Cited by 484Digital Marketing and Social MediaMedia and Digital CommunicationDigital Platforms and Economics

Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?

Open access
Toubia, Olivier, Stephen, Andrew T.·2013·Marketing Science

Abstract

We empirically study the motivations of users to contribute content to social media in the context of the popular microblogging site Twitter. We focus on noncommercial users who do not benefit financially from their contributions. Previous literature suggests that there are two main types of utility that motivate these users to post content: intrinsic utility and image-related utility. We leverage the fact that these two types of utility give rise to different predictions as to whether users should increase their contributions when their number of followers increases. To address the issue that the number of followers is endogenous, we conducted a field experiment in which we exogenously added followers (or follow requests, in the case of protected accounts) to a set of users over a period of time and compared their posting activities to those of a control group. We estimated each treated user's utility function using a dynamic discrete choice model. Although our results are consistent with both types of utility being at play, our model suggests that image-related utility is larger for most users. We discuss the implications of our findings for the evolution of Twitter and the type of value firms may derive from such platforms in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mksc.2013.0773

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toubia, O., & Stephen, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Marketing Science
Published
2013-05
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
368-392
ISSN
  • 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-548X
OpenAlex
W2119192275
Cited by
484
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
97.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marketing Science (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
Twitter, microblogging, follower count, motivations for social media use, dynamic discrete choice, field experiments, user posting behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review