Scholars have long been concerned about the effect that digital inequalities might have on marginalized populations. Concern for the “digital divide” extends to social movement scholars, who worry that the digital divide will lead to social movements privileging the concerns of the middle class over those of disadvantaged groups. We argue for a novel way of testing for such effects—the use of a Heckman regression model to model participation in online activism. The Heckman model separately models selection effects (i.e. first-level digital divides that affect Internet access) and main effects (i.e. second-level digital divides and classic predictors of micro-mobilization). We find that the digital divide in access does not exert a selection effect and that the digital divide in usage exerts minimal effects in models predicting online petition-signing.
AllaguiIKueblerJ (2011) The Arab spring and the role of ICTs editorial introduction. International Journal of Communication Systems5: 1435–1442.
2.
BarkanSECohnSFWhitakerWH (1995) Beyond recruitment: predictors of differential participation in a National Anti-Hunger Organization. Sociological Forum10: 113–134.
3.
BeyerleinKHippJR (2006) A two-stage model for a two-stage process: how biographical availability matters for social movement mobilization. Mobilization: An International Journal11: 219–240.
4.
BiddixJPParkHW (2008) Online networks of student protest: the case of the living wage campaign. New Media & Society10: 871–891.
5.
BoulianneS (2009) Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26: 193–211.
6.
BrunstingSPostmesT (2002) Social movement participation in the digital age: predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research33: 525–554.
CorreaTJeongSH (2011) Race and online content creation. Information, Communication & Society14: 638–659.
9.
CorreaTHinsleyAWGil de ZúñigaH (2010) Who interacts on the web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior26: 247–253.
10.
DemoussisMGiannakopoulosN (2006) Facets of the digital divide in Europe: determination and extent of internet use. Economics of Innovation and New Technology15: 235–246.
11.
DiMaggioPHargittaiECelesteCet al. (2004) Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In: NeckermanK (ed.) Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage, pp. 355–400.
12.
DiMaggioPHargittaiENeumanWRet al. (2001) The social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology27: 307–336.
13.
EarlJ (2006) Pursuing social change online: the use of four protest tactics on the internet. Social Science Computer Review24: 362–377.
14.
EarlJKatrinaK (2011) Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15.
EarlJHuntJGarretR K (2014) Social movements and the ICT revolution. In: Van der HeijdenH. -A (ed.) Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 359–383.
16.
EarlJHuntJGarretRKet al. (2015) New technologies and social movements. In: Della PortaDDianiM (eds) Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, pp. 355–366.
17.
FernandezRMMcAdamD (1988) Social networks and social movements: multiorganizational fields and recruitment to Mississippi freedom summer. Sociological Forum3: 357–382.
GoldfarbAPrinceJ (2008) Internet adoption and usage patterns are different: implications for the digital divide. Information Economics and Policy20: 2–15.
20.
HamptonK (2010) Internet use and the concentration of disadvantage: glocalization and the urban underclass. American Behavioral Scientist53: 1111–1132.
21.
HargittaiE (2009) An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review27: 130–137.
22.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research35: 602–621.
23.
HargittaiEShaferS (2006) Differences in actual and perceived online skills: the role of gender. Social Science Quarterly87: 432–448.
24.
HargittaiEShawA (2013) Digitally savvy citizenship: the role of internet skills and engagement in young adults’ political participation around the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57: 115–134.
25.
HeckmanJJ (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimate for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement5: 475–492.
26.
HeckmanJJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica47: 153–161.
27.
KatzJERiceRE (2002) Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement and Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28.
KatzVSGonzalezC (2016) Toward meaningful connectivity: using multilevel communication research to reframe digital inequality. Journal of Communication66: 236–249.
29.
KlandermansB (2002) How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action. American Behavioral Scientist45: 887–900.
30.
KlandermansBOegemaD (1987) Potentials, networks, motivations, and barriers: steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review52: 519–531.
31.
KropczynskiJNahS (2011) Virtually networked housing movement: hyperlink network structure of housing social movement organizations. New Media & Society13: 689–703.
32.
KruegerBS (2002) Assessing the potential of internet political participation in the United States: a resource approach. American Politics Research30: 476–498.
33.
LenhartA (2006) User-Generated Content. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
34.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society9: 671–696.
35.
LogesWEJungJ-Y (2001) Exploring the digital divide: internet connectedness and age. Communication Research28: 536–562.
36.
McAdamD (1986) Recruitment to high risk activism: the case of freedom summer. The American Journal of Sociology92: 64–90.
37.
MilnerHV (2006) The digital divide the role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comparative Political Studies39: 176–199.
38.
MinS-J (2010) From the digital divide to the democratic divide: internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology and Politics7: 22–35.
39.
MossbergerKTolbertCJMcNealRS (2008) Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
40.
MossbergerKTolbertCJStansburyM (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide (ed RabeB). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
MunsonZW (2008) The Making of Pro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
NepstadSESmithC (1999) Rethinking recruitment to high-risk/cost activism: the case of Nicaragua exchange. Mobilization: An International Journal4: 25–40.
43.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Harvard, MA: Cambridge University Press.
44.
OliverPEMarwellG (1992) Mobilizing technologies for collective action. In: MorrisADMuellerCM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 251–272.
45.
PassyFGiugniM (2001) Social networks and individual perceptions: explaining differential participation in social movements. Sociological Forum16: 123–153.
46.
PearceKERiceRE (2013) Digital divides from access to activities: comparing mobile and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication63: 721–744.
47.
Pew Research Center (2012) August 12-Civic Engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
48.
Pew Research Center (2014) The Web at 25. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
49.
PortaDDMoscaL (2005) Global-net for global movements? A network of networks for a movement of movements. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing25: 165–190.
50.
PriegerJEHuW-M (2008) The broadband digital divide and the nexus of race, competition, and quality. Information Economics and Policy20: 150–167.
51.
RobinsonJPDiMaggioPHargittaiE (2003) New social survey perspectives on the digital divide. IT & Society1: 1–22.
52.
RobinsonLCottenSOnoHet al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18: 569–582.
53.
RogersE (2001) The digital divide. Convergence7: 96–111.
54.
SchradieJ (2012) The trend of class, race, and ethnicity in social media inequality: who still cannot afford to blog?Information, Communication & Society15: 555–571.
55.
SchussmanASouleSA (2005) Process and protest: accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces84: 1083–1108.
56.
SelwynN (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society6: 341–362.
57.
ShahDKwakNHolbertRL (2001a) “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication18: 141–162.
58.
ShahDMcLeodJMYoonS-H (2001b) Communication, context, and community: an exploration of print, broadcast, and internet influences. Communication Research28: 464–506.
59.
ShahDSchmierbachMHawkinsJet al. (2002) Nonrecursive models of internet use and community engagement: questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly79: 964–987.
60.
SmithA (2013) Civic Engagement in the Digital Age. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
61.
SnowDAZurcherLAJrOlsonSE (1980) Social networks and social movements: a microstructural approach to differential recruitment. American Sociological Review45: 787–801.
62.
SylvesterDEMcGlynnAJ (2010) The digital divide, political participation, and place. Social Science Computer Review28: 64–74.
63.
TarrowS (1993) Modular collective action and the rise of the social movement: why the French revolution was not enough. Politics & Society21: 69–90.
64.
TillyCWoodLJ (2009) Social Movements, 1968–2008. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
65.
TolbertCJMcnealRS (2003) Unraveling the effects of the internet on political participation?Political Research Quarterly56: 175–185.
66.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir square. Journal of Communication62: 363–379.
67.
Van DeursenAVan DijkJ (2011) Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society13: 893–911.
68.
Van DijkJHackerK (2003) The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Information Society19: 315–326.
69.
Van LaerJVan AelstP (2010) Internet and social movement action repertoires: opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society13: 1146–1171.
70.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
WellmanBQuan-HaaseAWitteJet al. (2001) Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist45: 436–455.
72.
WiltfangGLMcAdamD (1991) The costs and risks of social activism: a study of sanctuary movement activism. Social Forces69: 987–1010.
73.
WolfA (1998) Exposing the great equalizer: demythologizing internet equity. In: EboB (ed.) Cyberghetto or Cybertopia? Race, Class, and Gender on the Internet. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, pp. 15–32.
74.
ZaretD (1996) Petitions and the “invention” of public opinion in the English revolution. American Journal of Sociology101: 1497–1555.
75.
ZaretD (1999) Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
ZhangPH (2014) Digital Divides and Socio-Demographic Factors: A Longitudinal Quantitative Study of Internet Users in U.S. from 2000 to 2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Capella University.
