper engagement with the content, plus influence the way content is consumed. These innovations lead to the rise of new and distinctive gratifications that were not present in older media technology, which then fosters the cultivation of new needs in users that are fulfilled by their media experiences (Sundar & Limperos, 2013).
To recognize these changes, U&G has been expanded into what some now call U&G 2.0; following the same expectations as U&G, the 2.0 framework explicitly acknowledges
that media can satisfy audience needs that have previously been unexamined or undefined (Oeldorf-Hirsch & Sundar, 2016; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). In the context of this study, this theory suggests that the affordance of Instagram’s multiple accounts per user have created a new experience that is not only rich, immersive, and engaging, but has also catered to the audience’s unrealized need for performance of the multi-faceted self through multiple, separate accounts.
The Multi-Faceted Self on Instagram
Instagram is a photo-sharing app that allows users to post photo and video content on their profiles to share with followers and the general Instagram community, depending on privacy settings. Followers can engage with the content through likes and comments. The app features photo-editing technology, content recommendations, and 24-hour visual status updates called “stories.” Though some studies have been completed about Instagram, the platform is still thoroughly under-researched. Hu, Manikonda, and Kambhampati (2014) conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the photo content shared on Instagram, finding three key takeaways: posted content largely falls into eight specific categories, respective posted content divides users into five distinct profiles, and the user’s follower count is independent of the content posted. What this study did not take into account is the nature of the account and who is intended to see it, as demonstrated through their selection criteria of having over 30 followers and only using public accounts (Hu et al., 2014). Another study included a description and potential use of “bogus” Finstagram accounts for online hackers, but did not address the popular culture understanding of the practice from a nonthreatening perspective or explore the many other reasons users might have multiple accounts (Wani, Sofi, & Wani, 2017).
When it comes to motivations for single-account Instagram use, studies have found that main motivators for users are social interaction, archiving/documenting, surveillance, and
self-expression (Lee, Lee, Moon, & Sung, 2015; Sheldon & Bryant, 2015; Stapleton, Luiz, & Chatwin, 2017). However, these studies looked at motivations for Instagram use of users that follow the platform’s intended purposes. In addition, other studies have documented the behaviors of users on Instagram with age as a variable (young adults versus teenagers) (Han, Lee, Jang, Jung, & Lee, 2016; Jang, Han, Shih, & Lee, 2015). The behaviors, though, were those standard to the app functions and without discussion of unique, user-created functions such as using multiple accounts. Thus, while there have been efforts to study aspects of heteronormative content and behavior on Instagram, there is a large gap in research about the phenomenon of utilizing multiple Instagram accounts, more specifically about the
motivations for using this function. This practice has been written about frequently in popular culture (Hubby, 2017; Rich, 2017; Shah, 2017), but, to the knowledge of the author, the move to empirically study it has not surfaced as of yet. In addition to this gap, analyzing the motivations for multi-account use is necessary for the field and a key focus of this study. As such, this study addresses the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What are emerging adults’ motivations for using multiple Instagram accounts?
Motivations for multiple account management likely differ by a variety of individual variables, as is expected in regard to U&G. Research has shown that gender in particular plays a noteworthy role in Instagram use, making it a key variable to take into account. According to Sheldon and Bryant (2015), gender is the strongest predictor of Instagram use with their analysis showing that women are more likely to be active on Instagram compared to men. The trend continues in 2017 where it is reported that 68% of Instagram users are female (Aslam, 2017). Popular press articles also often claim females to be the most prevalent users of secondary Finstagram accounts (Finstagram, 2013; Hubby, 2017; Shah, 2017). While it is demonstrated that females are more active in the platform, this does not
determine why females or males have multiple Instagram accounts. Can different
motivations draw males and females to this function? Can the same needs be fulfilled and are the same pressures placed on users, regardless of gender? Since research on Instagram has found gender to be significant, understanding the differences in gender in terms of
multiple account use motivations is crucial and furthermore a second key focus of this study. Research Question 2: Are emerging adults’ motivations to use multiple Instagram accounts influenced by gender?
Methodology Design
To conduct the research, two qualitative methods of data collection were used. The first was a focus group (N = 1); the second was individual interviews (N = 17). Because of the exploratory nature of the study, qualitative methods were utilized to understand the motivations of participants in terms of social media account use (Brenner, 2013). A focus group was used because of the unrepresentative sample that was recruited through the
snowball method; the participants all shared the common characteristic of managing multiple Instagram accounts, but did not represent the population as the number of multi-account users is unknown (Schutt, 2012; Sandelowski, 2000). Furthermore, focus groups are generally perceived as friendly, non-threatening spaces which was key to this study topic since the subject matter could be sensitive for some participants (Brenner, 2013). Individual
interviews were conducted in respect to ethical considerations of the sensitive and sometimes secretive nature of the additional accounts that participants managed (Brenner, 2013). They also granted flexibility in talking with people from various stages of emerging adulthood from different parts of the world. Both methods allowed for in-depth discussion of the topics in a relatively open setting that was necessary for this under-researched phenomenon.
The data collection methods followed a semi-structured format that used a discussion guide as a tool to touch upon specific topics regarding social media and Instagram use. This semi-structured format was specifically chosen to fuel conversation and allow the interviewer to delve deeper into the participants’ emotions, feelings, experiences, and values (Bryman, 2016; Brennen, 2013). The discussion guide was designed to list the four main topics of exploration: general social media use, Instagram use, multiple account use, and motivations for use (see Appendix A). Each topic had a leading question for the interviewer to use to introduce the topic and additional probes in case of long pauses. Then, questions could be asked freely according to the direction of the interview and vague answers could be clarified.
Prior to the formal data collection, one 45-minute interview took place to test the discussion guide for comprehensiveness and ability to address the research aims, leading to an update of the guide and goals of the data collection. The focus group (N = 1) lasted 60 minutes and the interviews (N = 17) lasted approximately 30-45 minutes each.
Participants
This study analyzed emerging adults; thus, the ages of the participants at the time of the data collection were between 22-30 years old (N = 22). The reason for this large age bracket was that emerging adulthood is very much a psychological stage in life that is not exactly a transitional phase from adolescence to adulthood, but instead a period in one’s life
characterized by instability, after adolescence and before young adulthood (Arnett, 2006). This age range allowed for people in various points of emerging adulthood to participate in the study and offer unique contributions that could relate to either a younger or older age. While an equal number of male and female participants were sought after, there were more female participants (N = 15) than male by half (N = 7).
All races and nationalities were welcome to participate, especially since the community that the sample was drawn from is largely international (University of Amsterdam).
Participants resided in either the Netherlands or the United States. Due to their country of residence and inclusion in the researcher’s personal network, this study was conducted in English. A critical criterion for participants was the use of multiple Instagram accounts in some capacity. The accounts did not have to be of a particular nature, and only required that they were actively managed at one point in time by the user. Prior to the start of the research, this study had been approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Communication Science department from the Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Recruitment
The recruitment process for this study first involved the engagement of personal networks. A snowball method of sampling was used to start: peers were asked if they or anyone in their network engaged in the behavior of multiple Instagram account use. Apart from directly recruiting people by way of in-person verbal communication, inquiries were posted on personal social media accounts with a call-to-action for people who use multiple Instagram accounts to contact the researcher (see Appendix B).
Procedure
Focus Group. At the start of the focus group, participants were seated in the meeting area at the designated table with snacks and drinks. Individuals were allowed to converse to create a relaxed atmosphere to foster a more comfortable discussion. Each participant signed a consent form, granting permission for use of the data shared in the discussion, and
completed a short survey to provide information about demographics, overall social media habits, and specific Instagram and multi-account use habits (see Appendix C). Afterwards, the consent forms and surveys were collected.
The moderator began with a formal introduction by welcoming everyone to the focus group, laying out the aims of the discussion and giving a brief background of the study. Once the introduction was complete, the discussion part of the focus group commenced with
introductions of the participants. Using the discussion guide, the moderator started by asking the first question of the guide, but was not required to follow the order of the questions and instead catered to the flow of the discussion (Brennen, 2013). The moderator stimulated the sharing of personal, pre-existing thoughts through probing as directed in the discussion guide as well as kept the questions engaging to avoid long periods of non-participation. Once all of the topics were discussed, the group completed a drawing activity. Since each participant had at least two Instagram accounts, the task was to draw the bedroom of each account. A bedroom was chosen as the subject of the activity because it acted as a spatial metaphor for the way accounts were managed and further personified some characteristic qualities of the participants’ multi-account use (Lincoln & Robards, 2016). The participants were given five minutes to draw (see Appendix D). They were instructed to draw bedrooms that reflect the style, interests, persona, and vibe of the accounts. After the drawings were completed, participants described the rooms and explained the decisions for drawing them as they did.
Following the main portion of the focus group, the participants were asked to choose their top five motivations for having multiple Instagram accounts. The Reiss Motivation Profile (RMP) was used as a guideline for participants to choose their most deciding motivations. The RMP is a list of sixteen basic desires that drive human behavior (Reiss, 2004). According to the profile, the satiation of each motivation produces a unique, intrinsic feeling of joy, thus people act in ways meant to maximize the experiences of as many of the 16 joys as possible (Reiss, 2004). Though everyone acts on these desires, individuals prioritize them differently. The sixteen desires were used to guide the understanding of which motivations are present for users of multiple Instagram accounts. Specifically, the sixteen motives were printed onto individual cards and laid on the table for the group to read (see Appendix E). On paper provided by the moderator, participants wrote down their top five motivations for using each account. They were allowed to choose less than five motives
if they did not think the remaining motives reflected their decision to use multiple accounts. Once all participants completed this task, they discussed their choices within the group.
After the topics from the interview guide were covered, the moderator summarized the session and brought the group to a close. The moderator asked for any additional questions or points that should be discussed, and finally debriefed the focus group, offered details about contact information, and thanked participants for coming.
Interviews. Prior to the start of each interview, participants completed an online survey that included a consent form granting permission for use of their data in this project, plus identical fields to that of the focus group survey, including demographics and social media and Instagram habits (see Appendix C). Interviews were then held over an online video-chatting program due to location constraints (Brenner, 2013; Deakin & Wakefield, 2013; Schutt, 2012). The interviewer started by confirming that the survey and consent form had been completed, then highlighted the aims of the interview and a brief summary about the study. Afterwards, the interview commenced. The interview guide was followed
chronologically, starting with the topic of general social media use and how the participant initially joined social media (see Appendix A). The topics became narrower as the interview continued, focusing on Instagram as a whole then specifically multiple Instagram accounts.
After the topics were discussed in depth, two activities took place. The first was a descriptive verbal activity. Participants were asked to describe what the bedrooms of their multiple accounts would look like in terms of style, vibe, persona, and interests. Like the focus group, this activity was meant to personify the participants’ accounts and showcase various parts of themselves that they contributed to the curation of the accounts. Their descriptions were then discussed. The second activity involved the RMP (Reiss, 2004). Participants were asked to choose their top five motivations for having their main and additional Instagram accounts using the sixteen basic desires that drive human behavior
delineated by the RMP (Reiss, 2004). Having less than five motives was allowed and was discussed further if the circumstance arose. This activity was done to reveal why participants were compelled to use multiple accounts and which intrinsic joys they got from engaging in the practice. To conclude the sessions, the interviewer asked any additional questions that were not answered, debriefed the participant, and offered details about contact information.
Once the point of saturation was reached, the data collection was halted (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). During each interview, the interviewer took notes to keep track of general responses plus track any points of interest to return to during the interview. Afterwards, memos in the form of after thoughts were created to give a general overview of the interview and to highlight specific noteworthy points or themes to analyze during the coding process. Analytic Approach
This explorative study took a bottom-up Grounded Theory approach to coding in order to allow potential new themes to emerge as opposed to being limited by predefined theories (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Following this approach, open or initial coding was done line-by-line on the program MAXQDA to note all responses in an unrestrained manner (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; see Appendix F). A research assistant was used as a second coder to improve reliability, coding three interviews. Selective coding was then completed to shape the open codes and find patterns within them. Instead of looking solely at the quantity of codes, relationships between codes were analyzed and formulated into a concept-indicator model meant to address the research aims by organizing the concepts and indicators found within the transcribed data (van der Goot, 2017; see Appendix G). Qualitative data about Instagram habits and perceptions from the survey was used to as a minor means of guidance in the creation of the model.
Upon the creation of the concept-indicator model, further means of organization were necessary for interpreting the results. To coherently organize the data, the participants were
divided based on three categories (data collection method, gender, and account type) from which six subgroups emerged: (1) focus group – main accounts, (2) focus group – additional accounts, (3) interviews – male main accounts, (4) interviews – male additional accounts, (5) interview – female main accounts, and (6) interview – female additional accounts. Because the focus group contained only females, there was no gender division possible.
The interpretation of the RMP motives was done once the subgroups were defined. Using Excel, the frequencies of participants’ max top five motives were recorded to determine overall top motivations in regard to subgroup (see Tables 1-4). Though participants were asked to give the top five motives of their account use, subgroups were found to have top four, five, or six motives. The repetition of frequencies of different motives granted them consideration as top motives and were thus included in the tables.
Results
At the core of the study, the goal was to understand the motivations behind using Finstagram and multi-account use on Instagram. The initial thought about Finstagram prior to the data analysis was that the term “Finsta” encompassed all secondary accounts on Instagram. However, the research exemplified that there are a plethora of secondary account styles and purposes, and are only occasionally “Finstas.” The motivations to use an
additional account are more nuanced. Finstagram, rather than being a category, is actually a type of secondary use. Understanding the motivations behind additional account use is necessary to grasping the motivations behind Finstagram itself since Finsta, though also “secondary,” differs from other additional accounts in terms of function and purpose. Motivations from Qualitative Collection (RQ1)
The main portion of data collection was through in-depth qualitative methods that were used to explore the phenomenon of multiple Instagram account use and divulge the
model to further explain the motivations (Van der Goot, 2017; Charmaz, 2006; see Appendix F). The purpose of the model was to organize the findings in such a way that coherently showed the relationships between the sensitizing concept and the collected data to address RQ1. It was found that the concept of motivations for using multiple accounts could be divided into four main dimensions, some of which relate back to previous research: fear of annoyance, privacy, career/portfolio, and self-expression (Lee et al., 2015; Sheldon & Bryant, 2015; Stapleton et al., 2017). Indicators exemplified through direct quotes from the focus group and interviews were used to characterize these dimensions and provide support for the model. It is important to note that instead of analyzing the data from the two collection methods separately, all qualitative data will be reported collectively because of the overlap in findings and identical patterns divulged in the data.
Fear of Annoyance. One of the patterns that was most apparent was the fear participants had of annoying their followings on their main accounts, thus hurting the perception followers had of them. This fear was a significant reason participants decided to create additional Instagram accounts. Two main categories emerged within this dimension: avoiding posting too frequently and posting socially acceptable content. Many of the participants shared that they did not want to annoy their followers by posting too often and oversaturating the feed with frequent posts. One participant noted that he felt annoyed by a user he followed who frequently posted uninteresting content, and did not want others to feel that way about himself (G.L., male, aged 28). Others shared this thought and were concerned that their content and posting frequency would negatively affect how others’ opinions of themselves if either criterion did not positively engage their following.
In terms of posting etiquette on Instagram, there is an unwritten rule that over-posting can have a negative impact on how followers perceive the user. According to one participant, “The main reason to have a [Finstagram] is to not be annoying to the majority of your
followers… So, I can post 6 times a day on my Finsta, but I could never do that on my Instagram” (A.T., male, aged 23). Creating boundaries about post frequency on main
accounts in order to not overwhelm followers was evident for most participants, but also had some self-serving undertones. For instance, getting adequate views and subsequent
engagement with posts was important to many: “I want everybody to appreciate the pictures I’ve taken. I don’t want to just blast everybody with a whole bunch of pictures. Also, it gives it viewing time” (T.H., male, aged 27). Because of how common it was for personal contacts to follow an account, participants felt particularly compelled to create additional accounts. Within these accounts, post schedules were much less important and users, particularly of Finstagram, did not feel restrained by posting too frequently, as mentioned above.
The content of the posts and how the audience would perceive them played a role in motivating participants to create additional accounts. Though follower count was not of key importance on main accounts, catering to the audiences’ tastes in terms of content was noted by participants in order to maintain followings. According to one participant, he decided to organize his main account into the topics he posted most about, which included his music:
My third account was my music one where I only shared my guitar stuff because I felt like those videos would oversaturate my timeline and over-annoy people, so I was like “Here’s this account. Follow this one if you want to still see these.” (Z.U., male, aged 28).
Other participants had similar sentiments and decided to make additional accounts with more specific content that would potentially be not interesting to their followers if the content was not what they usually posted. Taking influence from bloggers with specific posting styles and themes, some participants created targeted profiles that focused on a particular topic, such as vegan food, makeup, or photography. Furthermore, hidden Finstagram accounts followed suit in that the content posted on these accounts were potentially inappropriate for a broader audience to see. Since participants were fearful of negatively engaging their main followers, creating secondary spaces to post as they please with consequence manifested.
Privacy. Maintaining a sense of control over the privacy of their accounts was critical to participants. Social media often showcases how the user wants the public to perceive them, but sharing the most honest self-representation was seen as difficult because of the notion of privacy. From the interviews, two main indicators were established: censoring what
authority figures could see and protecting themselves from judgement.
Because of the prevalence of Instagram use, it is not uncommon to have a variety of different followers. This could include family members, employers, and other people of authority. For participants, maintaining a clean image to these authority figures was
important to maintaining a positive image. Many of the accounts, either main or secondary, had specific audiences that were allowed to see the content that was posted. Users managed these audiences to be sure that only specific people saw the respective content. For some, keeping space between what elders see on their Instagram accounts concerns them:
I have family members, or certain people that I know in my life that I’m not ready for them, specifically, to see what I have out. Sometimes I will post it, sometimes I won’t, in hopes that they don’t catch it right away. (M.D., female, aged 22). The professional stays on my personal Instagram…The people that do follow my Finsta I keep track of because they do have to be at a certain level of friendship or closeness to me, or members of my family that are in the same generation, just because I don’t want my aunties and uncles to see what I post… because some things I post are inappropriate. (A.T, male, aged 23).
Because of the pervasiveness of audiences on Instagram, participants found that additional accounts allowed them to showcase more professional characters in a public setting while still expressing themselves genuinely in a protected, hidden space.
Maintaining multiple accounts with specific audiences and privacy settings allowed for participants to display themselves how they wanted without sacrificing self-expression. Relating to post frequency, some participants received criticism from followers about how they were managing their personal accounts, thus motivating them to open profiles that were
inaccessible to these critics and allowed for freedom to post how they pleased, free from judgment. One participant shared:
But yeah so when you’re posting so many personal things, then people have a say, so then I stopped allowing them to follow me and let them follow the public account… I don't hear people commenting about it anymore (L.P., female, 29).
I just wanted to have another outlet or tool or whatever to be able to talk about certain things without everyone feeling like their input mattered on what I needed to say. I only wanted some people to think that their input mattered… (C.T., female, aged 23). Creating a boundary between the user and specific audiences could happen thanks to the ability of using multiple accounts. The option users had in choosing which audiences were allowed to view specific content was key in maintaining multiple accounts since it gave power and protection to the users who needed a shield from unwarranted judgment.
Career/Portfolio. Additional Instagram accounts were used as a form of professional presentation. For participants, secondary accounts were used as means to perform current work duties, showcase skills, and bolster potential future careers. The two main indicators of the career/portfolio dimension were current career and future career.
Apart from managing a secondary Instagram account as a part of their work duties, some participants have additional accounts to conduct business along with showcasing their skills in a portfolio-like setting. This was sometimes done to attract new clients and grow the community around the respective account. Multiple participants created accounts for their companies which spanned different industries including massage therapy, travel consulting, photography, and event production. Having this space was imperative for one participant:
That’s why I started the Instagram. I wanted to create a portfolio of my company and I wanted everyone to see it on the internet, and I thought Instagram was a good way of doing that. Then I could connect it to my website. (J.D, male, aged 23).
The portfolio-style of account was also noted as being a manifestation of their skill. To start their business, participants saw managing a successful Instagram account as a
I feel like social media can be a good tool in the professional space that I’m in. Let’s say I was at a job interview and the person asks if I have experience in social media and I can say I manage this, do this, track this much engagement and I think that’s an impressive thing to have as a supplement to an interview” (A.T., male, aged 23). Self-Expression. This motivation has been found in previous research and is essential to social media as an entity (Lee et al., 2015; Sheldon & Bryant, 2015; Stapleton, Luiz, & Chatwin, 2017). Expressing oneself fully, free from criticism, was important to participants across all additional account types. The two indicators that defined self-expression were hobbies and uncurated feelings. As mentioned earlier, participants were fearful of annoying their audiences by posting too-specific content, such as hobbies. Creating an additional account allowed for further self-expression.
My primary one felt like it was all over the place which caused me to want to create different accounts for that purpose… It’s me splitting up different parts of me, and organizing it… (Z.U., male, aged 28).
In addition, having a private, safe space to post sensitive content was granted through additional accounts, namely Finstagram. One participant described her use of Finsta by saying, “I post a lot of sexual content on there, a lot of stuff about the mental illnesses I’m experiencing, a lot of very personal stuff on there” (C.T., female, aged 23). As demonstrated by this insight, the participant shared that her Finstagram housed content related to her personal, vulnerable thoughts and internal struggles. It was also disclosed that only a select few followers were trusted enough to see the private account’s content. Another participant had similar uses with his Finstagram, using it as a space to share life updates and
questionable content with a close-knit group of people who were selectively picked. The participant, who used his other account mainly for personal branding reasons, described how the content between his two accounts differed:
And it’s not an alter ego of me because it’s not. I’m really confident in myself and how I portray myself, so it’s just things that I would post to my normal account and everything else goes on my Finsta. (A.T., male, aged 23).
A major response of most of the participants was that their main personal accounts would look like their actual bedrooms: “So my personal account I imagine my own bedroom… my room is a reflection of me so when I imagine what room I would associate with my [main] private account, it would be my private bedroom” (G.L., male, aged 28). Others shared this perspective, plus the feeling that their main account is a “safe space” similar to their actual homes. In regard to comfort when posting, one participant shared, “It’s my really private happy place, my cozy place, because only when I’m really comfortable about what’s going on and feel in my place do I want to post” (S.K., female, aged 23). Social media, in general, is thought to be an accurate representation of the self and main accounts were frequently cited as the more reflective of personality between the multiple accounts a user managed. However, multiple participants noted the superficiality of the curation process on social media that they go through with their profiles, highlighting that they post about the best versions of themselves:
The bedroom would probably have matching furniture and would be a lot more organized than my current room, it would be light, it would be medium sized with family photos and photos of friends, and art supplies everywhere, but very organized. I say that because I feel like with all social media it’s only just a snapshot of what you want people to think about your life or you want to show… so you should take it with a grain of salt, like you’ll never really know or understand a person from social media. (E.D., female, aged 23).
That some details of the rooms were skewed from real life is a key finding of this activity. By describing a scenario that is slightly more pleasant and idealistic than real life, the motives behind using multiple Instagram accounts garners more support.
Additional accounts of every kind followed the same pattern of being specifically geared to the theme of the account. A photography account-room was described as covered wall-to-wall in photographs that the user had taken himself (G.L., male, aged 28). A bedroom for a profile dedicated to a participant’s band “would probably be full of amplifiers, and
chef’s account, the living space emphasized mainly food while the normal inclusions of a bedroom were less prominent: “The food account would be…a little studio and a nice big kitchen and [there would be] professional lighting set up and a professional camera and all the ingredients you could ever have in a kitchen, and a tiny little bed in the corner” (C.B., female, aged 25).
Comparing the way an Insta-room was described to a Finsta-room was an interesting finding. In these specific examples, the participants share that their Finstagram accounts express a more vulnerable and less kempt version of themselves. Also, because the
audiences for these specific accounts were more selective, this showed that audience played a role in the management of an account. Finstagrams showed a rawer representation of self with less curation and more honest self-expression.
For participants who described their secondary account as a Finstagram, most followed the trend of describing their two “rooms” as being the same, but in different states. One participant showcased the duality between his Instagram and Finstagram accounts:
My Instagram and Finsta have the same exact room, but my Instagram is what it looks like when you clean up on a Sunday. My Finstagram is the same room if you just got home from the bars. So, an analogy would be: I’m the same person in both of them, but if I’m inviting you over on a Sunday, it’s probably to watch Game of Thrones, and it’s going to be presentable... It’s going to be dope. Everything’s the same. Same TV, same bed, same desk. But if I invite you over on a Saturday night, there’s going to clothes everywhere, alcohol bottles, something funnier playing on TV. (A.T., male, aged 23).
Another participant had a similar description when comparing the imagined rooms for her two Instagram accounts:
My personal is almost exactly like my room now. I have this window where there’s a bookshelf. There’s plants. It’s sunny. Most of the things I post on my personal account are during the day… I always post what book I’m reading or what I’m doing in school because that’s essentially all that I do with my time...Versus my
Finsta…which is at night because almost everything I post on there is at night when I’m either drunk or high or taking nudes so it’s all nighttime activities. I have these big drapes since it’s more lush and luxurious even though 90% of the time on my Finstagram I’m crying, but it would be a wonderful, beautiful place to cry. (C.T., female, aged 23).
Reiss Motivation Profile (RMP)
The RMP was used during the data collection as a scale of comparison for the
unstructured motives participants revealed for using multiple Instagram accounts during the focus group and interview discussions. Participants were asked to list their maximum top five motives according to the RMP for both their primary accounts and their additional accounts in order to compare different motives for having one versus the other(s). Overall, social contact was the most cited motive (N = 39) across all participants and the only motive that was present in the top rankings for every subgroup, as described above. Other select motives fluctuated between subgroups and will be discussed in further detail. Since this study is exploring the motivations behind using multiple accounts, it is necessary to look at all of the motives behind both main and additional accounts.
Focus Group RMP Findings. RQ1 asked what the main motives are for multiple Instagram accounts. Using the RMP, the focus group revealed that the top motive for Instagram accounts, regardless of type, was social contact (see Table 1). Despite the nature of the account–whether it be used as a primary account, to showcase a hobby or skill, to manage an online work presence, or as a hidden Finstagram–maintaining a space to connect with others was a main priority for all of the participants and their respective accounts. Furthermore, status, described by Reiss to include the desire for attention, was a top motive across both main and additional accounts (see Table 1). Within additional accounts, status was the second top motive behind social contact, proving to be of interest since the additional accounts were explained by the participants as being used for extra forms of (self) expression. Following social content and status, the other popular motives included independence,
curiosity, acceptance, and power.
Interestingly, when comparing unique motives to each subgroup, participants stated overall acceptance and independence as top motives for their main accounts, while secondary
accounts had curiosity and power instead (see Table 1). This suggests that main accounts were used with a more inward-looking perspective where they prioritized establishing their own identities (independence) within their communities of followers (acceptance) while secondary accounts were more motivated by influencing others (power) and discovering new things (status) from their communities.
Interviews RMP Findings. When analyzing all of the motives disclosed in the
interviews (N = 17), the top motive for both main and additional accounts was – as with the focus group – social contact (see Table 2). However, there were some differences with other motives. Interestingly, both account types cited the same four RMP motivations as top motives: idealism, status, independence, and saving. In comparison to social contact, though, the other motives were less frequent and cited about one-third to half as many times (see Table 2). These motives also did not follow the same ranking between account types but had relatively similar frequencies, demonstrating that while the most important motive for their accounts was to maintain social contact, there were other less important factors that come into play with equal importance. Besides these motives, both main and additional accounts had motivations unique to account type: main accounts included curiosity while additional accounts included power (see Table 2). In terms of frequency, power was the second top motive across additional accounts, while curiosity was the third top motive for main accounts. This both follows and contradicts the patterns found in the focus group where power and curiosity were present only for additional accounts. Power as a motive for
additional accounts could signify the desire for participants to take on more influential roles than they do in their main accounts.
RMP Findings by Gender (RQ2)
Comparisons between male (N = 7) and female (N = 10) RMP motives from the interviews were drawn to determine any differences or similarities for using multiple
Instagram accounts. Since the Focus Group contained only females, it was not possible to draw comparisons between their RMP motives based on gender. In this exercise, one key difference between males and females was the number of top RMP motives present. Males had fewer top motives overall than females, especially for additional accounts (see Tables 3 and 4). Females had more motives with similar frequencies, showing greater diversity of motivation compared to males who exhibited fewer top motivations but with more distinctive frequencies. In extension, females had most of the same motivations, including social
contact, curiosity, saving, status, independence, and idealism, for both types of accounts despite some ranking differences; conversely, males had noteworthy differences in motivation for each account type. While curiosity was a top motive for males’ main
accounts, it was not a motive for additional accounts. Instead, power and status were present. Discussion
The aims of this study were to determine the motivations of emerging adults to use multiple Instagram accounts in the form of Finstagram and if gender influenced those
motivations. While gender did not have significant differences when it came to motivations, other important findings that relate to duality came about. Prior to the research, “Finstagram” was seen as a potential umbrella term for all secondary account use with the thought that majority of secondary account use could be described in the same vein as Finsta. During the study, it became clear that these two terms were not synonymous. Finsta was found to be just one type of additional account and did not accurately describe the functions and purposes of all secondary Instagram accounts. Other reasons for having additional accounts, apart from Finstagram, emerged, such as having a space to act on one’s hobby or interest, creating more career-focused opportunities, and allowing additional privacy. Thus, while a goal of the study was to define the term Finstagram, perhaps a different term should be used to encompass these additional accounts, which includes Finsta itself.
Overall, a major theme in the data was the importance of social interaction to users, which aligns with past research on social media motivations (e.g. Lee et al., 2015; Sheldon & Bryant, 2015; Stapleton et al., 2017). Though not particularly surprising–since social
interaction is the fundamental characteristic of social media–social interaction was prevalent among participants and was mentioned by over 80% of participants as being a motivation for account use (see Tables 1-3). In relation to social interaction, another theme that emerged was not as obvious, though: the distinction between the user and the audience, and the motivations to use additional accounts as fueled through the consideration of personal (user) and audience preferences. For users, top motivations found in the study were for a space where they could speak openly and free from judgment (privacy), have greater room for exploration (self-expression), and explore identities (career opportunities). In terms of the audiences’ needs, users were motivated to have additional accounts to act on these personal needs without violating perceived social norms of posting in ways that do not align with the general expectation of Instagram-use, such as sharing inappropriate, irrelevant, or
unfavorable content. In line with the guiding theories of U&G and U&G 2.0, user needs were highlighted; but moving beyond this rudimentary step, the notion of user needs in the context of social norms proved interesting. The research suggested that additional account use allowed users to address personal (user) needs that conflict with the normative
environment of their social network by taking sensitivity to the audience into account. The power of the normative environment affects the relationship between the user and audience, which is interesting in that it influences how the two interact plus how the user functions within the confines of the social media platform. The receivers (audience) within social media channels affect self-disclosure and the rewards and goals users have when it comes to sharing online (Choi & Bazarova, 2006), which could affect the consideration of both user and audience needs. Naturally, social media is a platform meant for self-disclosure,
but when we present ourselves, the audience to which we present has a key influential role in determining how and what we share. These imagined audiences we envision when we self-present are an aspect of Self-Effects, which are defined as “the effects of messages on the cognitions (knowledge or beliefs), emotions, attitudes, and behavior of the message
creators/senders themselves” (Valkenburg, 2017, p. 3). It has been found that an imagined audience has the potential to be as influential for self-concept changes as actual audiences are, stimulating a need to perform a curated version of self that caters to the imagined audience (Schlenker, Wowra, Johnson, & Miller, 2008). Thus, the multiplicity of Instagram profiles allowed users to alter their self-presentations for different audiences by creating various accounts and managing them accordingly, fulfilling this need that came with the onset of new technology.
In many ways, additional accounts could be seen as catering equally to users and audiences, except when the accounts are identified as Finstagrams, which cater first and foremost to users. A goal of the study was to define “Finstagram” and see if all additional account use would fall into the classification of Finsta. This was not the case as only some participants called their second accounts “Finstas”, while others used their additional
accounts in ways completely opposite of what is typically associated with Finstagram. These particular accounts were public, curated, and intended to grow into a known entity.
Oppositely, Finstagram was determined to be a private and personal place for users to share the darker sides of their lives that are not typically found on social media or shared with the general masses. It was discovered that Finstagrams for emerging adults were safe spaces of raw self-expression that show more obscure, less public-friendly parts of the users, including gripes, rants, negative emotions, sexually explicit content, and substance abuse. For
example, a few participants were candid in saying that the content of their Finstas was sensitive in terms of appropriateness:
[I post] just stuff that’s inappropriate that I don’t want other people to see… But mainly fun festival stuff, times with friends, us inebriated. It’s private so I don’t get my friends in trouble or anything like that. And just kind of where we can… enjoy past memories or messed up nights. (T.H., male, aged 27).
So I try to be humorous with some of the things that I post on my Finsta and there was a picture of a paper bag and you have to pull up the handles, then pull out. So it says, “Pull out” and then I was like “The paper bags out here are trying to get us in
trouble.” (A.T., male, aged 23).
In another example, one participant battled mental illness and shared that experience on her Finstagram because of the nature of the content and her desire to share with an exclusive group of people: “There was content I wanted to express and I wanted an outlet in which to express, but without everyone seeing it” (C.T., female, aged 23). In relation to the bedroom activity, participant drawings and descriptions showed that Finstagrams were places where they could exist more freely and in a less curated fashion:
Well my real Instagram, would, honestly be probably the bedroom I have now… Super simple but boho. My fake Instagram…would just be the same but, it would just be really messy. You know, cups everywhere, bed unmade… (T.H., female, aged 23). [M]y Finsta would definitely be…more or less my closet. Sometimes some [stuff] may fall out and you’d be like “Oh, what the…?” and also like “I can’t believe you have this in your closet!” I would say, fun, spontaneous… It would be normal, not perfectly clean and there may be a few loose items here and there but other than that it’s a livable room. Maybe a really old bowl of ice cream or something like that, more distasteful… You should probably just take that out. (T.H., male, aged 27).
A critical finding of Finstagram was that the use of such an account is also customizable like other account types, despite its seemingly specific function. As demonstrated in the data collection, some participants identified their additional accounts as Finstagrams, but they all used them in slightly different ways. The common theme to them all was that these diary-like accounts were only allowed to be seen or even known existed by a very select group of trusted people. The sensitive nature of the content made it imperative for users to strictly manage the accounts to maintain their confidentiality. They shared personal information on their Finstas, often seeking support from their inner circle of followers. There were no post limits or (restricting) schedules, and no major self-curation. It was a place to post any and
everything with no consequences. One participant shared the difference in posting style between her main account and her Finstagram:
It’s like a different way to express yourself too… With Finstagram I kind of just speak my thoughts. When I find an old video or photo or whatever, and like post it and talk about my feelings…You just say what’s on your mind on Finstagram. [On the main account] I kind of try and always be a little more artistic about it, so I just post whatever I want…, but I just kind of tailor it a little better. And I don’t just blurt out word vomit, you know? Like here is a picture of the beach, and I’m going to caption it in this way. Expressing yourself in a different way kind of, you know? (T.H., female, aged 23). While this example was not extreme, it does highlight the dichotomy between posting on a main account versus a Finstagram. As mentioned before, though, maintaining a Finsta had loose guidelines in terms of function and purpose so this participant’s personal use of Finstagram was tailored to her needs, especially with regard to audience perception (user vs audience needs).
The second aim of the study was to determine if motivations to use multiple Instagram accounts were affected by gender. Overall, motivations between males and females were similar and did not show any major differences. One interesting finding, though, was the presence of the RMP motive power, or the desire to influence, as the most important motivation for females’ additional account use. Males also had power as a top motivation, though it was the least important, making power a key motive across all additional accounts regardless of gender.
Conclusion and Future Research
Using exploratory in-depth qualitative methods, the current research aimed at studying Finstagram, defining the phenomenon, and classifying further additional account use. Collectively, the findings of this study confirm much of the previous research done about social media motivations in regard to personal need fulfillment, such as self-expression and social interaction. While no formal parameters were found or created to define “Finstagram,” the practice was established as being one type of additional account as opposed an
all-encompassing term for secondary account use. From this, a world of additional account use was opened in that users have a variety of motivations and subsequent habits when it comes to using multiple accounts. In addition to Finsta, users had accounts that catered to different needs they had, for instance expressing their hobbies or showcasing their career-related skillsets. An interesting relationship between addressing personal needs within the context of normative social networks emerged, supporting further exploration into the influence of audiences. This notion became a point of similarity between all of the additional account types mentioned by participants as well as through the overall themes found in the analysis.
Since the scope of this study was rather small, future research could expand on the efforts made here to establish motivations behind multiple account use more concretely. The Self-Effects theory could be an important way to extend this body of work given the
multitude of uses of social media, which include the deeper integration and customization users have in relation to social media use. Attention could be given to documenting the influence of imagined audiences specifically, as well as the notion of self-presentation through multiple accounts on a single platform. Furthermore, a broader lens could improve the findings in regard to multi-account use since Finstagram was found to be just one type of secondary account. To bring the original adolescent concept of Finsta together with use by emerging adults, conducting a comparative study that studies both age groups could shed light on the differences of intergenerational media habits and further personify these two developmentally-critical times of life. U&G 2.0 is particularly useful for future research endeavors because of the key aspect that affordances granted by technological advancements satisfy users’ unbeknownst needs, highlighting that continual innovations will not only address user needs that have yet to be realized, but also expand on what those needs could be in the future. Since this study addresses multiple account use as applied to Instagram, the
possibility of discovering this habit taking place on other platforms now or in the future is something that also could be further noted and explored.
A limitation of the study lies in the recruitment strategy to gather participants. Because the social phenomenon of Finstagram has no formal definition, emerging adults who used multiple Instagram accounts in any capacity were allowed to participate in the study. The original research aim was to define Finstagram by analyzing different uses of multiple accounts to determine if different accounts had the same purposes and functions, though this was found to not be the case. Thus, future research could have stricter restrictions about account use and purpose to tailor the sample more efficiently. Another limitation comes from the dual in-depth collection methods. Having only one focus group did not allow for
comparisons between groups to see if different opinions and habits were present. Plus, while interviews proved insightful about the inner workings and multi-faceted nature of multiple Instagram account use, online interviews lack body language and facial expression (Schutt, 2012). The two collection methods could prove interesting in future research to compare shared information between the methods, however due to the limited size of this study and its sample, it was not something that could be deeply explored.
While the goals of the study were not directly met, the realm within which they reside has expanded greatly and fuels new, deeper questions that go further than account use on one platform and extend to user vs audience behavior and perception. This study should be used as a starting point for researchers to explore the role of multi-account use within social media in order to further understand today’s young people and subsequently create technologies that cater to the variety of needs they currently have and will develop in the future.
References
Arnett, J. (2006). A longer road to adulthood. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties, 3-25.
http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309379.001.0001
Aslam, S. (2017, August 10). Instagram by the numbers: Stats, demographics & fun facts. In Omnicore Agency. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
Brennen, B. (2013). Qualitative research methods for media studies. New York: Routledge. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Choi, Y.H. & Bazarova, N.N. (2015). Self-disclosure characteristics and motivations in social media: Extending the functional model to multiple social network sites. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 480-500. doi:10.1111/hcre.12053
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Coyne, S., Padilla-Walker, L.M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 125-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813479782
Deakin, H. & Wakefield, K. (2013). Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5). 603-616. DOI: 10.1177/1468794113488126
Finstagram. (2013, December 8). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved October 27, 2017. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An
Han, K., Lee, S., Jang J.Y., Jung, Y., & Lee, D. (2016). “Teens are from Mars, adults are from Venus”: Analyzing and predicting age groups with behavioral characteristics in Instagram. WebSci ‘16, 35-44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2908131.2908160 Hubby, K. (2017, April 23). Inside Finstagram, the private world of ‘fake’ teen Instagram
accounts. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
Jang, J. Y., Han, K., Shih, P.C., & Lee, D. (2015). Generation like: Comparative
characteristics in Instagram. Understanding & Protecting Kids Tech Use, 4039-4041. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10/1145/2702123.2702555
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
Lee, E., Lee, J., Moon, J.H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words:
Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networks, 18(9), 552-556. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0157
Lincoln, S. & Robards, B. (2016). Being strategic and taking control: Bedrooms, social network sites and the narratives of growing up. New Media & Society, 18(6), 927-943. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814554065
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. & Sundar, S.S. (2016). Social and technological motivations for online photo sharing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4),
624-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1234478
Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179.
Rich, M. (2017, August 21). Should I be concerned about my teen’s Finstagram (fake Instagram) account? In Center on Media and Child Health. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 246-255. doi:10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-H
Schlenker, B. R., Wowra, S. A., Johnson, R. M., & Miller, M. L. (2008). The impact of imagined audiences on self-appraisals. Personal Relationships, 15, 247-260. doi:10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2008.00196.x
Schutt, R. K. (2012). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (7th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shah, S. (2017, February 23). Do you Finstagram? The new way teens are using Instagram in private. In Digital Trends.
Sheldon, P. & Bryant, K. (2015). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89-97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059
Social Media Market, 2012-2016 (2016, June). In The Radicati Group, Inc.. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
Stadler, O. (2016, June 24). The 20 unwritten rules of Instagram you should be following. In Narcity. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
Stapleton, P., Luiz, G., & Chatwin, H. (2017). Generation validation: The role of social comparison in use of Instagram among emerging adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networks, 20 (3), 142-149. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0444
Sundar, S. & Limperos, A.M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 504-525. doi:
10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
Communication Research. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12113
Van der Goot, M. (2017). Research methods tailored to your thesis: Qualitative research, tutorial class 5 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://blackboard.uva.nl/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&conte nt_id=_6694527_1&course_id=_209901_1&framesetWrapped=true
Wani, M. A., Sofi, M. A., & Wani, S. Y. (2017). Why fake profiles: A study of anomalous users in different categories of online social networks. International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 4(9), 320-329. Retrieved from http://www.ijetsr.com/#
Table 1
Focus group participants’ top RMP-motivations, sorted by ranking.
Main Accounts Additional Accounts
RMP Motive Frequency % RMP Motive Frequency %
1. Social Contact 4 80.00% 1. Social Contact 5 100.00%
2. Independence 3 60.00% 2. Status 4 80.00%
3. Acceptance 3 60.00% 3. Curiosity 3 60.00%
4. Status 3 60.00% 4. Power 3 60.00%
Note. N = 5, percentage of Focus Group participants who indicated RMP motives as motivations for account use separated by account type (main v additional). Motives ranked by importance (most to least).
Table 2
Interview participants’ top RMP-motivations, sorted by ranking.
Main Accounts Additional Accounts
RMP Motive Frequency % RMP Motive Frequency %
1. Social Contact 15 88.24% 1. Social Contact 15 88.24%
2. Idealism 8 47.06% 2. Power 10 58.82%
3. Curiosity 8 47.06% 3. Status 7 41.18%
4. Saving 6 35.29% 4. Idealism 7 41.18%
5. Independence 6 35.29% 5. Independence 7 41.18%
6. Status 5 29.41% 6. Saving 7 41.18%
Note. N = 17, percentage of Interview participants who indicated RMP motives as
motivations for account use separated by account type (main v additional). Motives ranked by importance (most to least).
Table 3
Interview participants’ top RMP-motivations for Main Accounts, sorted by ranking and gender.
Males Females
RMP Motives Frequency % RMP Motives Frequency %
1. Idealism 6 85.71% 1. Social Contact 9 90.00%
2. Social Contact 6 85.71% 2. Curiosity 6 60.00%
3. Independence 3 42.86% 3. Saving 4 40.00%
4. Curiosity 2 28.57% 4. Status 4 40.00%
5. Saving 2 28.57% 5. Independence 3 30.00%
Note. NMaleMainAccounts = 7, NFemaleMainAccounts = 10, percentage of Interview participants who
indicated RMP motives as motivations for Main Account use separated by gender (male v female). Motives ranked by importance (most to least).
Table 4
Interview participants’ top RMP-motivations for Additional Accounts, sorted by ranking and gender.
Males Females
RMP Motives Frequency % RMP Motives Frequency %
1. Social Contact 8 50.00% 1. Power 7 31.81%
2. Saving 3 18.75% 2. Social Contact 7 31.81%
3. Independence 3 18.75% 3. Curiosity 5 22.72%
4. Idealism 3 18.75% 4. Status 4 18.18%
5. Status 3 18.75% 5. Idealism 4 18.18%
6. Power 3 18.75% 6. Independence 4 18.18%
Note. NMaleAdditionalAccounts = 16, NFemaleAdditionalAccounts = 22, percentage of Interview participants
who indicated RMP motives as motivations for Additional Account use separated by gender (male v female). Motives ranked by importance (most to least).
