Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior Reports

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-in-human-behavior-reports

The demographics of computer-mediated communication: A review of social

media demographic trends among social networking site giants
€
Sarah Gambo *, Bahire Ofe Ozad
Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The emergence of social network sites (SNSs) and their extraordinary expansion across the globe has articulated
Computer-mediated communication the crucial role computer-mediated communication now plays in human interactions. Though everyone seems
Social media caught-up in this new communication frenzy, the appears to be a significant dissimilarity and gaps in the de-
Demographics
mographics of SNS usage. The aforementioned subject has been the focus of much scholarly attention in recent
Social network sites
Online platforms
years as scholars and researchers sought to understand and explain the issue. Most literature on this topic have
SNS usage been focused on the following preoccupations: How is SNSs usage distributed amongst various demographic
groups, gender and SNS usage, and SNS and age factor. These issues constitute the focus of this review article. This
paper undertakes a review of published research studies on demographic issues on social network sites. Three
major findings surfaced from the inductive analysis of the study results: the demographic distribution of SNS
usage presents a clear domination of youths and women; men and women have different motivation in their SNS
usage with women pursuing specific targets and men being more general; and older people are more concerned
with privacy in their social media usage than youths.

1. Introduction Ralph, Berglas, Schwartz, & Brindis, 2011; Vandoninck, d’Haenens, De

The emergence of social network sites (SNSs) can be considered as the
greatest catalyst to the proliferation of computer-mediated communica-
tion (CMC) hitherto essentially confined to email communication. Social
media usage has witnessed a phenomenal leap in the present decade
moving from almost 1 billion users in 2010 to 2.82 billion users in 2019
(Statista, 2019). Among the SNSs engineering this expansion is Facebook
which has emerged as the most popular SNS worldwide with an active
user population of over 2.3 billion (Statista, 2019b). One of the important
characteristics of SNSs is its multiple usage that ranges from information
access, debates, entertainment to socialization (Valenzuela et al., 2009).
Though SNSs offer diverse services, they share similar traits such as; free
membership, user-generated content (posts, photos, and videos), con-
necting users with shared history (same workplace, school or similar
interest), promoting the development of professional relationships
among persons of similar professions, and providing relevant informa-
tion, services, or products (KENTON, 2019).
Researchers and writers have focused on various dimensions of how
SNS impact society. Some authors have written on the impact of SNS on
youths (Buckingham, 2007, p. 216; Kuppuswamy & Narayan, 2010;
Cock, & Donoso, 2012; Ybarra et al., 2008). Others have focused their
attention on SNS addiction (Babera et al., 2009; Carbonell & Panova,
2017; Griffiths, 2013; Kuss & Griffiths, 2017; Müller et al., 2016; Wu,
Cheung, Ku, & Hung, 2013). Another group of authors have been pre-
occupied with SNS and self-esteem (Barker, 2009; Gangadharbatla, 2008;
Kr€amer & Winter 2008; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). This re-
view focuses entirely on the demographics of SNS usage. It explores the
following concerns: How is SNSs usage distributed amongst age groups,
gender, social status, and race/ethnicity; how does the demographics of
SNS usage affect marketing; how does the popularity ranking of SNSs
demographics affect the conception, and target of products and services
of social networking sites. A thematic analysis will be done on the articles
under review after which some hypothesis would be formulated based on
the findings uncovered by the various authors. Directions for future
research will also be explored.
2. Structure of the article
The article starts with an introduction which identifies the purpose
and situates the context of this review. A conceptual framework is then

* Corresponding author.
€
E-mail addresses: gamssarah@gmail.com (S. Gambo), bahire.ozad@emu.edu.tr (B.O. Ozad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100016
Received 8 January 2020; Accepted 2 May 2020
Available online xxxx
2451-9588/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad
established with an exploration of the key concepts under study-
—computer-mediated communication and social networking sites. A
brief historical background of the selected social networking sites under
review is presented after which the method for article selection is also
discussed.
What follows is thematic presentation of the results of findings of the
articles reviewed and a general discussion on the implications of the
findings. Some hypotheses are proposed based on the review as well as
suggestion for future study.
3. Computer-mediated communication
Herring (1996: p.1) defines computer-mediated communication
(CMC) as "communication that takes place between human beings via the
instrumentality of computers." Simpson (2002) distinguishes two types of
CMC: synchronous in which there is a real time occurrence of interaction
between participants like video, audio and computer conferencing; and
asynchronous wherein participants may not necessarily be online at the
same time like discussion forums, email and mailing lists. According to
Rodriguez (2016), CMC focuses on the relationship that exist between
new and preceding messages instead of looking at the content, number,
timing or frequency of the exchange of messages. The usage of a multi-
faceted instrument like the internet has enabled CMC to exert such a
strong influence to the extent that man’s psychology has been affected by
his dependence on computer (Communication Theory, 2019). The most
notable advantages of CMC include: effective communication, instant
feedback, its ability to connect people beyond social or religious circles,
the provision of an effective alternative to other means of communication
and the rich resources it offers (Loglia and Bowers (2016)). Concerning
the importance of CMC, Loglia and Bowers (2016) add that it has become
a standard and highly convenient work tool.
Beyond its technological character, some authors have emphasis the
social dimension of CMC. Kumar, Natarajan, and Acharaya (2017) un-
derscore CMC goes beyond just digital text or visually detailed image to a
transformation of socio-cultural interaction through the continuous
definition and redefinition of the commonalities, relationships and
identities of digital communities. In the same vein, El-Jarn (2015)
maintains that one of the important roles of CMC is the contribution it
makes to in the transformation of social communication, pointing out
CMC enables individuals to "extend socializing beyond the traditional
methods of communication" (El-Jarn (2015), p. 14).
4. Social network sites (SNS)
Boyd and Ellison (2007: p.211) provide the following definition of
social network sites (SNS):
Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or
semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other
users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their
list of connections and those made by others within the system. The
nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.
Though other authors use the term "social networking sites" to
represent the same phenomenon (Chapman & Lahav, 2008; Lin & Lu,
2011), Boyd and Ellison (2007) explain their decision to use "network"
instead of "networking" is based on two considerations: networking
represents an option in social network sites but not their primary focus
nor the factor that distinguishes these sites from other types of CMC.
Collin, Rahilly, Richardson, and Third (2011) on their part, went for the
term ’social networking services’ while employing the aforementioned
definition by Boyd & Ellison. This study utilizes Boyd & Ellison’s iden-
tification of SNS as social network sites given the fact that such sites, as
they underscore, provide other services apart from networking.
Harrison & Thomas (2009) trace the origin of SNS o the emergence of
Web 2.0 technologies around the close of 2004. According the afore-
mentioned authors, the transition from Web 1.0 with its technological
limitations (static webpages, and limited space for interactivity) to Web
2
Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016
2.0 with user-generated content and the development of an online
community provided a framework for the emergence of SNSs like
MySpace, Friendster, and Facebook (Haferkamp & Kr€amer, 2011).
In terms of structure, SNSs have become more user friendly providing
functionalities for a more detailed description of their users like profile
photo, and some background information (Haferkamp & Kr€amer, 2011).
On this score, Boyd and Ellison (2007: p. 211) and Ellison add that the
backbone of SNSs "consists of visible profiles that display an articulated
list of Friends who are also users of the system."
Concerning motivation to use SNS, a study conducted by Lin and Lu
(2011) identified "enjoyment" as the primordial factor influencing peo-
ple’s continuous SNS usage. The add that this factor is followed by the
number of peer on the platform and its usefulness. According to Boyd and
Ellison (2007) the fundamental issue in SNS usage is the concept of
identity which relates to the manner in which users build their online
profile and friends list. Harrison & Thomas (2009) underscore identity
helps to shape four fundamental community processes:
1. Impression management is concerned with personal identity forma-
tion, in which users define their own identities through the infor-
mation they provide in their profile, and the extent to which they
make it public or private in the community and thereby send out
identity signals to others.
2. Friendship management is linked to impression management in that
users use publicly displayed profiles of others to choose who they
would like to include as friends on their list, that is, they look at the
identity markers of other users as a benchmark for establishing levels
of social interaction.
3. Network structure relates to the roles that users play in the social
community in which they participate. Some users will be fairly pas-
sive and have a restricted personal network. Others will be active
posters of information, and build up intricate networks of friends.
Others will play an even greater role in actively promoting and
developing the SNS as a whole, by setting up groups and communities
and posting publicly available information to encourage interaction.
4. Bridging of online and offline social networks, which is concerned
with the degree to which the SNS becomes an integral part of the
users’ actual life while offline (Turkle as cited in Harrison & Thomas,
2009, p. 114).
With over 4.3 billion social media users worldwide, the importance of
SNS cannot be overemphasised. An exploration of all the demographics
of SNS in all the SNSs that have emerged since the Web 2.0 revolution lies
beyond the scope of this study. This study is restricted to three major
SNSs worldwide: Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. A background
(brief history and profile) of the aforementioned SNSs is explored below.
4.1. Facebook
The history of Facebook is linked to the journey of a 23-year-old
Harvard University Psychology student with a knack for computer pro-
gramming. It all started with a social networking experiment when
Zuckerberg (at the time a second-year Harvard student) launched a site
called ’Facemash’ through which visitors could make a side-by-side
comparison of student ID pictures to determine who was hot or not.
The site was shut down a few days after being launched because Zuck-
erberg had hacked into the Harvard University security network to
populate his site with student ID pictures (Bellis, 2019).
Mark Zuckerberg later launched the now globally acclaimed SNS in
February 2004 under the name "The Facebook" with an initial subscrip-
tion covering more than half of the Harvard undergraduate student
population in the space of a month (Phillips, 2007; McFadden, 2019).
Together with co-founders Chris Hughes, Eduardo Saverin, and Dustin
Moskovitz, Zuckerberg extended the subscription to three other US elite
university campuses: Yale, Stanford and Columbia (Greiner, Fiegerman,
Sherman, & Baker, 2019). The present name (Facebook) was adopted in
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad
August 2005 after the purchase of Facebook.com for the sum of $200,000
(Phillips, 2007). Facebook was opened to global subscription (for anyone
from 13 and above with a valid email address) by September 26, 2006
(Barr, 2018). It emerged as the biggest global social network in 2012 with
over a billion users (Hall, 2019).
In spite of the multiple functionalities and purposes it now serves,
Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg maintains the funda-
mental purpose of the SNS has always been and still remains to connect
people worldwide. He reiterated this perspective in his message on the
occasion of the company’s 10th anniversary:
I remember getting pizza with my friends one night in college shortly
after opening Facebook. I told them I was excited to help connect our
school community, but one day someone needed to connect the whole
world.
I always thought this was important – giving people the power to
share and stay connected, empowering people to build their own
communities themselves.
When I reflect on the last 10 years, one question I ask myself is: why
were we the ones to build this? We were just students. We had way
fewer resources than big companies. If they had focused on this
problem, they could have done it.
The only answer I can think of is: we just cared more.
While some doubted that connecting the world was actually impor-
tant, we were building. While others doubted that this would be
sustainable, you were forming lasting connections.
We just cared more about connecting the world than anyone else. And
we still do today.
(Zuckerberg, 2014).
Till date, Facebook continues to lead the charge in connecting people
across the globe with 2.7 billion monthly active users, 60.6% of internet
users reached, and 80 million small business Facebook page subscriptions
(Mohsin, 2019).
4.2. Instagram
Instagram was co-founded in San Francisco by Kevin Systrom and Mike
Krieger. It was launched on 6 October 2010 (Instagram, 2019). The history
of Instagram began when Systrom embarked on a project to create an app
dubbed ’Burbn’ designed as a mobile web app to help people to check-in,
share pictures and their plans. The project wasn’t successful due to the
confusing nature of the app employed entirely by users to share all types of
photos (Harrison, 2018). Notwithstanding, Systrom met with two venture
capital firms in Silicon Valley (Adreessen Horowitz and baseline Ventures)
to discuss his project weeks after the creation of Burbn and was able to
raise seed capital to the tune of $500,000 for his project (Woods, 2013).
Systrom was joined by Mike Krieger a Brazilian software engineer and
entrepreneur and the pair decided to focus on a photo sharing app that
can enable users to share Polaroid-like pictures which can be tweaked
using filters and share videos of not more than 15 s duration (New
Audience Media, 2019). Instagram (which is etymologically derived from
the combination of ’Instant Camera’ and ’Telegram’) was launched for
the iPhone on 6 October 2010 and reached a million users at the end of
that year (Medium, 2017) Instagram was acquired by Facebook in 2012
for the cost of $1 billion and now counts more than 600 million active
users (Medium, 2017).
As a social networking platform, Instagram avails its users a means to
instantaneously capture and share important moments in their lives with
their friends through a series of filtered manipulated photos and videos
(Hu, Manikonda, & Kambhampati, 2014).
In terms of features and services, Instagram draws its uniqueness not
from its originality as a media sharing service (given that its features are
3
Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016
not new per se) but from its ability to combine elements such as image
manipulation, location annotation and instant photo sharing in one
mobile app (Hochman & Manovich, 2013). Some of the prominent ser-
vices on the Instagram platform includes: geo-temporal tagging; spatial
connectivities; manipulation tools that enable users to create a
multi-temporal image (Logomyway, 2017).
4.3. WhatsApp
WhatsApp was founded in 2009 by Brian Acton and Jan Koum (two
former Yahoo employees) after receiving seed capital ($250,000) from
their former associates (Logomyway, 2017). The intention of the authors
was to create an application to replace the current SMS platform with an
ad free and free of charge system (Bouhnik, Deshen, & Gan, 2014). After
three days spent with the founders of the platform, Rowan (2014)
revealed Koum’s motivation as he experimented WhatsApp were
three-fold: "his service would defiantly not carry advertising, an experi-
ence satisfyingly absent from his Soviet upbringing; it would not store
messages and thus imperil individual citizens’ privacy; and it would
maintain a relentless focus on delivering a gimmickless, reliable,
friction-free user experience." After the failure of the original model,
Acton and Koum persisted and after much beta testing the app was
launched in iPhone app store and Blackberry in 2009, and in Android in
2010 (Kishundat, 2018). The ’Whatsapp inc’ was incorporated in Cali-
fornia by Koum on 24 February 2009.
WhatsApp, which is derived from the phrase "What’s Up" (Whatsapp,
2019), can best be described as an instant messaging cross-platform
smartphone application that permits users send free real-time text mes-
sages to individuals or groups, exchange images, location information,
audio and video files (Church & De Oliveira, 2013). Montag et al. (2015)
underscore that WhatsApp "represents one of the most important features
of a smartphone, as it enables easy communication via text or voice
messages between two or more persons".
One of the unique features of the WhatsApp platform is the ability for
users to create and communicate on groups. Explaining the functioning of
groups, Bouhnik et al. (2014: p. 218) point out:
The creator of the group becomes its manager, a position that includes
the privilege of adding and removing participants without the need
for approval from the group members. Aside from this, all of the
participants in the group enjoy equal rights. The application enables
the participants to receive an alert for each message sent or, alter-
natively, to mute the incoming alerts for the duration of 8 hours, a
day, or a whole week.
WhatsApp was purchased by Facebook in 2014 for a colossal sum of
$19 billion when the social media giant perceived it (WhatsApp) as a
potential competitor in the future. This was evidenced by the fact that
WhatsApp had become the largest competitor to Facebook Messenger.
(Pahwa, 2019). The acquisition brought some few changes. The initial
annual subscription fee of one Dollar charged on iPhone users was
dropped and new version for Mac and Windows operating systems were
made available to users (Kishundat, 2018).
Today, WhatsApp has become the uncontested global leader in
internet messaging with a global user population of over a billion across
180 countries (Whatsapp, 2019). Montag et al. (2015) attribute this
success to three factors: free cost messaging services; function across
different mobile platforms (Android, Apple and others); and interna-
tional functionality.
5. Method of selection
This research study is specifically focused on and limited to a review
of articles that address demographics on SNSs. Three specific SNSs were
selected for this review: Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp. This se-
lection is based on the fact that the aforementioned sites features among
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016

the top six SNSs in terms of global usage in most recent classifications Table 1
(Dhiraj, 2019; Ebizmba, 2019; Lua, 2019; Ortiz-Ospina, 2019; Statista, Demographic distribution of SNS usage in the US in 2012.
2019; Stout, 2019). This review also places emphasis on articles with Social Percentage of internet Demographic group this service is most
empirical findings or data as opposed to non-empirical literature. This is Networking Site users using it appealing to
particularly significant in the sense that demographics is best explained Any SNS 67 Adults ages 18–29, women
through data analysis than non-empirical explanations.
Facebook 67 Women, adults ages 18-29
Proquest, JSTOR, Google Scholar, SpringerLink, Oxford Journals, and Twitter 16 Adults ages 18–29, African-Americans,
Biefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) were used as electronic data- urban residents
bases to search for empirical articles with demographic data on SNSs. The Pinterest 15 Women, adults under 50, whites, those
following keywords were employed in the search: Social media de- with some college education
Instagram 13 Adults ages 18–29, African-Americans,
mographics, Facebook demographics, Instagram demographics, What-
Latinos, women, urban residents
sApp demographics. The searches brought forth a total of 1036 articles. Tumblr 6 Adults ages 18-29
Out of the aforementioned number, a total of 30 articles with relevant
Source: Taken from Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project
data on social media demographics or demographics of any of the
Post-Election Survey, November 14 – December 09, 2012. N ¼ 1802 internet
selected SNSs where identified for review.
users. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and on landline and cell
phones. Margin of error is  2.6 percentage points for results based on internet
6. Results users. Facebook figures are based on Pew Research Center’s Internet & American
Life Project Omnibus Survey, December 13–16, 2012. Margin of error for Face-
The fundamental objective of this review is to examine the correlation book data is  2.9 percentage points for results based on internet users (n ¼ 860).
between social media and demographics. Articles selected for the review
therefore presented various trends on how social media relates with
demography. To better understand the nexus between the two, this re- Table 2
view grouped the findings of the various authors into three main the- Facebook Demographics among US internet users in 2015.
matic: The demographic distribution of SNS usage; Gender trends in SNS Demographic category Percentage of users
usage and Age difference in SNS usage. The major findings are high- Total number of user for all categories 72
lighted below.
Male 66
Female 77
6.1. Demographic distribution of SNS
Non-Hispanic Whites 70
Non-Hispanic Blacks (n ¼ 85) 67
The demographic distribution of SNS usage is a subject is one of the Hispanic 75
principal themes in academic literature on SNS. Most of them are con-
Ages 18-29 82
cerned with a statistical representation of SNS usage among different Ages 30-49 79
demographic units. Exploring the demographic disparity in Facebook Ages 50-64 64
usage in countries across three continents (North America, Europe, and Ages 65þ 48
Asia), Gil-Clavel and Zagheni (2019) discovered there is little difference High school education or below 71
in patterns of usage between younger adults and older people in northern Some college education 72
Europe and North America. They also found out gender differences in Collegeþ 72
Facebook adoption disappeared at older ages among Asian countries Income < $30,000/year 73
where gender inequalities are high and that women across countries had Income between $30,000 - $49,999 72
the tend to a larger close friend’s network than their male counterparts Income between $50,000 – $74,999 66
Income $75,000þ 78
(Duggan & Brenner, 2013).
In the last two decades (2005–2019), the Pew Research Center has Urban 74
Suburban 72
been carrying out demographic surveys on social media users in the
Rural 67
United States. Some of their surveys contain important statistics on the
demographics of SNS Users especially those on Facebook and Instagram. Source: Taken from Pew Research Center, March 17-April 12, 2015.
A 2012 Pew survey on social media demographics uncovered some rich
statistics on gender, age and racial distribution of users of two of the SNS
in this review (Facebook and Instagram) (Duggan & Brenner, 2013).
The number of Instagram users among Americans internet users
3). 67% of internet users (comprising women and adults ages 18–29)
increased to 32% with its main demographic user categories being young
used Facebook while only 13% (comprising adults ages 18–29, Latinos,
adults ages 18–29 (59%) and women (38%) (Smith & Anderson, 2018).
women and urban residents) used Instagram (See Table 1 below).
The most recent Pew statistics on social media demographics
In 2015, Pew added some more demographic component on its social
(2018–2019) shows some notable changes in the SNS landscape (Smith &
media users demographic including race, level of education and level of
Anderson, 2018; Perrin & Anderson, 2019). YouTube overtook Facebook
income for Facebook (see Table 2). Facebook still maintained the lead
as the most popular SNS among US adult internet users with a total of
among American adult internet users with 72% of users and Instagram
73%–68% in 2018 and 73%–68% in 2019 for both SNSs respectively (See
rose to 28% (Duggan, 2015). Young adults ages from 18 to 29 and Black,
Tables 3 and 4). Instagram remained the third most popular SNS in both
Non-Hispanic had the highest number of users among other demographic
years increasing its user percentage from 35 in 2018 to 37 in 2019 (See
categories with 55% and 47% Instagram users (Greenwood, Perrin, &
Tables 3 and 4). WhatsApp appeared for the first time in the 2018 and
Duggan, 2016).
2019 Pew surveys at the 8th spot with a total user percentage of 22 in
Both Facebook and Instagram extended their user population in 2016.
2018 and 20 in 2019 (See Tables 3 and 4).
According to Pew’s "Social Media Update 201600 , Facebook increased its
Malin (2010) discusses the demographics of Facebook usage in the
lead as the most popular social media platform with 79% of all Americans
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region. He underscores Facebook
online as its users. Young adults (ages 18–29), adults ages 30–49, women,
has made significant in routes into the Arabic community following its
people with some college education, urban and rural residents were
decision to introduce a new user interface in Arabic in March 2009. That
among the top Facebook users with more than 80% each (Greenwood,
move attracted 3.5 million Arabic users with Facebook communities in
Perrin, & Duggan, 2016).

4
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016

Table 3
The distribution of social media platform usage in the US among different demographic groups in 2018.
Demographic group YouTube Facebook Pinterest Instagram Snapchat LinkedIn Twitter WhatsApp

Total number of users among US adults 73% 68% 29% 35% 27% 25% 24% 22%

Men 75 62 16 30 23 25 23 20
Women 72 74 41 39 31 25 24 24

White 71 67 32 32 24 26 24 14
Black 76 70 23 43 36 28 26 21
Hispanic 78 73 23 38 31 13 20 49

Ages 18-29 91 81 34 64 64 29 40 27
Ages 18-24 94 80 31 71 78 25 45 25
Ages 25-29 88 82 39 54 54 34 33 31
Ages 30-49 85 78 34 40 26 33 27 32
Ages 50-64 68 65 26 21 10 24 19 17
Ages 65þ 40 41 16 10 3 9 8 6

Income <$30,000 68 66 20 30 23 13 20 20
Income $30,000-$49,000 78 74 32 42 33 20 21 19
Income $50,000-$74,999 77 70 34 32 26 24 26 21
Income $75,000þ 84 75 39 42 30 45 32 25

High school education or below 65 60 18 29 24 9 18 20

Some college 74 71 32 36 31 22 25 18
Collegeþ 85 77 40 42 26 50 32 29

Urban 80 75 29 42 32 30 29 28
Suburban 74 67 31 34 26 27 23 19
Rural 59 58 28 25 18 13 17 9

NB: White and Black demographics include non-Hispanic. Hispanics are of any race. Source: Taken from Survey entitled “Social Media Use in 2018” conducted by Pew in
Jan. 3–10. 2018.

Table 4
The distribution of social media platform usage in the US among different demographic groups in 2019.
Demographic group YouTube Facebook Instagram Pinterest LinkedIn Snapchat Twitter WhatsApp Reddit

Total number of users among US adults 73% 69% 37% 28% 27% 24% 22% 20% 11%

Men 78 63 31 15 29 24 24 21 15
Women 68 75 43 42 24 24 21 19 8

White 71 70 33 33 28 22 21 13 12
Black 77 70 40 27 24 28 24 24 4
Hispanic 78 69 51 22 16 29 25 42 14

Ages 18-29 91 79 67 34 28 62 38 23 22
Ages 18-24 90 79 75 38 17 73 44 20 21
Ages 25-29 93 84 57 28 44 47 31 28 23
Ages 30-49 87 79 47 35 37 25 26 31 14
Ages 50-64 70 68 23 27 24 9 17 16 6
Ages 65þ 38 46 8 15 11 3 7 3 1

Income <$30,000 68 69 35 18 10 27 20 19 9
Income $30,000-$74,999 75 72 39 27 26 26 20 16 10
Income $75,000þ 83 74 42 41 49 22 31 25 15

High school education or below 64 61 33 19 9 22 13 18 6

Some college 79 75 37 32 26 29 24 14 14
Collegeþ 80 74 43 38 51 20 32 28 15

Urban 77 73 46 30 33 29 26 24 11
Suburban 74 69 35 30 30 20 22 19 13
Rural 64 66 21 26 10 20 13 10 8

NB: This survey omits respondents who did not give an answer. Hispanics are of any race. Whites and blacks include only non-Hispanic. Source: Taken from Survey
conducted by Pew Jan. 8-Feb. 7, 2019.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia having the highest growth with 1.1 Arabic users 6.2. Gender trends in SNS usage
each. Facebook is also very popular among university students in
Pakistan as a study placed Facebook at the top ahead of Twitter and A number of authors have been concerned with the relationship be-
LinkedIn (Ahmad, Mustafa, & Ullah, 2016). tween SNSs and gender. Fatehkia, Kashyap, and Weber (2018) focused

5
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad
on the challenges of tracking the global digital gender gap. The highlight
the difficulty to assess gender caps in access to the internet and mobile
phones as a result of data gaps mostly prevalent in low-income states.
Using Facebook demographic data (on age and gender) the authors were
able to predict digital gender gaps for over 150 states. Their findings
revealed a correlation between indicators of online Facebook gender gap
and official statistics available on gender gaps in internet and mobile
access. A similar study was carried out by Garcia et al. (2018) using data
from Facebook Gender Divide (FGD) to measure gender inequality in the
globe. Drawing from aggregated statistics of over 1.4 billion users in a
total of 217 nationalities provided by FGD, the authors found differences
in gender in network externalities suggesting social media usage brings
added value for women.
Krasnova, Veltri, Eling, and Buxmann (2017) on their part examined
the influence of gender differences on the motivation behind the use of
SNSs between men and women. From a survey conducted with 488
Facebook users (men and women), the authors discovered that while
both gender shared self-enhancement as a general motive for SNS usage,
women are predominantly influenced by relational motives such as
maintenance of close relationships and accessing social information on
near and distant networks. The authors argue that men on the other hand
are motivated to stay on SNS by the ability to acquire general informa-
tion. A similar study on gender differences in SNS usage previously car-
ried out by Mazman and Usluel (2011) revealed that motives of usage
between men and women can be broadly categorized into four areas:
making new contacts; keeping old contacts; following a specific agenda;
and academic purposes. Among the four categories, the authors
mentioned that men are motivated more by the first (making new con-
tacts) and women by the remaining three.
6.3. Age factor in SNS usage
Some writers have focused their attention on the age factor in SNS
usage. Waterloo et al. (2017) examined the perceived correctness of the
expression of six discrete emotions (worry, joy, anger, sadness, disap-
pointment and pride) across four different SNSs (Facebook, Instagram,
WhatsApp and Twitter). Their study focused on a sample of 1201 young
Dutch SNS users (15–25 years). The findings show there is a greater
perception of the appropriateness of positive expression rather than
negative expression across the all the SNSs surveyed.
Misra, Dangi, and Patel (2015) examined how SNS and the perception
of social support affects the psychological well-being of youths. From a
survey conducted with an equally represented gender sample, the au-
thors found a negative correlation between SNS usage and young peo-
ple’s psychological well-being and a positive correlation between
perceived online social support and the psychological well-being of
youths.
Lin and Lu (2011) on his part was more concern with the intensity and
extent of the usage of Facebook among African-American college stu-
dents. His study showed a high percentage of usage among the afore-
mentioned group of students with younger students spending a
significantly higher amount of time on Facebook than older students.
Privacy concerns among different age groups constituted the focus of
a study by Kezer, Sevi, Cemalcilar, and Baruh (2016) who investigated
the privacy issues on Facebook such as online privacy literacy, protective
behaviour, disclosure, and privacy attitudes, across a three main adult
age groups (18–40, 41–65, and 65þ). Their study revealed a prepon-
derance among younger adults to disclose themselves, and get engage in
privacy protective behaviour on one hand and greater concern about
privacy of other individuals among older age.
Concerning Instagram and age factor, Jang, Han, Shih, and Lee
(2015) compares into the characteristics of teen and adult social media
usage. Using a sample of 27,000 teens and adult on Instagram, their
analysis arrived at two major findings: that teenagers tend to put up less
pictures but add more tags to their pictures and receive more likes and
comments than other age groups; and that teenagers also post a higher
6
Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016
number of selfies, have a higher self-expression and show a higher sense
of self-representation than adults.
From a child development perspective, Sherman et al. (2017)
explored the impact of "Likes" on the neural and behavioural responses of
youths to photographs. Their study focused on college and high school
students ages 13–21 who view their own Instagram pictures and those of
others while going through functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI). The study revealed popular pictures received more "Likes" and
elicited a bigger activity in several brain regions.
Some scholars also probed into WhatsApp and the age factor. Rosales
and Fernandez-Ardevol (2016) for instance, focused their study on the
use of smartphones and smartphone applications among older people
residing in Spain. After tracking a sample of 238 smartphone users (ages
20–76) in 2014, the found out WhatsApp was the most popular smart-
phone application across ages (including older adults).
Ortiz, Ortiz-Peregrina, Castro, Casares-L opez, and Salas (2018) on
their part focused their attention on the impact of WhatsApp texting on
driving performance. Using a sample of 75 drivers (who are experienced
in sending WhatsApp messages), their study found out sending WhatsApp
messages while driving adversely affects driving performance for all age
categories especially older participants.
7. General discussion
The demographics of SNS usage has become a subject of predilection
amongst several authors. This review study has focused on three specific
areas: the general demographic distribution of SNS usage; SNS and
gender, and SNS and age factor and uses three case-studies: Facebook,
Instagram and WhatsApp. Before discussing the findings on the afore-
mentioned areas of focus it is important to note some trends among the
various SNSs studied. The brief history of all three SNSs reveal a common
trend in their development. All of them (Facebook, Instagram, and
WhatsApp) had humble beginnings as experimental start-ups from Sili-
con Valley in the United States. Both Instagram and WhatsApp were all
founded and registered as company in Silicon Valley. Though the idea
and initial experiments of Facebook began in Harvard, it moved to Silicon
Valley (Palo Alto) as a business start-up in 2004 (Price, 2017).
One of the reasons why Silicon Valley attracts SNSs start-up is it the
easy access it provides to venture capital which is vital to the develop-
ment of start-ups. In this score, Zhang (2007: p.124) notes the following:
Silicon Valley consistently absorbs 20%–26% of the total venture
capital investment in the United States, and start-ups in this region
benefit from the abundance of local venture capital. Venture-backed
firms in Silicon Valley receive venture capital at a younger age and
complete more rounds of financing.
Another major factor in the location of SNSs start-ups in Silicon Valley
is its tolerance of failure and recommencement. Silicon Valley permits a
start-up firms to close and restart in case of setbacks. On this Lyon un-
derscores: "The cycle of firm start-ups, closures, and new start-ups is very
much part of the economic development process, and the very entre-
preneurs who are in abundant supply in Silicon Valley will make the
process happen all over again." (Zhang, 2003: p. iv).
Another trend noticed among all the three case-study SNSs is the
resilience of all the companies. The development of Facebook, Instagram,
and WhatsApp where all characterized by difficulties and setbacks at the
start but their founders never threw the sponge but cling to their vision
and carried it to fruition. Their stories have become a source of inspira-
tion to other social media start-ups across the world.
Concerning the demographic distribution of SNS usage, it is important
to point out that most of the studies carried out and statistics available are
based on a Western and predominantly American context (like the Pew
surveys cited in this paper) making them their interpretations and gener-
alizations a little skewed. Notwithstanding, the Pew surveys revealed SNS
usage is mostly dominated by youths (ages 18–29) and women.
On the issue of gender, there is need to focus research not only on how
SNS can be used to track gender gaps in development (Fatehkia et al.,
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad
2018; Garcia, 2018) but more importantly on how SNSs can be used to
bridge gender gaps in development.
In general, three assumptions can be formulated by induction from
the studies explored in this review: the demographic distribution of SNS
usage presents a clear domination of youths and women; men and
women have different motivation in their SNS usage with women pur-
suing specific targets and men being more general; and older people are
more concerned with privacy in their social media usage than youths.
8. Conclusion
This review study explored the demographics of SNS usage using
three case-studies: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. A conceptual
framework defining and explaining the key concepts used in the paper
(computer-mediated communication and social networking sites) was
presented to provide a foundational understanding of the analysis con-
tained in the paper. A brief history of all three case-study SNSs was
presented in which all traced the difficult journey undertaken by their
founders and the exponential growth witnessed over the years. The
findings and discussions focused on three main areas: the general de-
mographic distribution of SNSs usage; SNS and gender; and SNS and the
age factor. Three major assumptions surfaced from the inductive analysis
pursued: the demographic distribution of SNS usage presents a clear
domination of youths and women; men and women have different
motivation in their SNS usage with women pursuing specific targets and
men being more general; and older people are more concerned with
privacy in their social media usage than youths. As noted in the discus-
sion, much of the data available on the demographics of SNS usage is
mostly sources from a Western (especially American) settings leaving a
vast expanse of unexplored territory fertile for researchers to plough.
Future research should focus more on the demographics of SNS in
developing countries and how SNSs can be used to bridge the gender gap.
References
Ahmad, S., Mustafa, M., & Ullah, A. (2016). Association of demographics, motives and
intensity of using Social Networking Sites with the formation of bonding and bridging
social capital in Pakistan. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 107–114.
Barbera, L. D., Paglia, L. F., & Valsavoia, R. (2009). Social network and addiction. Studies
in Health Technology and Informatics, 144, 33–36.
Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The
influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. CyberPsychology and
Behavior, 12(2), 209–213.
Barr, S. (2018). The story of how Facebook was created in a Harvard dorm room. Retrieved
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/facebook-when-starte
d-how-mark-zuckerberg-history-harvard-eduardo-saverin-a8505151.html. (Accessed
5 November 2019).
Bellis, M. (2019). The history of how Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook. Retrieved 5
November 2019, from https://www.thoughtco.com/who-invented-faceboo
k-1991791.
Bouhnik, D., Deshen, M., & Gan, R. (2014). WhatsApp goes to school: Mobile instant
messaging between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 13(1), 217–231.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Youth, identity, and digital media. the MIT Press.
Carbonell, X., & Panova, T. (2017). A critical consideration of social networking sites’
addiction potential. Addiction Research and Theory, 25(1), 48–57.
Chapman, C. N., & Lahav, M. (2008). April. International ethnographic observation of
social networking sites. In CHI’08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing
systems (pp. 3123–3128). ACM.
Church, K., & De Oliveira, R. (2013). August. What’s up with whatsapp?: Comparing
mobile instant messaging behaviors with traditional SMS. In Proceedings of the 15th
international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services
(pp. 352–361). ACM.
Collin, P., Rahilly, K., Richardson, I., & Third, A. (2011). The benefits of social networking
services.
Communication Theory. (2019). Computer mediated communication. Retrieved
https://www.communicationtheory.org/computer-mediated-communication/.
(Accessed 31 October 2019).
Dhiraj, A. (2019). The 20 top most used social networking sites and apps in the world,
2019 > CEOWORLD magazine. Retrieved https://ceoworld.biz/2019/03/03/the
-20-top-most-used-social-networking-sites-and-apps-in-the-world-2019/. (Accessed
25 November 2019).
7
Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016
Duggan, M. (2015). Demographics of social media users in 2015. Retrieved https
://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-
users/. (Accessed 5 December 2019).
Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users — 2012.
Retrieved https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/02/14/the-demographics
-of-social-media-users-2012/. (Accessed 5 December 2019).
Ebizmba. (2019). Top 15 most popular social networking sites and APPs | september
2019. Retrieved http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites.
(Accessed 25 November 2019).
El-Jarn, H. (2015). Computer mediated communication, social networking sites & maintaining
relationships. United Kingdom: Doctoral dissertation, The University of Manchester.
Fatehkia, M., Kashyap, R., & Weber, I. (2018). Using Facebook ad data to track the global
digital gender gap. 107 pp. 189–209). World Development.
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and
internet self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes toward social
networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 5–15.
Garcia, D., Kassa, Y. M., Cuevas, A., Cebrian, M., Moro, E., Rahwan, I., et al. (2018).
Analyzing gender inequality through large-scale Facebook advertising data.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(27), 6958–6963.
Gil-Clavel, S., & Zagheni, E. (2019). July. Demographic differentials in Facebook usage
around the world. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social
media, 13 pp. 647–650). No. 01.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Demographics of social media users in
2016. Retrieved https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/11/11/social-med
ia-update-2016/. (Accessed 5 December 2019).
Greiner, A., Fiegerman, S., Sherman, I., & Baker, T. (2019). Facebook at 15: How a college
experiment changed the world. Retrieved https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019
/02/business/facebook-history-timeline/index.html. (Accessed 5 November 2019).
Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Social networking addiction: Emerging themes and issues. Journal
of Addiction Research & Therapy, 4(5).
Haferkamp, N., & Kr€amer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects of
online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14(5), 309–314.
Hall, M. (2019). Facebook | overview, history, & facts. Retrieved https://www.brita
nnica.com/topic/Facebook. (Accessed 5 December 2019).
Harrison, G. (2018). The history of instagram | instazood. Retrieved https://insta
zood.com/blog/the-history-of-instagram/. (Accessed 21 November 2019).
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-
cultural perspectives, 39. John Benjamins Publishing.
Hochman, N., & Manovich, L. (2013). Zooming into an instagram city: Reading the local
through social media. First Monday, 18(7).
Hu, Y., Manikonda, L., & Kambhampati, S. (2014). May. What we instagram: A first
analysis of instagram photo content and user types. In Eighth International AAAI
conference on weblogs and social media.
Instagram. (2019). Our story. Retrieved https://instagram-press.com/our-story/.
(Accessed 21 November 2019).
Jang, J. Y., Han, K., Shih, P. C., & Lee, D. (2015). April. Generation like: Comparative
characteristics in instagram. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on
human factors in computing systems (pp. 4039–4042). ACM.
Kenton, W. (2019). Social networking service – SNS. Retrieved https://www.investope
dia.com/terms/s/social-networking-service-sns.asp#targetText¼Social%20Net
working%20Services%20Explained&amp;targetText¼SNS%20range%20from%
20sites%20where,Tumblr%2C%20Pinterest%2C%20and%20Vine. (Accessed 12
October 2019).
Kezer, M., Sevi, B., Cemalcilar, Z., & Baruh, L. (2016). Age differences in privacy attitudes,
literacy and privacy management on Facebook. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(1).
Kishundat, A. (2018). The story and history of WhatsApp - CandyBitSocial. Retrieved htt
ps://candybitsocial.com/news/history-of-whatsapp. (Accessed 22 November 2019).
Kr€amer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-
esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking
sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116.
Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., Eling, N., & Buxmann, P. (2017). Why men and women
continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 26(4), 261–284.
Kumar, K. A., Natarajan, S., & Acharaya, B. (2017). Computer mediated communication:
A pathway to analyze social media communication trajectories. Man in India, 97(4),
195–205.
Kuppuswamy, S., & Narayan, P. S. (2010). The impact of social networking websites on
the education of youth. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social
Networking (IJVCSN), 2(1), 67–79.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons
learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 311.
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study
integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.
Loglia, J. M., & Bowers, C. A. (2016). Emoticons in business communication: Is the:)
worth it?. In Emotions, technology, and design (pp. 37–53). Academic Press.
Logomyway. (2017). The history of whatsapp and their logo design. Retrieved http://blog
.logomyway.com/history-whatsapp-logo-design/. (Accessed 22 November 2019).
Lua, A. (2019). 21 top social media sites to consider for your brand. Retrieved https:
//buffer.com/library/social-media-sites. (Accessed 25 November 2019).
Malin, C. (2010). Middle East & North Africa Facebook demographics. Spot On Public
Relations and Spot on Communications LLC.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Gender differences in using social networks.
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(2), 133–139.
 €
S. Gambo, B.O. Ozad
McFadden, C. (2019). A brief history of Facebook, its major milestones. Retrieved https
://interestingengineering.com/history-of-facebook. (Accessed 5 November 2019).
Medium. (2017). How instagram started. Retrieved https://medium.com/@obtai
neudaimonia/how-instagram-started-8b907b98a767. (Accessed 21 November 2019).
Misra, N., Dangi, S., & Patel, S. (2015). Gender differences in usage of social networking
sites and perceived online social support on psychological well being of youth. The
International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 63–74.
Mohsin, M. (2019). 10 Facebook stats every marketer should know in 2019 [infographic].
Retrieved https://www.oberlo.com/blog/facebook-statistics. (Accessed 5 November
2019).
Montag, C., Błaszkiewicz, K., Sariyska, R., Lachmann, B., Andone, I., Trendafilov, B., et al.
(2015). Smartphone usage in the 21st century: Who is active on WhatsApp? BMC
Research Notes, 8(1), 331.
Müller, K. W., Dreier, M., Beutel, M. E., Duven, E., Giralt, S., & W€ olfling, K. (2016).
A hidden type of internet addiction? Intense and addictive use of social networking
sites in adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 172–177.
New Audience Media. (2019). Brief history of instagram. Retrieved https://newaudie
ncemedia.com.au/brief-history-of-instagram/. (Accessed 21 November 2019).
Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019). The rise of social media. Retrieved https://ourworldindata.org/r
ise-of-social-media. (Accessed 25 November 2019).
Ortiz, C., Ortiz-Peregrina, S., Castro, J. J., Casares-L
opez, M., & Salas, C. (2018). Driver
distraction by smartphone use (WhatsApp) in different age groups. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 117, 239–249.
Pahwa, A. (2019). The history of WhatsApp | feedough. Retrieved https://www.feedough
.com/history-of-whatsapp/. (Accessed 22 November 2019).
Perrin, A., & Anderson, M. (2019). Share of U.S. adults using social media, including
Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018. Retrieved https://www.pewresearch
.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-face
book-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/. (Accessed 7 December 2019).
Phillips, S. (2007). A brief history of Facebook. Retrieved https://www.theguardian.co
m/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia. (Accessed 5 November 2019).
Price, R. (2017). Inside the palo Alto ’Facebook house’ where Mark Zuckerberg lived,
that’s now a mecca for aspiring-entrepreneurs. Retrieved https://www.businessins
ider.com/facebook-house-inside-palo-alto-home-mark-zuckerberg-la-jennifer-2017-
12. (Accessed 25 December 2019).
Ralph, L. J., Berglas, N. F., Schwartz, S. L., & Brindis, C. D. (2011). Finding teens in
TheirSpace: Using social networking sites to connect youth to sexual health services.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(1), 38–49.
Rodriguez, M. C. G. (2016). “The stories we tell each other”: Using technology for
resistance and resilience through online narrative communities. In Emotions,
technology, and health (pp. 125–147). Academic Press.
Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2 (2020) 100016
Rosales, A., & Fernandez-Ardevol, M. (2016). Beyond WhatsApp: Older people and
smartphones. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 18(1), 27–47.
Rowan, D. (2014). WhatsApp: The inside story. Retrieved https://www.wired.co.
uk/article/whatsapp-exclusive. (Accessed 22 November 2019).
Sherman, L. E., Greenfield, P. M., Hernandez, L. M., & Dapretto, M. (2018). Peer influence
via instagram: Effects on brain and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood.
Child Development, 89(1), 37–47.
Simpson, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication. ELT Journal, 56(4), 414–415.
Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2018). SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN 2018 appendix A: Detailed
table. Retrieved https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/01/social-medi
a-use-2018-appendix-a-detailed-table/. (Accessed 7 December 2019).
Statista. (2019). Global social media ranking 2019 | Statista. Retrieved https://www.st
atista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.
(Accessed 25 November 2019).
Stout, D. (2019). Social media statistics: Top social networks by popularity. Retrieved htt
ps://dustinstout.com/social-media-statistics/. (Accessed 25 November 2019).
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their
relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology and
Behavior, 9(5), 584–590.
Vandoninck, S., d’Haenens, L., De Cock, R., & Donoso, V. (2012). Social networking sites
and contact risks among Flemish youth. Childhood, 19(1), 69–85.
Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of online
expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, twitter, instagram, and WhatsApp.
New Media & Society, 20(5), 1813–1831.
Whatsapp. (2019). About WhatsApp. Retrieved https://www.whatsapp.com/about/.
(Accessed 22 November 2019).
Woods, B. (2013). Instagram - a brief history. Retrieved https://thenextweb.com/
magazine/2013/06/21/instagram-a-brief-history/. (Accessed 21 November 2019).
Wu, A. M., Cheung, V. I., Ku, L., & Hung, E. P. (2013). Psychological risk factors of
addiction to social networking sites among Chinese smartphone users. Journal of
behavioral addictions, 2(3), 160–166.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A
comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs.
Pediatrics, 121(2), e350–e357.
Zhang, J. (2003). High-tech start-ups and industry dynamics in Silicon Valley. In Public
policy instit (of CA).
Zhang, J. (2007). Access to venture capital and the performance of venture-backed start-
ups in Silicon Valley. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(2), 124–147.
Zuckerberg, M. (2014). Mark Zuckerberg. Retrieved https://www.facebook.com/zuck/p
osts/10101250930776491. (Accessed 5 November 2019).