The Digital Divide Is Aging: An Intergenerational Investigation of Social Media Engagement in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Perspectives and Related Works
1.1.1. The Multifaceted Nature of the Digital Divide
1.1.2. Generational Cohorts
1.1.3. Aging and New Media Usage
2. Design and Methods
2.1. Data Collection and Sample
2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. Outcome Variables
2.2.2. Predictor Variables
2.3. Analysis Procedure
3. Results
3.1. Intergenerational Divide in Digital Access
3.2. Explaining Older Adults’ Social Media Adoption
3.3. Intergenerational Divide in the Diversity of Social Media Engagement
3.4. Intergenerational Divide in the Intensity of Social Media Engagement
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Du, P.; Yang, H. China’s population ageing and active ageing. China J. Soc. Work 2010, 3, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malwade, S.; Syed Abdul, S.; Uddin, M.; Achmad Nursetyo, A.; Fernandez-Luque, L.; Zhu, X.; Cilliers, L.; Wong, C.-P.; Bamidis, P.; Lia, Y.-C. Mobile and wearable technologies in healthcare for the ageing population. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2018, 161, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Friemel, T.N. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media Soc. 2016, 18, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millward, P. The “grey digital divide”: Perception, exclusion and barriers of access to the Internet for older people. First Monday 2003, 8, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Madden, M.; Lenhart, M.; Duggan, M.; Cortesi, S.; Gasser, U. Teens and Technology 2013. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2013. Available online: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx (accessed on 26 April 2022).
- Yu, R.P.; Ellison, N.B.; McCammon, R.J.; Langa, K.M. Mapping the two levels of digital divide: Internet access and social network site adoption among older adults in the USA. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2016, 19, 1445–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chipeva, P.; Cruz-Jesus, F.; Oliveira, T.; Irani, Z. Digital divide at individual level: Evidence for Eastern and Western European countries. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 460–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nimrod, G. Older audiences in the digital media environment. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2017, 20, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, C.; Li, H. Understanding the effects of gratifications on the continuance intention to use WeChat in China: A perspective on uses and gratifications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 78, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, C.; Hu, N.; Zhang, X.; Ma, Y.; Chen, X. Adult attachment and profile images on Chinese social networking sites: A comparative analysis of Sina Weibo and WeChat. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 77, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Givskov, C.; Deuze, M. Researching new media and social diversity in later life. New Media Soc. 2018, 20, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijk, J. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 2006, 34, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hargittai, E.; Hinnant, A. Digital Inequality Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet. Commun. Res. 2008, 35, 602–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haight, M.; Quan-Haase, A.; Corbett, B.A. Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: The impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2014, 17, 503–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, L.; Hindman, D. Does the Digital Divide Matter More? Comparing the Effects of New Media and Old Media Use on the Education-Based Knowledge Gap. Mass Commun. Soc. 2011, 14, 216–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livingstone, S.; Helsper, E. Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2007, 9, 671–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eynon, R.; Helsper, E. Adults learning online: Digital choice and/or digital exclusion? New Media Soc. 2011, 13, 534–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mannheim, K. Essays on the Soiology of Knowledge; Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1952. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, G.S.; Huesmann, L.R. Correlations of Media Habits Across Time, Generations, and Media Modalities. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2013, 57, 356–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bento, M.; Martinez, L.M.; Martinez, L.F. Brand engagement and search for brands on social media: Comparing Generations X and Y in Portugal. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapscott, D. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World; Mcgraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Dou, W.; Wang, G.; Zhou, N. Generational and Regional Differences in Media Consumption Patterns of Chinese Generation X Consumers. J. Advert. 2006, 35, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, N.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, K. Values of Chinese generation cohorts: Do they matter in the workplace? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2017, 143, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayne, S.; Ross, J. “Digital Native” and “Digital Immigrant’ Discourses; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilleard, C.; Higgs, P. Old people as users and consumers of healthcare: A third age rhetoric for a fourth age reality? Ageing Soc. 1998, 18, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peacock, S.E.; Künemund, H. Older adults and internet technology: Reasons and correlates of access versus non-access in a european comparative perspective. Eur. J. Ageing 2007, 4, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selwyn, N.; Gorard, S.; Furlong, J.; Madden, L. Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc. 2003, 23, 561–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, R.; De Donder, L.; De Backer, F.; He, T.; Regenmortel SVan Li, S.; Lombaerts, K. Development and Validation of the Elder Learning Barriers Scale Among Older Chinese Adults. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2017, 85, 472–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manzi, C.; Coen, S.; Regalia, C.; Yévenes, A.M.; Giuliani, C.; Vignoles, V.L. Being in the Social: A cross-cultural and cross-generational study on identity processes related to Facebook use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 80, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, J. Meeting the needs of an aging population in China: Public health and policy implications. J. Clin. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2013, 4, 31–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gell, N.M.; Rosenberg, D.E.; Demiris, G.; LaCroix, A.Z.; Patel, K.V. Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. Gerontol. 2015, 55, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abad-Alcalá, L. Media Literacy for Older People Facing the Digital Divide: The e-Inclusion Programs Design. Comunicar 2014, 27, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Quan-Haase, A.; Martin, K.; Schreurs, K. Interviews with digital seniors: ICT use in the context of everyday life. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2016, 19, 691–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, M.; Sa, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Tian, D.; Zhang, S.; Gu, L. Does social participation reduce the risk of functional disability among older adults in China? A survival analysis using the 2005–2011 waves of the CLHLS data. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orosz, G.; Tóth-Király, I.; Bőthe, B. Four facets of Facebook intensity—The development of the Multidimensional Facebook Intensity Scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 100, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.J.H.; He, Z. Perceived Characteristics, Perceived Needs, and Perceived Popularity. Commun. Res. 2002, 29, 466–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lüders, M.; Brandtzæg, P.B. ‘My children tell me it’s so simple’: A mixed-methods approach to understand older non-users’ perceptions of Social Networking Sites. New Media Soc. 2017, 19, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, L.S. Digital media and the generation gap. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2009, 12, 388–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Nie, R.; Li, Z.; Zhou, N. WeChat Moments use and self-esteem among Chinese adults: The mediating roles of personal power and social acceptance and the moderating roles of gender and age. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2018, 131, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargittai, E.; Dobransky, K.; Dobransky, K. Old Dogs, New Clicks: Digital Inequality in Skills and Uses among Older Adults. Can. J. Commun. 2017, 42, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 2: Do they really think differently? Horiz. 2001, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margaryan, A.; Littlejohn, A.; Vojt, G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Full Sample | Internet Access | Social Media Access | |
---|---|---|---|
Generational Cohorts | *** | *** | |
Older generation | n= 1399 | 52.6% | 49.1% |
80+ | 29.4% | 15.1% | |
70–79 | 31.4% | 30.2% | |
60–69 | 55.6% | 51.3% | |
55–59 | 82.8% | 80.0% | |
Middle-aged generation | n = 543 | 95.9% | 94.3% |
50–54 | 82.8% | 91.0% | |
40–49 | 96.9% | 96.0% | |
Younger generation | n = 1109 | 98.9% | 97.9% |
30–39 | 99.1% | 99.1% | |
20–29 | 99.7% | 99.8% | |
14–19 | 94.2% | 85.8% |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | se | OR | β | se | OR | β | se | OR | |
Demographic | |||||||||
Age | −0.13 *** | 0.01 | 0.86 | −0.14 *** | 0.01 | 0.87 | −0.14 *** | 0.01 | 0.87 |
Gender(female) | −0.06 | 0.13 | 1.07 | −0.36 * | 0.15 | 0.69 | −0.40 ** | 0.15 | 0.67 |
Marital status(single) | 0.36 | 0.30 | 0.70 | 0.03 | 0.32 | 0.97 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.93 |
Residency (rural) | 1.48 *** | 0.16 | 0.23 | 1.09 *** | 0.17 | 0.34 | 1.13 *** | 0.18 | 0.32 |
Number of Children | 0.01 | 0.06 | 1.01 | 0.23 ** | 0.07 | 1.25 | 0.23 *** | 0.07 | 1.26 |
Neighborhood | 0.22 *** | 0.05 | 0.80 | 0.14 * | 0.06 | 0.87 | 0.12 * | 0.06 | 0.89 |
SES | |||||||||
Education level | 0.72 *** | 0.07 | 2.06 | 0.71 *** | 0.07 | 2.03 | |||
Living regions | 0.30 ** | 0.11 | 0.74 | 0.35 *** | 0.11 | 0.71 | |||
Professional rank | 0.03 | 0.04 | 1.03 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 1.03 | |||
Physical health | |||||||||
Self-reported health | 0.24 ** | 0.07 | 1.27 | ||||||
Vision | 0.102 | 0.07 | 1.11 | ||||||
Audition | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.92 | ||||||
Has disability | 0.21 | 0.27 | 1.23 | ||||||
Mental health | |||||||||
Cognitive functioning | 0.08 * | 0.03 | 1.08 | ||||||
Homers and Lemeshow test | 0.001 | 0.108 | 0.256 | ||||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.51 | ||||||
Correct Classification | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.78 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | β | β | |||||||
O | M | Y | O | M | Y | O | M | Y | |
Demographic | |||||||||
Age | −0.35 *** | −0.25 *** | −0.01 | −0.34 *** | −0.24 *** | −0.03 | −0.27 *** | −0.02 ** | −0.02 |
Gender(female) | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
Marital status(single) | 0.02 | −0.04 | −0.10 * | 0.002 | −0.03 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.04 | −0.07 |
Residency(rural) | 0.26 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.12 ** | 0.15 *** | 0.01 | 0.06 * | 0.08 * | 0.01 | 0.06 * |
Number of Children | −0.05 | −0.09 * | - | −0.001 | −0.03 | - | 0.03 | −0.004 | - |
Neighborhood | −0.06 | - | - | 0.012 | - | - | 0.01 | - | - |
SES | |||||||||
Education level | 0.23 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.18 *** | 0.18 *** | 0.22 ** | 0.17 ** | |||
Living region | 0.008 | 0.10 * | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.08 * | 0.03 | |||
Professional rank | 0.13 ** | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.12 ** | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||
Physical health | |||||||||
Self-reported health | 0.03 | ||||||||
Vision | −0.01 | ||||||||
Audition | 0.02 | ||||||||
Has disability | 0.01 | ||||||||
Mental health | |||||||||
Cognitive functioning | 0.03 | ||||||||
Social media perceptions | |||||||||
Perceived popularity | 0.04 | 0.10 * | 0.02 | ||||||
Perceived characteristics | |||||||||
Perceived ease of use | 0.16 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.06 * | ||||||
Perceived usefulness | −0.001 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
Perceived enjoyment | −0.004 | 0.02 | −0.01 | ||||||
Relative advantage | 0.07 * | 0.06 | −0.05 | ||||||
Perceived needs | 0.25 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.05 | ||||||
R square change | 0.19 | 0.097 | 0.026 | 0.074 | 0.081 | 0.026 | 0.137 | 0.072 | 0.002 |
R square | 0.19 | 0.097 | 0.026 | 0.264 | 0.188 | 0.052 | 0.401 | 0.260 | 0.054 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | β | β | |||||||
O | M | Y | O | M | Y | O | M | Y | |
Demographic | |||||||||
Age | −0.06 | −0.07 | 0.06 | −0.07 | −0.08 | 0.03 | −0.001 | −0.01 | 0.015 |
Gender(female) | 0.02 | 0.14 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.06 | 0.14 ** | 0.14 *** | 0.01 | 0.09 * | 0.10 *** |
Marital status(single) | −0.05 | 0.06 | 0.002 | −0.05 | 0.06 | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
Residency(rural) | 0.13 ** | 0.05 | −0.05 | 0.09 * | 0.06 | −0.08 * | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.06 * |
Number of Children | −0.12 ** | 0.02 | - | −0.10 * | 0.14 | - | −0.09 * | 0.003 | - |
Neighborhood | 0.07 | - | - | 0.09 * | - | - | 0.09 * | - | - |
SES | |||||||||
Education level | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.12 *** | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.12 *** | |||
Living region | 0.002 | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.002 | |||
Professional rank | 0.09 * | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.04 | |||
Physical health | |||||||||
Self-reported health | 0.03 | ||||||||
Vision | 0.09 * | ||||||||
Audition | 0.03 | ||||||||
Has disability | 0.002 | ||||||||
Mental health | |||||||||
Cognitive functioning | −0.03 | ||||||||
Social media perceptions | |||||||||
Perceived popularity | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.007 | ||||||
Perceived characteristics | |||||||||
Perceived ease of use | 0.02 | 0.07 | −0.03 | ||||||
Perceived usefulness | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||||||
Perceived enjoyment | 0.18 *** | 0.14 *** | 0.15 *** | ||||||
Relative advantage | 0.16 *** | 0.07 | 0.03 | ||||||
Perceived needs | 0.30 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.31 *** | ||||||
R square change | 0.047 | 0.034 | 0.025 | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.013 | 0.289 | 0.163 | 0.167 |
R square | 0.047 | 0.034 | 0.025 | 0.062 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.351 | 0.201 | 0.205 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhou, Y.; He, T.; Lin, F. The Digital Divide Is Aging: An Intergenerational Investigation of Social Media Engagement in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12965. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph191912965
Zhou Y, He T, Lin F. The Digital Divide Is Aging: An Intergenerational Investigation of Social Media Engagement in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12965. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph191912965
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhou, Yuqiong, Tao He, and Feng Lin. 2022. "The Digital Divide Is Aging: An Intergenerational Investigation of Social Media Engagement in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12965. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph191912965