References
- Adler, P. S., and S.-W. Kwon. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27 (1):17–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314.
- Aguilar, S. J., H. Galperin, C. Baek, and E. Gonzalez. 2021. Live instruction predicts engagement in K–12 remote learning. Educational Researcher 20 (10):0013189X2110568. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211056884.
- Ahn, J. 2012. Teenagers and social network sites: Do off-line inequalities predict their online social networks? First Monday 17 (1). Accessed December 19, 2021. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3752/3130. doi: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i1.3752.
- Alhabash, S., and M. Ma. 2017. A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social Media + Society 3 (1):1–13.
- Barry, C. T., C. L. Sidoti, S. M. Briggs, S. R. Reiter, and R. A. Lindsey. 2017. Adolescent social media use and mental health from adolescent and parent perspectives. Journal of Adolescence 61:1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.08.005.
- Bayer, J. B., P. Triệu, and N. B. Ellison. 2020. Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual Review of Psychology 71:471–97.
- Blank, G. 2013. Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society 16 (4):590–612. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777758.
- Blank, G. 2017. The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review 35 (6):679–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316671698.
- Blank, G., and D. Groselj. 2014. Dimensions of Internet use: Amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society 17 (4):417–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.889189.
- Blank, G., and C. Lutz. 2016. The social structuration of six major social media platforms in the United Kingdom: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Google + and Pinterest. In SMSociety ‘16: Proceedings of the 7th 2016 International Conference on Social Media & Society, 1–10. New York: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2930971.2930979.
- Blank, G., and C. Lutz. 2017. Representativeness of social media in Great Britain: Investigating Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+, and Instagram. American Behavioral Scientist 61 (7):741–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217717559.
- Blank, G., and C. Lutz. 2018. Benefits and harms from Internet use: A differentiated analysis of Great Britain. New Media & Society 20 (2):618–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816667135.
- Bobkowski, P., and J. Smith. 2013. Social media divide: Characteristics of emerging adults who do not use social network websites. Media, Culture & Society 35 (6):771–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443713491517.
- Boczkowski, P., M. Matassi, and E. Mitchelstein. 2018. How young users deal with multiple platforms: The role of meaning-making in social media repertoires. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23 (5):245–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy012.
- Correa, T. 2010. The participation divide among “online experts”: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 16 (1):71–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01532.x.
- Correa, T., A. W. Hinsley, and H. Gil De Zúñiga. 2010. Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2):247–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003.
- Del Vicario, M., S. Gaito, W. Quattrociocchi, M. Zignani, and F. Zollo. 2017. News consumption during the Italian referendum: A cross-platform analysis on Facebook and Twitter. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), 648–57. New York: IEEE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2017.33.
- DeVito, M. A., A. M. Walker, and J. Birnholtz. 2018. “Too gay for Facebook”: Presenting LGBTQ + identity throughout the personal social media ecosystem. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2 (CSCW):1–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3274313.
- Diehl, T., M. Barnidge, and H. Gil de Zúñiga. 2019. Multi-platform news use and political participation across age groups: Toward a valid metric of platform diversity and its effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96 (2):428–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018783960.
- Dubois, E., and G. Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society 21 (5):729–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
- Ellison, N. B., J. Vitak, R. Gray, and C. Lampe. 2014. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (4):855–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12078.
- Feng, G. C., Y. Zhang, and Z. Lin. 2019. A meta-analysis of the effects of sociodemographic factors on social media adoption. International Journal of Communication 13:1996–2025.
- Ferguson, D. A., and E. M. Perse. 1993. Media and audience influences on channel repertoire. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 37 (1):31–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159309364202.
- Feuls, M., C. Fieseler, M. Meckel, and A. Suphan. 2016. Being unemployed in the age of social media. New Media & Society 18 (6):944–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814552637.
- Feuls, M., C. Fieseler, and A. Suphan. 2014. A social net? Internet and social media use during unemployment. Work, Employment and Society 28 (4):551–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017013519846.
- French, M., and N. Bazarova. 2017. Is anybody out there?: Understanding masspersonal communication through expectations for response across social media platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22 (6):303–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12197.
- Friemel, T. N. 2016. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society 18 (2):313–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648.
- Galperin, H., and M. Arcidiacono. 2021. Employment and the gender digital divide in Latin America: A decomposition analysis. Telecommunications Policy 45 (7):102166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102166.
- Gil De Zúñiga, H., M. Barnidge, and A. Scherman. 2017. Social media social capital, offline social capital, and citizenship: Exploring asymmetrical social capital effects. Political Communication 34 (1):44–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1227000.
- Hargittai, E. 2010. Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation. Sociological Inquiry 80 (1):92–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x.
- Hargittai, E. 2020. Potential biases in big data: Omitted voices on social media. Social Science Computer Review 38 (1):10–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318788322.
- Hargittai, E., and A. Hinnant. 2008. Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research 35 (5):602–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782.
- Hargittai, E., and G. Walejko. 2008. The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society 11 (2):239–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946150.
- Harlow, S. 2016. Reconfiguring and remediating social media as alternative media: Exploring youth activists’ digital media ecology in El Salvador. Palabra Clave - Revista de Comunicación 19 (4):997–1026. doi: https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2016.19.4.3.
- Hasebrink, U., and H. Domeyer. 2012. Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations 9 (2):757–79.
- Hasebrink, U., and A. Hepp. 2017. How to research cross-media practices? Investigating media repertoires and media ensembles. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23 (4):362–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517700384.
- Hasebrink, U., and J. Popp. 2006. Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure. Communications 31 (3):369–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.023.
- Hayes, R. A., C. T. Carr, and D. Y. Wohn. 2016. It’s the audience: Differences in social support across social media. Social Media + Society 2 (4):205630511667889–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116678894.
- Helsper, E. 2021. The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. London: Sage.
- Jordan, K. 2018. Validity, reliability, and the case for participant-centered research: Reflections on a multi-platform social media study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 34 (10):913–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1471570.
- Karapanos, E., P. Teixeira, and R. Gouveia. 2016. Need fulfillment and experiences on social media: A case on Facebook and WhatsApp. Computers in Human Behavior 55:888–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.015.
- Klein, J., M. Walter, and U. Schimank. 2018. Researching individuals’ media repertoires: Challenges of qualitative interviews on cross-media practices. In Communicative figurations: Transforming communications in times of deep mediatization, ed. A. Hepp, A. Breiter, and U. Hasebrink, 363–86. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
- Ling, R., J. Bjelland, P. R. Sundsøy, and S. W. Campbell. 2014. Small circles: Mobile telephony and the cultivation of the private sphere. The Information Society 30 (4):282–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.915279.
- Lutz, C. 2019. Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1 (2):141–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.140.
- Papacharissi, Z. 2009. The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Linkedin and Asmallworld. New Media & Society 11 (1-2):199–220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577.
- Pearce, K. E., and R. E. Rice. 2013. Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication 63 (4):721–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12045.
- Phua, J., S. V. Jin, and J. Kim. 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 72:115–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041.
- Pittman, M., and B. Reich. 2016. Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior 62:155–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084.
- Primack, B. A., A. Shensa, C. G. Escobar-Viera, E. L. Barrett, J. E. Sidani, J. B. Colditz, and A. E. James. 2017. Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior 69:1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.013.
- Prior, M. 2005. News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science 49 (3):577–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00143.x.
- SAIMO (Sociedad Argentina de Investigadores de Marketing y Opinión). 2015. Cuestionario NSE simplificado papel (2015). Accessed June 30, 2020. http://www.saimo.org.ar/ob-social-archivos.php.
- Shane-Simpson, C., A. Manago, N. Gaggi, and K. Gillespie-Lynch. 2018. Why do college students prefer Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? Site affordances, tensions between privacy and self-expression, and implications for social capital. Computers in Human Behavior 86:276–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.041.
- Sutcliffe, A., R. Dunbar, J. Binder, and H. Arrow. 2012. Relationships and the social brain: Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. British Journal of Psychology 103 (2):149–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02061.x.
- Swart, J., C. Peters, and M. Broersma. 2017. Navigating cross-media news use: Media repertoires and the value of news in everyday life. Journalism Studies 18 (11):1343–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1129285.
- Tandoc, E. C., C. Lou, and V. L. H. Min. 2019. Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context: How and why users navigate multiple social media platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 24 (1):21–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022.
- Taneja, H., J. G. Webster, E. C. Malthouse, and T. B. Ksiazek. 2012. Media consumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media & Society 14 (6):951–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811436146.
- Tang, T., and R. Cooper. 2013. Olympics everywhere: Predictors of multiplatform media uses during the 2012 London Olympics. Mass Communication and Society 16 (6):850–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.804936.
- Valenzuela, S., T. Correa, and H. Gil De Zúñiga. 2018. Ties, likes, and tweets: Using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication 35 (1):117–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726.
- van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and E. J. Helsper. 2015. The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and information technologies annual, ed. L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale and A. Williams, Vol. 10, 29–52. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
- van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and E. Helsper. 2018. Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society 20 (7):2333–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817715282.
- van Deursen, A. J. A. M., E. Helsper, R. Eynon, and J. A. G. M. van Dijk. 2017. The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication 11:452–73.
- van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and J. A. G. M. van Dijk. 2014. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society 16 (3):507–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959.
- van Dijck, J. 2013. “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society 35 (2):199–215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605.
- van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2006. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34 (4-5):221–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.
- van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2013. A theory of the digital divide. In The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, ed. M. Ragnedda and G. W. Muschert, 29–51. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
- We Are Social and Hootsuite. 2021. Digital 2021: Global overview report. Accessed January 3, 2022. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-global-overview-report.
- Webster, J. G. 2014. The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Yates, S., and E. Lockley. 2018. Social media and social class. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (9):1291–316. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773821.
- Zhao, X., C. Lampe, and N. B. Ellison. 2016. The social media ecology: User perceptions, strategies and challenges. In CHI’16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 89–100. New York: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858333.