Pearce Rice SNS Differences Armenia

Social but Divided: Elites and Non-Elites’ Social Networking Site Use in Armenia

Katy E. Pearce

Department of Communication

University of Washington

Box 353740

Seattle, WA 98195-3740

[email protected]

Ronald E. Rice

Department of Communication

University of California, Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA 98106

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Social but Divided: Elites and Non-Elites’ Social Networking Use Site in Armenia

Abstract

As Internet use grows globally, the question of the haves and have-nots has shifted beyond

access or no access to more sophisticated questions of skill and usage. Opportunities for capital

enhancement afforded those online are also divided. Social networking sites are, arguably, the

most important online space, and can be a place for capital enhancement. The current study use a

context where social ties are more salient for resource access due to untrustworthy institutions

and thus a new space for capital enhancement could be very beneficial, especially for non-elites.

Of the 31% of Armenian adults on social networking sites in 2013 (70% of Internet users), there

are demographic divides between two sites: Facebook and Odnoklassniki as well as different

capital enhancing activities performed by elites and non-elites. Our regression results show that

Facebook users are more urban, better educated, and have superior foreign language skills than

Odnoklassniki users. Facebook users are more likely to get information, while Odnoklassniki

users are more likely to game. The implications of this are that more elite users exist in a

different information environment than non-elites and are thus replicating the divide between the

haves and have-nots in a society that already faces inequality and social networking sites may

not provide a space for capital enhancement for non-elites.

Social but Divided, p-1

Social but Divided: Elites and Non-Elites’ Social Networking Site Use in Armenia

There was great hope that the Internet would provide a virtual space where inequalities

could dissolve and individuals could interact with others freely. Decades after the public began

using the Internet, we now know inequalities can easily be replicated online. Nonetheless, there

are opportunities for capital enhancement online, especially on social networking sites where

relational maintenance behaviors can increase social capital.

This study looks at Armenia, a middle income country that has experienced substantial

Internet adoption growth in the past five years (from 19% ever used in 2009 to 52% ever used in

2012 and from 5% in 2009 household PC Internet ownership to 48% in 2012). Yet of the 31% of

Armenian adults on social networking sites (70% of Internet users in 2013), there are stark

demographic divides between two popular social networking sites: Facebook and Odnoklassniki.

Our results show that Facebook users are more urban, better educated, and have superior foreign

language skills than Odnoklassniki users or non-SNS users. They also are significantly more

likely to use Facebook to get information, while Odnoklassniki users are more likely to play

games. The implications of this are that more elite Facebook users exist in a different

information environment than non-Facebook social media users and are thus replicating and

perhaps amplifying the divide between the haves and have-nots in a society that already faces

great inequality and social networking sites may not provide a space for capital enhancement for

non-elites.

Digital Divide—Concept and Influences

The digital divide is a gap between people (organizations, social groups, or geopolitical

entities) in their communication technology awareness, adoption or ownership, use, and skill

(Chen & Wellman, 2004; DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004; Hargittai & Hsieh,


2013; Katz & Rice, 2002; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury,

2003; Ono & Zavodny, 2007; van Dijk, 2005, 2012, 2013; Warschauer, 2004; Wessels, 2013;

Witte & Mannon, 2010). The usage gap is a specific type that includes gaps in Internet practices

and application (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2013; van Dijk, 2005). Those of high socioeconomic

status tend to use technology more for information, communication, work, business, or education

(or “capital-enhancing activities”; Zillien & Hargittai, 2009), while and people of low

socioeconomic status tend to use technology more for social and entertainment purposes, due to

different hardware, experiences or skills, or status-specific interests.

Social Networking Sites and Capital

Social networking sites are arguably the most important current Internet activity. Broadly

defined, a social network site (SNS) is a “networked communication platform in which

participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content

provided by other users, and system-level data; 2) can publicly articulate connections that can be

viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume, produce, and interact with streams of user-

generated content” (Ellison & boyd, 2013, p. 158); see also boyd & Ellison, 2007). In the US,

nearly three-quarters of online adults use social networking sites (Social media update 2013,

2013). More time is spent on social networking sites globally than any other aspect of the

Internet, with nearly one quarter of the world population using social media in 2013 eMarketer,

2013). Moreover, social networking sites have become a key tool for social capital development

(Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Ellison, Vitak, Gray, & Lampe, 2014; Ellison & Vitak, in

press; Helsper, 2012; Jiang & de Bruijn, 2013; Jin, 2013; Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison, 2013; Li &

Chen, 2014; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009),


As we know that there are substantial variations in socio-demographics across Internet

activities (Eynon, 2009; Junco, 2012; White & Selwyn, 2011; Witte & Mannon, 2010; Zillien &

Hargittai, 2009; see Pearce & Rice, 2013 for a review); there is also similar variance between

social networking sites. Use of various social networking sites, just like the Internet more

broadly, is not equally available to all. In Hargittai's (2007) pivotal early study of American

young adults’ use of the social networking sites MySpace and Facebook, she found that gender,

race, ethnicity, and parental educational background are all associated with social networking

site use and choice. Ahn's (2011, 2012) studies of American teenagers found similar socio-

demographic differences between MySpace and Facebook. Boyd (2012) argued that social

divides occur across some sites: for example, Facebook is a kind of digital suburb, whose users

disdained MySpace and its users as a kind of lower socio-economic-culture ghetto.

There is also similar variance within social networking site activities. Junco (2012, 2013)

found that activities on Facebook differed by socioeconomic background, with lower

socioeconomic status university students engaging in more entertainment-based activities and

students from lower socioeconomic levels were less likely than those from higher socioeconomic

levels to use Facebook for communication and sharing (Junco, 2013).

Whether on different sites or through activities within a site, the potential for these socio-

demographic differences in activities to replicate in offline benefits is great. This is because, as

Ellison, et al., (2011) argue, different social networking site activities may lead to different

relational communication activities on Facebook that are related to social capital outcomes at

different levels. These relational maintenance behaviors on Facebook include responses to

requests in status updates with social, informational, or emotional support, or wishing happy

birthday (Lampe, Vitak, Gray, & Ellison, 2012) and these also relate to bridging social capital


(Ellison et al., 2014). Also called social grooming, these practices build trust and create

expectations of reciprocity (Ellison & Vitak, in press). If lower status individuals are not

engaging in these sort of activities, are they missing out on opportunities for social capital

development?

Social Capital with Non-trustworthy Institutions

This study contributes to the understanding of social networking sites as spaces for social

capital development in an environment where social ties are more salient due to failed state

institutions.

There is a great deal of literature that finds that in cases where institutions are not

trustworthy, personal networks are the only reliable way to access resources (Giordano, 2006;

Schweers Cook, 2005). "Wherever trust in the State and civil society is scarce or completely

lacking, we can observe action strategies in which avoiding, neutralizing, impairing or in some

cases even undermining public institutions, is perfectly legitimate. In such social systems of

public distrust, the accepted understanding is that one cannot expect public actors, especially

state institutions and civil society organizations, to provide specific services, such as

maintenance of law and order or proper administration of the common good or protection and

defense of citizens" (Giordano, 2006, p. 462) and thus individuals turn to their personal networks

for such resources. But in order to be able to turn to one’s personal network, trust must be

established through maintaining relationships. Relational maintenance behaviors create relational

cohesion, solidarity, (Lawler, Thye, & Yoon, 2000) and trust (Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi,

2003; Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000). The mechanism through which this occurs is that

positive emotions strengthen the bond between individuals and with the group and that

uncertainty is reduced through demonstrated commitment (Lawler et al., 2000).


We argue that by engaging in social networking site activities individuals can increase

their social capital, however if elites and non-elites are on different sites; and/or engaging in non-

capital enhancing activities, the potential for social capital development is lower.

The context of this study is Armenia. Since gaining its independence in 1991, Armenia

has been challenged by external conflict, internal instability, political strife, and a frozen conflict

with neighboring Azerbaijan (Heritage Foundation, 2008) . It also faces notable poverty. With

concerns about widening inequality in Armenia (Falkingham, 2005; Kharatyan, Babajanian, &

Janowski, 2003), understanding how social networking sites can potentially be a site for social

capital development is important for individuals in such environments.

Social Networking Sites in Armenia

This study will compare Facebook and Odnoklassniki, the two top social networking sites

in Armenia. Facebook has grown in its global reach in the past few years. SocialBakers, an

online Facebook tracking tool, reports that in early 2013 14% of Armenians and 31% of

Armenian Internet users were on Facebook1 And by late 2013, about 20-25% of Armenian adults

were on Facebook according to surveys and Facebook itself23. Odnoklassniki (classmates) is a

Russian language version of Facebook. The two sites are not terribly dissimilar in layout,

functionality, and activities available (Example profile pages in Figures 1 and 2). Odnoklassniki

had a live chat feature earlier than Facebook did4 and features some elements that are

reminiscent of online dating sites like gifts of roses and star ratings for photographs5 and felt

1 http://www.tert.am/en/news/2013/04/04/facebook-armeni-figures/ 2 http://www.katypearce.net/facebook-in-armenia-azerbaijan-and-georgia/ 3 http://www.katypearce.net/march-2014-facebook-ad-suggestions-at-facebook-use-in-

armenia-azerbaijan-and-georgia/ 4 http://journalistuss.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/odnoklassniki-vs-facebook/ 5 http://www.dreamgrow.com/social-media-in-russia/

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2013/04/04/facebook-armeni-figures/

http://www.katypearce.net/facebook-in-armenia-azerbaijan-and-georgia/

http://www.katypearce.net/march-2014-facebook-ad-suggestions-at-facebook-use-in-armenia-azerbaijan-and-georgia/


http://journalistuss.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/odnoklassniki-vs-facebook/

http://www.dreamgrow.com/social-media-in-russia/


more like a commercial marketplace than a social space. While Odnoklassniki used to be the

social networking site of choice for the Russian speaking world, industry estimates show that it is

not as popular as it once was.6 While it has been available in Russian since 2006, in late 2012 it

also became available in the Armenian language.7 In 2012 a representative for Odnoklassniki

boasted that 90% of Armenian Internet users were on Odnoklassniki.8

SNS Activities

Within the Internet in general and social networking sites in particular, users engage in

different activities. There is no accepted typology of social networking site activities, however

some that have been used in the past include the following. Joinson (2008) groups social

networking activities into 8 categories: keeping in touch, passive contact or social surveillance,

reacquiring lost contacts, communication, photographs, design related uses, perpetual contacts,

and making new contacts. Junco (2012) has 14 activities: playing games (FarmVille, MafiaWars,

etc.); posting status updates; sharing links; sending private messages; commenting (on statuses,

wall posts, pictures, etc.); chatting on Facebook chat; checking in to see what someone is up to;

creating or RSVPing to events; posting photos; tagging photos; viewing photos; posting videos;

tagging videos; viewing videos. Burke, Kraut, and Marlow (2011) use three broad categories of

directed communication with individual friends, passive consumption of social news, and

broadcasting. Yang and Brown (2013) use four similar categories: Electronic interactions,

voyeuristic actions, self-representation activities, and gaming.

In the current study activities are: Communicate with friends; Messaging; Post photos,

video, music; Play games; Take quizzes; Meet new people and be entertained; Keep in touch

6 http://vincos.it/world-map-of-social-networks/ 7 http://news.am/eng/news/110609.html 8 http://www.itel.am/en/news/5050/

http://vincos.it/world-map-of-social-networks/

http://news.am/eng/news/110609.html

http://www.itel.am/en/news/5050/


with old friends; Share information; Get information; and Satisfy freedom of expression. We

speculate that all of these activities can provide opportunities for social capital development but

believe that it is difficult to ascertain what specific benefits individual receive and thus do not

categorize these activities.

Research Questions

Based on the above studies as well as determinants of Internet use shown to be relevant to

Armenia in other studies (Pearce & Rice, 2013; Pearce, Slaker, & Ahmad, 2013; Pearce, 2012),

influences on social networking site choice will include sex, age, economic wellbeing, education,

urbanness, English language skills, and Russian language skills.

RQ1: What are the socio-demographic differences between non-users, Facebook users, and

Odnoklassniki users in Armenia?

RQ2: What are the socio-demographic differences as well as the influence of SNS choice on

different SNS activities?

Method

Respondents and Sampling

Respondents were adults from households in Armenia (N=1485) answering a face-to-face

survey administered by the Caucasus Research Resource Center (n.d.) in summer of 2013.

Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. The sampling universe was all adult

(age 16+) residents. The design used multistage area probability sampling. Primary sampling

units were electoral precincts. The sampling frame was divided into three “macro-strata” by

settlement type: capital, urban region, and rural. The secondary sampling unit was electoral

districts, the third was households (via a random route method), and the final was individual

respondents (the next birthday me1486thod).


The response rate was 95%. Thus we do not weight the data sample. This rate seems

extremely high but not abnormal for Armenia and the region for several reasons. First, data

collection in the winter means more people were at home. Additionally, most Armenians live in

multigenerational households that include unmarried adults, so response rates are high because

the probability of someone being home is higher than in nuclear family homes. Indeed, the

Caucasus Barometer conducted by the Caucasus Research Resource Center (n.d.) annually in

October and November has a 70-90% response rate. With the current study having been

conducted in the summer it is likely that with children on summer vacation from school, even

more adults were home than they would be during the fall months of the Caucasus Barometer

collection.

Measures

Gender. Interviewers noted if the interviewee was a man or a woman (0 Male, 1 Female).

Age. Respondents were asked to report their year of birth; this was transformed into age

by subtracting that year from 2013.

Education. Respondents were asked to self-report their education as one of seven levels.

Economic wellbeing. Although many studies use income as a single indicator of

socioeconomic status, certainly income is not a complete or direct measure of total economic

wellbeing (Ringen, 2009). Here, the measure is a person’s subjective assessment of their

satisfaction of basic needs (Boarini & Mira d’Ercole, 2006). Respondents were asked, What

phrase best describes your family’s financial situation? and given six levels.

Urban. Interviewers determined if the household was located in a rural area, an urban

region, or the capital. Urban regions in post-Soviet countries are defined as a settlement with

more than 10,000 residents and the majority must not be employed in agriculture (Buckley,


1998); a capital city is the country’s capital. We conceptualize these values as belonging to a

range from rural to urban (see Cossman, Cossman, Cosby, & Reavis, 2008 on the rural-urban

continuum).

Language. Respondents were asked, What is your English language knowledge? And

what is your Russian language knowledge? and provided four levels.

Internet access. Respondents were asked, Have you used the Internet in the past 12

months? Internet users only were asked about usage frequency and activities. SNS. Internet users

were asked “do you use social networks?.” Those that answered yes were asked “which of the

social networks do you use the most? And given the options of Odnoklassniki, Facebook, Moy

Mir, MySpace, LinkedIn, Hiland, Twitter, and LiveJournal. Of users that answered yes to using

social networking sites, they were asked “what activities do you do in social networks?” And

given the choices of: Communicate with friends; Messaging; Post photos, video, music; Play

games; Take quizzes; Meet new people and be entertained; Keep in touch with old friends; Share

info; Get information; and Satisfy freedom of expression. The list of activities was derived by the

local staff of the Armenian office of the Caucasus Research Resource Center as well as based on

previous media and technology surveys conducted by the organization.

Results

Sample Characteristics

As Table 1 shows, the sample was two-thirds female; evenly distributed across rural,

regional urban areas, and the capital; fairly well educated; very poor; has minimal English

expertise but better Russian language knowledge; about evenly distributed between Internet

users and non-users; and had about a third SNS users. About two-thirds of those used

Odnoklassniki and a third used Facebook, with a few people using other SNS.


--- Table 1 Goes about Here ---

For SNS users, by far the most popular SNS activity was communicating with friends

(91%), followed by messaging (55.5%), getting information (55.2%), and posting

photos/video/music (41.2%) and playing games (37.9%). Approximately a third uses SNS to

keep in touch with old friends or to share information. Finally, very few use them for satisfying

their freedom of expression or taking quizzes.

Differences between non-Users and SNS Users

Univariate ANOVAs were conducted to identify socio-demographic differences between

non-users, Facebook users, and Odnoklassniki users (Table 2, columns A, B and C).


Compared to users of both SNS, non-users were more likely to be older, less educated, of

lower economic well-being, less urban (but only relative to Facebook users), have less English

and less Russian expertise. Further, compared to Odnoklassniki users, Facebook users were more

likely to be better educated, have higher economic well-being, more urban, and have greater

knowledge of both English and Russian.

Influences on Using Odnoklassniki or Facebook

Because the dependent variable of social networking site is nominal with two categorical

values (the two main social networking sites, with the third category of non-users as the

intercept), we used multinomial logistic regression to examine the simultaneous impact of the

independent demographic variables on the SNS choice to test our hypotheses. Table 3 reports the

unstandardized multinomial logistic regression coefficients. A significant positive coefficient

indicates the effects of the corresponding variable on the logarithmic likelihood of an individual's


primarily using one social networking site over another. Overall, 55% of the variance was

explained.


Demographic factors had considerable influence on whether respondents were non-users,

or used either of the two primary SNS. The influences on either of the two SNS were similar, but

not exact. Users of Odnoklassniki, relative to non-users, were more likely to be female, younger,

have higher education, have greater economic wellbeing, less rural, and to have Russian

proficiency. Facebook users were more likely to younger, have notably more education, have

greater economic wellbeing, notably more regional and urban, and have greater proficiency in

both English and Russian. Thus, compared to Odnoklassniki users, Facebook users in Armenia

are not divided by gender, but do have more education, are more urban, and know more English.

Influences on Social Networking Activities

Table 4 presents the binary logistic regression results for the socio-demographic and SNS

influences on the 10 activities. Half of the regressions were non-significant (communicating with

friends, post photos/video/music, take quizzes, keep in touch with old friends, and satisfy

freedom of expression and desire for information). The five activities with significant regressions

were messaging, play games, meet new people and be entertained, share information, and get

information, with Nagelkerke R2 ranging from .05 for messaging and for sharing information to

.10 for play games and .11 for meet new people and be entertained.


Each variable was a significant influence on at least one activity, though several activities

were unrelated to any of the demographic or the SNS variables (posting photo/video/music,

keeping in touch with old friends, and satisfying freedom of expression and desire for


information). Males were more likely to take quizzes, and less likely to meet new people and be

entertained. Younger users were more likely to communicate with friends and engage in

messaging. Those with lower education were more likely to play games. Users with better

economic conditions were more likely to get information. Respondents in less urban areas were

more likely to use SNS to meet people and be entertained, while those in more urban areas

engaged more in sharing information and getting information. Better English mattered only for

using SNS for meeting new people and being entertained. Finally, the only differences between

the two primary social networking sites were that Facebook users were less likely to play games

but more likely to get information.

Summary

Overall, non-users and SNS users were very substantially differentiated by all the socio-

demographic variables except gender. And many of them also distinguished between

Odnoklassniki and Facebook users (education, economic wellbeing, urbanness, and English and

Russian language proficiency) relative to non-users. There was no gender divide for Facebook,

and Facebook users also had higher education, more urbanness, and greater English proficiency.

However, in both the univariate means tests in Table 2 and the binary logistic regressions

in Table 4, there were almost no differences in activities by SNS, with the exception of playing

games (more for Odnoklassniki) and getting information (more with Facebook),

Thus, socio-demographic factors are much more influential in which activities a user will

engage in than the site itself.

Sociodemographic factors of particular interest include education, as Facebook users are

on average, better educated than Odnoklassniki users. Less educated users were also more likely

to play games. While there was no significant economic difference between Facebook and


Odnoklassniki users, those in better economic conditions were access information more than

those with poorer economic conditions. More urban people also engaged in information sharing

and receiving. Urbanites were more likely to be Facebook users. Finally, English language skill

predicted Facebook use, although capital enhancing activities were less clear cut, as English

mattered only for using SNS for meeting new people and being entertained. In spite of very

different levels of English and Russian language expertise, SNS users’ engagement in activities

was essentially unaffected by either language barriers (except those with better English skills

used SNS more for meeting new people and being entertained).

It would seem that the platform used must influence activities engaged in, especially

when a platform gives greater affordances to some activities over others (for example, perhaps it

is easier to share information on Facebook due to the "Share" post function and the frequency of

Facebook sharing buttons on news stories), but in this study, in fact socio-demographic factors

are far more influential in what people do on social networking sites.

So there is little difference in capital enhancement by SNS, except perhaps for more a

little more instrumental on Facebook and a little more entertainment on Odnoklassniki.

Discussion

There is a strong digital divide between non-users and users of social networking sites, a

modest divide between users of two primary SNS sites, and a slight divide between engagement

in activities on the two primary SNS sites (as Junco, 2012, 2013 also found, analyzing a large

sample of students from one college), based on analysis of responses from a nationally

representative sample of Armenians in summer 2013.

When elites exist in a different information environment from non-elites, the possible

implications are that social pluralization can occur. As Liewrouw (2001) argues, the


generational, circulation, and use of information in a society can create different information

environments through fragmentation and this is what seems to be occurring in Armenia. There

can be negative societal effects of this sort of information fragmentation (Dahlberg, 2007).

Social capital implications abound. When elites, with greater resources, are in one space and

non-elites are in another, social networking sites further divide individuals rather than reduce

barriers which can provide opportunities for enhancement.

However, in terms of the usage gap with activities, we find very little difference in use of

SNS activities between the two sites here, except that the one associated with lower socio-

demographics is also associated more with playing games, while the one associated with higher

socio-demographics is also associated more with getting information. These two activities may

fit into the typical categorizations of non-enhancing and enhancing activities, although there is

evidence that social networking site can provide opportunities for relationship maintenance and

possibly social capital enhancement (Wohn, Lampe, Wash, Ellison, & Vitak, 2011).

Limitations

Differences could certainly be explained by other factors. For example, Odnoklassniki

was free on certain mobile providers. Additionally, people with family members as migrant

workers in Russia might be more likely to use the Russian site. And finally, as is often the case,

people go where their friends are and are reluctant to change sites.

An additional limitation is that this sample only includes adults and adolescents are likely

heavy users of social networking sites as well9.

9 http://www.katypearce.net/march-2014-facebook-ad-suggestions-at-facebook-use-in-

armenia-azerbaijan-and-georgia/




Finally, the social networking site activities may not be inclusive for example, taking

quizzes has fallen out of fashion. The definition of “sharing information” or “finding out

information” may be influenced by the platform itself. For example, in 2013, the Facebook

newsfeed is more like a broadcasting list, and Facebook is pushing information at you that you

cannot help but see. Also, there may be other places where users are engaging in particular

activities, for example, What’sApp or SMS may be used for messaging while Instagram may be

used for sharing photographs. Users do not only exist on one site, although this survey asked

about the primary social networking site. Understanding primary and additional sites used with

frequency information would be useful as well. Multiple site use is not arbitrary: in fact, multiple

social networking site users are more likely to engage in online political participation (Hsieh &

Li, 2014).

Conclusion

Despite the promises of a digital public sphere (Castells, 2008), the Internet and social

networking sites have not necessarily brought elite and non-elite people together for potential

social capital enhancement. In fact, in the case of Armenia, social networking sites are pluralized

and notably social. While an all-inclusive online space is likely impossible, given the level of

inequality in Armenia and the challenges that this small developing nation faces and will

continue to face in the 21st century, online fragmentation does not bode well for far reaching

digitally-enabled collective action (although Bennett and Segerberg, 2013 well argue that

digitally-shaped individualization is enabling connective action, in Armenia this is at a fairly

nascent stage). Moreover, as Armenian elites spend more time with each other and perhaps in a

more cosmopolitan environment, and less time with non-elites, a question of elite leaders’ ability

to understand the challenges that non-elites face decreases. This sort of divide, digitally-enabled,


also does not seem like a positive step in Armenian society’s attempts to operate in the

globalized digital era. While the answer is not to force Armenians to exist on one social

networking site, however, greater awareness of inequalities that exist offline and online may help

alleviate the negative effects of pluralization.


References

Ahn, J. (2011). Digital divides and social network sites: Which students participate in social

media? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 147–163.

doi:10.2190/EC.45.2.b

Ahn, J. (2012). Teenagers and social network sites: Do off-line inequalities predict their online

social networks? First Monday, 17(1). doi:10.5210/fm.v17i1.3752

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the

Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Boarini, R., & Mira d’Ercole, M. (2006). Measures of material deprivation in OECD Countries.

Paris. doi:10.1787/866767270205

boyd, danah m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and

scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buckley, C. (1998). Rural/urban differentials in demographic processes: The Central Asian

states. Population Research and Policy Review, 17(1), 71–89.

doi:10.1023/A:1005899920710

Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011). Social capital on Facebook. In Proceedings of the

2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’11 (p. 571). New

York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979023

Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and

global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

616(1), 78–93. doi:10.1177/0002716207311877

Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide-within and between countries. IT &

Society, 1(7), 39–45.

Cossman, R. E., Cossman, J. S., Cosby, A. G., & Reavis, R. M. (2008). Reconsidering the rural–

urban continuum in rural health research: A test of stable relationships using mortality as a

health measure. Population Research and Policy Review, 27(4), 459–476.

doi:10.1007/s11113-008-9069-6

Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to

contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827–847. doi:10.1177/1461444807081228


DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal

access to differentiated use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ellison, N. B., & boyd, danah m. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. W., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital

implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6),

873–892. doi:10.1177/1461444810385389

Ellison, N. B., & Vitak, J. (n.d.). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social

capital processes. In S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of psychology of communication

technology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social

network sites: Facebook Relationship Maintenance Behaviors and their role in social capital

processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12078

Eynon, R. (2009). Mapping the digital divide in Britain: implications for learning and education.

Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 277–290. doi:10.1080/17439880903345874

Falkingham, J. (2005). The end of the rollercoaster? Growth, inequality and poverty in Central

Asia and the Caucasus. Social Policy and Administration, 39(4), 340–360. Retrieved from

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/socsci/socstats/research/papers/Falkingham-SPA2005.pdf

Giordano, C. (2006). Appropriating the Common Good by Personalizing Social Relationships -

Acquaintances, Patronage,and Corruption in Low Trust Societies. European Journal of Law

Reform, 6. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ejlr6&id=467&div=&collection=jour

nals

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network

sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297. doi:10.1111/j.1083-

6101.2007.00396.x

Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2013). Digital inequality. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford

handbook of Internet studies (pp. 129–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital

exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01416.x

Heritage Foundation. (2008). Armenia country report. World Development. Washington, DC.

Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Armenia


Hsieh, Y. P., & Li, M.-H. (2014). Online political participation, civic talk, and media

multiplexity: How Taiwanese citizens express political opinions on the Web. Information,

Communication & Society, 17(1), 26–44. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.833278

Jiang, Y., & de Bruijn, O. (2013). Facebook helps: a case study of cross-cultural social

networking and social capital. Information, Communication & Society, 17(6), 732–749.

doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.830636

Jin, C.-H. (2013). The role of Facebook users’ self-systems in generating social relationships and

social capital effects. New Media & Society, 1461444813506977–.

doi:10.1177/1461444813506977

Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? In Proceeding of the

twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’08 (p.

1027). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357213

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in

Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004

Junco, R. (2013). Inequalities in Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2328–

2336. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.005

Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and

interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kharatyan, H., Babajanian, B. V., & Janowski, M. (2003). Sustaining rural livelihoods: A report

on farming And non-farm activities In three communities in Armenia. London. Retrieved

from http://www.nri.org/projects/rnfe/pub/papers/2727.pdf

Lampe, C., Vitak, J., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Users and nonusers. In Proceedings of the 2013

conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’13 (p. 809). New York, New

York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441867

Lampe, C., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Ellison, N. B. (2012). Perceptions of Facebook’s value as an

information source. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors

in Computing Systems - CHI ’12 (p. 3195). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

doi:10.1145/2207676.2208739

Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive

exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616–657. doi:10.1086/318965

Li, X., & Chen, W. (2014). Facebook or Renren? A comparative study of social networking site

use and social capital among Chinese international students in the United States. Computers

in Human Behavior, 35, 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.012


Liewrouw, L. A. (2001). New media and the `Pluralization of Life-Worlds’: A role for

information in social differentiation. New Media & Society, 3(1), 7–28.

doi:10.1177/1461444801003001002

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people

and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.

doi:10.1177/1461444807080335

Molm, L. D., Peterson, G., & Takahashi, N. (2003). In the eye of the beholder: Procedural justice

in social exchange. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 128. doi:10.2307/3088905

Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An

experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396–

1427.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital

divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata.

Social Science Research, 36(3), 1135–1155. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.09.001

Pearce, K. E. (2012). ICT diffusion in the Republic of Armenia. In Proceedings of the Fifth

International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and

Development - ICTD ’12 (p. 326). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

doi:10.1145/2160673.2160713

Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile

and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721–744.

doi:10.1111/jcom.12045

Pearce, K. E., Slaker, J. S., & Ahmad, N. (2013, September 17). Transnational families in

Armenia and information communication technology use. International Journal of

Communication. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1810

Ringen, S. (2009). Direct and indirect measures of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 17(03),

351. doi:10.1017/S0047279400016858

Schweers Cook, K. (2005). Networks, norms, and trust: The social psychology of social capital:

2004 Cooley Mead Award address. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 4–14.

doi:10.1177/019027250506800102

Social media update 2013. (2013). Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/


Social networking reaches nearly one in four around the world. (2013). eMarketer. Retrieved

from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Networking-Reaches-Nearly-One-Four-

Around-World/1009976

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?:

Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901. doi:10.1111/j.1083-

6101.2009.01474.x

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2013). The digital divide shifts to differences

in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. doi:10.1177/1461444813487959

Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to

inequality of skills and usage. In J. Bus, M. Crompton, M. Hildebrandt, & G. Metakides

(Eds.), Digital enlightenment yearbook 2012 (pp. 57–75). Fairfax, VA: IOS Press.

Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2013). A theory of the digital divide. In M. Ragnedda & G. W. Muschert

(Eds.), The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective

(pp. 29–52). New York: Routledge.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wessels, B. (2013). The reproduction and reconfiguration of inequality: Differentiation and

class, status and power in the dynamics of digital divides. In M. Ragnedda & G. W.

Muschert (Eds.), The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international

perspective (pp. 17–28). London: Routledge.

White, P., & Selwyn, N. (2011). Moving on-line? An analysis of patterns of adult Internet use in

the UK, 2002-2010. Information, Communication & Society, 1–27.

doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.611816

Witte, J. C., & Mannon, S. E. (2010). The Internet and social inequalities. New York: Routledge.

Wohn, D. Y., Lampe, C., Wash, R., Ellison, N., & Vitak, J. (2011). The “S” in Social Network

Games: Initiating, Maintaining, and Enhancing Relationships. 2011 44th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2011.400

Yang, C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities,

and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3),

403–16. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9836-x


Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage.

Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics

Variable Descriptives

Age M = 47.58

SD = 18.54

R =16-96

Gender 0 Male 33.7%

1 Female 66.3

M = .66

SD = .47

Urbanness 0 Rural 33.4%

1 Urban 32.7

2 Capital 33.9

M = 1.01

SD = .82

Education 1 primary education 1.2%

2 Incomplete secondary education 11.5

3 Completed secondary education 35.9

4 Secondary technical education 24.4

5 Incomplete higher education 4.3

6 Completed higher education 22.1

7 Post-graduate .6

M = 3.88

SD = 1.38

Best description of family’s financial situation (economic wellbeing)

1 We don’t have enough money even for food 26.0%

2 We have enough money for food but not clothes 31.1

3 We can buy food & clothes, but not more expensive things 33.8

4 We can buy some expensive things like a fridge 6.3

5 We can afford expensive goods, vacation, car, but not to buy an

apartment

2.5

6 We can buy an apartment .3

M = 2.29

SD = 1.02

English proficiency 1 no basic knowledge 62.1%

2 beginning 19.6

3 intermediate 14.5

4 advanced 3.7

M = 1.60

SD = .87

Russian proficiency 1 no basic knowledge 6.1%

2 beginning 13.2

3 intermediate 51.0

4 advanced 29.7

M = 3.04


SD = .82

Of total, Use Internet in past 12 months 0 no, 1 yes 46.8%

Of total, use SNS 0 no, 1 yes 32.6%

Of SNS users, SNS most frequently used Odnoklassniki 21.2%

Facebook 10.8

Moy Mir 0.2

MySpace 0.2

Twitter 0.1

Other 0.1

Of SNS users, use activities 0 no, 1 yes

Communicate with friends 91.0%

Messaging 55.5

Post photos, video, music 41.2

Play games 37.9

Take quizzes 2.9

Meet new people and be entertained 13.4

Keep in touch with old friends 32.7

Share info 31.8

Get info 55.2

Satisfy freedom of expression and desire for information 4.4

N = 1485


Table 2

Means, SDs, and Anova Tests Comparing Non-Users to the Users of the Two Primary SNS

Measures

A

Non-

Users

B

Odnoklassniki

Users

C

Facebook

Users

F,

partial

eta2

Demographics

N 944 297 151

Age

54.7 a

16.7

32.6 b

11.6

33.1 b

13.8

306.9 ***

.31

Gender (0 M 1 F)

.67 a

.47

.61 a

.49

.71 a

.46

2.62

.004

Education (1-7)

3.6 a

1.28

4.1 b

1.29

5.2 c

1.30

102.6 ***

.13

Economic wellbeing (1-6)

2.1 a

.94

2.7 b

.98

2.9 c

.99

90.0 ***

.12

Urban (0-2)

.92 a

.81

1.1 a

.82

1.4 b

.76

26.3 ***

.04

English (1-4)

1.4 a

.66

1.9 b

.91

2.6 c

1.01

198.5 ***

.22

Russian (1-4)

2.9 a

.86

3.2 b

.68

3.5 c

.82

46.1 ***

.06

Activities, Users

Communicate with friends -- .92

.27

.91

.29

.22

.00

Messaging -- .53

.50

.62

.49

3.42

.008

Post photos, video, music -- .41

.46

.43

.50

.29

.000

Play games -- .44 a

.50

.26 b

.44

15.55 ***

.03

Take quizzes -- .03

.15

.03

.18

.15

.000

Meet new people and be

entertained

-- .14

.35

.13

.34

.16

.000

Keep in touch with old

friends

-- .33

.47

.31

.46

.27

.001

Share info -- .31

.46

.36

.48

.95

.002

Get info -- .50 a

.50

.63 b

.48

12.80 ***

.03

Satisfy freedom of

expression and desire for

information

-- .04

.20

.05

.23

.52

.00

* p<.05; ** p< .01; *** p<.001; a, b: means with same letters are not significantly different

Values for each activity are means and standard deviations.


Table 3

Nominal Logistic Regression on Use of the Two Main Social Networking Sites, with Non-User As

a Reference Category

Odnoklassniki Facebook

Explanatory

Variables B (SE) Wald

Odds ratio

(95% CI) B (SE) Wald

Odds ratio

(95% CI)

Gender

(female)

.47

(.18) **

7.2 1.61

(1.14-2.27)

.10

(.25)

.17 1.11

(.68-1.81)

Age -.10

(.01) ***

201.9 .91

(.89-.92)

-.10

(.01) ***

110.6 .90

(.89–.92)

Education .28

(.08) ***

14.0 1.33

(1.14-1.54)

.69

(.10) ***

48.5 2.00

(1.65-2.43)

Economic

wellbeing

.26

(.09) **

8.9 1.30

(1.10-1.55)

.33

(.12) **

7.8 1.40

(1.11-1.77)

Urbanness

(rural)

-.61

(.22) **

7.8 .55

(.36-.83)

-1.45

(.31) ***

21.9 .24

(.12-.43)

Urbanness

(regional

city)

-.38

(.21)

3.2 .68

(.45-1.04)

-1.24

(.28) ***

19.3 .29

(.17-.50)

English .12

(.11)

1.2 1.13

(.91-1.41)

.63

(.13) ***

21.8 1.87

(1.44-2.43)

Russian .40

(.14) **

8.1 1.48

(1.13-1.95)

.55

(.22) **

6.4 1.74

(1.13-2.66)

Constant .12

(.53)

.06 -3.7

(.79) ***

21.5

Pseudo R2

Nagelkerke

.55

Chi-

square/df

799.56

/ 16 ***

*p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.00

Overall reference category is Non-SNS user.


Table 4

Binary Logistic Regression of Socio-demographics and SNS on SNS Activities (only users of the two primary SNS)

SNS Activities

Explanatory

Variables

Comm

with

friends

Mess-

aging

Post

photos,

video,

music

Play

games

Take

quizzes

Meet new

people and

be enter-

tained

Keep in

touch

with

old

friends

Share

info Get info

Satisfy

freedom

of

express

and

desire for

info

Block 1

Gender

(female)

.05

(.37)

.16

(.21)

.23

(.21)

-.34

(.22)

-1.76 (.64)

**

-.69

(.30) *

.12

(.22)

-.26

(.22)

-.20

(.21)

-.36

(.49)

Age -.03

(.014) *

-.02

(.009) **

-.02

(.01)

-.01

(.01)

.02

(.02)

-.02

(.02)

.01

(.01)

-.01

(.01)

.00

(.01)

-.01

(.02)

Education -.17

(.16)

-.08

(.08)

-.02

(.08)

-.17

(.09) *

-.40

(.25)

-.17

(.12)

.08

(.09)

-.05

(.09)

-.03

(.09)

.01

(.20)

Economic

wellbeing

.08

(.19)

.14

(.10)

.09

(.10)

.11

(.11)

-.45

(.30)

-.12

(.15)

.13

(.11)

.20

(.11)

.28

(.11) **

.00

(.24)

Urbanness -.34

(.24)

-.05

(.13)

.03

(.13)

.16

(.14)

-.02

(.38)

-.55

(.19) **

-.16

(.14)

.39

(.14) **

.36

(.13) **

-.20

(.31)

English -.05

(.21)

.02

(.12)

.03

(.12)

.22

(.13)

.34

(.37)

.42

(.18) *

.18

(.13)

-.01

(.13)

-.15

(.12)

.24

(.29)

Russian .14

(.32)

.34

(.18)

.10

(.18)

.05

(.18)

.61

(.55)

-.12

(.25)

.08

(.19)

.05

(.19)

.15

(.18)

.23

(.45)

Block 2

(Odno= 0,

Face = 1)

.11

(.40)

.26

(.24)

-.06

(.23)

-1.01

(.26) ***

.54

(.71)

.09

(.35)

-.39

(.25)

.08

(.25)

.72

(.24) ***

.20

(.55)

Constant 3.94

(1.1)

***

-.25

(.60)

-.50

(.60)

-.05

(.62)

-3.37

(1.84)

.29

(.82)

-2.05

(.65)

**

-1.13

(.66)

-1.13

(.61)

-3.65

(1.51)

**

Chi-square 10.6 15.5 7.2 32.1 13.1 27.81 9.87 15.95 31.74 3.37


/ df = 8 * *** *** * ***

Pseudo R2

Nagelkerke

.06 .05 .02 .10 .13 .11 .03 .05 .09 .03

% correct 91.5 58.4 57.4 64.1 .97 85.7 67.1 68.3 60.9 95.6

*p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001

Values are unstandardized beta coefficients and (standard error).

Figure 1. Facebook profile, circa 2012.


Figure 2. Odnoklassniki profile.

Documents

Pearce Rice SNS Differences Armenia