Group differences in the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) were investigated, to test the diversification hypothesis that argues that minorities and immigrants will be more likely to use CMC to compensate for their lack of social capital. Data were gathered from a sample of Internet users reflecting the percentage of minorities in the general population (n = 1,264). The results provide support for the hypothesis, indicating that in multicultural societies disadvantaged groups show greater motivation to use CMC to expand business and occupational contacts, whereas members of the majority group are more motivated to use CMC to maintain existing family and friendships ties. Implications of the finding are discussed.
Al-HajM. (2004). Ethnic formation in a deeply divided society: The case of the 1990s Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic.
2.
AliN. (2006, January 9-11). The unpredictable status of Palestinian woman in Israel: Actual versus desirable. Paper presented at the Religion, Gender and Politics: An International Dialogue, The Van Leer Institute, Jerusalem, Israel.
3.
Ball-RokeachS. J.KimY. C.MateiS. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28, 392-428.
4.
BarkerV. (2009). Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity and collective self-esteem. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 209-213.
5.
Barzilai-NahonK. (2006). Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divides. Information Society, 22, 269-278.
6.
boydd. m.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
7.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Technology use among Israelis over 20 years old. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.
8.
ChanD. C.ChengG. L. (2004). A comparison of online and offline friendship qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 305-320.
9.
DiMaggioP.BonikowskiB. (2008). Make money surfing the web? The impact of Internet use on the earnings of U.S. workers. American Sociological Review, 73, 227-250.
10.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.ShaferS.CelesteC. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In NeckermanK. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 366-400). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
11.
DoltonP.MakepeaceG.RobinsonH. (2007). Use it or lose it? The impact of computers on earnings. Manchester School, 75, 673-694.
EllisonN. B.SteinfeldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social networking sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
14.
FeldS. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 1015-1035.
15.
GanayemA.RafaeliS.AzizaF. (2009). Digital divide: The use of the internet in Arab society (in Hebrew). Megamot, 1, 164-196.
16.
HaberfeldI.CohenY. (2007). Development of gender, ethnic, and national earnings gaps in Israel: The role of rising inequality. Social Science Research, 36, 654-672.
HargittaiE.HsiehP. L. (2010). Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication and Society, 13, 515-536.
19.
HuysmanM.WulfW. (2004). Social capital and information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
JacksonL. A.ErvinK. S.GardnerD.SchmittN. (2001). The racial digital divide: Motivational, affective and cognitive correlates of Internet use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2019-2046.
21.
JungJ.-Y.QiuJ. L.KimY-C. (2001). Internet connectedness and inequality: Beyond the “divide.”Communication Research, 28, 507-585.
22.
KatzJ. E.RiceR. E. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
KimY.-C.Ball-RokeachS.J. (2006).Civic Engagement From a Communication Infrastructure Perspective. Communication Theory, 16, 173-197.
24.
KimY.-C.JungJ.-Y.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2007). Ethnicity, place and communication technology. Information, Technology & People, 20, 282-393.
25.
KorupS.SzydlikM. (2005). Causes and trends of the digital divide. European Sociological Review, 21, 409-422.
26.
Lewin-EpsteinN.SemyonovM. (1993). The Arab minority in Israel’s economy: Patterns of ethnic inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
27.
LinN. (2001). A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LogesW. E.JungJ. Y. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28, 536-562.
29.
MarlowC. (2005). The structural determinants of media contagion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
30.
MasseyD. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
31.
MateiS.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2003). The Internet in the communication infrastructure of urban residential communities: Macro or mesolinakages?Journal of Communication, 53, 642-656.
32.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2002). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
33.
MeschG. (2007). Social diversification: A perspective for the study of social networks of adolescents offline and online. In KutscherN.OttoH. U. (Eds.), Grenzenlose Cyberwelt? (pp. 105-121). Heidelberg, Germany: Verlag fur Sozialwiseenschaften.
34.
MeschG. S.TalmudI. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships, the role of multiplexity and duration. Information Society, 22(3), 137-148.
35.
MeschG. S.TalmudI. (2010). Wired youth: The social world of youth in the information age. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
36.
MeschG. S.TurgemanH.FishmanG. (2008). Perceived discrimination and the well-being of immigrant adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolecence, 37, 592-604.
37.
NorrisP. (2001). The digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet worldwide. In HowardP.JonesS. (Eds.), Society online (pp. 31-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
OnoH.TsaiH. J. (2008). Race, parental socio-economic status and computer time outside of school among young American children, 1997-2003. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1650-1672.
39.
OnoH.ZavodnyM. (2003). Gender and the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 111-121.
40.
OnoH.ZavodnyM. (2008). Immigrants, English ability and the digital divide. Social Forces, 86, 1455-1479.
41.
QinH.ScottC. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, 1428-1451.
42.
RaijmanR.SemyonovM. (1998). Best of times, worst of times, and occupational mobility: The case of Soviet immigrants in Israel. International Migration, 36, 290-303.
43.
RamirezA.DimmickJ.FeasterJ.LinS. F. (2008). Revisiting interpersonal media competition. The gratifications niches of I.M., E-mail, and the telephone. Communication Research, 35, 529-547.
44.
SmoohaS. (1997). Ethnic democracy: Israel as an Archetype. Israel Studies, 2, 198-241.
45.
SmoohaS. (2002). The model of ethnic democracy: Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Nations and Nationalism, 8, 475-503.
46.
SteinfeldC.EllisonN. B.LampeC. (2008). Social capital, self esteem and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434-445.
47.
SubrahmanyamK.ReichS. M.WaechterN.EspinozaG. (2008). Online and offline social networks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 420-433.
48.
van DeursenA.van DijkJ. A. G. M.PetersO. (2010, June). The older the better. Rethinking Internet skills. The role of gender, age, education, internet experience, and hours spent online. Paper presented at the 2010 ICA conference, Singapore.
49.
van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide. London, UK: SAGE.
50.
WeareC.LogesW. E.OztasN. (2007). Email effects on the structure of local associations: A social network analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 222-243.
