13 Minding the digital gap:

why understanding digital

inequality matters
Eszter Hargittai

A large body of literature exists looking at differential rates of Internet

diffusion both across and within countries (e.g., see Billon et al., 2009 for
a review of the international comparative literature; and DiMaggio et al.,
2004 for a review of mainly US-based studies). An important shift in this
work over the past decade has been the recognition that inequalities related
to digital media1 use will exist beyond mere issues of connectivity (e.g.,
Barzilai-Nahon, 2006; DiMaggio et al., 2004; Hargittai, 2002; Mossberger
et al., 2003; van Dijk, 2005). That is, even after people gain access to the
Internet and cross the so-called digital divide, differences will remain in
how they use the medium, namely, how skilled they are at it, how free they
are to use it in different situations and toward what purposes they put it.
Ultimately, the question for scholars of social stratification is whether the
increasing diffusion of this new resource will exacerbate or lessen inequities
across the population (Hargittai, 2008). But a concern about this matter
should not be restricted to those specifically interested in matters of social
inequality, given that differentiated adoption of various information and
communication technologies has consequences for numerous areas of
media studies.
Many of the questions being asked about whether or how digital media
are changing our world and our lives assume universal outcomes across
population segments. That is, regardless of the attributes of the actors
under consideration (whether individuals, organizations, industries, etc.),
many inquiries tend to assume that there is one overarching answer that
applies to all cases. Questions such as ‘What are the Internet’s political
effects?’, ‘Are digital media democratizing the public sphere?’, ‘How
are new media changing cultural consumption?’, ‘What is the relation-
ship between playing video games and one’s health?’, ‘How do virtual
worlds influence identity expression and development?’, ‘Are notions and
expectations of privacy changing?’ often disregard that the answers may
not apply uniformly across different strata of the population. Such an
overarching approach has little basis in empirical evidence yet continues
to inform much scholarship and public debate. It is reflected both in
questions being asked and methodologies employed to study them.
By framing our approach to the study of digital media in such a way
232 Eszter Hargittai

– whether intentionally or not – work becomes deterministic, because it

suggests that new media result in certain generalizable outcomes regard-
less of the particular contexts in which their uses are examined.
Take for example one of the questions from above: ‘Are digital media
democratizing the public sphere?’ It would be wrong to assume that there
is a response to this question that is universally applicable to everybody yet
the way it is phrased suggests such expectations. It may be that for some
segments of the population (i.e., those in more privileged positions), new
opportunities offered by information and communication technologies
(or ICTs) are having a democratizing effect by allowing easier access to
participation in public debates. However, it may be that for some segments
of the population, new media have made little difference. If the overall
conclusion we then draw is that ‘yes, digital media are democratizing
the public sphere’, based on the fact that we find positive associations
for particular population segments (i.e., the already privileged) then we
are ignoring the situation of those who are seeing no such outcomes and
walking away with a mistaken conclusion. Indeed, by offering different
opportunities to different groups, ICTs may be increasing inequalities on
the whole.
In order to produce findings that represent a diverse set of users,
investigations must take a more careful approach to the study of ICTs
than is currently often the case. Of course, plenty of scholarship over
the decades has suggested the importance of taking nuanced approaches
to the study of media’s social, political, economic and cultural implica-
tions both in the realm of traditional media (e.g., Cook et al., 1975; Liebes
and Katz, 1993; Morley, 1980; Vidmar and Rokeach, 1974) and ICTs (see
many of the citations later in this chapter). It is important to recognize
that some work does take more refined approaches and learn from such
projects. Nonetheless, many ongoing questions and debates about digital
media ignore such refined approaches and thus an explicit consideration
of this matter seems warranted. Although the particular focus here is on
questions of social inequality as related to digital media uses, the overall
argument advocates recognizing and staying conscious of differentiated
ICT uses in all areas of inquiry about digital media usage if we are to
avoid overly simplistic approaches to the study of their social, political,
economic and cultural implications.
Since the mid-1990s, there has been widespread recognition of the
fact that ICTs are not spreading equally across the population, whether
in an international or national context. Some work has considered this
inequality at the global level (e.g., Hargittai, 1999; Norris, 2001; Ono
and Zavodny, 2007; Wilson, 2004), while much other research has
focused on inequities within national borders (e.g., Bimber, 2000; Bucy,
2000; Compaine, 2001; National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, 1995). Initial investigations – most widely known under
the term ‘digital divide’ – simply asked who had access to the Internet and
who did not, or who was using it at all versus who was not. Subsequent
 Minding the digital gap: why understanding digital inequality matters 233

work introduced more refined approaches by considering differentiated

uses (e.g., Barzilai-Nahon, 2006; Bonfadelli, 2002; DiMaggio et al., 2004;
Howard et al., 2001; Jackson et al., 2008; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007;
Norris, 2001; van Dijk 2005; Wilson, 2000) also expanding investigations
to other technologies such as mobile and gaming devices (e.g., Lenhart
et al., 2008; Rice and Katz, 2003). While variation in basic usage rates
continues to exist and consequently remains an important area of inquiry
(Jones and Fox, 2009; Zhang et al., 2008), the goal here is to focus on
refined studies of digital inequality, that is, differences that remain among
users even after we control for basic access and usage.
The term ‘digital inequality’ is an alternative to the more widely-used
‘digital divide’ and serves to highlight that inequality cannot simply be
seen as a dichotomous notion when it comes to ICT usage (DiMaggio
et al., 2004). Rather, it is essential to acknowledge and incorporate into
our studies the diverse aspects of inequality – especially differentiated
contexts of usage and variation in skills – related to digital media uses
if we are to have a realistic understanding of the many diverse ways in
which people are incorporating new media into their lives across popula-
tion groups. Beyond arguing that these are important considerations for
scholars primarily focused on the study of social stratification, the goal
here is to emphasize that the reality of digital inequality – at this point
documented by sufficient empirical evidence to be accepted as reality
(e.g., DiMaggio and Bonikowski, 2008; Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008;
Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009) – should be
of concern to and be considered by investigators focusing on other areas
of inquiry as well. Research in numerous domains needs to be conscious
of – and when possible should avoid – assumptions about the univer-
sality of processes being examined. And while it is not possible to include
these considerations front-and-centre in every project, they need to be at
least part of the discussions enumerating the more general implications
of findings.
What are the nuanced approaches to understanding ICT usage beyond
access? They concern both the technical and the social contexts in which
people engage with digital media. Related to these is an additional impor-
tant factor: people’s level of skill with ICTs. These then all in turn influ-
ence how people incorporate digital media into their lives (i.e., their
types of uses), which can range from the mundane to the serious with
different potential implications for beneficial (or in some cases problem-
atic) outcomes in people’s lives.
The mix of one’s technical resources and social circumstances regarding
ICT usage results in a context that will be more or less optimal for various
types of digital media usage and will influence the extent to which a user
is likely to engage with digital media in the most advantageous ways. Not
surprisingly, better technical resources are likely to be more supportive
of diverse uses than outdated equipment and slow connections. Access
to more advanced hardware is likely to benefit the user when trying to
234 Eszter Hargittai

access websites using state-of-the-art technology. Additionally, easy access

to equipment (e.g., computers one does not have to share with many
other household members) as well as lack of monitoring (whether tech-
nical or social) is likely to lead to more freedom in using the Internet,
resulting in more exploration, more advanced skills and more diverse
uses (e.g., Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Hassani, 2006; Lim, 2009; Zillien
and Hargittai, 2009).
Although less research has focused on the social context of people’s
Internet uses, there is some evidence that people rely on their networks
to navigate the Web (Frohlich and Kraut, 2003; Kiesler et al., 2000).
Not surprisingly, it helps to have people nearby who know how to trou-
bleshoot issues that come up during one’s online activities. Moreover,
beyond situations involving specific problems, a user can also benefit
from know-how passed along informally in everyday life from those in
one’s networks. In sum, both technical and social aspects of a user’s envi-
ronment influence whether the particular usage context will enable or
constrain one’s ICT uses.
An important aspect of people’s digital media uses that has been shown
to be unequally distributed across the population concerns people’s skills
in using information and communication technologies (Hargittai, 2010;
Hargittai, 2002; Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; van Deursen and van Dijk,
2009). While many online actions may seem trivial to the experienced
user, most online activities require some level of know-how, which is why
skill is an essential factor to understanding how people incorporate ICTs
into their lives. Consider the need to access support networks when one
runs into a situation requiring assistance. Even if one lacks knowledgeable
people in one’s surroundings, one may be able to draw on helpful advice
from online sources. However, recognizing that such support is available
on the Web and being able to find it and tap into it effectively requires a
certain level of skill that is not uniformly distributed among people.
In a different vein, a certain level of know-how is important in order
to sidestep potential negative consequences of Internet use. While in
some circles it may be baffling that anyone would fall for scams such
as those coming in through emails promising instant access to millions
of dollars from far-away lands, indeed there are people out there who
respond to such messages and suffer the consequences (Hinde, 2002).
While fraud of this type is certainly not restricted to the Internet age, the
low cost of email and ease of access to mailing lists has made their prolif-
eration quicker. Such phenomena can have problematic consequences
for those not savvy enough to hunt down information that would make
them rethink their responses to such solicitations. Consequently, while
online skills can improve the ways in which people take advantage of their
Internet uses, they can also help prevent people from engaging in poten-
tially risky online behaviour.
Many users also lack skills that limit the extent to which they can benefit
from their usage optimally. From knowing how best to handle large
 Minding the digital gap: why understanding digital inequality matters 235

volumes of email or send a message to someone maximizing chances for

a response (Bunz, 2004; van Dijk, 2005), to appreciating what material
is available online and being able to find it efficiently (e.g., Eastin and
LaRose, 2000; Hargittai, 2002; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2009); from
knowing how to contribute to online content production (Hargittai and
Walejko, 2008; Jenkins et al., 2006), to knowing where and how to find
relevant contacts; from having the ability to evaluate content credibility
(e.g., Metzger, 2007) to being vigilant about privacy and security concerns
and also recognizing one’s legal rights in the online environment (Palfrey
et al., 2009), informed uses of digital media rely on many important skills
(Hargittai, 2007). The factors enumerated earlier – the technical and
social contexts of usage – all influence users’ online abilities and what
they are able to accomplish using digital media.
Antecedent to all of these factors, however, is the social position that
a user inhabits. Figure 13.1 presents a graphical representation of the
relationships between the factors enumerated in this piece. One’s demo-
graphic characteristics and socio-economic background are likely to influ-
ence the technical and social contexts of usage in addition to one’s skills.
These all, in turn, have implications for how one uses information and
communication technologies. Finally, usage feeds back into additional
skills leading to a potentially reinforcing effect.
Prevalent in popular accounts of digital media use is the assump-
tion that young people are universally savvy with information and

Context

Technical/Social

Uses
$

Skill

Figure 13.1 The relationship of factors that influence people’s ICT uses and their
implications for people’s social status and well-being
236 Eszter Hargittai

communication technologies (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1998). However,

as critiques of that perspective have pointed out, such approaches tend
to lack empirical evidence (Bennett et al., 2008). Although the majority
of youth are now online in many countries and thus access differences
(i.e., the so-called ‘digital divide’) are no longer the main barrier to bene-
fiting from digital media for this particular segment of the population,
know-how and actual uses exhibit considerable differences even among
universally wired youth (e.g., many cohorts at American universities). Far
from being randomly distributed, online skills and uses vary by socio-
economic status suggesting that rather than meeting its potential to level
the playing field, the Internet may be contributing to increasing social
inequality (Hargittai, 2010).
Take, for example, a group of over one thousand students in the first-
year cohort of an urban public university in the midwestern United
States surveyed about their Web uses in 2007. When asked to rate their
level of understanding, on a five-point scale, of such Internet-related
items as ‘reload’, ‘advanced search’ and ‘bookmark’, most suggested
that they had anywhere from a good to full understanding of what
these terms mean. However, asked to rate their level of understanding
of terms like ‘RSS’ and ‘social bookmarking’, most indicated that they
have anywhere from no to little understanding of the items. These
same questions were posed to the 2009 first-year cohort at this same
university and while average knowledge of the more recent Web terms
had gone up slightly (at the level of the hundredth decimal point for
the group as a whole), for the most part the results were consistent with
those from two years earlier. While most students understand terms
that have been around for over a decade, many remain unaware of
more recent Web functionalities despite those having been around for
several years themselves.
In addition to affording more and more opportunities for finding
diverse types of content, an important aspect of recent Web developments
concerns increasing opportunities for people to contribute to online
materials and conversations themselves (e.g., Benkler, 2006). Research
on youth has suggested that many are indeed taking part in such activi-
ties online (Ito et al., 2009; Jenkins et al., 2006; Palfrey and Gasser, 2008;
Resnick, 2007). The question remains, however, to what extent these
types of engagement are widespread. Based on the same cohort of first-
year college students surveyed in 2009 mentioned above, findings suggest
that active participation is quite limited even among a group of highly
wired young adults. For example, less than half of the group indicated
contributions to sites through writing reviews or voting on content posted
by others. Moreover, such engagement is not randomly distributed across
the group. Rather, those from more privileged backgrounds (i.e., students
whose parents have higher levels of education) report taking part in such
activities considerably more than those from less educated families. Work
on the data from the 2007 study found that students also differ in the
 Minding the digital gap: why understanding digital inequality matters 237

extent to which they are sharing content they create online (Hargittai and
Walejko 2008). Results such as these suggest caution when interpreting
the outcome of any study that does not represent the online behaviour
of a wide range of users. Returning to the example mentioned in the
beginning of this chapter, while data on students who contribute to online
content and conversation may suggest that ICTs are democratizing the
public sphere, considering data about the participation of a wide range of
students makes the answer less obvious.
Disparities in people’s ICT abilities and uses have the potential to
augment social inequalities rather than lessen them. Those who know
how to navigate the Web’s vast landscape and how to use digital media
to address their needs can reap significant benefits from their uses while
those who lack skills in these domains will miss out on opportunities. The
Matthew Effect – ‘unto every one that hath shall be given’ – introduced by
Robert Merton (Merton, 1979: 445) to sociological investigations applies
well to this domain like many others. Findings from this emerging field
suggest that initial advantages translate into increasing returns over time
for the digitally connected and digitally skilled (DiMaggio and Bonikowski,
2008). The implications of these findings are far from limited to work
focused on questions of social stratification. Rather, investigations across
all domains of digital media research must remain conscious of this fact
if they are to avoid incorrect generalizations of findings across all popu-
lation segments concerning the social, political, economic and cultural
implications of ICTs.

Note
1 I use ‘digital media’ and ‘information and communication technologies’ inter-
changeably to refer mainly to the Internet, but also the use of mobile and
other devices (e.g., games).

References
Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006) ‘Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for
Digital Divide/s’, The Information Society, 22: 269–278.
Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) ‘The “digital natives” debate: a crit-
ical review of evidence’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39: 775–786.
Billon, M., Marco, R. and Lera-Lopez, F. (2009) ‘Disparities in ICT adop-
tion: A multidimensional approach to study the cross-country digital divide’,
Telecommunications Policy, 33: 596–610.
Bimber, B. (2000) ‘The Gender Gap on the Internet’, Social Science Quarterly, 81:
868–876.
Bonfadelli, H. (2002) ‘The Internet and Knowledge Gaps. A Theoretical and
Empirical Investigation’, European Journal of Communication, 17: 65–84.
Bucy, E. (2000) ‘Social Access to the Internet’, Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, 5: 50–61.
238 Eszter Hargittai

Bunz, U. (2004) ‘The Computer-Email-Web Fluency Scale: Development and

Validation’, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17: 477–504.
Compaine, B.M. (ed.) (2001) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cook, T.D., Appleton, H. Conner, R.F. Shaffer, A., Tamkin, G. and Weber, S.J.
(1975) ‘Sesame Street’ Revisited, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
van Deursen, A.J.A.M. and van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2009) ‘Using the Internet: Skill
related problems in users’ online behavior’, Interacting with Computers, 21:
393–402.
van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2005) The Deepening Divide, London: Sage Publications.
DiMaggio, P. and Bonikowski, B. (2008) ‘Make Money Surfing the Web? The
Impact of Internet Use on the Earnings of U.S. Workers’, American Sociological
Review, 73: 227–250.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. and Shafer, S. (2004) ‘Digital Inequality:
From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use’, in Neckerman, K. (ed.) Social
Inequality, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Eastin, M.S. and LaRose, R. (2000) ‘Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of
the Digital Divide’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6.
Frohlich, D.M. and Kraut, R. (2003) ‘The Social Context of Home Computing’, in
Harper, R. (ed.) Inside the Smart Home, London: Springer-Verlag.
Hargittai, E. (1999) ‘Weaving the Western Web: Explaining difference in Internet
connectivity among OECD countries’, Telecommunications Policy, 23: 701–718.
Hargittai, E. (2002) ‘Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online
Skills’, First Monday, 7.
Hargittai, E. (2007) ‘A Framework for Studying Differences in People’s Digital
Media Uses’, in Kutscher, N. and Otto, H.U. (eds) Cyberworld Unlimited?,
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH
Hargittai, E. (2008) ‘The Digital Reproduction of Inequality’, in Grusky, D. (ed.)
Social Stratification, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hargittai, E. (2010) ‘Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among
Members of the “Net Generation”’, Sociological Inquiry, 80.
Hargittai, E. and Hinnant, A. (2008) ‘Digital Inequality: Differences in Young
Adults’ Use of the Internet’, Communication Research, 35: 602–621.
Hargittai, E. and Walejko, G. (2008) ‘The Participation Divide: Content crea-
tion and sharing in the digital age’, Information, Communication and Society, 11:
239–256.
Hassani, S.N. (2006) ‘Locating Digital Divides at Home, Work, and Everywhere
Else’, Poetics, 34: 250–272.
Hinde, S. (2002) ‘Spam, scams, chains, hoaxes and other junk mail’, Computers and
Security, 21: 592–606.
Howard, P.N., Rainie, L. and Jones, S. (2001) ‘Days and Nights on the Internet:
The Impact of a Diffusing Technology’, American Behavioral Scientist, 45:
383–404.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Herr, B., Horst, H.A., Lange,
P.G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K., Pascoe, C.J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims,
C. and Tripp, L. (2009) Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids
Living and Learning with New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackson, L.A., Zhao, Y., Kolneic, A., Fitzgerald, H.E., Harold, R. and Von Eye,
A. (2008) ‘Race, Gender, and Information Technology Use: The New Digital
Divide’, CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11: 437–442.
 Minding the digital gap: why understanding digital inequality matters 239

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M. and Robison, A.J. (2006)
Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st
Century, Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Jones, S, and Fox. S. (2009) Generations Online in 2009, Washington, DC: Pew
Internet & American Life Project.
Kiesler, S., Zdaniuk, B., Lundmark, V. and R. Kraut, R. (2000) ‘Troubles With
the Internet: The Dynamics of Help at Home’, Human–Computer Interaction, 15:
323–351.
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C. and Vitak, J. (2008)
Teens, Video Games and Civics, Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life
Project.
Liebes, T, and Katz, E. (1993) The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of
Dallas, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Lim, S.S. (2009) ‘Home, School, Borrowed, Public or Mobile: Variations in Young
Singaporeans’ Internet Access and their Implications’, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 14: 1228–1256.
Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007) ‘Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children,
Young People, and the Digital Divide’, New Media and Society, 9: 671–696.
Merton, R.K. (1979) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Metzger, M.J. (2007) ‘Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evalu-
ating online information and recommendations for future research’, Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58: 2078–2091.
Morley, D. (1980) The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding, London: British
Film Institute.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J. and Stansbury, M. (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the
Digital Divide, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1995) Falling
Through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America, Washington,
DC: NTIA.
Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet
in Democratic Societies, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ono, H. and Zavodny, M. (2007) ‘Digital Inequality: A five country comparison
using microdata’, Social Science Research, 3.
Palfrey, J., Gasser, U., Simun, M. and Barnes, R.F. (2009) ‘Youth, Creativity and
Copyright in the Digital Age’, International Journal of Media and Learning, 1:
79–97.
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008) Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of
Digital Natives, New York: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, On the Horizon, 9: 1–6.
Resnick, M. (2007) ‘Sowing the Seeds for a More Creative Society’, in Learning and
Leading with Technology. Available: <http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers.
html>.
Rice, R.E., and Katz, J.E. (2003) ‘Comparing internet and mobile phone usage:
digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts’, Telecommunications Policy, 27:
597–623.
Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, New York:
McGraw Hill.
Vidmar, N. and Rokeach, M. (1974) ‘Archie Bunker’s Bigotry: A Study in Selective
Perception and Exposure’, The Journal of Communication, 24: 36–47.
240 Eszter Hargittai

Wilson, E.J. (2000) Closing the Digital Divide: An Initial Review: Briefing the President,
Washington, DC: Internet Policy Institute.
Wilson, E.J. (2004) The Information Revolution and Developing Countries, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Zhang, C., Callegaro, M. and Thomas, M. (2008) ‘More than the Digital Divide?
Investigating the Differences between Internet and Non-Internet Users’, in
Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research, Chicago, Illinois.
Zillien, N. and Hargittai, E. (2009) ‘Digital Distinction: Status-Specific Types of
Internet Usage’, Social Science Quarterly, 90: 274–291.