The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years Later
Abstract
Citizens’ acquisition of mass media information has long been a concern of social scientists and policy makers. The conventional wisdom that increasing the flow of information will ensure its widespread acquisition has been criticized based on studies showing inequitable information acquisition between groups of higher and lower socioeconomic status. The knowledge gap hypothesis, formalized in 1970, posits increasing differences in knowledge due to social structure-based inequities. Because of its important theoretical and policy implications, this hypothesis has generated considerable research and continues to concern social scientists and policy makers worldwide. This chapter reviews and critiques the development of the knowledge gap hypothesis over the past 25 years. Based on a comprehensive examination of studies, critiques, and dissertations, the authors identify the variables that potentially influence the gap phenomenon, the conditions under which gaps expand and contract, and areas that require further research. Finally, the authors evaluate the knowledge gap hypothesis as a scientific research program, using a sophisticated falsificationist perspective.
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
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
Mass 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
Normal Science and its Dangers
Popper, K. R. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.007 · Cited by 792
Cited by
Hesse, B. W., Nelson, D. E., Kreps, G. L., Croyle, R. T., Arora, N. K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618 · Cited by 1,523
Self-citationLessons Learned from Public Health Mass Media Campaigns: Marketing Health in a Crowded Media World
Randolph, W., & Viswanath, K. (2004) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123046 · Cited by 608
Self-citationAfter the Flood: Anger, Attribution, and the Seeking of Information
Griffin, R. J., Yang, Z., ter Huurne, E., Boerner, F., Ortiz, S., & Dunwoody, S. (2008) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547007312309 · Cited by 361
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole
Ungar, S. (2000) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306 · Cited by 299
Collective preferences in democratic politics: opinion surveys and the will of the people
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-1221 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Viswanath, K., & Finnegan, J. R.
- Venue
- Annals of the International Communication Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 187-228
- ISSN
- 2380-8977 (ISSN-L)
- 2380-8985
- OpenAlex
- W2505607510
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.01
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years Later. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678931
- The paper
- Viswanath, K., & Finnegan, J. R. (1996). The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years Later. Annals of the International Communication Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678931
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.