The document summarizes research testing the MAIN model, which proposes that four technological affordances (Modality, Agency, Interactivity, and Navigability) influence perceptions of credibility on social media. A survey assessed these affordances and perceived credibility of Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat. Results found the technological affordance scale was reliable individually but not multidimensionally. Agency significantly predicted credibility across all platforms, but Interactivity and Navigability did not match the MAIN model's claims. Future research should improve measuring affordances and identify other factors influencing credibility beyond the MAIN model.

1. The MAIN Model for Technological
Affordances in Social Media
Tyler Gayheart
University of Kentucky

2. MAIN Model Overview
● Ten years of research in Media Effects Lab by Shyam Sundar (2008)
● MAIN model
○ M = Modality, A = Agency, I = Interactivity, N = Navigability
● Technological affordances trigger heuristic cues
● Claims that these affordances are present in most digital media and are
promising in their ability to cue cognitive heuristics pertaining to credibility
assessments
● The MAIN model is concerned with the technological aspects of digital
media

3. Process
An affordance (interactivity of a website) conveys a certain cue (invite to live
chat) that triggers a heuristic (service) leading to an automatic deduction that
good service means good quality of information, thus leading to a high level of
credibility.

4. RQ’s
● RQ1a: Can reliable measures of each of the four technological affordances
associated with the MAIN model be developed?
● RQ1b: Do the psychometric properties of the technological affordance
scales vary as a function of social media platform?
● RQ2a: How does the MAIN model and related technological affordances
predict perceived credibility of Facebook?
● RQ2b: How does the MAIN model and related technological affordances
predict perceived credibility of Twitter?
● RQ2c: How does the MAIN model and related technological affordances
predict perceived credibility of Snapchat?

5. Methodology
Survey conducted Spring 15-16
● Demographic Scale
● Social Media Usage Scale
● 12-item technological affordance scale (MAIN)
● 2-item credibility scale
● N=420 undergraduate students (292 female)
● Ages ranged from 18 to 43 years (M = 20.22, SD = 2.59).
● 113 freshmen, 77 sophomores, 121 juniors, 105 seniors and four specified as either
non-degree seeking visiting/transient students
● 344 white, 44 african american, 14 asian, and remaining 18 reported another
ethnicity

6. Methodology
● 12 - item technological affordance scale
○ MAIN measured across each of the social media channel =
technological affordance aggregate
● 2 -item credibility scale
○ Measured across each of the social media channels = credibility
composite for each social channel: facebook, twitter, snapchat
● Independent Variables: modality, agency, interactivity and navigability
● Dependant Variable: perceived platform credibility composite

7. Background/Literature Review
● MAIN Model only mentioned or guided literature review, discussion,
results or future research/implications
● No study measured, evaluated or tested the MAIN model directly
● Majority of articles had been published in the last three years were
approached quantitatively
● Heuristics were primarily utilized as they were identified by the MAIN
model

8. Reliability
● Multi dimensional reliability
results have low internal
consistency across the Agency
and Interactivity features of
the MAIN model.
● Modality and Navigability,
along with credibility had
internally consistent results
across all social media
platforms.

9. Factor Analysis
● Extraction Method: Principal
component analysis - rotation
method: varimax
● Loaded across the MAIN
factors individually
● Each factor was analyzed
separately with
unidimensional results
● Internal consistency decreases
when analyzed across multiple
factors

10. Correlation: Technological Affordance and Credibility

11. Regression
Modality ( ) Agency ( ) Interactivity( ) Navigability( )
.317 .178 .14
.237 .121 .202 .15
.165 .385 .141 .23

12. Limitations and Future Research
● RQ1 and RQ1B were supported on a unidimensional basis (individual component of
MAIN) rather than a composite - multidimensional
● Agency and Interactivity might be hard constructs to evaluate and measure
● Participants might not perceive some feature sets identified by MAIN
○ Sundar would argue that they are peripherally or centrally process regardless
● RQ2a,b,c - MAIN Models Predictive Power?
○ Yes, agency played a role in predicting credibility across all platforms
○ But not the way Sundar claims
○ Navigability and Interactivity played little role in predicting credibility
● Future Research:
○ Evaluate psychometric properties associated with Agency and Interactivity
○ Determine if there are other elements that would help with a composite measure
outside of MAIN.

13. Process

14. Conclusion
● The technological affordance scale was internally consistent when analyzed
on a unidimensional basis
● When analyzed in a multidimensional scale, the reliability and internal
consistency reduces
● RQ2a, RQ2b and RQ2c were supported as Agency was found to have
significant predictive power for credibility across social media platforms,
facebook, twitter and snapchat
● Future research:
○ Psychometric improvements to technological affordance scale
○ Evaluate alternative feature affordance properties not in MAIN

15. Thanks!