Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites

By Eszter Hargittai. 2007

1,351 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Media Technology, Sociology and Political Science

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Media Technology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019, background): “In general, both early surveys from the Pew Research Center and academic studies (Hargittai, 2007; Mislove et al., 2011) show that the demographic composition of major social platforms diﬀers both with respect to each other, and with respect to the oﬄine or Internet population (see e.g., Duggan,…”
Big Questions for Social Media Big Data: Representativeness, Validity and Other Methodological Pitfalls (2014, background): “While Facebook has wider diffusion, its use is also structured by race, gender, class and other factors (Hargittai, 2008).”
Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance (2012, methodology): “While almost all of the research on digital inequalities focuses on the Internet and communication technologies, Hargittai (2008b) conducted the only published study of gender, ethnic and socioeconomic differences between users and non-users of social networking sites.”
Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults (2013, background): “Some demographic correlates have been reported, including gender, ethnicity, and parental education (Hargittai, 2008; Moore & McElroy, 2012), as well as cross cultural differences (Buote et al.”
Uses and Gratifications of digital photo sharing on Facebook (2016, neutral): “Investigating gender differences with regard to SNS has also been actively researched (Barker, 2009; Hargittai, 2007; Kimbrough, Guadagno, Muscanell, & Dill, 2013; McAndrew & Jeong, 2012; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008).”
A Social Tool: Why and How ESOL Students Use Facebook. (2012, background): “In fact, users’ ethnicity and language background often affect their friendships, such that different groups tend to remain segmented (boyd, 2007; boyd, 2008; Hargittai, 2007).”
Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages (2013, background): “2012), characteristics of the users (Bhattacharyya et al. 2011; Hargittai 2007; Karl et al. 2010), usage patterns (Golder et al.”
The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement (2012, background): “The studies listed examined the digital divide on the Internet and in communication technologies; however, Hargittai (2008a) conducted the only published academic study of gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences between users and non-users of social networking websites.”
Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis (2008, background): “It has also stimulated much recent research on various aspects of Facebook use, such as the use of Facebook in academic settings (Hewitt & Forte, 2006) and the demographic predictors of Facebook use ( Hargittai, 2007 ).”
Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage (2011, background): “However, in the last two years, a growing number of researchers have recognised the importance of such research, and are working towards identifying the types of people who use Facebook (Hargittai, 2008; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Sheldon, 2009; Tufekci, 2008).”
The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide (2011, background): “…up the socioeconomic participation gap (Correa, 2010; Hargittai and Walejko, 2008; Jenkins et al., 2006), especially content sharing among youth or with social networking sites (i.e., Hargittai, 2007), or with electoral participation in politics and voting (Mossberger et al., 2008; Norris, 2001).”
A Critical Review of Online Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2018, background): “…representativeness of online social and behavioral data, covering major classes of social data biases such as population biases (distinct platforms are characterized by different demographic composition of users) [16, 24], or behavioral biases (users behave differently in different contexts) [23].”