The Social Structuration of Six Major Social Media Platforms in the United Kingdom: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Google+ and Pinterest

Sociological studies on the Internet have often examined digital inequalities. These studies show how Internet access, skills, uses and outcomes vary between different population segments. However, we know more about social inequalities in general Internet use than in social media use. Especially, we lack differentiated statistical evidence of the social profiles of distinct social media platforms. To address this issue, we use a large survey data set in the United Kingdom and investigate the social structuration of six major social media platforms. We find that age and socio-economic status are driving forces of several -- but not all -- of these platforms. Aggregating platform adoption into a general measure of social media use blurs some of the subtleties of more fine-grained indicators, namely platform uses and specific activities, such as status updating and commenting.

[2]  Christian Pieter Hoffmann,et al.  Content creation on the Internet: a social cognitive perspective on the participation divide , 2015 .

[3]  Grant Blank,et al.  WHO CREATES CONTENT? , 2013 .

[4]  H. Bonfadelli.  The Internet and Knowledge Gaps , 2002 .

[5]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[6]  Laura Robinson.  A TASTE FOR THE NECESSARY , 2009 .

[7]  Soraya Mehdizadeh,et al.  Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook , 2010, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[8]  E. Hargittai,et al.  THE PARTICIPATION DIVIDE: Content creation and sharing in the digital age1 , 2008 .

[9]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  A longitudinal study of Facebook, LinkedIn, & Twitter use , 2012, CHI.

[10]  Laura E. Buffardi,et al.  Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[11]  W T NgaiEric,et al.  Social media research , 2015 .

[12]  Susan B. Barnes,et al.  A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States , 2006, First Monday.

[13]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Digital Divides From Access to Activities: Comparing Mobile and Personal Computer Internet Users , 2013 .

[14]  Craig Ross,et al.  Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  Heng Xu,et al.  Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review , 2011, MIS Q..

[16]  Alexander van Deursen,et al.  The digital divide shifts to differences in usage , 2014, New Media Soc..

[17]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  Louis Leung,et al.  A review of social networking service (SNS) research in communication journals from 2006 to 2011 , 2015, New Media Soc..

[19]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

[20]  S. Korupp,et al.  Causes and Trends of the Digital Divide , 2005 .

[21]  Marco Rosa,et al.  Four degrees of separation , 2011, WebSci '12.

[22]  Christo Sims.  From differentiated use to differentiating practices: negotiating legitimate participation and the production of privileged identities , 2014 .

[23]  Grant Blank,et al.  Digital Divide| Examining Internet Use Through a Weberian Lens , 2015 .

[24]  J. Dijk,et al.  Internet skill levels increase, but gaps widen: a longitudinal cross-sectional analysis (2010–2013) among the Dutch population , 2015 .

[25]  Zeynep Tufekcioglu.  Grooming, gossip, facebook and myspace: What can we learn about these sites from those who won't assimilate? , 2008 .

[26]  Anabel Quan-Haase,et al.  Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: the impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage , 2014 .

[27]  Lindsay T. Graham,et al.  A Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[28]  J. Schradie.  The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide , 2011 .

[29]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Another brick in the Facebook wall - How personality traits relate to the content of status updates , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults , 2011, New Media Soc..

[31]  Tracii Ryan,et al.  Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[32]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Families on Facebook , 2013, ICWSM.

[33]  Teresa Correa,et al.  The Participation Divide Among "Online Experts": Experience, Skills and Psychological Factors as Predictors of College Students' Web Content Creation , 2010, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[34]  Eric W. T. Ngai,et al.  Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks , 2015, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[35]  B. Hogan,et al.  Persistence and Change in Social Media , 2010 .

[36]  Zeynep Tufekci.  GROOMING, GOSSIP, FACEBOOK AND MYSPACE , 2008 .

[37]  Ardion Beldad,et al.  How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[38]  Maeve Duggan,et al.  Social Media Update 2016 , 2016 .