Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

How and why users navigate multiple social
media platforms

Edson C. Tandoc Jr., Chen Lou, and Velyn Lee Hui Min
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 31
Nanyang Link Singapore 637718

Guided by the frameworks of niche and polymedia theories, this study sought to understand the
phenomenon of platform-swinging on social media, which refers to the routine use of multiple
social media platforms that has become commonplace across different ages. Based on focus group
discussions (FGDs) with 62 social media users in Singapore, this study found that social media
users engage in platform-swinging for relationship management and self-presentation gratifica-
tions. While these gratifications are also served by individual social media platforms, platform-
swinging allows social media users to navigate structural, social, and norm barriers to obtain
greater gratification opportunities. This has implications on how social media users subsequently
regard and segment their personal relationships.

Keywords: Facebook, Gratifications, Instagram, Niche Theory, Polymedia, Social Media.

doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmy022

Social media has risen to immense popularity over the past decade, not only in terms of number of
users around the world, but also in terms of number of platforms users can choose from. The sheer
variety of social media platforms available leaves users spoiled with choices, with many being active
on multiple platforms. A study by the Pew Research Centre (Greenwood, Perrin, & Duggan, 2016)
found that about 56% of adult social media users in the United States used more than one of these
platforms: Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Facebook. Similar trends have been observed
in Singapore, a small nation with one of the highest social media penetration rates in the world, where
the rise of social media use on mobile phones have enabled easier use and tracking of multiple
accounts (Kemp, 2017).
With multiple social media venues to choose from, it is unsurprising that users frequently engage
in what we shall refer to as platform-swinging. In this study, we refer to platform-swinging as the act
of using more than one social media platform and routinely rotating among these platforms, as
opposed to switching from one platform and abandoning another. This, we argue, is consistent with

Corresponding author: Edson C. Tandoc Jr.; e-mail: [email protected]

Editorial Record: First manuscript received on April 07, 2018. Revisions received on August 02, 2018. Accepted by Lee
Humphreys on September 17, 2018. Final manuscript received on September 19, 2018

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of 1
International Communication Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]
Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

the framework of polymedia, which states that when potential constraints, such as media access, cost,
and media literacy are largely removed, people tend to treat media as an integrated environment of
affordances, rather than discrete platforms with individual affordances (Madianou & Miller, 2013).
Thus, consistent with polymedia theory, social media users, we argue, do not limit themselves to any

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

specific social media platform, instead they are able to efficiently navigate through multiple platforms
by exploiting the differences between these platforms to express themselves and to manage various
mediated relationships (Madianou, 2014). Platform-swinging can also be explained by niche theory,
which states that a new medium will have to compete with older media to survive by carving its own
niche (Dimmick, Chen, & Li, 2004). A new medium survives competition when it provides unique
gratification or performs better at providing opportunities to fulfill gratifications (Dimmick et al.,
2004). Thus, different media can co-exist if each of them carves out their respective niches.
While most research on social media have focused on one platform, only a few studies have done
comparative work across multiple social media platforms (e.g., Boczkowski, Matassi, & Mitchelstein,
2018; Hogan & Quan-Haase, 2010; Phua, Jin, & Kim, 2017; Quan-Haase & Young, 2010). Our study
seeks to contribute to this area of research to better understand how users navigate the social media
ecosystem. But while previous studies have compared different social media platforms, this study
demonstrates how users see these platforms as parts of a holistic social media environment.
Conceptualizing social media platforms as part of a poly-social-media context is consistent with how
social media users navigate the abundance of social media choices at their disposal. Through a series
of focus group discussions (FGDs) involving social media users in Singapore, and guided by polyme-
dia and niche theories, we propose this conceptualization of a poly-social-media context, marked by
platform-swinging among social media users who seek particular gratifications and take advantage of
gratification opportunities that enable them to navigate structural, social, and norm barriers within
the poly-social-media environment they are in.

Literature review

The emergence of new media has always been marked by fears that it would displace the old—as was
the case with newspapers, which survived the coming of radio, television, cable TV, and the Internet.
New media platforms compete for audiences’ time and attention (Dimmick, 2003); consequently, they
also compete for advertising revenues that sustain media outlets (McCombs & Nolan, 1992). And yet,
new media platforms also provide users with more options, allowing them to make choices about their
media use. Thus, media studies have focused on how users navigate between old and new media. For
example, studies sought to understand how users engage in “media multitasking,” which refers to how
users switch their attention between media (Brasel & Gips, 2011, p. 311). Other scholars have investi-
gated “simultaneous media exposure” that refers to “individual consumers being exposed to more
than one media system or approach at a single point in time” (Pilotta, Schultz, Drenik, & Rist, 2004, p.
286). Others have also referred to “media multiplexing” or the process “whereby people serially (and
potentially simultaneously) consume small, even incomplete ‘chunks’ of media within a small period
of time” (Lin, Venkataraman, & Jap, 2013, p. 311). These studies focused on media attention and expo-
sure allocated to multiple media.
In terms of media use, some scholars referred to “media switching,” or the process in which “users
are often not only moving from one channel to another, but often also are actively deciding against
other possible channels” (Gershon, 2010, p. 393). This work has been extended to the use of commu-
nication technologies. In the context of organizational communication, media switching was observed
in how users start their conversations on instant messaging (IM) and then switch to phone or face-to-

2 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

face conversation for richer interactions and for more complicated conversations as well as to avoid
misunderstandings (Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000). Work on media switching has also been
extended to the use of multiple social media platforms to understand “why switching occurs from one
social medium to another and what motivates users to continue using an existing tool” (Quan-Haase

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

& Young, 2010, p. 353). For example, Quan-Haase and Young (2010, p. 359) found that users turned
to IM to engage in “deeper exchanges with affection” while they turned to Facebook for an “exchange
of short messages via a public wall.”
In this study, we propose the term platform-swinging to describe how users navigate social media
platforms by routinely swinging from one to another, maintaining their presence across various plat-
forms, without abandoning older platforms. We use the term “swinging” instead of “switching” to
avoid confusion, considering that switching has also been used in the context of media switching to
refer to abandoning a medium in favor of a new one (Gershon, 2010). Building on previous studies,
this work extends our understanding of how users navigate a media environment characterized by
multiple options: in contrast with earlier studies that predicted displacement of old media, subsequent
studies have demonstrated that the use of one platform does not mean the abandonment of another
and that different platforms can complement one another (Newell, 2007). For example, Pilotta and
Schultz (2005, p. 25) argued that “media experience needs to be studied, created, and planned as an
integration of simultaneous streams that do not compete for attention but media experiences are
synergized by attention.” This approach is also consistent with how users perceive the media environ-
ment, as explained by the theory of polymedia.

Polymedia theory
The theory of polymedia considers the environment of communication opportunities as a holistic and
integrated configuration of affordances and accounts for how users navigate and harness different
affordances to manage their social, emotional, or moral relationships in various contexts (Madianou &
Miller, 2013). Simply put, it focuses on how users navigate available affordances and emphasizes the
implications of such uses on users’ emotions and relationships. “Polymedia” differs from “multime-
dia.” The latter refers to media content formats, such as audio, video, or text. But “polymedia” resem-
bles “media ecology” and deals with various media’s relationships to each other and their
consequences (Madianou & Miller, 2013). It is, however, different from media ecology, as polymedia
not only refers to the environment but also emphasizes users’ autonomy in using polymedia to man-
age social or emotional relationships (Madianou, 2014). Unlike the pre-Internet era when users had
limited number of media choices, in the polymedia environment, people have more media choices,
especially during interpersonal communication. The argument is that when constraints such as limited
media access, high cost, and lack of media literacy are removed, the way that users navigate media use
will closely reflect their emotional and social needs (Madianou, 2014).
Polymedia theory has been applied to account for empirical phenomena across a variety of social
contexts. For example, Peng (2016) examined migrant students’ interpersonal communication in
Hong Kong, finding that a polymedia environment enables migrant students in Hong Kong to com-
municate with different social groups in a variety of ways: with their parents and friends back home
on one hand, and with Hong Kong locals on the other. Renninger (2015) looked into counterpublic
communication—communication happening among a small group of people who identify as asexual
—on Tumblr and argued that certain types of communication are contingent on media’s availability,
affordance, and popularity. Baldassar (2016) explored how families use information and communica-
tion technologies to provide emotional support over distance. In the context of social media,
Boczkowski et al. (2018) argued that young people in Argentina attribute different meanings to

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 3

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

different platforms, which shapes the ways they use different platforms. In this study, we analyze the
perceptions of both young and old users in Singapore of the various platforms that they use.
The framework of polymedia is particularly salient in Singapore, a small but economically vibrant
nation marked by high levels of Internet and social media use as well as by widespread adoption of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

smartphones. It is also characterized by a significant population of foreign workers at various levels
of the economic hierarchy—ranging from domestic helpers and construction workers to nurses, engi-
neers, and corporate executives. This economic and technological structure allows residents, both
permanent and temporary, easy access to various digital platforms, such as social media. But
Singapore’s diverse social makeup also requires various communication affordances. In this particu-
lar study, we are adapting the theory of polymedia to focus on what we argue is an integrative net-
work of social media platforms that are available for users in Singapore. But what allows seemingly
competing platforms to co-exist and cater to the same set of users in a poly-social-media environ-
ment? We turn to theory of the niche.

Niche theory
The theory of the niche states that a new medium will compete with existing media for available
resources in order to survive (Dimmick, 2003). In media economics, where media organizations are
considered as populations, niche refers to their relationship with the environment, an important part
of which are media consumers (Dimmick, 2003). Niche theory is premised on the proposition that a
medium, from a biology and evolution perspective, always competes for limited resources in the social
system; a medium has to occupy a unique niche and consume enough resources to survive (Dimmick
et al., 2004). What is at stake in this competition is survival: older media can be excluded, replaced, or
displaced by new media, or when a new medium takes over some roles played by older ones
(Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford, 2000).
For media organizations, the most important resources are consumers’ gratifications and gratifica-
tion opportunities, for these drive media consumption in both time and spending, and in turn, advertis-
ing (Dimmick, 2003). Gratifications refer to those obtained from the media that explain consumer
media choice. For example, studies that explored motivations for social media use have documented
various gratifications that users seek. Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) found that college students
associated Facebook and Myspace with making new friends, organizing social events, feeling connected
and keeping in touch. Urista, Qingwen, and Day (2009) identified five themes why individuals use
social networking sites: efficient communication, convenient communication, curiosity about others,
popularity, and relationship formation and reinforcement. A survey that compared social networking
sites users in South Korea and the United States also identified five motivations for college students’
use of these sites: seeking friends, social support, information, entertainment, and convenience (Kim,
Sohn, & Choi, 2011).
While gratifications refer to those that consumers seek to fulfill by using particular media, gratifi-
cation opportunities refer to factors that allow those gratifications to be satisfied, like time and space.
This also depends on the perception of the user. Thus, gratification opportunities are defined as consu-
mers’ beliefs that properties of a medium allow them to overcome constraints to obtain greater oppor-
tunities for gratifications (Dimmick et al., 2004). New media often succeed not because they provide
more gratifications (e.g., need for information or entertainment) but because they are superior in
terms of providing gratification opportunities (Dimmick, 2003; Dimmick et al., 2004). For instance,
the Internet is considered superior over most daily news media because it is available at any time of
the day and anywhere, as long as there is Internet access (Dimmick et al., 2004). Based on this, we
argue that by allowing users to navigate social and structural constraints from individual social media

4 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

platforms, platform-swinging enables users to secure gratification opportunities to fulfill their overall
social media gratifications.
Studies have examined the niches of various media in providing gratifications and gratification
opportunities. For example, Dimmick, Sikand, and Patterson (1994) identified and validated sociabil-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

ity gratifications and gratification opportunities in relation to household telephone use. They argued
that social relationship management, gratification opportunities, and psychological reassurance were
primary reasons for telephone use (Dimmick et al., 1994). Similarly, Stafford, Kline, and Dimmick
(1999) found that households use email because it was perceived as less expensive, quicker, simpler,
and more convenient than telephone, postal service, or face-to-face interaction. Li (2001) also analyzed
the niches of television news, electronic news, and newspaper news in providing gratifications (e.g.,
cognitive needs, efficiency and surveillance) and gratification opportunities (i.e., time, space, content
variety and vividness). The study found that television news provided the widest range of gratifications
while it also outperformed the newspaper on gratification opportunities (Li, 2001). Ramirez,
Dimmick, Feaster, and Lin (2008) also examined the gratification niche of IM against three other
media: landline phone (LLP), email, and cell phone. Using scales measuring gratifications (e.g., socia-
bility) and gratification opportunities (e.g., convenience, speed), they found that only the cell phone
surpassed IM (Ramirez et al., 2008).
Guided by the theory of the niche that focuses on gratifications and gratification opportunities as
explanations for media use on the part of consumers and survival on the part of media platforms—as
well as by the polymedia theory that explains how audiences navigate multiple media platforms as a
holistic and integrated configuration of affordances leading to the practice of platform-swinging—we
ask the following research questions within the specific context of social media use in Singapore:

RQ1. What gratifications are fulfilled by the practice of platform-swinging in a poly-social-

media environment?
RQ2. What gratification opportunities facilitate the practice of platform-swinging in a poly-
social-media environment?

Method

This study is based on a series of FGDs with 62 social media users in Singapore. They were recruited
through online advertisements and received $50 each for their participation in a 90-minute group
interview. Only those who use social media were selected to participate in the study. The participants
were grouped based on age, with two groups each for Millennials (18- to 32-years-old; 18 partici-
pants), Generation X (33- to 47-years-old; 14 participants), and Baby Boomers (48- to 66-years-old;
12 participants). Two additional groups were interviewed to include foreign nationals working in
Singapore as permanent residents or employment pass holders (18 participants). The groups mixed
male and female participants. Overall, 38 participants were female and 24 were male. The group inter-
views were all conducted in English.
The FGDs were conducted in a focus group facility at a large university in Singapore. The partici-
pants were first asked to sign a consent form and were informed that the interview would be audio-
recorded. An experienced moderator directed the session, guided by a focus group discussion guide that
asked a number of questions on social media use in Singapore. The moderator closely followed the dis-
cussion guide but was also instructed to ask follow-up and probing questions when needed. First, the
participants were asked what social media platforms they use. They were allowed to name as many as
they want. Next, the participants were asked to describe how and why they use these different

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 5

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

combinations of social media platforms. A research assistant took preliminary notes from each discus-
sion, while the principal researcher observed each proceeding. The recordings were later transcribed for
analysis.
Some 270 pages of transcribed data were analyzed using the constant comparative approach, an

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

analytical strategy associated with grounded theory (Glaser, 1965). Three research assistants, super-
vised and trained by the principal researcher, conducted the three-step analysis (Tracy, 2013).
Training involved getting the research assistants familiar with the sensitizing concepts (e.g., platforms
used, reasons for using, ways of using) involved in the study to guide them in their coding. In the
open-coding stage, each coder engaged in coding each transcript line-by-line, each code was con-
stantly compared to the preceding code to determine if the next line merits the same code, or if a new
code was required, or if the previous code needed to be revised accordingly (Saldaña, 2009). This pro-
cess was repeated until all the transcripts had been coded independently by each of the coders. The
coders then met to discuss the individual codes that emerged in their respective analysis.
Having established that there were conceptual overlaps in their respective codes consistent with
the specific concepts involved in the study, the coders then proceeded to the axial-coding stage, when
the coders individually grouped their codes into conceptual bins, beginning the process of categoriza-
tion (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Finally, the researchers discussed the categories that emerged in their
respective analyses and merged related categories into emerging themes. The discussions continued
until the themes were fully developed and have adequately addressed the research questions (Tracy,
2013). Narratives were written around each of the themes, supported by exemplars from the data.

Results

Our analysis found that users indeed treat social media platforms as “integrated environments of com-
municative opportunities and exploit the difference within media” (Madianou, 2014, p. 667). Most of
them routinely swing among different platforms, recognizing overlapping as well as distinct affor-
dances. When asked to name all the social media platforms that they use, only four participants, all
from the pioneer generation group, named just one platform. Twelve participants named two plat-
forms while the rest of our 62 participants named three or more platforms, with the highest number
being eight. Facebook and WhatsApp were the most often mentioned platforms, followed by
Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter. A few participants mentioned WeChat, Telegram, and Line. At least
one participant mentioned each of the following: LinkedIn, Google Plus, Path, and YouTube.
The participants recognize the niches of each of these platforms. While they have overlapping
functions—such as allowing users to connect with friends—many of the participants were clear about
what each platform is for. Instagram is mainly for photos—even if Facebook and Twitter both allow
sharing of photographs. Facebook is for joining or organizing groups. One participant uses it to orga-
nize a group of joggers. Another participant uses it to communicate about assignments with his
school group. WhatsApp is used mainly for messaging—even if Facebook also comes with a messen-
ger function. Line is similarly a messaging application, but many participants associated it with com-
municating using stickers. Therefore, while these social media platforms share overlapping functions,
many users associate them with particular affordances. However, it is because of these variations in
affordances among platforms that users treat different platforms as parts of a holistic social media
environment, where they can swing from one to another to continuously fulfill their gratifications
and ensure that gratification opportunities are always present, rather than restricting themselves to
just one platform.

6 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

Platform-swinging gratifications
RQ1 asked about the gratifications that platform-swinging fulfills among our participants. Two main
gratifications emerged from the analysis: self-presentation and relationship management. These grati-
fications have also been described by earlier studies that focused on analyzing motivations for using

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

individual social media platforms. However, these gratifications are complex, multi-layered, and
context-dependent. Through platform-swinging, users are able to segment and balance diverse ways
of self-expression and managing relationships.

Self-presentation
Self-presentation refers to the process of supplying information about our own selves to project a
desired image (Johnson, 1981). Social media provide platforms for this process, as users reveal infor-
mation about themselves through their social media posts, in the form of text-based posts, photos,
and videos. While individuals usually strive for a positive self-presentation (Goffman, 1959), different
people use different strategies to project a positive self-image. We see this in how our participants
swing from one platform to another to use different affordances that enable varied self-presentation
strategies. For example, our Millennial participants tend to favor Instagram, which provides them
with easy access to photo-enhancing tools to ensure that they present only the best version of
themselves.
We found that the motivation for self-expression for social media use manifests most strongly
among Millennials, compared with the older age groups. Thus, Millennials satisfy their needs to build
stronger personal identities by selecting more personalizable social media platforms like Instagram.
Indeed, some participants stressed that Instagram is a platform only for “best” photos—those that can
be considered glamorous or artistic. Some participants, when referring to Instagram, talked about
sharing and viewing “Instagram-worthy” pictures. Furthermore, while our participants use a number
of social messaging apps, some of them use Line once in a while because of its versatile stickers. A
male participant from the foreign workers group said Line is often used “for friends who like to use
stickers.” When he made that remark, a few other participants in the group spontaneously chimed in
to confirm that Line indeed has “cute stickers” that help them better express themselves.
Our participants project different selves across different platforms, showing how they manage
their self-presentations across a poly-social-media environment. For example, a female participant
from the Generation X group likes to share her photos, but she uses Facebook to share photos of
dishes that she cooks while she uses Instagram to share photos of her doing sports or yoga. A male
participant from the Millennial group uses Facebook “to share some fun facts” but swings to
Instagram “for travelling purposes.” A female participant also from the Millennial group lumped
Facebook and Instagram as spaces “where you post pictures and what you’re doing on a daily basis or
weekly,” but differentiated Twitter as the space for her to share “just what you’re feeling, like a rant
kind of thing.” This demonstrates a nuanced differentiation of what aspects of themselves they present
—for this participant, she uses Facebook and Instagram to present herself based on her activities (e.g.,
an image of being an outgoing person), but she swings onto Twitter to present herself based on her
opinions and personal thoughts (e.g., an image of being an opinionated, politically aware person).
These self-presentations are not seen as contradictory, but rather as different parts of one’s holistic
social identity revealed to different target audiences using particular technological affordances.

Relationship management
The gratification of self-presentation is closely related to the gratification of relationship management,
with self-presentations targeted at particular audiences. In social media spaces, audiences refer to
one’s network of family and friends with whom one maintains social connections. Indeed, social

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 7

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

connection is a common motivation that different studies of individual social media platforms have
documented (e.g., Anita & David, 2013; Urista et al., 2009). The premise is that social media platforms
are built on forming and maintaining relationships. This assumption made perfect sense when social
media were still new, but as more and more people become present in these platforms, the idea of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

social connection becomes more complex. Platform-swinging allows users to manage their relation-
ships not only by facilitating social connections but also by allowing users to segment their networks
and, in doing so, also engage in social disconnection.
On one hand, social media revolves around being able to remain connected with peers anytime
and anywhere. With today’s wide variety of platforms, it is no surprise that users accumulate various
accounts across different platforms to stay in touch with various social groups. One way of staying in
touch with friends is by following them on social media and quietly viewing their posts. This way,
users are able to keep themselves updated about their friends’ lives in a passive and non-intrusive
manner. Thus, platform-swinging occurs as a result of users wanting to follow their friends on a vari-
ety of platforms to “cover all their bases” and get a more complete picture of their friends’ lives. Our
younger participants also use various platforms to “stalk” or keep tabs on the lives of strangers, such
as celebrities or famous figures in the social media community. For our older participants, “stalking”
across various social media platforms is mainly directed at their children. Platform-swinging becomes
a means of monitoring their children and can be said to be an extension of parenting. For example, a
mother from the Baby Boomer group said:

I have Facebook and Instagram. Facebook—mostly I friend my children and very close friends.
I friend my children because I want to keep track of what they’re doing. And I get to have
Instagram when my son [goes] overseas for exchange program. Because every day he will post,
so I will know what’s happening to him. We don’t need to communicate—you know—
regularly.
On the other hand, while platform-swinging allows users to “cover all the bases” in terms of keep-
ing track of and reaching out to their different social circles, users also routinely switch platforms to
narrow the reach of their posts or stay away from particular social networks, a form of social discon-
nection. Due to social obligations, many users find themselves adding more people than they feel com-
fortable with on some social media platforms. As a result, they are restricted in the types of content
that they can post, taking care to post only “safe” content that is deemed appropriate for all their fol-
lowers on a specific platform. For example, a male participant from the Millennial group said:

For Facebook, because I have relatives and adults and teachers who are my friends, so I tend
to post more—I wouldn’t say serious things, but more—it wouldn’t be like how I am on
Twitter. Because on Twitter I’m more carefree and I share more stuff. And Instagram is also
more formal because, like, parents and stuff will follow me also. And then for Snapchat, it’s a
whole different story, like I can just choose who I want to send it to, so I can just go crazy with
that.
Other users stay within the same platform but swing around multiple accounts. For example, a
few of them maintain a second account on Facebook open only to a few select friends, while their
main account is open to acquaintances and relatives. Therefore, within the same platform, they engage
in account-swinging. For example, a male participant from the Millennial group maintains a “spam
account for Instagram” which he uses “to like really go on full mode to rant—it’s private so only like
five people follow me; it’s really like my close friends.” A female participant from the Generation X
group also said:

8 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

I am actively engaging in Facebook. In fact, I have two accounts. One is a personal one, and
one is meant for corporate that I have made [for] my bosses and colleagues. … I can actually
vent out my anger—you know—on my personal account, while the other one would be more
on like sharing of some info, news, more on the corporate one. And also for networking

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

purposes.
By engaging in platform-swinging, users are able to fulfill the gratification of relationship manage-
ment, which includes both the maintenance of social connection as well as subsequent social discon-
nection without having to completely sever online ties or compromise professional relationships.

Gratification opportunities
Users engage in platform-swinging not only because doing so fulfills their complex and multi-layered
self-presentation and relationship management gratifications, but also because by swinging across dif-
ferent platforms, they are able to navigate structural, social, and norm barriers to be able to satisfy
these varied gratifications continuously. Platform-swinging, then, accords them with more gratifica-
tion opportunities than simply staying with one platform.

Availability
First, by engaging in platform-swinging, social media users ensure that they can fulfill their gratifica-
tions continuously despite structural constraints that render some platforms unavailable. Indeed,
availability is a basic gratification opportunity (Renninger, 2015). For example, one of the participants
from the foreign workers group said that most social media platforms are not accessible in his work-
place, as social media apps are restricted within the company’s Internet connection. To be able to con-
nect with friends while at work, he turns to Google Chat. Thus, he maintains a Google Chat account
that he only uses when he is at work, swinging back to other social media platforms after working
hours. By considering various platforms as parts of a communication ecosystem, he can swing from
one platform to another when one becomes temporarily unavailable, so his gratification of managing
his relationships can be continuously fulfilled. He said:

I use Google Chat because in my work, I cannot access any chatting application via desktop.
The only accessible one is only Google Chat, because you can open it from your Gmail.
Availability can also be understood in terms of the presence of specific affordances. For example,
some of the younger participants use Telegram to send larger files, such as photos or videos, to friends
and classmates, without compromising the quality of the files—simply because this feature is available
on Telegram and not on other messaging apps that they use. Some participants also discussed the
availability of privacy settings. In terms of messaging, some participants referred to Snapchat, where
the feature of making messages disappear in a matter of seconds is available, as the preferred app for
crazy or confidential messages. For example, a Snapchat user from the foreign workers group said:
“For more private stuff you can send it to the person personally, as opposed to posting it on My Story,
which is—you know—which anyone on your friends list can see.” A few participants swing back to
Facebook to create or join groups, where this feature is available. A male participant from the Baby
Boomer group said that since Facebook only allows up to 5,000 followers or members per group, he
converted a Facebook group that he had started into a fan page to allow more members. These activi-
ties are all part of fulfilling the gratification of relationship management—sending a large video file to
a classmate for a group assignment, sending crazy but confidential messages to a close friend, and cre-
ating a fan page to accommodate a large group of followers—made possible by the availability of

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 9

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

certain features. By considering social media platforms as a host of affordances, users can swing from
one platform to another to take advantage of available features to fulfill their gratifications.

Communality

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

Second, by engaging in platform-swinging, users are able to fulfill their various social media gratifica-
tions continuously by being able to follow their family and friends across different social media spaces,
maintaining a feeling of communality with each of their various social communities regardless of spa-
tial limits. By maintaining a host of different social media platforms, users can maintain their various
social networks segmented based on communication preferences or structures. This is especially com-
mon among foreign workers who try to adapt to the communication preferences and situations of
people from both their home countries and in Singapore. WhatsApp is the most used messaging app
in Singapore. But Singapore also has a lot of foreign workers from China (where most users communi-
cate via WeChat); the Philippines (where Viber is the most common messaging app); Indonesia
(where many users use Path); South Korea (where most people use KakaoTalk); and Japan (where
many people use Line).
To fulfill their gratification of relationship management, many foreign workers swing from one
messaging app to another routinely, treating such routine as normal and habitual, in order to be in the
same online communal spaces as their friends. For example, a male participant from the foreign work-
ers group said:

WeChat is to communicate with my Chinese friends. WhatsApp is to communicate with my

Singapore friends. Facebook messenger is to communicate with my American or UK friends.
As they try to maintain old relationships from their home countries while forming new ones in
their host countries, many foreigners regularly swing from platforms that were more popular in their
home countries to ones more frequently used in their host countries.
Segmentation of one’s communicative network can also be based on interest. For example, a male
participant from the Generation X group said:

For WhatsApp, I generally use (it) for communication with friends. But I use Line chat for,
just this specific group of guys that we just want to have men’s talk. Somehow I’m being intro-
duced because they are the ones that like Line chat to be the platform for that communication
among that group. I just follow along because, otherwise, otherwise, I would be away from the
common things that they speak.
By maintaining their membership in these virtual communities, they are able to continuously pur-
sue their gratifications for self-presentation and relationship management.

Acceptability
Finally, by engaging in platform-swinging, social media users can fulfill their gratifications continu-
ously despite the informal rules that have formed around particular platforms that determine what
behaviors are acceptable and which ones are not. Our participants have become conscious of the dif-
ferent norms that have developed within each of the different platforms they use. Therefore, they also
calibrate what they can or cannot do within each platform, swinging to another platform to do what
might be frowned upon on another platform.
Some platforms unwittingly impose certain expectations on users. These expectations, mostly per-
ceived, form the culture of that platform, concretized by users who abide, consciously or not, by a set
of social rules. An example of such norms is the acceptable frequency of posting on different plat-
forms. For instance, while the participants said that it was acceptable to post multiple times on

10 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

Twitter, on Instagram there was an unspoken rule that users should only post once a day. For private
platforms like WhatsApp, frequent posting in the form of “spam” messages is considered normal.
These perceived norms, which users seem to accept and not question, affect how they swing from
one platform to another. For example, one participant said: “On Instagram, there is this unspoken

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

rule: oh, one or two photos per day. Snapchat, you can like, post as many as you want and no one will
say anything.” Another participant referred to observing other friends being very particular with
photos they share on Instagram, which includes carefully arranging elements on a table, for example,
before snapping a photo. In contrast, random photos are considered by some of our participants to be
acceptable for sharing on Facebook. This shows how, when fulfilling self-presentation gratifications,
users engage in platform-swinging to also navigate the user norms and cultures that have developed
around different platforms. Therefore, “Instagram-worthy” shots are reserved for Instagram, regular
photos are uploaded on Facebook or sent via WhatsApp, ensuring that the gratification of self-
presentation is continuously fulfilled while one navigates the informal rules of different social media
platforms. By swinging to different platforms, users get the opportunity to fulfill the gratifications they
seek continuously while still complying with—and without being constrained by—the informal rules
of each specific platform they use.

Discussion and conclusion

Guided by niche and polymedia theories, this study sought to understand the phenomenon of social
media platform-swinging, which refers to the routine use of multiple social media platforms that has
become commonplace across different ages. Based on FGDs, the study found that, indeed, social
media users engage in platform-swinging as they navigate through different social media platforms
with overlapping as well as distinct functionalities. Social media platforms are able to co-exist, with
users swinging from one to another without necessarily abandoning the old for the new, as they fulfill
different variations of self-presentation and relationship management gratifications. Platform-
swinging provides the gratification opportunities to meet these gratifications continuously by allowing
users to navigate through structural barriers (availability), social contexts (communality), and infor-
mal rules (acceptability). In a country that has universal access to the Internet and high rates of social
media penetration, social media users in Singapore consider the social media environment as a holistic
one, and they navigate through and exploit the different affordances of multiple platforms to manage
their social relationships (Madianou & Miller, 2013). Treating the social media environment as a
whole, users swing from one part to the other routinely, or what we call platform-swinging, rather
than treating social media platforms as mutually exclusive units.
The results demonstrate that platform-swinging is a behavioral manifestation of the state of poly-
media, particularly in the social media context, which we refer to as the poly-social-media context.
That social media users routinely swing from one platform to the other indicates that they treat the
social media environment, marked by numerous platforms, as a whole. This is consistent with what
Boczkowski et al. (2018) found among young people in Argentina who associate particular meanings
to each social media platform. In this study, conducted in Singapore, we demonstrated that such
meanings are not regarded as contradictory but rather as complementary, with social media users
treating the poly-social-media environment as a holistic ecosystem that enables them to meet multi-
layered gratifications. Based on niche theory, we identified two main gratifications that are met when
users engage in platform-swinging: relationship management and self-presentation. These gratifica-
tions are complex and are sometimes marked by some contradictions. For example, users engage in
both social connection by maintaining their Facebook accounts and in social disconnection by

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 11

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

swinging to their private Twitter accounts to share their rants and opinions to a smaller and selected
group of friends.
These gratifications are met as platform-swinging also provides the required gratification opportu-
nities to fulfill them by allowing users to navigate structural, social, and norm constraints. For exam-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

ple, the decision to swing from WhatsApp to Line to WeChat can be explained by the goal of
maintaining different social circles marked by particular geographic and social contexts. A social
media user might belong to a social group that originated in WhatsApp, the dominant messaging app
in Singapore. But the same social media user might also belong to another group based in China where
WeChat is dominantly used, and yet to another group whose members enjoy communicating via
stickers, a functionality associated with Line. In this example, we see how the same goal of maintaining
one’s social circle is pursued by swinging to different platforms based not just on functionalities but
also social context.
Of course, the results of this study should be examined in the context of several limitations. First,
this study sought to understand the phenomenon of platform-swinging. Therefore, the focus was on
exploring the experiences of groups of social media users, rather than generalizing to the whole popu-
lation of social media users. However, while FGDs are ideal for understanding sense-making among a
group of people with shared experiences, they also have inherent weaknesses. Therefore, we propose
future studies to explore the phenomenon of platform-swinging using other methods. Second, we
explored this phenomenon across different age groups. However, we did not include adolescents, who
might have different experiences, motivations, and behaviors when it comes to social media use.
Finally, we focused on Singapore, a small but diverse nation with a reliable communication infrastruc-
ture. This is particularly important, as polymedia theory argues polymedia is achieved only when bar-
riers to access no longer matter. This is exactly the case in Singapore, which has universal Internet as
well as social media access. However, the phenomenon of platform-swinging might play out differ-
ently in other media contexts, especially where barriers to access remain in place.
Despite these limitations, this study hopes to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of
social media use in general and of platform-swinging in particular. Polymedia theory provides a
framework for understanding the social media environment as a poly-social-media context, which
consists of various social media platforms offering distinct as well as overlapping affordances that are
perceived by social media users as parts of a whole rather than isolated, mutually exclusive units.
Many studies that explored motivations for the use of various social media platforms, such as
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, used overlapping measures, such as items referring to maintaining
social connections (Chen, 2011; Sheldon & Bryant, 2016; Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011).
Studies that focused on multiple social media platforms also compared how users perceived these plat-
forms (Alhabash & Ma, 2017; Phua et al., 2017). Our results show, however, that social media users
treat these different platforms as parts of a whole, which seem to be complementing each other in ful-
filling different gratifications shaped by different contexts and facilitated by different affordances. Such
understanding is more consistent with efforts at theory-building and frees up scholars from studying
every emerging platform using the same set of theories and methodologies, only to find strikingly sim-
ilar findings.
Understanding platform-swinging also offers practical implications. From a business perspective,
social media platforms compete for audience attention. Indeed, measured in terms of time spent,
social media users only have a fixed number of hours that they can allocate to various social media
platforms per day. But seen through the lens of polymedia, the social media environment functions as
a unified whole. Facebook, for example, has bought Instagram and WhatsApp. Facebook and
Instagram have also started offering the function of temporary posts that used to make Snapchat a hit.

12 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

But without understanding users’ platform-swinging behavior, centralizing all possible affordances in
just one platform could be futile.
Some of our participants are recalibrating their Facebook use as their social networks have grown.
Some of them have opened a second Facebook account or turn to Instagram or Snapchat to reach a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

select group of friends or post particular content they don’t want their larger Facebook social network
to see. It would be easy for them to just unfriend some of their Facebook friends—but that will run
against the unspoken culture of maintaining social connections on Facebook. The social connection is
there, but perhaps the level of closeness has waned. So users swing to other platforms, but also return
to Facebook once in a while. Thus, rather than comparing social media platforms as discrete, mutually
exclusive units, future research can focus on the phenomenon of platform-swinging and start to pro-
blematize the effects of such behavior.
Furthermore, platform-swinging has implications on how users then regard their friendships. This
is consistent with the argument of polymedia theory that navigating a polymedia environment has
implications on users’ emotions and relationships (Madianou & Miller, 2013). As platform-swinging
facilitates relationship management by segmenting networks into different platforms, it might also
lead to friendship fragmentation not only online but also offline. Future studies should also explore
the antecedents and implications of friendship fragmentation, especially in the context of accumulat-
ing social capital (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). For
instance, how does engaging in platform-swinging broaden or dissipate one’s social capital? It will also
be interesting and important to explore the impact of social media homogenization in terms of affor-
dances on the preferences, attitudes, and behaviors of a generation of social media users who has
come to experience platform-swinging as a necessary routine to navigate a poly-social-media context.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the first author’s Tier 1 grant from Singapore’s Ministry of Education
(RG151/15). The authors also thank the editor and reviewers for their guidance.

References
Alhabash, S., & Ma, M. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social Media + Society, 3(1). doi:10.1177/
2056305117691544
Anita, W., & David, W. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362–369. doi:10.1108/QMR-06-
2013-0041
Baldassar, L. (2016). De-demonizing distance in mobile family lives: Co-presence, care circulation and
polymedia as vibrant matter. Global Networks, 16(2), 145–163. doi:10.1111/glob.12109
Boczkowski, P. J., Matassi, M., & Mitchelstein, E. (2018). How young users deal with multiple
platforms: The role of meaning-making in social media repertoires. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 23(5), 245–259. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmy012
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer
usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 527–534. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.
0350
Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use
gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755–762. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 13

Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context E. C. Tandoc et al.

Dimmick, J. (2003). Media competition and coexistence: The theory of the niche. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dimmick, J., Chen, Y., & Li, Z. (2004). Competition between the Internet and traditional news media:
The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. Journal of Media Economics, 17(1), 19–33.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

doi:10.1207/s15327736me1701_2
Dimmick, J., Kline, S., & Stafford, L. (2000). The gratification niches of personal e-mail and the
telephone: Competition, displacement, and complementarity. Communication Research, 27(2),
227–248. doi:10.1177/009365000027002005
Dimmick, J., Sikand, J., & Patterson, S. J. (1994). The gratifications of the household telephone:
Sociability, instrumentality, and reassurance. Communication Research, 21(5), 643–663. doi:10.
1177/009365094021005005
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (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. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Gershon, I. (2010). Breaking up is hard to do: Media switching and media ideologies. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 389–405. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01076.x
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016. Retrieved from http://
www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4),
436–445.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Hogan, B., & Quan-Haase, A. (2010). Persistence and change in social media. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 30(5), 309–315. doi:10.1177/0270467610380012
Johnson, J. A. (1981). The “self-disclosure” and “self-presentation” views of item response dynamics
and personality scale validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 761–769. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.40.4.761
Kemp, S. (2017). Digital in 2017: Global overview. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/sg/blog/
2017/01/digital-in-2017-global-overview
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network
sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(1), 365–372. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.015
Li, S.-C. S. (2001). New media and market competition: A niche analysis of television news, electronic
news, and newspaper news in Taiwan. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(2),
259–276. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4502_4
Lin, C., Venkataraman, S., & Jap, S. D. (2013). Media multiplexing behavior: Implications for
targeting and media planning. Marketing Science, 32(2), 310–324. doi:10.1287/mksc.1120.0759
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Madianou, M. (2014). Smartphones as polymedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19
(3), 667–680. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12069
Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in
interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169–187. doi:10.
1177/1367877912452486
McCombs, M., & Nolan, J. (1992). The relative constancy approach to consumer spending for media.
Journal of Media Economics, 5(2), 43–52.

14 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15

E. C. Tandoc et al. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in
action. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, Philadelphia, PA.
Newell, J. (2007). Revisiting Schramm’s Radiotown: Media displacement and saturation. Journal of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022/5146336 by guest on 16 January 2019

Radio Studies, 14(1), 3–19. doi:10.1080/10955040701301722
Peng, Y. (2016). Student migration and polymedia: Mainland Chinese students’ communication
media use in Hong Kong. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(14), 2395–2412. doi:10.
1080/1369183x.2016.1194743
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and
bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers
in Human Behavior, 72, 115–122. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041
Pilotta, J. J., & Schultz, D. (2005). Simultaneous media experience and synesthesia. Journal of
Advertising Research, 45(1), 19–26. doi:10.1017/S0021849905050087
Pilotta, J. J., Schultz, D. E., Drenik, G., & Rist, P. (2004). Simultaneous media usage: A critical
consumer orientation to media planning. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 285–292. doi:
doi:10.1002/cb.141
Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of
Facebook and Instant Messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 350–361. doi:10.
1177/0270467610380009
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications
theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169–174. doi:10.
1089/cpb.2007.0056
Ramirez, A., Dimmick, J., Feaster, J., & Lin, S.-F. (2008). Revisiting interpersonal media competition:
The gratification niches of instant messaging, e-mail, and the telephone. Communication Research,
35(4), 529–547. doi:10.1177/0093650208315979
Renninger, B. J. (2015). “Where I can be myself … where I can speak my mind” : Networked
counterpublics in a polymedia environment. New Media & Society, 17(9), 1513–1529. doi:10.1177/
1461444814530095
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and
contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89–97. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and
gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6),
2322–2329. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
Stafford, L., Kline, S. L., & Dimmick, J. (1999). Home e‐mail: Relational maintenance and gratification
opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(4), 659–669. doi:10.1080/
08838159909364515
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social
network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6),
434–445. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002
Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating
impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Urista, M. A., Qingwen, D., & Day, K. D. (2009). Explaining why young adults use MySpace and
Facebook through uses and gratifications theory. Human Communication, 12(2), 215–229.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2018) 1–15 15