Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Whose Space? Differences Among Users and
Non-Users of Social Network Sites
Eszter Hargittai
Communication Studies and Sociology
Northwestern University
Are there systematic differences between people who use social network sites and those
who stay away, despite a familiarity with them? Based on data from a survey adminis-
tered to a diverse group of young adults, this article looks at the predictors of SNS
usage, with particular focus on Facebook, MySpace, Xanga, and Friendster. Findings
suggest that use of such sites is not randomly distributed across a group of highly wired
users. A person’s gender, race and ethnicity, and parental educational background are
all associated with use, but in most cases only when the aggregate concept of social net-
work sites is disaggregated by service. Additionally, people with more experience and
autonomy of use are more likely to be users of such sites. Unequal participation based
on user background suggests that differential adoption of such services may be contrib-
uting to digital inequality.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x
Introduction
Social network sites (SNSs) have become some of the most popular online destina-
tions in recent years (comScore, 2007a, 2007b). Not surprisingly, this level of user
attraction has been accompanied by much coverage in the popular press, including
speculations about the potential gains and harms stemming from the use of SNS
services (Hempel, 2005; Magid, 2006; Stafford, 2006). Academic researchers have
started studying the use of SNSs, with questions ranging from their role in identity
construction and expression (boyd & Heer, 2006) to the building and maintenance
of social capital (e.g., Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007) and concerns about privacy
(e.g., Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Hodge, 2006). While these areas of inquiry are all
important and worthy of exploration, a significant antecedent question has been
largely ignored: Are there systematic differences between who is and who is not a SNS
user, and are people equally likely to join the various types of services that exist? This
article sets out to address this question.
A significant challenge for studies trying to answer questions about who is and is
not using SNSs is that the samples on which they are based (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007)
276 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 276–297 ª 2008 International Communication Association
,typically include such a small number of non-users that there is little variance present
to explain differentiated basic adoption of the services. On the rare occasions when
data have been available on non-users in addition to users, the focus of the studies
has been elsewhere. For example, Pasek, More, and Romer (2007) have disaggregated
data by site and variance on the usage of SNSs, but they look at the predictive power
of SNS usage on civic engagement, employing SNSs as an independent variable,
rather than exploring what explains their use in the first place. This article fills
a gap in the literature by: (1) explaining differences in SNS adoption and (2) dis-
aggregating SNS usage by specific service to see whether it is possible to predict use of
one service over another based on the background characteristics of the user, infor-
mation about the social context of use, and experiences with the medium.
Disaggregating usage by site also makes an important methodological contribu-
tion to the study of SNSs. As the results show, disaggregating which specific site one
is researching is important, because people do not randomly select into their uses,
and aggregate analyses of SNS use may make it difficult to identify important trends.
This suggests that researchers should tread lightly when generalizing from studies
about the use of one SNS to the use of another such service. While these sites do share
commonalities, they also have distinct features—whether at the level of site design or
the particular communities who comprise their user base—that may attract different
populations and may encourage different types of activities. Thus, an examination of
SNSs both in the aggregate and with respect to specific sites is important in order to
gain a better understanding of how use of such sites is spreading across various
population segments and the social implications of their usage.
Differentiating Types of Internet Uses
The New Yorker’s now-classic cartoon proclaimed in 1993 that ‘‘[o]n the Internet,
nobody knows you’re a dog’’ (Steiner, 1993), suggesting that identity was so hidden
online that opportunities would be widely open to all, regardless of background
characteristics that may have traditionally disadvantaged some people compared
to others. The idea that people would be on an equal footing online assumes that
offline characteristics are not mirrored in people’s online pursuits. However, sub-
sequent research has found this not to be the case, for example, with respect to
gender identity (Herring, 1993). Researchers have observed that despite initial
impressions and arguments about how users shed their offline identities in online
interactions (Turkle, 1995), offline identities very much carry over to online behavior
(boyd, 2001; Smith & Kollock, 1999). This suggests that the Internet is not necessarily
leveling the playing field in the way that the above-mentioned cartoon would have us
believe, given that people bring constraints and opportunities from their offline lives
with them to their online interactions and activities.
Indeed, studies looking at how different people use the Internet in their everyday
lives have found systematic differences across types of users. For example, even after
women caught up with men (in the United States) concerning basic connectivity
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 276–297 ª 2008 International Communication Association 277
, statistics, their uses continued to differ. Men have been shown to spend more time
online and claim higher-level skills than women (Bimber, 2000; Hargittai & Shafer,
2006; Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, & Schmitt, 2001; Ono & Zavodny, 2003), consistent with
earlier literature on women and technology use more generally (Frissen, 1995; Hall &
Cooper, 1991; Herring, 1994; Livingstone, 1992). Factors such as socioeconomic status
have also been shown to predict types of Internet uses (Howard, Rainie, & Jones, 2001;
Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Madden & Rainie, 2003). For example, so-called ‘‘capital-
enhancing’’ activities (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2002), such as looking for financial, polit-
ical, or government information online, are associated with socioeconomic status
(Howard et al., 2001). Moreover, the circumstances under which people use the
medium—such as their autonomy (Hassani, 2006) and experience of use (Howard
et al., 2001)—are also related to the purposes to which they put the medium. Research
has shown that more locations where one has Internet access and more time spent online
are associated with more diverse types of uses (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2005).
Research on refined understandings of the digital divide has found that even once
people go online, differences exist among their online pursuits (DiMaggio, Hargittai,
Celeste, & Shafer, 2004; Hargittai, 2002, 2007; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007;
Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003; van Dijk, 2005). Given that various back-
ground characteristics of people, the context of their Internet uses, and their level of
experience have all been shown to influence types of Web uses in general, it is worth
considering whether they may also relate to social network site usage in particular.
That is, given earlier work on differentiated Internet use among people from differ-
ent backgrounds, there is no reason to assume equal adoption of SNSs across popu-
lation segments. Work that focuses solely on users of social network sites excludes, by
definition, people who are not SNS users. Insofar as these people are systematically
different from those who embrace these services, it is problematic not to know
anything about them, since researchers thereby risk unintentionally excluding entire
groups of people from discussion about SNSs.
The Challenges of Studying SNS Adoption
An important reason for the scarcity of work that predicts SNS usage is the lack of
appropriate data necessary to address such questions. Despite Internet user studies
starting to focus on particular online behaviors, rather than considering all online
actions to be uniform (Howard & Jones, 2004; Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002),
categorizations of online activities have remained relatively broad, making it difficult
to understand who does what online, why, and how this influences the rest of
people’s lives. Additionally, because the popularity of SNSs is relatively recent, initial
data collection efforts about Web uses did not focus on them. It is more customary to
ask about the topics people encounter on websites (e.g., Internet use for the purposes
of gathering information about news or health matters) than to inquire in detail
about the particular sites and communities in which people may be participating.
Moreover, because individuals’ goals and activities on SNSs are extremely varied,
278 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 276–297 ª 2008 International Communication Association
Whose Space? Differences Among Users and
Non-Users of Social Network Sites
Eszter Hargittai
Communication Studies and Sociology
Northwestern University
Are there systematic differences between people who use social network sites and those
who stay away, despite a familiarity with them? Based on data from a survey adminis-
tered to a diverse group of young adults, this article looks at the predictors of SNS
usage, with particular focus on Facebook, MySpace, Xanga, and Friendster. Findings
suggest that use of such sites is not randomly distributed across a group of highly wired
users. A person’s gender, race and ethnicity, and parental educational background are
all associated with use, but in most cases only when the aggregate concept of social net-
work sites is disaggregated by service. Additionally, people with more experience and
autonomy of use are more likely to be users of such sites. Unequal participation based
on user background suggests that differential adoption of such services may be contrib-
uting to digital inequality.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x
Introduction
Social network sites (SNSs) have become some of the most popular online destina-
tions in recent years (comScore, 2007a, 2007b). Not surprisingly, this level of user
attraction has been accompanied by much coverage in the popular press, including
speculations about the potential gains and harms stemming from the use of SNS
services (Hempel, 2005; Magid, 2006; Stafford, 2006). Academic researchers have
started studying the use of SNSs, with questions ranging from their role in identity
construction and expression (boyd & Heer, 2006) to the building and maintenance
of social capital (e.g., Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007) and concerns about privacy
(e.g., Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Hodge, 2006). While these areas of inquiry are all
important and worthy of exploration, a significant antecedent question has been
largely ignored: Are there systematic differences between who is and who is not a SNS
user, and are people equally likely to join the various types of services that exist? This
article sets out to address this question.
A significant challenge for studies trying to answer questions about who is and is
not using SNSs is that the samples on which they are based (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007)
276 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 276–297 ª 2008 International Communication Association
,typically include such a small number of non-users that there is little variance present
to explain differentiated basic adoption of the services. On the rare occasions when
data have been available on non-users in addition to users, the focus of the studies
has been elsewhere. For example, Pasek, More, and Romer (2007) have disaggregated
data by site and variance on the usage of SNSs, but they look at the predictive power
of SNS usage on civic engagement, employing SNSs as an independent variable,
rather than exploring what explains their use in the first place. This article fills
a gap in the literature by: (1) explaining differences in SNS adoption and (2) dis-
aggregating SNS usage by specific service to see whether it is possible to predict use of
one service over another based on the background characteristics of the user, infor-
mation about the social context of use, and experiences with the medium.
Disaggregating usage by site also makes an important methodological contribu-
tion to the study of SNSs. As the results show, disaggregating which specific site one
is researching is important, because people do not randomly select into their uses,
and aggregate analyses of SNS use may make it difficult to identify important trends.
This suggests that researchers should tread lightly when generalizing from studies
about the use of one SNS to the use of another such service. While these sites do share
commonalities, they also have distinct features—whether at the level of site design or
the particular communities who comprise their user base—that may attract different
populations and may encourage different types of activities. Thus, an examination of
SNSs both in the aggregate and with respect to specific sites is important in order to
gain a better understanding of how use of such sites is spreading across various
population segments and the social implications of their usage.
Differentiating Types of Internet Uses
The New Yorker’s now-classic cartoon proclaimed in 1993 that ‘‘[o]n the Internet,
nobody knows you’re a dog’’ (Steiner, 1993), suggesting that identity was so hidden
online that opportunities would be widely open to all, regardless of background
characteristics that may have traditionally disadvantaged some people compared
to others. The idea that people would be on an equal footing online assumes that
offline characteristics are not mirrored in people’s online pursuits. However, sub-
sequent research has found this not to be the case, for example, with respect to
gender identity (Herring, 1993). Researchers have observed that despite initial
impressions and arguments about how users shed their offline identities in online
interactions (Turkle, 1995), offline identities very much carry over to online behavior
(boyd, 2001; Smith & Kollock, 1999). This suggests that the Internet is not necessarily
leveling the playing field in the way that the above-mentioned cartoon would have us
believe, given that people bring constraints and opportunities from their offline lives
with them to their online interactions and activities.
Indeed, studies looking at how different people use the Internet in their everyday
lives have found systematic differences across types of users. For example, even after
women caught up with men (in the United States) concerning basic connectivity
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 276–297 ª 2008 International Communication Association 277
, statistics, their uses continued to differ. Men have been shown to spend more time
online and claim higher-level skills than women (Bimber, 2000; Hargittai & Shafer,
2006; Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, & Schmitt, 2001; Ono & Zavodny, 2003), consistent with
earlier literature on women and technology use more generally (Frissen, 1995; Hall &
Cooper, 1991; Herring, 1994; Livingstone, 1992). Factors such as socioeconomic status
have also been shown to predict types of Internet uses (Howard, Rainie, & Jones, 2001;
Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Madden & Rainie, 2003). For example, so-called ‘‘capital-
enhancing’’ activities (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2002), such as looking for financial, polit-
ical, or government information online, are associated with socioeconomic status
(Howard et al., 2001). Moreover, the circumstances under which people use the
medium—such as their autonomy (Hassani, 2006) and experience of use (Howard
et al., 2001)—are also related to the purposes to which they put the medium. Research
has shown that more locations where one has Internet access and more time spent online
are associated with more diverse types of uses (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2005).
Research on refined understandings of the digital divide has found that even once
people go online, differences exist among their online pursuits (DiMaggio, Hargittai,
Celeste, & Shafer, 2004; Hargittai, 2002, 2007; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007;
Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003; van Dijk, 2005). Given that various back-
ground characteristics of people, the context of their Internet uses, and their level of
experience have all been shown to influence types of Web uses in general, it is worth
considering whether they may also relate to social network site usage in particular.
That is, given earlier work on differentiated Internet use among people from differ-
ent backgrounds, there is no reason to assume equal adoption of SNSs across popu-
lation segments. Work that focuses solely on users of social network sites excludes, by
definition, people who are not SNS users. Insofar as these people are systematically
different from those who embrace these services, it is problematic not to know
anything about them, since researchers thereby risk unintentionally excluding entire
groups of people from discussion about SNSs.
The Challenges of Studying SNS Adoption
An important reason for the scarcity of work that predicts SNS usage is the lack of
appropriate data necessary to address such questions. Despite Internet user studies
starting to focus on particular online behaviors, rather than considering all online
actions to be uniform (Howard & Jones, 2004; Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002),
categorizations of online activities have remained relatively broad, making it difficult
to understand who does what online, why, and how this influences the rest of
people’s lives. Additionally, because the popularity of SNSs is relatively recent, initial
data collection efforts about Web uses did not focus on them. It is more customary to
ask about the topics people encounter on websites (e.g., Internet use for the purposes
of gathering information about news or health matters) than to inquire in detail
about the particular sites and communities in which people may be participating.
Moreover, because individuals’ goals and activities on SNSs are extremely varied,
278 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 276–297 ª 2008 International Communication Association
