The Social Media Natives

The Relationship between Young Peoples’ Media User Type and Their Media Use at School
  • Petter Bae Brandtzæg


The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between the various user patterns among young people and their use of computers and the Internet in school. First, by using cluster analysis on survey data (N=1,850 /age: 9-16 years), we identified four distinct user types: Sporadic Users (38%), Video Users (11%), Socialisers (41%), and Advanced Users (10%). This finding indicates that social media natives, understood as young people, grown up with social media, are not a homogeneous group of media users. Second, a concerning finding is that so many of the user types lean toward a passive user style focused on entertainment. In comparison to previous studies, there is a marked turn toward deriving more entertainment value from computer and Internet use – where technology is used as a toy more than a tool. A typical pattern towards instrumental or utility use is not identified in this study. Third, this study finds a relationship between how young people use new media in general and how often they use computers and the Internet at school. This latter finding suggests that schools may exert a strong influence on how young people in the 21st century develop their user style and competence level in new technologies. At present, schools might amplify rather than equalise the digital divide between young people. Finally, the user typology identified might help researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to better understand the complex variations among social media natives.


Young People Social Medium Social Networking Site Usage Pattern Digital Medium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barn og Medier. (2014). 2014 – Barn og Medier. En rapport fra Medietilsynet om barn og unges bruk og opplevelser av medier. (A report on children and their use of media). Medietilsynet, Fredriktstad. Retrieved from
  2. Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgers, N., De Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin de methodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2010). Towards a unified media-user typology (MUT): A meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 940–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2012). Social networking sites: Their users and social implications – A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2014). Digitale skiller blant barn og unge i 2014: Hvor “flinke” er de digitalt innfødte i verdens mest digitale land? – Rapport til Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet. Medietilsynet. Fredrikstad.Google Scholar
  7. Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2011). A typology of social networking sites users. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(1), 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanovic, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide – A jtypology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 69(3), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Haugestveit, I. M., Lüders, M., & Følstad, A. (2015, online first). How should organizations adapt to youth civic engagement in social media? A lead user approach. Interacting with Computers. doi:  10.1093/iwc/iwv041
  10. Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (2013). Digital generations: Children, young people, and the new media. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Castells, M. (2002). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endestad, T., Heim, J. Kaare, B., Torgersen, L., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2011). Media user types among young children and social displacement. Nordicom Review, 32(1), 17–30. Retrieved from %20et%20al.pdf
  14. Erstad, O., Gilje, Ø., & Arnseth, H. C. (2013). Learning lives connected: Digital youth across school and community spaces. Comunicar, 20(40), 89–98. Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Ferrari, A. (2003). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Scientific and policy report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Retrieved from Scholar
  16. Global Web Index. (2015). Mobile use chart. Retrieved from
  17. Hargittai, E. (2002). Beyond logs and surveys: In-depth measures of people’s Web use skills. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1239–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatlevik, O. E., Egeberg, G., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2013). Monitor skole. Om digital kompetanse og erfaringer med bruk av IKT i skolen. Oslo: IKT-senteret (Use of ICT in Norwegian school). Retrieved from
  20. Heim, J., Brandtzæg, P. B., Endestad, T., Kaare, B. H., & Torgersen, L. (2007). Children’s usage of media technologies and psychosocial factors. New Media & Society, 9(3), 425–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2014). Digital competence – An emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 1–25.Google Scholar
  22. Internet World Stats. (2015). The internet big picture: World internet users and 2015 population stats. Retrieved from
  23. Jenkins, H. (1997). Empowering children in the digital age: Towards a radical media pedagogy. Radical Teacher, 50, 30.Google Scholar
  24. Johnsson-Smaragdi, U. (2001). Media use styles among the young. In S. Livingstone & M. Bovill (Eds.), Children and their changing media environment: A European comparative study (pp. 131–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Johri, A., Teo, H. J., Lo, J., Dufour, M., & Schram, A. (2014). Millennial engineers: Digital media and information ecology of engineering students. Computers in Human Behavior, 33(5), 286–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital natives: Ten years after. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 525–538.Google Scholar
  27. Krumsvik, R. J. (2008). From digital divides to digital inequality. US-China Education Review, 5(9), 1–16.Google Scholar
  28. Lüders, M. (2008). Conceptualizing personal media. New Media and Society, 10(5), 683–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lüders, M., & Brandtzaeg, P. (2014, online first). “My children tell me it’s so simple”: A mixed- methods approach to understand older non-users’ perceptions of social networking sites. New Media & Society. doi:  10.1177/1461444814554064
  30. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. NCCA. (2004). Curriculum assessment and ICT in the Irish context: A discussion paper. Retrieved from Scholar
  32. Norris, P. (2003). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Obrist, M., Cesar, P., Geerts, D., Bartindale, T., & Churchill, E. F. (2015, August). Online video and interactive TV experiences. Interactions, 22(5), 32–37. doi: 10.1145/2799629
  34. OECD. (2011). The OECD programme for international assessment of adult competencies (PIAAC). Retrieved from %20Tech%20Report.pdf
  35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational leadership, 63(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
  37. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me, Mom, I’m learning! How computer and video games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! New York, NY: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  38. Roodt, S., & Peier, D. (2013, July). Using YouTube© in the classroom for the net generation of students. In Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference (Vol. 2013, No. 1, pp. 473–488).Google Scholar
  39. Tan, P., Steinbach, M., & Kumar, J. (2006). Introduction to data mining. New York, NY: Pearson, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning. Lifewide Magazine, 11. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from
  42. van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Westlund, O., & Bjur, J. (2014). Media life of the young. Young, 22(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petter Bae Brandtzæg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations