Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Vol. 38 No. 1 (2023): 112, January-April
Research articles

Who tweets? Sociodemographic profile of Twitter users in Mexico and the Mexico City Metropolitan Zone in 2018

xml

PDF (Español)
xml

En línea (Español)
SV2MP4

EPUB (Español)
SV3MP4

Kindle (Español)
SV1MP4

Audio (Español)
Alejandro Sánchez-Zárate
image/svg+xml ONU-Hábitat México
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24201/edu.v38i1.2104

Published 2023-02-16

Keywords

  • digital inequality,
  • Twitter,
  • digital divide,
  • social networks Sites,
  • Twitter and city

How to Cite

Sánchez-Zárate, A. (2023). Who tweets? Sociodemographic profile of Twitter users in Mexico and the Mexico City Metropolitan Zone in 2018. Estudios Demográficos Y Urbanos, 38(1), 55–95. https://doi.org/10.24201/edu.v38i1.2104
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    1005
  • PDF (español)
    929
  • En línea (español)
    167
  • EPUB (español)
    26
  • Kindle (español)
    57
  • Audio (español)
    9

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Copyright (c) 2022 Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Metrics

Abstract

Recently, Twitter has become a relevant media of information for public life, academia and general people. However, there is a gap in the knowledge about the Twitter user profile. Therefore, the target of this paper is to identify the sociodemographic profile of Twitter users on two geographic scales: at Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City and national. For this, the ENDUTIH 2018 survey is utilized, from which are retrieved sociodemographic characteristics, and it is implemented a mixed effected logit model over data. The main results are similar to those reported in international literature over the subject. At the same time, some findings are particular for the Mexican context. On one side, it has been found an over-representation of young, middle and high education people and the positive effect of number of digital devices and probability of Twitter use. On the other hand, on a metropolitan context, it has been found that decreases the negative effects of certain demographic characteristics on probability of Twitter use, e.g., elderly people. Additionally, it has been identified some pervasive gap on both analyzed geographic scales.

xml

PDF (Español)
xml

En línea (Español)
SV2MP4

EPUB (Español)
SV3MP4

Kindle (Español)
SV1MP4

Audio (Español)

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Nueva Jersey: Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471249688
  2. Alsayyad, N. y Guvenc, M. (2015). Virtual uprisings: On the interaction of new social media, traditional media coverage and urban space during the Arab Spring. Urban Studies, 52(11), 2018-2034. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098013505881 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013505881
  3. Alva de la Selva, A. R. (2015). Los nuevos rostros de la desigualdad en el siglo XXI: la brecha digital. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 60(223), 265-285. http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmcpys/article/view/45387 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1918(15)72138-0
  4. Barrantes, R. (2009). Análisis de la demanda de TIC. ¿Qué es y cómo medir la pobreza digital? En H. Galperin y J. Mariscal (eds.), Pobreza digital. Perspectivas de América Latina y el Caribe (pp. 47-84). Ciudad de México: CIDE.
  5. Barreiro-Gen, M. y Novo-Corti, I. (2015). Collaborative learning in environments with restricted access to the Internet: Policies to bridge the digital divide and exclusion in prisons through the development of the skills of inmates. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1172-1176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563215001053?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.076
  6. Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S. y Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563220301771?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424
  7. Bennett, S., Maton, K. y Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
  8. Blank, G. (2016). The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6), 679-697. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439316671698 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316671698
  9. Castaño, J., Duart, J. M. y Sancho, T. (2012). A second digital divide among university students. Culture and Education, 24(3), 363-377. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1174/113564012802845695 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1174/113564012802845695
  10. Castaño, C., Martín, J. y Vázquez, S. (2008). La brecha digital de género: acceso, uso y habilidades. En C. Castaño Collado (coord.), La segunda brecha digital (pp. 55-132). España: Cátedra.
  11. Castells, M. (2012). Redes de indignación y esperanza. Madrid: Alianza.
  12. Crampton, J. W., Graham, M., Poorthuis, A., Shelton, T., Stephens, M., Wilson, M. W. y Zook, M. (2013). Beyond the geotag: Situating big data and leveraging the potential of the geoweb. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 40(2), 130-139. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15230406.2013.777137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2013.777137
  13. Cresci, M. K., Yarandi, H. y Morrell, R. (2010). The digital divide and urban older adults. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 28(2), 88-94. https://journals.lww.com/cinjournal/Fulltext/2010/03000/The_Digital_Divide_and_Urban_Older_Adults.7.aspx DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181cd8184
  14. DiMaggio, P. y Hargittai, E. (2001). From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”: Studying Internet use as penetration increases (Documento de Investigación núm. 15). Princeton: Princeton University. https://digitalinclusion.typepad.com/digital_inclusion/documentos/digitalinequality.pdf
  15. Echarri Cánovas, C. (2008a). Construcción del estrato socioeconómico en la ENDIREH 2006. En R. Castro y I. Casique (coords.), Violencia de género en las parejas mexicanas. Análisis de resultados de la Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares 2006. Componente para mujeres unidas o casadas de 15 años y más (pp. 170-175). Ciudad de México: Inmujeres / CRIM-UNAM.
  16. Echarri Cánovas, C. (2008b). Desigualdad socioeconómica y salud reproductiva: una propuesta de estratificación social aplicable a encuestas. En S. Lerner y I. Szasz (coords.), Salud reproductiva y condiciones de vida en México (pp. 59-113). Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México, A.C.
  17. Epstein, D., Nisbet, E. C. y Gillespie, T. (2011). Who’s responsible for the digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications. The Information Society, 27(2), 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.548695 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.548695
  18. Fletcher, A., Fitzgerald-Yau, N., Jones, R., Allen, E., Viner, R. M. y Bonell, C. (2014). Brief report: Cyberbullying perpetration and its associations with socio-demographics, aggressive behaviour at school, and mental health outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1393-1398. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140197114001766?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.10.005
  19. Friemel, T. N. (2014). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media and Society, 18(2), 313-331. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444814538648 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648
  20. Gilbert, M. R. y Masucci, M. (2020). Defining the geographic and policy dynamics of the digital divide. En S. D. Brunn y R. Kehrein (coords.), Handbook of the changing world language map (pp. 3653-3671). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3?page=11#editorsandaffiliations DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_39
  21. Graham, M. (2014). Internet geographies: Data shadows and digital divisions of labor. En M. Graham y W. Dutton (coords.), Society and the Internet. How networks of information and communication are changing our lives (pp. 99-116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661992.003.0007
  22. Graham, S. y Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism. Networked infraestructures, technological mobilities, and the urban condition. Londres: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203452202
  23. Graham, M., Stephens, M. y Hale, S. (2013). Featured graphic. Mapping the geoweb: A geography of Twitter. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(1), 100-102. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a45349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a45349
  24. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x
  25. Hargittai, E. y Litt, E. (2011). The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media and Society, 13(5), 824-842. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444811405805 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811405805
  26. Hargittai, E. y Litt, E. (2012). Becoming a tweep. How prior online experiences influence Twitter use. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 680-702. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.666256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.666256
  27. Hilbert, M. (2010). When is cheap, cheap enough to bridge the digital divide? Modeling income related structural challenges of technology diffusion in Latin America. World Development, 38(5), 756-770. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X09002174?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.019
  28. Hindman, D. B. (2000). The rural-urban digital divide. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 549-560. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107769900007700306 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700306
  29. INEGI. (2018). Encuesta Nacional sobre Disponibilidad y Uso de las Tecnologías de la Información en los Hogares 2018. Diseño de muestra. Aguascalientes, México: Insituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.
  30. ITU. (2018). Percentage of individuals using the Internet, 2018. Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx
  31. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. y Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education, 54(3), 722-732. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131509002620 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022
  32. Kitchin, R. y Perng, S. (2016). Code and the city. En R. Kitchin y S. Perng (coords.), Code and the city (pp. 1-12). Londres: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685991
  33. Kuttan, A. y Peters, L. (2003). From digital divide to digital opportunity. Lanham, Maryland: R and L Education.
  34. Lee, O. y Kim, D. (2018). Bridging the digital divide for older adults via intergenerational mentor-up. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(7), 786-795. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1049731518810798 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731518810798
  35. Liu, Z. y Weber, I. (2014). Is Twitter a public sphere for online conflicts? A cross-ideological and cross-hierarchical look. En L. M. Aiello y D. McFarland (eds.), Social Informatics: 6th International Conference, SocInfo 2014, Barcelona, Spain, November 11-13, 2014. Proceedings (pp. 336-347). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13734-6_25 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_25
  36. Lorenzo-Romero, C., Alarcón-del-Amo, M. C. y Constantinides, E. (2012). Segmentation of users of social networking websites. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(23), 401-414. https://www.sbp-journal.com/index.php/sbp/article/view/2501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.3.401
  37. Lumley, T. (2019). Survey: Analysis of complex survey samples. R package 3.35-1.
  38. Luque-Ayala, A. (2019). Urban. En J. Ash, R. Kitchin y A. Leszczynski (coords.), Digital geographies (pp. 24-35). Londres: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529793536.n3
  39. Mancera, A. y Pano, A. (2013). El discurso político en Twitter. Análisis de mensajes que trinan. Barcelona: Anthropos.
  40. Mariscal, J. (2005). Digital divide in a developing country. Telecommunications Policy, 29(5/6), 409-428. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596105000352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2005.03.004
  41. Mariscal, J., Bonina, C. y Luna, J. (2009). Los nuevos escenarios de mercado en América Latina. En H. Galperin y J. Mariscal (coords.), Pobreza digital. Perspectivas de América Latina y el Caribe (pp. 85-116). Ciudad de México: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.
  42. Murthy, D. (2018). Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  43. Nishida, T., Pick, J. B. y Sarkar, A. (2014). Japan’s prefectural digital divide: A multivariate and spatial analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 38(11), 992-1010. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596114000937?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.05.004
  44. Omnicore. (2020). Twitter by the numbers: Stats, demographics and fun facts. https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/
  45. Pérez-Zúñiga, R., Camacho-Castillo, O. y Arroyo-Cervantes, G. (2014). Las redes sociales y el activismo. Paakat: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad, 4(7), 1-10. http://www.udgvirtual.udg.mx/paakat/index.php/paakat/article/viewFile/226/338
  46. Pick, J. y Sarkar, A. (2016). Theories of the digital divide: Critical comparison. En Proccedings of the 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3888-3897). Los Alamitos, California: IEEE Computer Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.484
  47. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
  48. Ramsetty, A. y Adams, C. (2020). Impact of the digital divide in the age of COVID-19. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(7), 1147-1148. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/27/7/1147/5826352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa078
  49. Sánchez-Zarate, A. y Angoa, I. (2019). Brecha digital en dos ciudades medias en México en 2016. El caso de Hermosillo y Cancún. En E. V. Moreira Santos, G. B. Rodrigues, L. B. Santos, S. C. da Silva y T. Tramontani Ramos (coords.), Território, economia urbana e conflitos territoriais (pp. 355-384). Brasil: Letra Capital.
  50. Serrano-Cinca, C., Muñoz-Soro, J. F. y Brusca, I. (2018). A multivariate study of Internet use and the digital divide. Social Science Quarterly, 99(4), 1409-1425. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12504
  51. Sloan, L. y Morgan, J. (2015). Who tweets with their location? Understanding the relationship between demographic characteristics and the use of geoservices and geotagging on Twitter. PloS One, 10(11). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142209
  52. Sloan, L., Morgan, J., Burnap, P. y Williams, M. (2015). Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user Meta-Data. PLoS One, 10(3), 1-20. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115545 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115545
  53. Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A. y Wellman, B. (2012). Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks, 34(1), 73-81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378873311000359?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.006
  54. Team, R. C. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (3.6.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
  55. Toudert, D. (2015). Brecha digital y marginación socioterritorial: el caso de México. En C. Garrocho-Rangel y G. Buzai (coords.), Geografía aplicada en Iberoamérica. Avances, retos y perspectivas (pp. 343-370). Toluca: El Colegio Mexiquense.
  56. Toudert, D. (2016). Teoría del recurso y la apropiación: un acercamiento empírico a partir de las etapas del modelo de acceso digital en México. Acta Universitaria. Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal, 26(4), 79-90. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/au/v26n4/2007-9621-au-26-04-00079.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2016.875
  57. Toudert, D. (2019). Brecha digital, uso frecuente y aprovechamiento de Internet en México. Convergencia. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 79, 1-27. https://convergencia.uaemex.mx/article/view/10332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29101/crcs.v0i79.10332
  58. Ugwu, C. L. J. y Zewotir, T. T. (2018). Using mixed effects logistic regression models for complex survey data on malaria rapid diagnostic test results. Malaria Journal, 17(1). https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-018-2604-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-018-2604-y
  59. van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening digital divide. Inequality in the information society. Estados Unidos: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812
  60. van Dijk, J. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide. The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. En J. Bus, M. Crompton, M. Hildebrandt y G. Metakides (eds.), Digital enlightenment yearbook 2010 (pp. 57-75). Washington, D.C: IOS. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203069769-12
  61. van Dijk, J. y van Deursen , A. (2014). Digital skills. Unlocking the infomation society. Nueva York: Palgrave Mcmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137437037
  62. Winocur-Iparraguirre, R. y Sánchez-Martínez, J. A. (2015). Introducción. En R. Winocur-Iparraguirre y J. A. Sánchez-Martínez (coords.), Redes sociodigitales en México (pp. 9-16). Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica / Consejo Nacional para la Cultura.
  63. Wojcik, S. y Hughes, A. (2019). Sizing up Twitter users. U.S. adult Twitter are younger and more likely to be democrats than general public. Most users rarely tweet, but the most prolific 10% create 80% of tweets from adults U.S. users. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
  64. Yang, S., Quan-Haase, A. y Rannenberg, K. (2016). The changing public sphere on Twitter: Network structure, elites and topics of the #righttobeforgotten. New Media and Society, 19(12), 1983-2002. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444816651409 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816651409

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.