The knowledge gap hypothesis predicts that information inequity will be amplified rather than attenuated by the media. Previous research has focused on the role of mass media exposure and has not examined the roles of social media and social networks in mitigating the gap. This study investigated the potential moderating roles of social media engagement, social networks, and the interaction between engagement and online and offline networks. Hypotheses were tested with data from a national sample survey (N = 991) concerning political and health knowledge. More social media engagement predicted a smaller knowledge gap in the political domain but not the health domain. More diverse and denser social media networks predicted a smaller political, but not health, knowledge gap. Social media engagement interacted with mixed-media relationships to predict the political knowledge gap. More engagement with mixed-media relationships was associated with a smaller political knowledge gap.
BrodieRJIlicAJuricB, et al. (2013) Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research66(1): 105–114.
2.
BrooksBWelserHTHoganB, et al. (2011) Socioeconomic status updates: family SES and emergent social capital in college student Facebook networks. Information, Communication and Society14(4): 529–549.
3.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyEA (2014) Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the Internet’s potential for closing them. Public Understanding of Science23(4): 376–394.
4.
CacciatoreMAYeoSKScheufeleDA, et al. (2018) Is Facebook making us dumber? Exploring social media use as a predictor of political knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 404–424.
5.
CarpiniMXDKeeterS (1993) Measuring political knowledge: putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science37(4): 1179–1206.
6.
CarpiniMXDCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review Political Science7: 315–344.
7.
ChangJHKimSHKangMH, et al. (2018) The gap in scientific knowledge and role of science communication in South Korea. Public Understanding of Science27(5): 578–593.
8.
DeweyJ (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
9.
DyerJHNobeokaK (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal21(3): 345–367.
10.
EttemaJSBrownJWLuepkerRV (1983) Knowledge gap effects in a health information campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly47(4): 516–527.
11.
EttemaJSKlineFG (1977) Deficits, differences, and ceilings: contingent conditions for understanding the knowledge gap. Communication Research4(2): 179–202.
12.
EvelandWPScheufeleDA (2000) Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication17(3): 215–237.
13.
FinneganJRViswanathKKahnE, et al. (1993) Exposure to sources of heart disease prevention information: community type and social group differences. Journalism Quarterly70(3): 569–584.
14.
FranksAMHawesWAMcCainKR, et al. (2017) Electronic cigarette use, knowledge, and perceptions among health professional students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning9(6): 1003–1009.
15.
GazianoC (1983) The knowledge gap: an analytical review of media effects. Communication Research10(4): 447–486.
16.
GazianoC (1984) Neighborhood newspapers, citizen groups and public affairs knowledge gaps. Journalism Quarterly61(3): 556–599.
17.
Gil de ZúñigaHValenzuelaS (2011) The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research38(3): 397–421.
18.
Gil de ZúñigaHWeeksBArdèvol-AbreuA (2017) Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics: news finds me perception. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(3): 105–123.
19.
HamptonKN (2016) Persistent and pervasive community: new communication technologies and the future of community. American Behavioral Scientist60(1): 101–124.
20.
HamptonKNLivioOSessions GouletL (2010) The social life of wireless urban spaces: internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication60(4): 701–722.
21.
HaythornthwaiteC (2005) Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Community and Society8(2): 125–147.
22.
HoganBCarrascoJAWellmanB (2007) Visualizing personal networks: working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods19(2): 116–144.
23.
HwangYJeongSH (2009) Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: a meta-analysis of thirty-five years of research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly86(3): 513–532.
24.
KhanML (2017) Social media engagement: what motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?Computers in Human Behavior66: 236–247.
25.
KwakN (1999) Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research26(4): 385–413.
26.
LaiCH (2019) Motivations, usage, and perceived social networks within and beyond social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication24(3): 126–145.
27.
LeeCSMaL (2012) News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior28(2): 331–339.
28.
LeeSXenosM (2019) Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two US Presidential elections. Computers in Human Behavior90: 18–25.
29.
LindFBoomgaardenHG (2019) What we do and don’t know: a meta-analysis of the knowledge gap hypothesis. Annals of the International Communication Association43(3): 210–224.
LuarnPChiuYP (2016) Influence of network density on information diffusion on social network sites: the mediating effects of transmitter activity. Information Development32(3): 389–397.
32.
McGloinJMSullivanCJThomasKJ (2014) Peer influence and context: the interdependence of friendship groups, schoolmates and network density in predicting substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence43(9): 1436–1452.
33.
McLeodJMSotirovicMHolbertRL (1998) Values as sociotropic judgments influencing communication patterns. Communication Research25(5): 453–485.
34.
MarsdenPV (1990) Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology16: 435–463.
35.
MidgleyDFMorrisonPDRobertsJH (1992) The effect of network structure in industrial diffusion processes. Research Policy21(6): 533–552.
36.
MinozziWSongHLazerDM, et al. (2020) The incidental pundit: who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science64(1): 135–151.
37.
MoreyACEvelandWPHutchensMJ (2012) The “who” matters: types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication29(1): 86–103.
38.
Oeldorf-HirschA (2018) The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society21(2): 225–247.
39.
Oeldorf-HirschASundarSS (2015) Posting, commenting, and tagging: effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior44: 240–249.
40.
ParksMR (2017) Embracing the challenges and opportunities of mixed-media relationships. Human Communication Research43(4): 505–517.
41.
PearsonLL (1993) Desert Storm and Tundra Telegraph: information diffusion in a media poor environment. In: GreenbergBSGantzW (eds) Desert Storm and the Mass Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, pp. 182–196.
42.
RequenaFAyusoL (2019) Individualism or complementarity? The effect of digital personal networks on face-to-face personal networks. Information, Communication and Society22(14): 2097–2111.
43.
ScheufeleDAHardyBWBrossardD, et al. (2006) Democracy based on difference: examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication56(4): 728–753.
44.
ShehataAStrömbäckJ (2018) Learning political news from social media: network media logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment. Communication Research48(1): 125–147.
45.
SongHEvelandWP (2015) The structure of communication networks matters: how network diversity, centrality, and context influence political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Political Communication32(1): 83–108.
46.
SuLYFCacciatoreMAScheufeleDA, et al. (2014) Inequalities in scientific understanding: differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication36(3): 352–378.
47.
ThorsonKWellsC (2016) Curated flows: a framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age: curated flows. Communication Theory26(3): 309–328.
48.
TianYRobinsonJD (2008) Media use and health information seeking: an empirical test of complementarity theory. Health Communication23(2): 184–190.
49.
TichenorPJDonohueGAOlienCN (1970) Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly34(2): 159–170.
50.
TichenorPJDonohueGAOlienCN (1980) Community Conflict and the Press. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
51.
ViswanathKEmmonsKM (2006) Message effects and social determinants of health: its application to cancer disparities. Journal of Communication56(1): 238–264.
52.
ViswanathKFinneganJRJr (1996) The knowledge gap hypothesis: twenty-five years later. Annals of the International Communication Association19(1): 187–228.
53.
ViswanathKKahnEFinneganJR, et al. (1993) Motivation and the “knowledge gap”: effects of a campaign to reduce diet-related cancer risk. Communication Research20(4): 546–563.
54.
WassermanSFaustK (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Woo-YooSGil de ZúñigaH (2014) Connecting blog, Twitter and Facebook use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Communication and Society27(4): 33–48.
56.
WuSHofmanJMMasonWA, et al. (2011) Who says what to whom on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web, Hyderabad, India, 28 March–1 April, pp. 705–714. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
57.
YangJGrabeME (2011) Knowledge acquisition gaps: a comparison of print versus online news sources. New Media and Society13(8): 1211–1227.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
