Second screening is a relatively new set of media practices that arguably empower audiences to shape public narratives alongside news organizations and political elites. But in developing countries such as Colombia, it is important to examine who participates in this process, as substantial inequalities in both access to and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) persist. This study examines how socioeconomic status (SES) relates to the adoption of second screening practices in Colombia, a country in which the technological access and literacy necessary to engage in these practices are becoming widespread but are not yet ubiquitous. Based on a random sample of face-to-face interviews, results show evidence of persistent digital divides in Colombia in terms of ICT access, ICT use, and second screening for news. Additionally, results indicate that the relationship between SES and second screening for news is indirect, mediated through technological access and public affairs engagement.
AnsteadN.O’LoughlinB. (2011). The emerging viewertariat and BBC question time: Television debate and real-time commenting online. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 440–462. doi:10.1177/1940161211415519
4.
AnsteadN.O’LoughlinB. (2015). Social media analysis and public opinion: The 2010 UK Election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 204–220. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12102
5.
AuversetL. A.BillingsA. C. (2016). Relationships between social TV and enjoyment: A content analysis of The Walking Dead’s story sync experience. Social Media + Society, 2, 1–12. doi:10.1177/2056305116662170
6.
BarnidgeM. (2017). Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings. Political Communication, 34, 302–321. doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639
7.
BarnidgeM.Gil de ZúñigaH.DiehlT. (2017). Second screening and political persuasion on social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61, 309–331. doi:10.1080/08838151.2017.1309416
8.
BarryM.DohertyG. (2017). What we talk about when we talk about interactivity: Empowerment in public discourse. New Media & Society, 19, 1052–1071. doi:10.1177/1461444815625944
9.
BentivegnaS.MarchettiR. (2015). Live tweeting a political debate: The case of the ‘Italia bene comune.’European Journal of Communication, 30, 631–647. doi:10.1177/0267323115595526
10.
BoydM.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
11.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680–700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
12.
ChadwickA.DennisJ.SmithA. P. (2016). Politics in the age of hybrid media: Power, systems and media logics. In BrunsA.EnliG.SkogerboE.LarssonA. O.ChristensenC. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 7–22). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
ChoiB.JungY. (2016). The effects of second-screen viewing and the goal congruency of supplementary content on user perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 347–354. doi:10.1016/j/chb/2016/06/048
DANE. (2014). Colombia’s National Department of Statistics—DANE. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dane.gov.co
16.
D’heerE.CourtoisC. (2016). The changing dynamics of television consumption in the multimedia living room. Convergence, 22, 3–17. doi:10.1177/1354856514543451
17.
D’heerE.VerdegemP. (2014). Conversations about the elections on Twitter: Towards a structural understanding of Twitter’s relation with the political and media field. European Journal of Communication, 29, 720–734. doi:10.1177/0267323114544866
18.
D’heerE.VerdegemP. (2015). What social media data mean for audience studies: A multidimensional investigation of Twitter use during a current affairs TV programme. Information, Communication, & Society, 18, 221–234. doi:10.1080/1369118X.-2014.952318
19.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In NeckermanK. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
21.
EnochY.SokerZ. (2006). Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students’ use of web-based instruction. Open Learning, 21, 99–110.
FreelonD.KarpfD. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 Presidential debates. Information, Communication, & Society, 18, 390–406. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659
24.
GazianoC. (1997). Forecast 2000: Widening knowledge gaps. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 237–264. doi:10.1177/107769909707400202
25.
Gil de ZúñigaH.BarnidgeM.SchermanA. (2017). Social media social capital, offline social capital, and citizenship: Exploring asymmetrical social capital effects. Political Communication, 34, 44–68. doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1227000
26.
Gil de ZúñigaH.García-PerdomoV.McGregorS. C. (2015). What is second screening? Exploring motivations of second screen use and its effect on online political participation. Journal of Communication, 65, 793–815. doi:10.1111/-jcom.12174
27.
Gil de ZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319–336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
28.
Gil de ZúñigaH.MolyneuxL.ZhengP. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612–634. doi:10.1111/jcom.12103
29.
GigliettoF.SelvaD. (2014). Second screen and participation: A content analysis on a full season dataset of tweets. Journal of Communication, 64, 260–277. doi:10.1111/-jcom.12085
30.
GillespieM.O’LoughlinB. (2015). Editorial introduction: International news, social media and soft power: The London and Sochi Olympics as global media events. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 12, 388–412. Retrieved fromhttp://www.participations.org/-Volume%2012/Issue%201/24.pdf
31.
HargittaiE. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276–297. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x
32.
HargittaiE.HinnantA. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35, 602–621. doi:10.1177/-0093650208321782
33.
HoffmanD. L.NovakT. P. (1999). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280, 390–391. doi:10.1126/science.280.5362.390
34.
HarrisC.StrakerL.PollockC. (2017). A socioeconomic related “digital divide” exists in how, not if, young people use computers. PLoS One, 12, e0175011. doi:1371/journal.pone.0175011
35.
HilbertM. (2014). Technological information inequality as an incessantly moving target: The redistribution of information and communication capacities between 1986 and 2010. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 821–835. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23020
36.
HilbertM. (2016). The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014. Telecommunications Policy, 40, 567–581. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2016.01.006
37.
HorningM. A. (2017). Interacting with news: Exploring the effects of modality and perceived responsiveness and control on news source credibility and enjoyment among second screen viewers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 273–283. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.023
38.
IannelliL.GigliettoF. (2015). Hybrid spaces of politics: The 2013 general elections in Italy, between talk shows and Twitter. Information, Communication, & Society, 18, 1006–1021. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1006658
KarlT. L. (1990). Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23, 1–21. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/422302
41.
KatzJ.AspdenP. (1997). Motives, hurdles, and dropouts. Communications of the ACM, 40, 97–102. doi:10.1145/248448.248464
42.
KimJ.LeeY. O.ParkH. W. (2016). Delineating the complex use of a political podcast in South Korea by hybrid web indicators: The case of the Nakkomsu Twitter network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 42–50. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.012
43.
LivingstoneS.HelsperE. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9, 671–696. doi:10.1177/1461444807080335
44.
LivingstoneS.HelsperE. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12, 309–329. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342697
45.
LogesW. E.JungJ. Y. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28, 536–562. doi:10.1177/009365001028004007
46.
López-SintasJ.FilimonN.García-ÁlvarezM. E. (2012). A social theory of internet uses based on consumption scale and linkage needs. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 108–129. doi:10.1177/0894439310390611
47.
MarkusM. L. (1987). Toward a “critical mass” theory of interactive media: Universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14, 491–511. doi:10.1177/009365087014005003
48.
McGregorS. C.MouraoR. R.NetoI.StraubhaarJ. D.AngelueiA. (2017). Second screening as convergence in Brazil and the United States. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61, 163–181. doi:10.1080/08838151-.2016.1273924
49.
MoeH.PoellT.van DijckJ. (2016). Rearticulating audience engagement: Social media and television. Television & New Media, 17, 99–107. doi:10.1177/-1527476415616194
50.
NorrisP. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
51.
NorrisP. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
NorthS.SnyderI.BulfinS. (2008). Digital tastes: Social class and young people’s technology use. Information, Communication & Society, 11, 895–911. doi:10.1080/13691180802109006
53.
NottenN.PeterJ.KraaykampG.ValkenburgP. M. (2009). Research note: Digital divide across borders cross-national study of adolescents’ use of digital technologies. European Sociological Review, 25, 551–560. doi:10.1093/-esr/jcn071
54.
OakesJ. M.RossiP. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 769–784. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00073-4
55.
PondP. (2016). Twitter time: A temporal analysis of Tweet streams during televised political debate. Television & New Media, 17, 142–158. doi:10.1177/-1527476415616190
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
58.
RagneddaM. (2017). The third digital divide: A Weberian approach to digital inequalities. Abingdon, England: Taylor & Francis.
59.
RiceR. E.KatzJ. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: Digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27, 597–623. doi:10.1016/S0308-5961(03)00068-5
60.
RodriguezC.SeligsonM. A. (2008). Cultura política de la democracia en Colombia, 2008: El impacto de la gobernabilidad[Political culture of democracy in Colombia, 2008: The impact of governability]. Bogotá, Colombia: LAPOP.
61.
RojasH.BarnidgeM.AbrilE. P. (2016). Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public, 1, 27–38. doi:10.1177/2057047315619421
62.
RojasH.Puig-i-AbrilE. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902–927. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2009.01475.x
63.
SelvaD. (2015). Social television: Audience and political engagement. Television & New Media, 17, 159–172. doi:10.1177/1527476415616192
64.
SelwynN. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6, 341–362. doi:10.1177/1461444804042519
65.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.EvelandW. P.KwakN. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565. doi:10.1177/0093650205279209
66.
SomiM. F.ButlerJ. R.VahidF.NjauJ. D.KachurS. P.AbdullaS. (2008). Use of proxy measures in estimating socioeconomic inequalities in malaria prevalence. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 13, 354–364. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02009.x
67.
TellesE.PaschelT. (2014). Who is black, white, or mixed race? How skin color, status, and nation shape racial classification in Latin America. American Journal of Sociology, 120, 864–907. doi:10.1086/679252
68.
Tirado-MoruetaR.Mendoza-ZambranoD. M.Aguaded-GómezJ. I.Marín-GutiérrezI. (2017). Empirical study of a sequence of access to internet use in Ecuador. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 171–183. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.12.012
VaccariC.ChadwickA.O’LoughlinB. (2015). Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65, 1041–1061. doi:10.1111/jcom.12187
71.
Van DeursenA. J.Van DijkJ. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16, 507–526. doi:10.1177/1461444813487959
72.
Van DijkJ. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
Van DijkJ.HackerK. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315–326. doi:10.1080/01972240309487
74.
VelasquezA.RojasH. (2017). Political expression on social media: The role of communication competence and expected outcomes. Social Media + Society, 3. doi:10.1177/2056305117696521
75.
VergeerM.FransesP. H. (2016). Live audience responses to live televised election debates: Time series analysis of issue salience and party salience on audience behavior. Information, Communication, & Society, 16, 1390–1410. doi:10.1080/-1369118X.2015.1093526
76.
WarrenM. (2007). The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy, 31, 374–388. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.001
77.
WarschauerM. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge: MIT Press.
78.
WeiL. (2012). Number matters: The multimodality of internet use as an indicator of the digital inequalities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 303–318. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01578.x
79.
WeiL.HindmanD. B. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 216–235. doi:10.1080/15205431003642707
80.
WellsC.Van ThommeJ.MaurerP.HannaA.PevehouseJ.ShahD. V.BucyE. (2016). Coproduction or cooptation? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates. French Politics, 14, 206–233. doi:10.1057/fp.201
81.
WohnD.NaE. (2011). Tweeting about TV: Sharing television viewing experiences via social media message streams. First Monday, 16. doi:10.5210/fm.v16i3.3368
82.
YangJ.GrabeM. E. (2011). Knowledge acquisition gaps: A comparison of print versus online news sources. New Media & Society, 13, 1211–1227. doi:10.1177/-1461444811401708
83.
ZillienN.HargittaiE. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 274–291. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x
