The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does the Digital Divide Matter More? Comparing the Effects of New Media and Old Media Use on the Education-Based Knowledge Gap
Abstract
As the Internet has become increasingly widespread in the world, some researchers suggested a conceptual shift of the digital divide from material access to actual use. Although this shift has been incorporated into the more broad social inclusion agenda, the social consequences of the digital divide have not yet received adequate attention. Recognizing that political knowledge is a critical social resource associated with power and inclusion, this study empirically examines the relationship between the digital divide and the knowledge gap. Based on the 2008–2009 American National Election Studies panel data, this research found that, supporting the shift of the academic agenda, socioeconomic status is more closely associated with the informational use of the Internet than with access to the Internet. In addition, socioeconomic status is more strongly related to the informational use of the Internet than with that of the traditional media, particularly newspapers and television. More importantly, the differential use of the Internet is associated with a greater knowledge gap than that of the traditional media. These findings suggest that the digital divide, which can be better defined as inequalities in the meaningful use of information and communication technologies, matters more than its traditional counterpart.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide
Norris, P. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164887 · Cited by 2,921
Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills
Hargittai, E. (2002) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v7i4.942 · Cited by 1,951 · cited 2×
“…focused on inequities in the access to and use of digital technologies (Bucy, 2000; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Jung, Qiu, & Kim, 2001; Norris, 2001; van Dijk, 2002), which have been called the first- and the second-level digital divides (Attewell, 2001; Hargittai, 2002, 2004; Natriello, 2001).”
BackgroundMass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/267786 · Cited by 1,537
Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults' Use of the Internet
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 · Cited by 1,251
What Is Social Informatics and Why Does It Matter?
Kling, R. (2007) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972240701441556 · Cited by 286
Social stratification and the digital divide
Wilson, K. R., Wallin, J. S., & Reiser, C. (2003) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439303021002001 · Cited by 192
Cited by
The digital divide shifts to differences in usage
van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2014) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444813487959 · Cited by 1,733
The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors
Friemel, T. N. (2016) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444814538648 · Cited by 1,136
Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., et al. (2017) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 · Cited by 974
Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice.
McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0039244 · Cited by 414
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2015) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2015.1069770 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Wei, L., & Hindman, D. B.
- Venue
- Mass Communication and Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-02-28
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 216-235
- ISSN
- 1520-5436 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7825
- OpenAlex
- W2047730878
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 112.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.