Does Culture Matter? A Comparative Study on the Motivations for Online Identity Reconstruction Between China and Malaysia

Abstract

On social network platforms, people may reconstruct an identity due to various reasons, such as vanity, disinhibition, bridging social capital, and privacy concerns. This study aims to identify cultural differences in the motivations for online identity reconstruction between China and Malaysia. Data were collected from China and Malaysia using an online survey. A total of 815 respondents (418 Chinese and 397 Malaysians) participated in this study. Differences were found not only between Chinese and Malaysian participants but also among participants from different ethnic groups (e.g., the Malaysian-Malays and the Malaysian-Chinese). This study adds knowledge to the research concerning online identity reconstruction by taking into account national culture. It also extends the cross-cultural research concerning social network platforms and sheds light on the specific differences between Chinese and Malaysian participants. The findings of this study can help service providers to deploy specific strategies to better serve social network platform users from different countries.

Keywords

online identity reconstruction social network platforms cultural dimensions vanity disinhibition

Introduction

As a convenient avenue for communication, social network platforms facilitate the establishment and maintenance of social networks (Jackson & Wang, 2013). On social network platforms, individuals can keep in touch with their existing friends and meet new friends (Ellison et al., 2007, 2011). Although online interactions are often considered an extension of offline social activities (Tosun & Lajunen, 2010), some people tend to manipulate the information they post online to create a virtual identity that is partially or even totally different from their identity in the offline world, which is referred to as online identity reconstruction (Hu et al., 2015).

Some people reconstruct their identity online because of vanity (Hu et al., 2015). They want to attract attention and gain admiration from others. For example, a poor man could pretend to be rich by posting a picture of himself wearing an expensive watch. Some people want to gain bridging social capital online (Hu et al., 2015). Reconstructing their online identity may provide them new chances to make friends with people from different backgrounds. Disinhibition and privacy concerns are also important reasons for online identity reconstruction (Hu et al., 2015). A reconstructed identity (such as an identity with a fake name) protects an individual’s privacy and makes him or her feel less inhibited online. The extent of online identity reconstruction varies from one person to another.

Given that some aspects of identity are intangible (such as beliefs and values; Hitlin, 2011), people usually communicate their identity through embodied self-presentation (Schau & Gilly, 2003). For example, a person can express his or her belief by quoting a meaningful sentence in the online profile. Although some studies have investigated people’s identity and self-presentation on social network platforms (e.g., Kapidzic, 2013; Krämer & Winter, 2008; Lee et al., 2014; Ong et al., 2011; Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Seidman, 2013), not much research focused on online identity reconstruction. Although two existing studies have explored the motivations for online identity reconstruction (Hu et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2018), they were limited to a single culture.

It has been suggested that culture has a significant influence on people’s online self-presentation (Chu & Choi, 2010; Cooley & Smith, 2013; Kim & Papacharissi, 2003; Rui & Stefanone, 2013; C. Zhao & Jiang, 2011). For instance, it is suggested that Singaporean users share significantly more photos on social network platforms, whereas American users update their profiles with text-based content more frequently (Rui & Stefanone, 2013). A prior study also found that American users posted more photos of social events (such as parties) to show their connections with numerous friends, whereas Russian users were more likely to post personal photos with family members (Cooley & Smith, 2013). Cultural differences are clearly salient in the behavior associated with online identity reconstruction, but little effort has been made to investigate the effects of culture on motivations for online identity reconstruction. Therefore, more attention should be paid to explore whether people from different countries are motivated differently when they reconstruct their identity on social network platforms.

In addition, previous research on cultural differences mainly focused on usage patterns (such as the intensity of use) and self-presentation behavior (such as profile management and self-presentation strategies) on social network platforms. Indeed, there is a lack of research when it comes to exploring cultural differences in online identity reconstruction. Considering this, this study aims to explore cultural differences in motivations for online identity reconstruction between China and Malaysia.

Given that the motivations for online identity reconstruction were proposed on the basis of a Chinese sample (Hu et al., 2015), China was thus selected as one of the target countries in this study. In addition, as a developing country with the highest proportion of Chinese in its population, Malaysia was selected as the other target country. The Malaysian-Chinese accounted for 22.8% of the total population of Malaysia (Department of Statistics Malaysia [DOSM], 2019). Moreover, China and Malaysia have a similar level of economic development and the pervasiveness of social media. The national wealth was considered when selecting the target countries because national culture is significantly correlated with national wealth (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015). Furthermore, 65% of the Chinese population and 75% of the Malaysian population use social media actively (We Are Social, 2018). The similarities in the level of economic development and social media usage rate reduce the uncertainties of comparing the behavior of Chinese and Malaysian social network platform users.

Previous research suggested that people may be driven by motivations like vanity, bridging social capital, disinhibition, and privacy concerns when they reconstruct their identity online (Hu et al., 2015). Although studies related to these factors have been conducted in China (Mo & Leung, 2015; N. Zhou & Belk, 2004; T. Zhou & Li, 2014), as well as in Malaysia (Almadhoun et al., 2012; Balakrishnan, 2015; Chui & Samsinar, 2011; Helou, 2014; Mohamed & Ahmad, 2012), none of these studies made comparisons between Chinese and Malaysian people. It is not clear whether users from China and Malaysia are motivated differently by the above-mentioned factors when they reconstruct their online identity. The multiracial society of Malaysia provides good opportunities for comparisons between not only the Chinese with the Malaysians but also different ethnic groups (such as the Malaysian-Chinese and the Chinese from China). The comparisons of different ethnic groups may offer deeper insights into the effects of culture. Therefore, this study tries to resolve the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the motivational differences between Chinese and Malaysian social network users in online identity reconstruction?

Research Question 2: What are the motivational differences between users from different ethnic groups (the Malaysian-Malays, the Malaysian-Chinese, and the Chinese from China)?

Literature Review

Motivations for Online Identity Reconstruction

Social network platforms provide a good chance for idealizing and managing online identity. Previous research indicated that people often enhance their public self-image intentionally on social network platforms with positive self-presentation strategies (Lee-Won et al., 2014). As mentioned above, people may reconstruct an online identity on the basis of their own ideas, and they may be motivated by various factors, such as vanity, bridging social capital, disinhibition, and privacy concerns (Hu et al., 2015).

Vanity has been defined as “excessive concern for, and/or a positive (and perhaps inflated) view of one’s physical appearance or personal achievements” (Netemeyer et al., 1995, p. 612). It can be distinguished into two types: physical vanity and achievement vanity. Previous research suggested that people with different cultural backgrounds differ in physical vanity and achievement vanity (Durvasula & Lysonski, 2008). Individuals from China and India had more prominent concerns over physical appearance than those from America and New Zealand, while the self-assessment of professional achievement was higher in Western cultures than in Eastern cultures. As economics develops, vanity is becoming increasingly prominent in Asian countries. Previous research suggested that physical and achievement vanity are important predictors of Chinese consumers’ intention to purchase luxury brands (Hung et al., 2011). Chinese consumers tend to buy luxury goods to show their reputation and success (N. Zhou & Belk, 2004). Similarly, achievement vanity is positively associated with Malaysian people’s intention to buy luxury goods (Mamat et al., 2016). Malaysian women who are concerned about vanity prefer products that demonstrate social status (Chui & Samsinar, 2011).

Bridging social capital describes the benefits that come from casual relationships. It derives from relationships that connect individuals from different social networks (Putnam, 2000). Bridging social capital has significant effects on the use of social network platforms in China and Malaysia. For example, in China, the social need (such as making new friends) is one of the important factors that drive individuals to engage in social network platforms, and the gratification of social needs predicts the perceived bridging social capital online (Mo & Leung, 2015). In addition, Chinese users who perceived a higher level of bridging social capital were more likely to feel satisfied (Chang & Zhu, 2012). Studies conducted in Malaysia also indicated that bridging social capital is one of the most important reasons why college students use social network services (Almadhoun et al., 2012; Helou, 2014).

Disinhibition is an effect that makes people loosen up and behave freely online (Suler, 2004). Due to some interrelated factors (such as anonymity, invisibility, and minimized authority), online disinhibition can result in both positive and negative effects. The positive effects of disinhibition are referred to as benign disinhibition (e.g., a greater extent of self-disclosure); the negative effects of disinhibition are referred to as toxic disinhibition (e.g., flaming and harsh criticisms; Suler, 2004). Previous research found that reduced nonverbal cues (such as visual and context cues) diminished people’s inhibition in computer-mediated communications (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2015). The feelings of disinhibition enhanced people’s online self-disclosure (Schouten et al., 2007). People disclose more emotion online when they are anonymous and invisible to others (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2015). However, invisibility, anonymity, and lack of eye contact can lead to toxic disinhibition, such as flaming, negative atmosphere, and even threats (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). It was also found that online disinhibition was positively associated with cyberbullying behavior (Udris, 2014).

Privacy concerns refer to a sense of anxiety related to the infringement of privacy (Tan et al., 2012). It reflects a person’s concerns about private information. It is suggested that culture plays an essential role in people’s privacy concerns (Lowry et al., 2011). Using a Chinese sample, scholars have found that users’ privacy concerns were positively associated with their perceptions of risks and uncertainty when using social network platforms (T. Zhou & Li, 2014). A study conducted in Malaysia also found that if individuals thought that the consequences of privacy loss were serious, they would be more concerned with privacy (Mohamed & Ahmad, 2012).

China’s and Malaysia’s Cultural Background

By the end of 2018, the population of China stood at approximately 1.4 billion. The Chinese population consists of multiple ethnicities (56 in total). As the main group, the Han ethnic group accounted for more than 91% of the total population (The National Bureau of Statistics [NBS], 2019). The other 55 ethnic groups made up the remaining population (NBS, 2019). The official language of China is Mandarin, which is spoken by most Chinese people (Odinye, 2015).

For Malaysia, its population reached 32.58 million by the second quarter of 2019 (DOSM, 2019). The major ethnic groups are the Malaysian-Malays (also known as Bumiputera, the indigenous people of Malaysia), the Malaysian-Chinese, and the Malaysian-Indians. The Malaysian-Malays accounted for 69.3% of the total population, whereas the Malaysian-Chinese and the Malaysian-Indians accounted for 22.8% and 6.9%, respectively (DOSM, 2019). People from different ethnic groups prefer their mother tongues or English. For example, the Malaysian-Malays speak Bahasa Melayu (the Malaysian language), whereas the Malaysian-Chinese prefer Mandarin, Cantonese, and Hakka, and the Indians speak Tamil (Tamam, 2011; Wan Jafar, 2014).

Theoretical Background

Cultural Dimension Framework

Various theories have been proposed by previous researchers to operationalize culture. Hofstede was the first researcher to quantify national culture with six cultural dimensions, namely, individualism versus collectivism, power distance, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2010). Inspired by the work of Hofstede, the GLOBE project tries to capture the values of a society with nine cultural dimensions (House et al., 2004). An alternative cross-cultural theory, Schwartz’s cultural value orientation, identified seven values at the country level (Schwartz, 2013).

In this study, we adopted Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory instead of others. The more recent cultural frameworks have been found to be highly correlated with Hofstede’s measure (Laskovaia et al., 2017; Magnusson et al., 2008). Although Hofstede’s framework has been criticized (Taras et al., 2012), it is validated by many studies in different fields (Kirkman et al., 2006; Magnusson et al., 2014; F. Zhao, 2011). The six dimensions are introduced in the following content.

Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 9). It reflects the degree of inequality in society. In countries with a high level of power distance, followers endorse the unequal distribution of power as much as the leaders do. Followers expect to be guided about what to do. In countries with a low level of power distance, leaders and followers consider each other as equals. Leaders are supposed to consult the followers when making decisions (Hofstede, 2001).

Individualism versus collectivism stands for “the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 11). In countries with a high level of individualism, people prefer to act as individuals. An individual is supposed to take care of himself or herself and his or her own family. In countries with a low level of individualism (namely, a high level of collectivism), people are connected with close in-groups (such as relatives and friends). In-group members are expected to look after each other and be loyal to the group (Hofstede, 2001).

Masculinity versus femininity is defined as “the degree to which masculine values prevail over feminine values” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 12). In countries with high masculinity, the dominant values are masculine (such as assertiveness, competitiveness, success, and ambition). People place emphasis on achievements and performance. In societies with low masculinity (namely, high femininity), the dominant values are feminine (such as caring for others, warm personal relationships, quality of life, and modesty). People prefer a friendly atmosphere and cooperation (Hofstede, 2001).

Uncertainty avoidance has been defined as “to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 10). In countries with a high level of uncertainty avoidance, individuals feel threatened by ambiguity and try to avoid it; conversely, in countries with a low level of uncertainty avoidance, individuals are comfortable with ambiguous situations and accept uncertainty (Hofstede, 2011).

Long-term versus short-term orientation refers to the extent to which people focus on the future (Hofstede, 2011). In long-term oriented countries, future-focused values are encouraged (e.g., thrift and persistence). People foster virtues to plan for the future. In short-term oriented countries, past- and present-focused values are highlighted (e.g., respect for tradition and personal steadiness and stability). People have a suspicious attitude toward societal changes, focusing more on achieving quick results (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Indulgence versus restraint is defined as the degree of “gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 15). In societies with high indulgence, the control of basic desires gratification is relatively weak. People place more emphasis on leisure time and have a tendency toward optimism. In societies with low indulgence (namely, high restraint), the control for the gratification of needs is relatively strong. People feel constrained by strict social norms and perceive that leisure is not important (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Existing cross-cultural studies concerning social network platforms have predominantly investigated cultural differences from the perspective of individualism versus collectivism (e.g., Kim & Papacharissi, 2003; Rui & Stefanone, 2013; C. Zhao & Jiang, 2011). However, individualism versus collectivism is only one of the six dimensions in the cultural dimension framework (Hofstede et al., 2010). As such, there is a need to take into account the remaining cultural dimensions when investigating people’s behavior on social network platforms in the cross-cultural context.

Using the Cultural Dimension Framework at Different Levels

Although the cultural dimension framework was originally developed based on work-related data and initially applied to human resource management, it is now widely referenced in psychology, sociology, business, marketing, and management studies, particularly when examining the cultural differences in people’s emotions, attitudes, behavior, and job performance (Taras et al., 2010). This framework has been used at different levels (i.e., country level, group/organization level, and individual level). For example, at the country level, a prior study found that power distance and individualism were closely related to the level of e-government development (F. Zhao, 2011). In addition, it was found that national culture was significantly associated with the rate of information technology (IT) adoption (Erumban & de Jong, 2006). The IT adoption rate was higher in countries with a lower level of uncertainty avoidance and/or power distance (Erumban & de Jong, 2006).

Some other studies have also used the cultural dimension framework at the group/organization level (Choi et al., 2016; Magnusson et al., 2014). For instance, it has been suggested that members of Korean groups send messages more frequently to each other than members of American groups, and the content of the messages are more friendly (Choi et al., 2016). Magnusson et al. (2014) postulated that individualistic and masculine cultural values have significant impact on the collaboration between the sales division and other departments of organizations.

In addition to the country level and the group/organization level, a majority of researchers have adapted the cultural dimension framework for individual-level studies. For example, Baptista and Oliveira (2015) used the cultural dimension framework in a single country to explore the role of cultural values in people’s adoption of mobile banking services. They found that the relationship between individuals’ behavioral intention and the actual use of mobile banking service was moderated by cultural values (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015). In the cross-cultural context, Chiu and Kosinski (1999) found that nurses from individualistic cultures (i.e., Australia and America) showed more prominent job satisfaction and less work strain than those from collectivistic cultures (i.e., Singapore and Hong Kong).

To provide more precise explanations for people’s behavior at the individual level, Srite and Karahanna (2006) proposed the “espoused national cultural values” on the basis of four cultural dimensions. In their study, individualism versus collectivism is defined as the extent to which people “prefer to act as an individual rather than as a member of a group” (Srite & Karahanna, 2006, p. 682). Power distance is defined as the degree to which the people consider the large differentials of power as normal and accept that people in higher positions have more power. Uncertainty avoidance stands for the degree to which the individual tolerates risk. Masculinity versus femininity is defined as the degree to which the individual espouses gender inequalities (Srite & Karahanna, 2006).

Research Hypotheses

Vanity

According to Srite and Karahanna’s (2006) study, people who are masculinity oriented place more emphasis on masculine values (e.g., achievements). Their behavior is motivated to fulfill their work goals (Hofstede et al., 2010; Srite & Karahanna, 2006), such as performance, assertiveness, advancement, competitiveness, and earnings. In contrast, people who are femininity oriented place more emphasis on feminine values (e.g., physical attractiveness; Hofstede et al., 2010). Their behavior is usually motivated to fulfill their personal goals (Srite & Karahanna, 2006), such as life satisfaction, warm personal relationships, and a friendly work environment.

Reconstructing identity on social network platforms fulfills people’s need for achievement and physical attractiveness (Hu et al., 2015). It is suggested that physical appearance is related to feminine attributes, whereas the accomplishments and achievements are typical characteristics of masculinity (Fiore et al., 2008; Mankowski & Maton, 2010). According to the work of Hofstede et al. (2010), on average, Chinese people espouse more masculine values than Malaysian people, whereas Malaysian people espouse more feminine values than Chinese people. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): When compared with Malaysian users, Chinese users are less inclined to be motivated by physical vanity during online identity reconstruction.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): When compared with Malaysian users, Chinese users are more inclined to be motivated by achievement vanity during online identity reconstruction.

Bridging Social Capital

On the basis of the cultural dimension framework, Srite and Karahanna (2006) postulated that people who are individualism oriented place more emphasis on personal task prevails, and they “prefer to act as an individual rather than as a member of a group” (Srite & Karahanna, 2006, p. 682). In contrast, people who are collectivism oriented pay more attention to maintaining harmony within groups and building relationships with others (Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Collectivistic people tend to be more interdependent and place more emphasis on interpersonal relationships (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Bridging social capital lies in the loose relationships between individuals with different backgrounds (Putnam, 2000). It is easy to establish this kind of relationship with strangers on social network platforms (Ellison et al., 2007). Previous research suggested that there is a positive association between collectivism and the bridging social capital online (Lin et al., 2012). According to the research of Hofstede et al. (2010), China has a higher level of collectivism than Malaysia. In addition, a prior study suggested that Guanxi, which refers to the personal connections with family, acquaintances, and strangers, is very important for Chinese people (X. P. Chen & Chen, 2004). Hence, it is likely that Chinese people tend to focus more on bridging social capital than Malaysian people.

In addition, bridging social capital can be beneficial for people’s personal growth and long-term success. It has been suggested that bridging social capital is positively associated with innovations (Hauser et al., 2007). It also helps people adapt to the new environment (Lin et al., 2012) and benefits their professional development (Fox & Wilson, 2015). Bridging social capital can provide people with new resources that are different from what they can obtain with existing close relationships, such as new information about job opportunities and novel perspectives (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 2000). Access to nonredundant information and resources has positive influences on career success (Seibert et al., 2001), which is crucial for people’s future development.

On the social network platforms, for people who reconstruct their online identity because of bridging social capital, they are motivated to make friends with other online users (Hu et al., 2015). Being more collectivistic and more long-term orientated (Hofstede et al., 2010), Chinese people are likely to place more emphasis on bridging social capital than Malaysian people. A reconstructed online identity can facilitate the process of gaining bridging social capital (Hu et al., 2015). As such, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): When compared with Malaysian users, Chinese users are more inclined to be motivated by bridging social capital during online identity reconstruction.

Disinhibition

According to Hofstede et al. (2010), Chinese society is more restrained than the Malaysian society in some aspects. For example, Chinese people may feel that their behavior is restrained by strict rules and social norms (Hofstede et al., 2010). The relaxing environment online (e.g., social network platforms) makes individuals feel less pressured, enabling them to behave and express themselves freely. People who feel restrained can take advantage of the benign disinhibition effect and express their suppressed feelings (Suler, 2004). In addition, Chinese people do not accept the inequality in power distribution as much as Malaysian people do (Hofstede et al., 2010). It is likely that Chinese people have more complains about the hierarchical society than the Malaysian people. On the internet, people perceive a lower level of surveillance and feel that their online behaviors are disconnected from their real life (Selwyn, 2008); thus, individuals can capitalize on the toxic disinhibition and give vent to their negative emotions (Suler, 2004).

With a reconstructed identity, people tend to feel less inhibited and free to behave in the way they want (Hu et al., 2015). Being more restrained by social norms and less tolerant of the inequality in power distribution, the online disinhibition effect (both benign and toxic effects) may be more appealing to Chinese people than to Malaysian people. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): When compared with Malaysian users, Chinese users are more inclined to be motivated by benign disinhibition during online identity reconstruction.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): When compared with Malaysian users, Chinese users are more inclined to be motivated by toxic disinhibition during online identity reconstruction.

Privacy Concerns

It has been suggested that people who are more uncertainty-avoiding tend to be more anxious, less willing to take risks, and more concerned over the outcomes of their behaviors (Hofstede et al., 2010; Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Sharing private information on social network platforms can lead to uncertain outcomes. The personal information may be accessed by unauthorized third parties or be misused by malicious individuals (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). Given that people who are uncertainty-avoiding are less tolerant of ambiguous situations, Milberg et al. (1995) posited that they are likely to have greater concerns over privacy. Cao and Everard (2008) also suggested that uncertainty avoidance is positively associated with people’s privacy concerns and awareness.

By reconstructing online identity, people can keep their private information safe (Hu et al., 2015), and hence reduce the uncertainty of online interactions. According to Hofstede et al. (2010), Malaysian people have a higher level of uncertainty avoidance than the Chinese. Being less tolerant of uncertain situations, it is likely that Malaysian people may feel more threatened by privacy issues than Chinese people. Thus, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): When compared with Chinese users, Malaysian users are more inclined to be motivated by privacy concerns during online identity reconstruction.

Research Methods

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from China and Malaysia using an online survey. The online survey was adopted as the method for data collection in this study, because online surveys have many advantages over traditional paper surveys (such as global reach, cost-efficiency, and greater control on design and coding; Lefever et al., 2007; Touvier et al., 2010; Wright, 2005). Scholl et al. (2002) proposed that the lack of representativeness of online survey samples is likely to disappear because an increasing number of people have access to the internet. To make the sample as representative as possible, the online survey was posted as a public message on social network platforms so that it could reach as many users as possible. Given that Chinese people and Malaysian people use different social network platforms, the survey questionnaire only measured people’s perceptions of motivations for online identity reconstruction in general. Participants were asked to answer the survey questions on the basis of their overall experience of social network platform use, not limited to a specific one. The survey was anonymous. Only some very basic personal information was required, such as gender and age range. We asked participants to select their age range instead of providing actual age to protect their privacy and facilitate the completion of the survey.

Regarding the required sample size, previous research suggested that a sample with 384 respondents is sufficient for a target population with 1 million people at the confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5% (Sarantakos, 2012). As the population size increases, the required sample size increases at a diminishing rate and remains relatively constant at slightly more than 380 cases (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970; Sarantakos, 2012). Therefore, the sample size of this study in both China and Malaysia should be larger than 384 to produce accurate results.

A total of 815 respondents (418 Chinese and 397 Malaysians) were involved in this study. The Chinese sample consisted of 217 (51.9%) male respondents and 201 (48.1%) female respondents, whereas the Malaysian sample consisted of 187 (47.1%) males and 210 (52.9%) females. While Chinese respondents were ethnically homogeneous, Malaysian respondents were from different ethnic groups. Table 1 presents the summarized demographic information of participants.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants.

Variable	China		Malaysia
Variable	(n = 418)		(n = 397)
Gender
Male	217	51.9%	187	47.1%
Female	201	48.1%	210	52.9%
Age
<20	13	3.1%	99	24.9%
20–24	65	15.6%	226	56.9%
25–29	149	35.6%	49	12.3%
30–34	130	31.1%	15	3.8%
35–39	43	10.3%	5	1.3%
40–44	13	3.1%	2	0.5%
≥45	5	1.2%	1	0.3%
Educational background
High school or lower	10	2.4%	33	8.3%
Technical training	50	12%	9	2.3%
Bachelor’s degree	315	75.4%	290	73%
Master’s degree	42	10%	55	13.9%
Doctorate degree	1	0.2%	10	2.5%
Online status
Visible	269	64.3%	210	52.9%
Busy	13	3.1%	63	4.3%
Away	9	2.2%	17	15.9%
Invisible	127	30.4%	107	27%
Ethnic group
Chinese-Chinese	418	100%	/	/
Malaysian-Malay	/	/	257	64.7%
Malaysian-Chinese	/	/	105	26.4%
Malaysian-Indian	/	/	25	6.3%
Malaysian-Others	/	/	10	2.5%

Note. / = not applicable.

Measures

The vanity scale contained eight items—four items for physical vanity and the other four items for achievement vanity (Netemeyer et al., 1995). The items for bridging social capital were adapted from Williams (2006). The disinhibition scale contained four items—two items for benign disinhibition and two items for toxic disinhibition (Denollet, 2005; Stunkard & Messick, 1985). Privacy concerns were assessed by three items adapted from Son and Kim (2008). The detailed survey items are presented in the appendix.

Participants’ responses to the survey items were measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The questionnaire was created in English. To collect data from China, the questionnaire was translated into Chinese by one researcher and back-translated by another two bilingual individuals to ensure the consistency between the two versions of the questionnaire. In the pilot study, which involved both Chinese and Malaysian participants, the survey items showed good reliability and validity. Thus, we kept all the items in our formal questionnaire. During the data collection phase, the Chinese questionnaire was used in China, and the English version was used in Malaysia where English is widely used as a second language (Tamam, 2011; Wan Jafar, 2014).

The reliability of the survey items was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (CA), while the construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. As shown in Table 2, the CA values of the survey items were greater than .7 in both the Chinese and the Malaysian samples, indicating that the reliability of the survey items was satisfactory (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). In addition, the factor loadings of the survey items were greater than the accepted threshold 0.70 (Hair et al., 2009), and the average variance extracted (AVE) values of the constructs exceeded the suggested threshold 0.50, thus indicating that the convergent validity of the constructs was sufficient (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, CA, and AVE.

Construct	Item	Factor loadings		CA		AVE
Construct	Item	CN	MY	CN	MY	CN	MY
Physical vanity	PVan1	0.823	0.863
	PVan2	0.832	0.859	0.92	0.90	0.74	0.70
	PVan3	0.888	0.835
	PVan4	0.890	0.798
Achievement vanity	AVan1	0.868	0.816
	AVan2	0.899	0.913	0.92	0.90	0.75	0.69
	AVan3	0.835	0.819
	AVan4	0.853	0.774
Bridging social capital	BSC1	0.846	0.775
	BSC2	0.848	0.878	0.85	0.84	0.65	0.64
	BSC3	0.711	0.741
Benign disinhibition	BDis1	0.863	0.789	0.83	0.86	0.71	0.77
Benign disinhibition	BDis2	0.822	0.954
Toxic disinhibition	TDis1	0.782	0.913	0.73	0.85	0.58	0.74
Toxic disinhibition	TDis2	0.744	0.808
Privacy concerns	PC1	0.880	0.772
	PC2	0.929	0.895	0.93	0.88	0.82	0.71
	PC3	0.905	0.863

Note. CA = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted; CN = the Chinese sample; MY = the Malaysian sample; PVan = physical vanity; AVan = achievement vanity; BSC = bridging social capital; BDis = benign disinhibition; TDis = toxic disinhibition; PC = privacy concerns.

Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing the square root of AVE value with the construct correlation. The square root of the AVE value of a certain construct should be greater than the correlations between this construct and the others (Hair et al., 2009). Tables 3 and 4 present the construct correlations and the square roots of AVE values for the Chinese and Malaysian samples. As shown in the tables, for both the Chinese sample and the Malaysian sample, the square roots of AVE values were greater than all the correlations between different constructs, thus indicating adequate discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Correlations and the Square Root of AVE—The Chinese Sample.

Constructs	PVan	AVan	BSC	BDis	TDis	PC
Physical vanity	.86
Achievement vanity	.47	.86
Bridging social capital	.55	.52	.80
Benign disinhibition	.58	.60	.66	.84
Toxic disinhibition	.56	.52	.40	.52	.76
Privacy concerns	−.18	−.02	.02	−.11	−.10	.90

Note. The bold values are the square roots of AVE values while the off-diagonal values are the construct correlations. AVE = average variance extracted; PVan = physical vanity; AVan = achievement vanity; BSC = bridging social capital; BDis = benign disinhibition; TDis = toxic disinhibition; PC = privacy concerns.

Table 4.

Correlations and the Square Root of AVE—The Malaysian Sample.

Constructs	PVan	AVan	BSC	BDis	TDis	PC
Physical vanity	.84
Achievement vanity	.50	.83
Bridging social capital	.29	.16	.80
Benign disinhibition	.15	.21	.18	.88
Toxic disinhibition	.13	.17	.18	.60	.86
Privacy concerns	.14	.06	.08	.06	.00	.84

Common Method Bias

Researchers who use same-source data (such as self-reported data) may face the problem of common method variance, which may cause bias in data analysis (Richardson et al., 2009). We used Harman’s single-factor test and the common latent factor method to detect potential common method variance in this study (Harman, 1960; Podsakoff et al., 2012).

The results of Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the single factor did not explain the majority of the variance for both the Chinese and Malaysian samples (39% for the Chinese sample and 28% for the Malaysian sample). For the common latent factor method, the variance explained by the common method should be less than 50% (Lowry et al., 2012). The results suggested that for the Chinese sample, 17.6% of the variance was due to the common method bias. For the Malaysian sample, the common method explained 24% of the variance. On the basis of the results of Harman’s single-factor test and the common latent factor analysis, it can be concluded that common method bias is not a big concern in this study.

Results

Hypotheses Testing

To capture an overall picture of the cultural differences, we first analyzed the data collected from China and Malaysia as a whole. After this, we divided the Malaysian sample into three groups: the Malaysian-Malays, the Malaysian-Chinese, and Others (i.e., the Malaysian-Indians and the Malaysian-Others). We then analyzed the data collected from Chinese participants, the Malaysian-Chinese, and the Malaysian-Malays to examine whether people from different ethnic groups are motivated differently. Because the main focus of this study is Chinese and Malaysian culture, the Malaysian-Indians and the Malaysian-Others were excluded in the analysis of ethnic groups.

It has been suggested that parametric tests (such as t test and analysis of variance [ANOVA]) could be used with Likert-type scale data (Elliott & Woodward, 2007; Norman, 2010; Pallant, 2007). Parametric tests are robust to violations of test assumptions (Norman, 2010). Previous researchers found that parametric tests are more powerful, except when the distributions of the data are the most nonnormal ones (such as mixed-normal distribution; Rasmussen, 1989). Parametric tests have similar Type I error rate with nonparametric tests (Gregoire & Driver, 1987), but have lower Type II error rate (Rasmussen, 1989). Therefore, we used parametric tests in this study. T test and ANOVA were conducted to analyze the data. Table 5 summarizes the results of t test.

Table 5.

T-Test Results.

Variables	CN (n = 418)	MY (n = 397)	MY-CN (n = 105)	MY-MY (n = 257)	CN vs. MY	CN vs. MY-CN	MY-CN vs. MY-MY
Variables	Mean 1	Mean 2	Mean 3	Mean 4	t	t1	t2
Vanity
Physical vanity
PVan1	4.68	4.96	4.62	5.06	-3.13**	0.41	-2.86**
PVan2	4.31	4.95	4.51	5.13	-6.29***	-1.45	-4.22***
PVan3	4.49	4.86	4.64	4.97	-3.82***	-1.00	-2.11*
PVan4	4.61	4.90	4.68	5.00	-2.94**	-0.49	-2.17*
Achievement vanity
AVan1	4.70	4.87	4.87	4.97	-1.66	-1.04	-0.60
AVan2	4.47	4.60	4.69	4.69	-1.28	-1.34	0.01
AVan3	4.70	4.68	4.78	4.69	0.276	-0.49	0.53
AVan4	4.33	4.05	4.23	4.04	2.57*	0.63	1.09
Bridging social capital
BSC1	5.32	5.09	4.79	5.24	2.72**	3.68***	-3.03**
BSC2	5.45	5.01	4.55	5.21	4.70***	5.98***	-4.05***
BSC3	5.41	5.17	4.76	5.33	2.76**	4.56***	-3.62***
Disinhibition
Benign disinhibition
BDis1	4.34	4.08	4.04	4.08	2.71**	1.94	-0.22
BDis2	4.36	3.85	3.69	3.93	5.37***	5.05***	-1.55
Toxic disinhibition
TDis1	4.86	3.54	3.31	3.65	11.90***	9.37***	-1.77
TDis2	4.59	3.24	3.10	3.29	11.47***	8.36***	-0.98
Privacy concerns
PC1	4.44	5.63	5.49	5.70	-11.80***	-7.40***	-1.56
PC2	4.64	5.70	5.47	5.79	-10.09***	-5.59***	-2.20*
PC3	4.68	5.74	5.56	5.80	-10.61***	-5.93***	-1.73

Note: The bold values denote that the differences between the groups are significant. CN = the Chinese; MY = the Malaysians; MY-CN = the Malaysian-Chinese; MY-MY = the Malaysian-Malays; PVan = physical vanity; AVan = achievement vanity; BSC = bridging social capital; BDis = benign disinhibition; TDis = toxic disinhibition; PC = privacy concerns.

p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

As shown in the table, Malaysian participants scored significantly higher on all the physical vanity items than Chinese participants. This suggests that, in comparison with Chinese participants, Malaysian participants were more likely to reconstruct their identity to increase their physical attractiveness on social network platforms. Therefore, H1 was supported. However, there was no significant difference in achievement vanity, except that Chinese participants showed greater concern in comparing their own success with others’. Thus, H2 was not supported. In addition, Chinese participants scored significantly higher on all the bridging social capital items than Malaysian participants, indicating that Chinese participants were more inclined to be motivated by bridging social capital during identity reconstruction on social network platforms, aiming to meet new friends and build various new social connections. Therefore, H3 was supported. Moreover, Chinese participants scored significantly higher on all the disinhibition items than Malaysian participants, suggesting that Chinese participants were more inclined to be motivated by the online disinhibition effect (both benign and toxic disinhibition) when reconstructing their identity online. Therefore, H4 and H5 were supported. Meanwhile, when compared with Chinese participants, Malaysian participants scored significantly higher on privacy concern items, indicating that Malaysian participants were more inclined to reconstruct their identity for the purpose of protecting their privacy on social network platforms. Therefore, H6 was supported.

In addition to examining the differences between Chinese and Malaysian participants, the repeated measure one-way ANOVA was performed to examine whether participants from the same country weight these motivations differently and which motivation is more important for them. The results revealed significant differences in the weight of the motivations in the Chinese sample, F(3.278, 1366.877) = 44.259, p < .001, η² = 0.096. Specifically, Chinese participants had significantly higher mean scores on bridging social capital than on other motivations (as shown in Figure 1), thus indicating that bridging social capital was more important than other motivations for the Chinese participants when they reconstruct their online identity.

Figure 1.

Within-group differences in motivations—the Chinese sample.

In the Malaysian sample, significant differences were also found in the weight of the motivations for online identity reconstruction, F(4.221, 1671.506) = 191.409, p < .001, η² = 0.326. Specifically, all the differences between different motivations were significant. As shown in Figure 2, privacy concern was the most important motivation for the Malaysian participants.

Figure 2.

Within-group differences in motivations—the Malaysian sample.

Ethnic Groups

We also made comparisons between different ethnic groups (the Chinese-Chinese, the Malaysian-Chinese, and the Malaysian-Malays). The results (as shown Table 5) indicated that, in comparison with Malaysian-Chinese participants, Chinese-Chinese participants scored significantly higher on all the items of bridging social capital, toxic disinhibition, one of the two benign disinhibition items, and scored significantly lower on all the items of privacy concerns. However, there were no significant differences in physical vanity and achievement vanity between the Malaysian-Chinese and the Chinese-Chinese. In addition, the Malaysian-Malays scored significantly higher on the items of physical vanity and bridging social capital than the Malaysian-Chinese. The Malaysian-Chinese had similar mean scores with the Malaysian-Malays on the remaining motivations (i.e., achievement vanity, begin and toxic disinhibition, and privacy concerns).

Discussion

This study examined cultural differences in the motivations for online identity reconstruction. Significant differences have been identified between Chinese and Malaysian participants. The results revealed that, when compared with Chinese participants, Malaysian participants were more inclined to be motivated by physical vanity during online identity reconstruction. Previous research suggested that Malaysian people are less satisfied with their body image than Chinese people (Swami et al., 2013). This dissatisfaction may drive Malaysian participants to pay more attention to beautifying their physical appearance during online identity reconstruction.

However, there was no significant difference in achievement vanity. A possible explanation for the similarity on achievement vanity may be that achievement vanity is becoming increasingly prominent in both China and Malaysia. Previous research postulated that Chinese people are strongly motivated by achievement vanity (such as reputation and success) when they buy luxury goods (N. Zhou & Belk, 2004). Similarly, Malaysian people also prefer products that display social status (Chui & Samsinar, 2011). In addition, both Chinese and Malaysian people are eager to show off their achievements on social network platforms. Chinese participants were found to employ competence strategy in online self-presentation to show their abilities, accomplishments, and performance (Chu & Choi, 2010), whereas Malaysian users tend to promote their achievements on social network platforms to build a positive self-image (Abdullah et al., 2014).

As hypothesized, Chinese participants were more inclined to be motivated by bridging social capital than Malaysian participants during identity reconstruction on social network platforms. As proposed by Chang and Zhu (2011), China is a relation-based society and Chinese people believe that it is important to establish various relationships (Chang & Zhu, 2011). This finding is consistent with Mo and Leung’s (2015) study which suggested that Chinese users are driven by the need for meeting new friends on social network platforms. This result adds knowledge to existing research by identifying the differences in the motivation of bridging social capital between Chinese and Malaysian social network users (Almadhoun et al., 2012; Helou, 2014; Mo & Leung, 2015).

In addition, Chinese participants are more inclined to be motivated by disinhibition (both benign and toxic disinhibition) than Malaysian participants during online identity reconstruction. Previous studies suggested that people feel less inhibited online and express themselves freely (Bargh et al., 2002; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2015). The finding regarding benign disinhibition is consistent with existing research which indicated that Chinese users tend to disclose their feelings, opinions, and experiences to a greater extent on social network platforms when the level of perceived anonymity is high (X. Chen et al., 2016). The finding regarding toxic disinhibition is in line with the findings of a survey administered in 25 countries, which indicated that the cyberbullying rate among youth was much higher in China than in Malaysia (Microsoft, 2012), and toxic online disinhibition was positively associated with overall cyberbullying behavior (Udris, 2014).

Moreover, there was a significant difference in privacy concerns. Malaysian participants were more inclined to be motivated by privacy concerns than Chinese participants during identity reconstruction on social network platforms. Previous research found that people with a high level of uncertainty avoidance showed a more prominent preference for stability, predictability, greater risk avoidance, and discomfort with unknown futures (Hofstede, 1980). The finding of this study is consistent with previous studies which postulated that individuals from higher uncertainty-avoiding cultures (e.g., Malaysian people) are more sensitive to potential losses (Bontempo et al., 1997) and perceive a higher level of risks (Al Kailani & Kumar, 2011). The results also support Mohamed and Ahmad’s (2012) finding that Malaysian people who feel vulnerable about information loss tend to have greater concerns over privacy.

In addition to comparing participants from different countries (i.e., China and Malaysia), this study also investigated whether participants from the same country weight the motivations for online identity reconstruction differently. It was found that, for the Chinese participants, they placed more emphasis on bridging social capital than on other motivations, This is in line with a prior study which found that Chinese people paid much attention to personal connections (X. P. Chen & Chen, 2004). For the Malaysian participants, among all the aforementioned motivations, they focused more on privacy concerns. It is consistent with previous research which suggested that Malaysian people are concerned about privacy issues when using online services (Lallmahamood, 2007; Mohamed & Ahmad, 2012; Rezaei & Amin, 2013).

Ethnic Groups

The cultural differences were further investigated by examining the differences between ethnic groups (i.e., the Chinese-Chinese, the Malaysian-Chinese, and the Malaysian-Malays). It was found that participants from different ethnic groups were also motivated differently. Specifically, when compared with the Malaysian-Chinese, the Chinese-Chinese were more inclined to reconstruct their identity for bridging social capital and disinhibition (both benign and toxic disinhibition), but less likely to be driven by privacy concerns. Moreover, the Malaysian-Malays were more inclined to reconstruct their online identity due to physical vanity and bridging social capital than the Malaysian-Chinese.

An interesting finding was that the Malaysian-Chinese participants were less motivated by bridging social capital than the Chinese-Chinese and the Malaysian-Malays. The language might be a barrier that makes the Malaysian-Chinese participants less passionate in seeking bridging social capital. In Malaysia, people from different ethnic groups prefer their mother tongues. The Malaysian-Malays speak Bahasa Melayu (the Malaysian language), whereas the Malaysian-Chinese prefer Mandarin and Cantonese (Wan Jafar, 2014). Although English is widely accepted as a second language, individuals face difficulties in communicating with people from other ethnic groups, because not everyone speaks English fluently (Tan, 2005). The Malaysian-Chinese may be more likely to encounter linguistic difficulties than the Malaysian-Malays and the Chinese-Chinese because the dominant group in Malaysia is the Malaysian-Malays and the official language is Bahasa Melayu (Wan Jafar, 2014), whereas in China, most people speak Mandarin (Odinye, 2015). The linguistic advantages are likely to facilitate the process of gaining bridging social capital for the Chinese-Chinese and the Malaysian-Malays, making them more motivated by bridging social capital in online identity reconstruction, although this needs to be verified in future research.

The motivational differences between the Chinese-Chinese participants and the Malaysian-Chinese participants were nearly consistent with those between the Chinese and the Malaysian (as a whole) samples. However, the differences in motivations for identity reconstruction between the Malaysian-Malay participants and the Malaysian-Chinese participants were not consistent with and not as salient as those between the Chinese and the Malaysian (as a whole) samples. The similarities between the Malaysian-Chinese participants and the whole Malaysian sample could be explained by the efforts that the Malaysian government has made to improve the harmony and unity of all ethnic groups, such as balancing economic disparity and political rights (Tamam, 2009). In the multi-ethnic environment of schools, students are able to understand and communicate with peers from other ethnic groups (Tamam, 2009). In a study concerning national identity, nearly 40% of the Malaysian-Chinese participants weighted their national identity (a Malaysian) over racial identity (a Malaysian-Chinese; Tamam, 2011). Although the Malaysian government endeavors to promote the unity of different ethnic groups, some fundamental differences between the Malaysian-Chinese and the Malaysian-Malays are difficult to integrate, such as language and religion (Noor & Leong, 2013). Although most Malaysian-Malays practice Islam, the Malaysian-Chinese follow different religions (such as Buddhism, Taoism, or other traditional Chinese folk religions; Keshavarz & Baharudin, 2009). Religious beliefs may have some influences on personal values and behavior (Bernardo et al., 2016; Mohd Suki & Mohd Suki, 2015).

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study has several contributions to the body of knowledge. This study provides a deeper insight into the motivations for online identity reconstruction by taking into account national culture. The findings suggested that participants from different countries are motivated differently during online identity reconstruction. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that vanity and disinhibition have been investigated in a cross-cultural context. This study also adds knowledge to the cross-cultural research concerning social network platforms. Most existing cross-cultural research concerning social network platforms compared cultural differences from the perspective of individualism versus collectivism (e.g., Kim & Papacharissi, 2003; Rui & Stefanone, 2013; C. Zhao & Jiang, 2011). By taking into account multiple cultural dimensions, this study provides a better understanding of the cultural dimension framework. Furthermore, this study sheds light on the specific differences between Chinese and Malaysian users. This study not only compared the Chinese participants with the Malaysian participants but also compared participants from different ethnic groups (e.g., the Malaysian-Chinese and the Malaysian-Malays).

Practically speaking, the findings of this study can provide directions in identifying the particular needs of different users, thereby social network platform practitioners can improve their services accordingly. The findings of this study would be especially beneficial for the companies that provide social networking services in both China and Malaysia (such as WeChat). Based on the results of this study, practitioners could deploy specific strategies to better serve social network platform users from different countries. They are suggested to place emphasis on different aspects when providing services to Chinese and Malaysian users. For example, the results indicated that the Chinese users focus more on bridging social capital and disinhibition than the Malaysian users, whereas the Malaysian users pay more attention to physical vanity and privacy than the Chinese users during online identity reconstruction. Therefore, it might be a good choice for the practitioners to enhance the features that facilitate the formation of bridging social capital (e.g., new friend recommendation) and free self-disclosure in the Chinese market; at the same time, said practitioners could highlight the features related to the presentation of physical attractiveness (such as photo editing service) and privacy protection (such as privacy setting) in the Malaysian market.

For the social network platform companies which mainly serve the Chinese users (such as QQ and Sina Weibo), more attention should be paid to help users gain bridging social capital because it is the most important motivator of online identity reconstruction for the Chinese users. For the social network platform companies whose service is available in Malaysia (such as Facebook), it is important to make users feel that their privacy is being protected because the Malaysian users are more concerned about their privacy during online identity reconstruction.

Moreover, the findings of this study can be meaningful for practitioners in other domains. In addition to social network platforms, the providers of other services may also find this study valuable. For example, when a company wants to extend its services to the Malaysian market (such as mobile pay services), it should pay more attention to protecting users’ privacy. Because the findings in the current study revealed that Malaysian people are more worried about their privacy on social network platforms, it is likely that they will also be concerned about privacy when using other online services. In addition, the results revealed that Chinese people focus more on bridging social capital. Therefore, the integration of social networking features into other services (such as online shopping applications) may make the services more attractive to Chinese users. Moreover, marketers can deliver customized advertisements to different users based on their cultural background, thereby making the advertisements more effective.

Limitations and Future Research

While contributing to the literature about online identity reconstruction and cross-cultural research, the current study also has limitations. Although Hofstede’s cultural dimension framework provides a foundation for cross-cultural research, it is not free from criticism. For example, Ess and Sudweeks (2005) questioned the generalizability of Hofstede’s results because the data were collected from a single organization. There are also concerns over cultural changes. It is uncertain whether Hofstede’s data are still reliable for representing contemporary reality (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Although most of the findings in this study are in line with Hofstede’s framework, future research is recommended to combine the framework with other theories to elicit more comprehensive insights about online identity reconstruction.

In this study, the participants were recruited using online surveys. However, the number of online users is large, and there are many “lurkers” who only read posts and do not make their presence known to others. It is often difficult to obtain comprehensive knowledge about the target population and track the nonresponse rate (Andrews et al., 2003). Considering the disadvantages of convenience sampling method, the findings of this study may have limited generalizability. Future studies are suggested to use probability sampling methods to validate the results and generalize the findings to a broader population. Given that the authors cannot speak the Bahasa Melayu (the Malaysian language), we cannot ensure the quality of the questionnaire if it is translated into the Malaysian language. Therefore, English questionnaires were used in Malaysia. However, a questionnaire in the native language may help the participants understand the research better. The data in this study were collected at a specific point of time; thus, the limitations of cross-sectional studies should be considered when generalizing the findings. Future researchers could design a longitudinal study to examine whether people’s motivations change over time. At the same time, they can measure the outcomes of online identity reconstruction by comparing participants’ status before and after online identity reconstruction. Such a longitudinal study can reveal whether people obtain what they want (e.g., more bridging social capital) after reconstructing their online identity.

Footnotes

Appendix

Survey items
Vanity
PVan
PVan1	“The way I look is extremely important to me.”
PVan2	“I am very concerned about my appearance.”
PVan3	“Showing my best look is worth the effort.”
PVan4	“It is important that I always look good.”
AVan
AVan1	“I want to present myself as a successful person.”
AVan2	“I want others to look up to me because of my accomplishments.”
AVan3	“I want my achievements to be recognized by others.”
AVan4	“It is important for me to appear to be a more successful person than others.”
BSC
BSC1	“Participation in this social network platform gives me a lot of opportunities to create valuable social ties outside of the physical world around me.”
BSC2	“This social network platform gives me new people to talk to.”
BSC3	“In the social network platform, I always encounter people with background different from mine.”
Disinhibition
BDis
BDis1	“There is no need to worry about others’ evaluation when talking.”
BDis2	“It feels so good to talk without any restraint; I just can’t seem to stop.”
TDis
TDis1	“When I fell blue, angry, or anxious, I can freely release my negative emotions.”
TDis2	“I can talk about anything I want, including something sensitive.”
PC
PC1	“I am very concerned that the information I submit to the social network platform could be misused.”
PC2	“I am very concerned that a person can find private information about me on the Internet.”
PC3	“I am very concerned about providing personal information to the social network platform, because it could be used in a way I did not foresee.”

Note. PVan = physical vanity; AVan = achievement vanity; BSC = bridging social capital; BDis = benign disinhibition; TDis = toxic disinhibition; PC = privacy concerns.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Malaya under Grant RP020D - 14AFR.

ORCID iD

Sameer Kumar

References

Abdullah

M. C.

Ling

L. M.

Roslan

(2014). Narcissism as predictor of Facebook usage among students in a Malaysian public university. In Kasim

Omar

W. S. A. W.

Razak

N. H. A.

Musa

N. L. W.

Halim

R. A.

Mohamed

S. R.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (ICSTSS) 2012 (pp. 51–61). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-077-3_6

Al Kailani

Kumar

. (2011). Investigating uncertainty avoidance and perceived risk for impacting Internet buying: A study in three national cultures. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p76

Almadhoun

N. M.

Lai

F.-W.

Dominic

P. D. D.

(2012, October 15–16). An examination of social networking sites usage among the students in the Malaysian universities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management, Economics and Finance. Sarawak, Malaysia.

Andrews

Nonnecke

Preece

(2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet users. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1602_04

Balakrishnan

(2015). Cyberbullying among young adults in Malaysia: The roles of gender, age and Internet frequency. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.021

Baptista

Oliveira

(2015). Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024

Bargh

J. A.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

(2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247

Bernardo

A. B. I.

Clemente

J. A. R.

Nalipay

M. J. N.

(2016). What personal value types are associated with beliefs on the social value of religion? Psychological Studies, 61(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-016-0359-5

Bontempo

R. N.

Bottom

W. P.

Weber

E. U.

(1997). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk Analysis, 17(4), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00888.x

10.

Cao

Everard

(2008). User attitude towards instant messaging: The effect of espoused national cultural values on awareness and privacy. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 11(2), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2008.10856466

11.

Chang

Y. P.

Zhu

D. H.

(2011). Understanding social networking sites adoption in China: A comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1840–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.006

12.

Chang

Y. P.

Zhu

D. H.

(2012). The role of perceived social capital and flow experience in building users’ continuance intention to social networking sites in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 995–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.001

13.

Chen

(2016). How anonymity influence self-disclosure tendency on Sina Weibo: An empirical study. The Anthropologist, 26, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2016.11892151

14.

Chen

X. P.

Chen

C. C.

(2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APJM.0000036465.19102.d5

15.

Chiu

R. K.

Kosinski

F. A.

(1999). The role of affective dispositions in job satisfaction and work strain: Comparing collectivist and individualist societies. International Journal of Psychology, 34(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075999400078

16.

Choi

K. S.

Hofstede

G. J.

(2016). A cross-cultural comparative analysis of small group collaboration using mobile twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.043

17.

Chu

S.-C.

Choi

S. M.

(2010). Social capital and self-presentation on social networking sites: A comparative study of Chinese and American young generations. Chinese Journal of Communication, 3(4), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2010.516575

18.

Chui

C. T. B.

Samsinar

S. M.

(2011). Satisfying women’s status desires: Role of money attitude and consumer vanity in status consumption. In Yi

Xiao

J. J.

Cotte

Price

(Eds.), AP—Asia-Pacific advances in consumer research volume 9. http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/1009072/volumes/ap09/AP-09

19.

Cooley

S. C.

Smith

L. R.

(2013). Presenting me! An examination of self-presentation in US and Russian online social networks. Russian Journal of Communication, 5(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2013.805671

20.

Denollet

(2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000149256.81953.49

21.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2019). Current Population Estimates, Malaysia, 2018-2019. https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=aWJZRkJ4UEdKcUZpT2tVT090Snpydz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09

22.

Durvasula

Lysonski

(2008). A double-edged sword: Understanding vanity across cultures. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(4), 230–244.

23.

Elliott

Woodward

(2007). Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985949

24.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

25.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389

26.

Erumban

A. A.

de Jong

S. B.

(2006). Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: A consequence of culture? Journal of World Business, 41(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2006.08.005

27.

Ess

Sudweeks

(2005). Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward new understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00309.x

28.

Fiore

A. T.

Taylor

L. S.

Mendelsohn

G. A.

Hearst

(2008, June 4). Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles (pp. 797–806). https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357181

29.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

30.

Fox

A. R. C.

Wilson

E. G.

(2015). Networking and the development of professionals: Beginning teachers building social capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.004

31.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

32.

Gregoire

T. G.

Driver

B. L.

(1987). Analysis of ordinal data to detect population differences. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 159–165.

33.

Gross

Acquisti

(2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In di Vimercati

S. D. C.

Dingledine

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (pp. 71–80). Association for Computing Machinery.

34.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.

35.

Harman

H. H.

(1960). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

36.

Hauser

Tappeiner

Walde

(2007). The learning region: The impact of social capital and weak ties on innovation. Regional Studies, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600928368

37.

Helou

A. M.

(2014). The influence of social networking sites on students’ academic performance in Malaysia. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 5(2), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.1114

38.

Hitlin

(2011). Values, personal identity, and the moral self. In Schwartz

S. J.

Luyckx

Vignoles

V. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 515–529). Springer.

39.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

40.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

41.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

42.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Rev. and Expanded 3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

43.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (1st ed.). Sage.

44.

Zhao

Huang

(2015). Achieving self-congruency? Examining why individuals reconstruct their virtual identity in communities of interest established within social network platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.027

45.

Huang

Kumar

(2018). Gender differences in motivations for identity reconstruction on social network sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34, 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1383061

46.

Hung

Chen

A. H.

Peng

Hackley

Tiwsakul

R. A.

Chou

(2011). Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(6), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421111166603

47.

Inglehart

Baker

W. E.

(2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.

48.

Jackson

L. A.

Wang

J.-L.

(2013). Cultural differences in social networking site use: A comparative study of China and the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.024

49.

Kapidzic

(2013). Narcissism as a predictor of motivations behind Facebook profile picture selection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0143

50.

Keshavarz

Baharudin

(2009). Parenting style in a collectivist culture of Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 66–73.

51.

Kim

Papacharissi

(2003). Cross-cultural differences in online self-presentation: A content analysis of personal Korean and US home pages. Asian Journal of Communication, 13(1), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980309364833

52.

Kirkman

B. L.

Lowe

K. B.

Gibson

C. B.

(2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202

53.

Krämer

N. C.

Winter

(2008). Impression management 2.0 the relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106

54.

Krejcie

R. V.

Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

55.

Lallmahamood

(2007). An examination of individual’s perceived security and privacy of the Internet in Malaysia and the influence of this on their intention to use e-commerce: Using an extension of the technology acceptance model. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(3), 1–26.

56.

Lapidot-Lefler

Barak

(2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014

57.

Lapidot-Lefler

Barak

(2015). The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(2), Article 3. http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2015063001&article=1

58.

Laskovaia

Shirokova

Morris

M. H.

(2017). National culture, effectuation, and new venture performance: Global evidence from student entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 49(3), 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9852-z

59.

Lee

Ahn

Kim

Y. J.

(2014). Personality traits and self-presentation at Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.020

60.

Lee-Won

R. J.

Shim

Joo

Y. K.

Park

S. G.

(2014). Who puts the best “face” forward on Facebook? Positive self-presentation in online social networking and the role of self-consciousness, actual-to-total Friends ratio, and culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.007

61.

Lefever

Dal

Matthíasdóttir

. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: Advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00638.x

62.

Lin

J.-H.

Peng

Kim

S. Y.

LaRose

(2012). Social networking and adjustments among international students. New Media & Society, 14(3), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811418627

63.

Lowry

P. B.

Cao

Everard

(2011). Privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies: The case of instant messaging in two cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(4), 163–200. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270406

64.

Lowry

P. B.

Gaskin

Twyman

Hammer

Roberts

(2012). Taking “fun and games” seriously: Proposing the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(11), 617–671.

65.

Magnusson

Peterson

Westjohn

(2014). The influence of national cultural values on the use of rewards alignment to improve sales collaboration. International Marketing Review, 31, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2012-0151

66.

Magnusson

Wilson

R. T.

Zdravkovic

Xin

Z. J.

Westjohn

S. A.

(2008). Breaking through the cultural clutter. International Marketing Review, 25(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810866272

67.

Mamat

M. N.

Noor

N. M.

Noor

N. M.

(2016). Purchase intentions of foreign luxury brand handbags among consumers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00026-5

68.

Mankowski

E. S.

Maton

K. I.

(2010). A community psychology of men and masculinity: Historical and conceptual review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1–2), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9288-y

69.

Microsoft. (2012). WW online bullying survey. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30148

70.

Milberg

S. J.

Burke

S. J.

Smith

H. J.

Kallman

E. A.

(1995). Values, personal information privacy, and regulatory approaches. Communications of the ACM, 38(12), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/219663.219683

71.

Leung

(2015). Exploring the roles of narcissism, uses of, and gratifications from microblogs on affinity-seeking and social capital. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12087

72.

Mohamed

Ahmad

I. H.

(2012). Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2366–2375.

73.

Mohd Suki

. (2015). Does religion influence consumers’ green food consumption? Some insights from Malaysia. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2014-0877

74.

The National Bureau of Statistics. (2019). China statistical yearbook. http://www.stats.gov.cn/enGliSH/

75.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Burton

Lichtenstein

D. R.

(1995). Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and Relevance to Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), 612–626.

76.

Noor

N. M.

Leong

C.-H.

(2013). Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore: Contesting models. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(6), 714–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.009

77.

Norman

(2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

78.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric methods. McGraw-Hill Book.

79.

Odinye

S. I.

(2015). The spread of Mandarin Chinese as a global language. Journal of Linguistics, Language and Culture, 1(1), 1–13.

80.

Ong

E. Y. L.

Ang

R. P.

J. C. M.

Lim

J. C. Y.

Goh

D. H.

Lee

C. S.

Chua

A. Y. K.

(2011). Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.022

81.

Pallant

(2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows version 15 (3rd ed.). Open University Press.

82.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

83.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

84.

Rasmussen

J. L.

(1989). Analysis of likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 167–170.

85.

Rezaei

Amin

(2013). Exploring online repurchase behavioural intention of university students in Malaysia. Journal for Global Business Advancement, 6(2), 92–119.

86.

Richardson

H. A.

Simmering

M. J.

Sturman

M. C.

(2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834

87.

Rosenberg

Egbert

(2011). Online impression management: Personality traits and concerns for secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x

88.

Rui

Stefanone

M. A.

(2013). Strategic self-presentation online: A cross-cultural study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.022

89.

Sarantakos

(2012). Social research (4th ed.). https://x.glgoo.top/books/about/Social_Research.html?hl=zh-CN&id=IjUdBQAAQBAJ

90.

Schau

H. J.

Gilly

M. C.

(2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal Web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1086/378616

91.

Scholl

Mulders

Drent

(2002). On-line qualitative market research: Interviewing the world at a fingertip. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(3), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750210697596

92.

Schouten

A. P.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007). Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents’ online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 10(2), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701375686

93.

Schwartz

(2013). National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value differences and cultural distance. In Handbook of the economics of art and culture (Vol. 2. pp. 547–586). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53776-8.00020-9

94.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.

95.

Seidman

(2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009

96.

Selwyn

(2008). A safe haven for misbehaving? An investigation of online misbehavior among university students. Social Science Computer Review, 26(4), 446–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307313515

97.

Son

J.-Y.

Kim

S. S.

(2008). Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 503–529.

98.

Srite

Karahanna

(2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704.

99.

Stunkard

A. J.

Messick

(1985). The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(85)90010-8

100.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.

101.

Swami

Tovée

Harris

A. S.

(2013). An examination of ethnic differences in actual-ideal weight discrepancy and its correlates in a sample of Malaysian women. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health, 6(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17542863.2011.643315

102.

Tamam

(2009). Influence of interethnic contact on interethnic attitudes of Malay and Chinese Malaysian university students in Malaysia. Human Communication, 12(1), 53–66.

103.

Tamam

(2011). National pride, race, language use in interracial communications with peers: A case of Malaysian youths of 20-25 years old. Human Communication, 13(3), 127–136.

104.

Tan

P. K. W.

(2005). The medium-of-instruction debate in Malaysia: English as a Malaysian language? Language Problems and Language Planning, 29(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.29.1.04tan

105.

Tan

Qin

Kim

Hsu

(2012). Impact of privacy concern in social networking web sites. Internet Research, 22(2), 211–233.

106.

Taras

Kirkman

B. L.

Steel

(2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938

107.

Taras

Steel

Kirkman

B. L.

(2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.001

108.

Tosun

L. P.

Lajunen

(2010). Does internet use reflect your personality? Relationship between Eysenck’s personality dimensions and Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 162–167.

109.

Touvier

Méjean

Kesse-Guyot

Pollet

Malon

Castetbon

Hercberg

(2010). Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. European Journal of Epidemiology, 25(5), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9

110.

Udris

(2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.036

111.

Wan Jafar

W. M

. (2014). Exploring social capital in Malaysian on-line ethnic communities. The Macrotheme Review, 3(2), 170–187.

112.

We Are Social. (2018). Digital in 2018 Eastern Asia; digital in 2018 Southeast Asia. https://www.slideshare.net/wearesocialsg

113.

Williams

(2006). On and off the ’net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x

114.

Wright

K. B.

(2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x

115.

Zhao

Jiang

(2011). Cultural differences on visual self-presentation through social networking site profile images. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1129–1132). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979110

116.

Zhao

(2011). Impact of national culture on e-government development: A global study. Internet Research, 21(3), 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111139354

117.

Zhou

Belk

R. W.

(2004). Chinese consumer readings of global and local advertising appeals. Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639169

118.

Zhou

(2014). Understanding mobile SNS continuance usage in China from the perspectives of social influence and privacy concern. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.008