Information Polity 21 (2016) 291–306 291

DOI 10.3233/IP-160398
IOS Press

A study of the digital divide in the current

phase of the information age: The
moderating effect of smartphones

Wookjoon Sung
Graduate School of Public Policy & Infomation Technology, Seoul National University of Science &
Technology, Seoul, Korea
Tel.: +82 2 970 6866; Fax: +82 10 2003 1951; E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. In this study, we evaluate the digital divide in a Korean context, where most people own smartphones. Specifically, we
seek to understand how the proliferation of smartphones affects the digital divide across particular demographic categories. The
independent variables used for this study were gender, age, income, education, and employment status. These variables were
used to predict digital skills or usage access, as moderated by smartphone use. Results indicate that smartphone use reduces the
digital divide across participants of different ages, education levels, occupations, and income levels. These results suggest that
policies associated with digital gaps should seek to increase the usage rate and accessibility of smartphones.

Keywords: Digital divide, digital literacy, information gap, Korea media penal survey, smartphone

1. Introduction

“Literacy” refers to the ability to read and write, and is an essential skill in everyday life. Given
its importance, nearly all communities have attempted to reduce illiteracy rates among their citizens.
However, in the Information Age, another form of literacy has become critically important. “Digital
literacy” is the ability to access and use digital devices, such as computers and the Internet. Related to
this, the “digital divide” is the metaphorical gap between those who have access to digital devices and
those who do not [1,6].
The advent of the Information Age has also generated continuous theoretical discussions on the digi-
tal divide. These discussions focus on two opposing hypotheses: The “growing divide gap” hypothesis,
which suggests that the digital divide cannot be narrowed. The “shrinking divide gap” hypothesis argues
that an initial digital divide will be reduced as the Information Age matures. Both are closely intercon-
nected to the basic perspectives of the information society, and explain various developments in response
to different situations. In this rapidly changing environment, it is important to understand the impacts
that the current phase of the Information Age will have on the digital divide. This research aimed to
address the direction of such a change.
The extent to which the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the
emergence of new ICT devices do exacerbate social inequality along the lines of age, gender, education,
and income has been a topic of debate since the onset of the Information Age. There are optimistic per-
spectives that believe the diffusion of digital devices will reduce the digital divide in these demographic

c 2016 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

1570-1255/16/$35.00 ⃝
292 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

categories [2– 5]. However, others argue that the digital divide cannot be bridged, and this is due to the
continuous appearance of new devices [1].
The Information Age has caused “wicked problems” that the government is required to address, such
as cyber bullying, Internet addiction, privacy protection, and the digital divide. The digital divide is a
particularly important issue to confront as it is closely linked to other social issues related to “inequality
in the digital era.” The depth of ICT immersion in society, and the extent to which these technologies
pervade everyday life, determines the possibility of increasing inequality brought on by these devices.
This is due to the powerful capacity of these devices in allowing people to be engaged in their online
world. The digital divide also creates social inequalities because it influences social status by increasing
the capacity of those with digital literacy to create new opportunities to realize their goals in the social,
political, or economic sphere [6 ]. Noting that an online gap could lead to a gap in societal opportuni-
ties and achievements, the Korean government has implemented a variety of digital policies to bridge
this divide, such as providing personal computers, establishing Internet networks, and delivering digital
education to citizens.
The ways in which people communicate and engage with information have almost completely changed
since the emergence of the smartphone, and this has further contributed to the digital divide. Recent
reports show conflicting discourses about the effects of smartphone diffusion. According to the Pew
Research Center [7 ,8 ], public dissemination of smartphones, which often cost less than personal com-
puters (PCs), has helped to bridge the digital divide in the U.S. In contrast, according to the National
Information Society Agency (NIA) [9– 11], the proliferation of smartphones has induced unexpected so-
cial issues in Korea. In this context, it becomes pertinent to query what the implications of a movement
towards the Information Age would have on policies that attempt to address the digital divide. It would
be beneficial to conduct further investigations on the correct policy that government should pursue in
confronting these issues.
In this study, we seek to explore whether the proliferation of smartphones in Korea has mitigated or
exacerbated the digital divide, and particularly focus on the perspective of digital skills and usage to
explain the emergent findings. Between November 2009 (when the iPhone was first introduced) and
October 2014, over 40 million Koreans owned smartphones. A June 2013 survey placed South Korea
first in a world ranking of smartphone diffusion rates. Given this situation, South Korea represents an
ideal context for understanding the problem of the digital divide in the Information Age. Raw data for
this study were collected from the Korea Information Society Development Institute (KISDI) Media
Panel Survey from 2010 to 2013 (National Approval Statistics No. 40501). We used the STATA Data
Analysis Program (v. 13.0) to analyze the data.

2. Literature review

2.1. Digital divide and digital access

The development and expansion of digital technology within the economic, political, social, and cul-
tural spheres has raised concerns about the digital divide and associated inequality over the last three
decades [12]. The digital divide debate originated in the U.S. in the 1990s, before becoming a global
discussion [6 ]. Gary Andrew Poole first mentioned the term “digital divide” in a 1995 New York Times
article [13]. Since then, scholars have defined the digital divide in a variety of ways.
Though conceptualized somewhat differently, most definitions (and operationalization thereof) of the
digital divide have referred to it as the differences between those who have access to the Internet versus
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 293

those who do not [14]. It is comparable to variations found in the use of general ICT that correspond
with socio-economic differences [15]. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) [16] defines the digital divide as “the gap between individuals, households, businesses, and
geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard to both their opportunities to access in-
formation and communication technologies, and their use of Internet for a wide variety of activities.”
Castells [17, p. 270] defined the digital divide as the divide created between those individuals, firms,
institutions, regions, and societies that have the material and cultural conditions to operate in the dig-
ital world, and those who cannot, or cannot adapt to the speed of change. For this study, the digital
divide refers to the gap between those who have access to digital devices (including computers and
smartphones) and wired or wireless Internet, in considering the development of recent information tech-
nology, and those who do not [6,14,18– 25].
Studies on the digital divide have made access to computers and the Internet the focal point of the
proposed gap. According to van Dijk [6,28], access is a multi-faceted concept that can be divided into
four successive types. First, “motivation” refers to the incentive to use digital technology. Second, “ma-
terial or physical access” relates to the actual possession of computers, connectivity to the Internet, and
permission to access its contents. Third, “skill access” concerns the possession of the operational, in-
formational, and strategic competence to effectively use digital devices. Fourth, “usage access” relates
to the number and diversity of applications used, or the amount of time spent using those applications.
According to van Dijk [6], these four types of access are meant to be cumulative, and promoting access
for each type may have the following effects. Those with high motivation to use digital technology are
likely to buy a digital device. Digital literacy is conceptually categorized into motivation, material, skill,
and usage access. For research purposes, however, we use material/skill/usage access, and therefore a
specific type of access is used in a variety of ways. The analysis of this study focuses on digital skill and
digital usage within types of access in order to explore the effects of the emergence and diffusion of new
devices. Access is operationalized as permission granted and the ability to use the Internet, the number
of Internet sites the user visits, the user’s skill in using the Internet, the amount of time spent online, and
the variety of digital activities carried out online [14].

2.2. Digital divides and influence factors

The traditional, opposing opinions regarding the digital divide are respectively referred to as the “dis-
appearing digital divide” approach and the “emerging digital differentiation” approach. According to
the former, the digital divide conceptualizes the adoption of the Internet as a progressive phenomenon
that will ultimately lead to equal access to information for all [26]. This perspective dictates that the
divide will naturally diminish, despite differences being seen in initial adoption rates and proliferation
trajectories [1– 4]. However, the emerging digital divide perspective conceptualizes the digital divide as
a reoccurring phenomenon [26] in which the gap will only expand as new technologies and services
emerge [1,6,27,28].
Research on the digital divide has focused on individualistic factors that affect access, such as the
level of income and education, employment, age, sex, and ethnicity of a person [6,14,72]. These studies
have described and measured the relationship between differential access to ICTs and the attributes and
attitudes of individuals.
Recent studies on the digital divide connect the digital divide to the notion of inequality, and attempt
to conduct descriptive research based on this connection. As previously noted, the digital divide creates
social inequalities because it influences social status by increasing the ability of the digitally literate
294 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

to create new opportunities in realizing their goals in the social, political, or economic sphere [28].
Here, the prime units of analysis are not individuals but rather the positions of individuals and the rela-
tionships between these positions. According to Tilly [29], “the central argument runs like this: Large,
significant inequalities in advantages among human beings correspond mainly to categorical differences
such as black/white, male/female, citizen/foreigner, or Muslim/Jew rather than to individual differences
in attributes, propensities, or performances.” Therefore, while focusing on the digital divide, we pay
attention to categorical distinctions, such as males and females, the old and the young, people with high
and low levels of education and income, employers and the unemployed, management and employees,
whites and blacks, and citizens and immigrants. The relational view of the digital divide is assistive in
making better distinctions between forms of the digital divide, understanding inequality in digital access,
and in guiding theories and hypotheses about the phenomena [6,28].
Many researchers have explored the key sociological dimensions that affect the digital divide.
Ragnedda and Muschert [14] for example summarized the key dimensions along which the digital di-
vide emerges, which include gender [30– 36], age [37– 40], education [41– 43], income levels [44,45],
country [46,47], employment, and race/ethnicity [48– 50]. Similarly, van Dijk [6] described inequalities
found on two dimensions: the personal and the positional. Personal categorical inequalities include age
(young/old), gender (male/female), race/ethnicity (majority/minority), intelligence (high/low), person-
ality (extravert/introvert; self-confident/not self-confident) and health (able/disabled). Positional cate-
gorical inequalities are further divided into four types: labor position (entrepreneurs/workers, manage-
ment/employees, employed/unemployed), education (high/low), household (family/single person), and
nation (developed/developing) [6]. Empirical studies focused on the digital divide along geographic lines
have also often used these factors [51– 68].
Consistent with this previous work, we evaluated the digital divide along demographic (gender, age)
and socio-economic (income, education, occupation) lines. We adopted a relational or network approach
to address the issues outlined above [69]. Rather than looking at individuals, we looked at the position
of individuals within a network and their relationships to others. We see inequality not as an individual
attribute, but rather as a categorical difference between groups of people [6].

2.3. Smartphones and the digital divide

Despite the abundance of research that has emerged on the digital divide in general, the influence
of smartphones has been neglected in these evaluations. Park and Kim [70] insisted that as the digital
divide results from the emergence of new technologies, we must be aware of its dynamic nature. Al-
though the proliferation of smartphones has partially addressed the problem of access to the Internet,
differences between mobile Internet users and home broadband users suggests notable inconsistencies
in their respective online activities. The increase in mobile Internet use may further widen the gap be-
tween digitally capable and digitally disadvantaged groups. Napoli and Obar [71] claimed that although
greater global access to mobile technologies is considered to substantially increase the ability of people
to easily access information, mobile phones do not have services, applications, or usage rates that are
equivalent to those of computers.
According to van Dijk [6,72], however, the features of ICT constitute subsidiary factors that affect
digital access. When a technology is complex, expensive, multifaceted, or difficult to use, it is likely to
lead to general issues related to accessibility. Computer devices, for example, are less accessible than
television sets. In recent years, however, there have been considerable gains in making computers more
accessible and usable for larger parts of the population. This has reduced differences in digital skills and
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 295

subsequent digital device usage [6,72]. Therefore, a key component of improving accessibility to ICT,
and bridging the digital divide, is improvement to technology, which makes it easier to use.
Given its rapid proliferation, there is an urgent need for more detailed reviews on the influence of
the smartphone in its ability to help or hinder the narrowing of the digital divide. A smartphone is a
mobile phone with highly advanced features. A typical smartphone has a high-resolution touch screen
display, Wi-Fi connectivity, web browsing capabilities, and the ability to download and run sophisti-
cated applications. Most smartphones utilize complex operating systems, including Android, Symbian,
iOS, BlackBerry OS, and Windows Mobile. Smartphones are also characterized by a number of features
that differentiate them from older devices (for example, a desktop computer). Specifically, smartphones
combine high-performance CPU (Central Process Unit), wireless Internet, and mobility with the basic
features of a cellular phone (namely, voice communication and text messages). Smartphones are also
easy to operate and have a friendly user interface (UI). We no longer have to use a mouse, install com-
plex programs, or receive training to use a smartphone, which would have previously been the case in
operating a computer.
The proliferation of smartphones has been faster in Korea than in any other country. Since the iPhone
was first introduced in December of 2011 until October of 2014, over 40 million users have signed up
for cellular service plans with smartphones (Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, 2014).
To date, studies on the digital divide have approached the issue in three key ways. First, researchers
have explored the digital divide in terms of social inequality. Many scholars found that discrepancies in
access and use of information could lead to social disparities in wealth and social status, for instance.
Second, research on the digital divide has largely been undertaken at the inter-group level rather than at
the individual level. Therefore, researchers have heavily focused on group factors, such as gender, age,
education, income, employment, race, and location. Finally, most researchers have noted differences in
ICT accessibility and use between high- and low-vulnerability groups.
This paper differs from previous studies as follows. First, in terms of the research model, we opera-
tionalize smartphone use as a moderator in the relationship between the introduction of smartphones and
the emergence of the digital divide. In doing so, we focus on smartphone proliferation and the specific
effects of this technology in creating a further digital divide in the broader Information Age. Second,
we used reliable data from Korea’s National Approval Databank. We were able to further expand the
number of analyses we performed by using panel data from 2010 to 2013. Finally, in terms of research
method, we use multiple regression analyses to identify causal relationships between variables.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research question and hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to analyze whether the digital divide has grown or shrunk in accordance
with the proliferation of smartphones. This purpose manifests as a specific research question: “How has
the proliferation of smartphones affected the digital divide across various demographic groupings in
Korea?” Previous studies have specifically shown that the digital divide negatively affects women, the
elderly, the uneducated, individuals who earn low income, unskilled individuals, and national, ethnic,
and racial minorities [6,51– 67,73– 76]. Van Dijk [6] claimed that when new technologies are perceived
to be complex, expensive, or multifaceted, there are also general problems associated with access. How-
ever, if new smartphones are cheaper, more convenient, or easier to use than current desktop or laptop
computers and wired Internet, the distribution of smartphones could possibly reduce the digital divide
296 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

between groups with different levels of access. Discussions about the digital divide have conventionally
developed only within the perspective of PC use and wired Internet. The focus on the digital divide
therefore rests on the gap of access in terms of gender, age, education level, income level, occupation,
and race of those who use PCs and wired Internet, and those who do not. As noted by Dijk [6,72],
the digital divide emerges from new technology that intends to makes access and use of various digital
services easier for people. A smart device has its own operating system and a wide range of applica-
tions that can perform most of the functions of a PC. Since a smart device utilizes wireless Internet,
the limitation of location and time of Internet use has also diminished. These features of smartphones
make digital skill and digital usage easier. They have also created different impacts seen in people’s
information use as improvements are made to the digital access of various social groups [77]. Diffusion
of mobile and wireless devices has increased digital access to the Internet for people who previously had
limited access in offline environments [68,78]. The price of a digital device with a rebate has mitigated
economic barriers in digital device ownership, and this trend diminishes the impact of factors of the
digital divide such as race and location [79]. The introduction of the smartphone has been suggested as
a tool to reduce the digital divide because it is spread to all levels of society and overcomes factors that
feature in the digital divide, such as age, educational level and gender, in addition to economic aspects
of the phenomenon [77,80]. In this study, we focus on features of smartphones that may have this effect.
Specifically, we test the following hypothesis:
H1. The proliferation of smartphones will reduce the digital divide along the lines of gender, age,
income, education, and occupation.

3.2. Data and measurement

To test our hypothesis, we used data from the Korea Information Society Development Institute
(KISDI) Media Panel Survey from 2010 to 2013. These data are government official statistics (no.
40501), which are produced by the Korean National Statistical Office. The sampling frame of the survey
is the 2005 Korean Population and Housing Census. This survey used a two-stage proportional stratified
sampling method to recruit participants for face-to-face interviews. The sample size is approximately
5,000 households. Trained researchers visited households and conducted interviews to gather data. Start-
ing in 2010 and continuing presently, KISDI distributes and collects the surveys between June and July
of each year. In total, our data set comprises 10,872 observations. Hsiao (2014) argued that panel data
enriches empirical research by providing cross-sectional observations of individuals over time. Panel
data allowed us to construct and test realistic behavioral models that would have been impossible to test
by only using cross-sectional or single time-series data. We used STATA software (Version 13.0) to per-
form a number of analyses, including factor analysis, reliability analysis, two-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA), and multiple regressions.
The dependent variable in our model, “digital skills and usage,” was measured through 13 items re-
lated to the use of text messaging, video, email functions, and other applications. All respondents were
asked about the performance or use and the function or service of each of the items. Responses were
coded as “1” if possible for each digital skill or usage and “0” if not possible. As outlined above, the
independent variables were “gender, age, education, income, and occupation.” These variables were cat-
egorical in nature. Control variables included “desktop computer, laptop computer, Internet connection,
and cellular phone.” Finally, we utilized “smartphone” as a moderator. Table 1 summarizes variables and
measurements.
We examine this question through a multiple regression model, shown below:
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 297

Table 1
Variables and measurements
Variable name Items/Values
Dependent variables Digital Skills and Usages, Receiving a text message, sending text message, Playing a video
(13 items) file, Using Internet favorite lists, Using address bar on the web,
Searching information on the web, Receiving email, sending email,
Attaching a file to email, Downloading a file from email, Email
account, Blog account, SNS account
Independent variables Gender Male = 1, female = 0
Age Young (teens-thirties) = 1, Middle-aged (forties-fifties) = 2, Old
(older than 60) = 3
Education Low (uneducated, elementary school) = 1, Middle (middle/high
school) = 2, High (more than a college) = 3
Income Low (0–20,000 USD/year) = 1, Middle (20,000–30,000
USD/year) = 2, High (more than 30.000 USD/year) = 3
Occupation Management/white collar = 1, Sales and service = 2, Blue collar
= 3, Housewife = 4, Student = 5, Unemployed/others = 6
Moderator variable Smart device Smartphone user = 1, non-user = 0
Control variables (Household) Desktop PC User = 1, non-user = 0
(Household) Laptop User = 1, non-user = 0
(Household) high speed In- User = 1, non-user = 0
ternet connection
Cellphone (2G, PDA) User = 1, non-user = 0

Y = α0 + β 1 · X1 +β 2X2 + β 3X3 +β 4X4 + β 5X5 + β 6X6 + β 7X1*X2 + β 8X1*X3 + β 9X1*X4

+ β 10X1*X5 + β 11X1*X6 + β 12X7 + β 13X8 + β 14X9 + β 15X10
Where the dependent measure (Y) is digital skill/usage access; X1 is smartphone; X2 is gender; X3
is age; X4 is income; X5 is education; X6 is occupation; X7 is desktop computer; X8 is laptop; X9 is
Internet connection; and X10 is cellphone. Variables X1 – X6 are the primary independent variables.
Variables X7 – X10 are control variables.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA

Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics associated with the main variables used in this study.
The digital skill or usage variable had an average of 7.35 (out of 13) across all participants. The average
for men (7.98) was higher than the women’s average (6.88). Regarding age, young participants selected
more skills or usage on average (10.83) compared to the average of the middle-aged participants (7.47).
The older participants’ average was 1.71, which was the lowest out of the three groups. Similarly, the
most educated participants indicated that they use 10.66 skills or usages on average, whereas those with
high or middle school education selected on 7.10 skills or usages on average. Lastly, the uneducated
group’s average was 2.79. Results related to income followed a similar pattern; the high-income group’s
average was 9.98; the middle-income group was 9.20, and low-income group was 6.71. In terms of
occupation, the managers and white-collar workers’ average was 10.67, followed by students (9.88),
individuals in the sales and service industries (7.84), blue-collar workers (6.10), housewives (5.83), and
the unemployed or others (3.63). Individuals with computers, laptops, high-speed Internet, cell phones,
and smartphones reported high usage.
298 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

Table 2
Descriptive statistics
Variables − N Min Max Average s.e Total
Digital skill/usage 10872 0 13 7.35 4.70 1.0
Gender Female(0) 6288 0 13 6.88 4.82 0.54
Male(1) 4584 0 13 7.98 4.46 0.46
Age Young 4300 0 13 10.83 2.10 0.60
Mid 3638 0 13 7.47 4.05 0.35
Old 2599 0 13 1.71 2.82 0.06
Education High 3463 0 13 10.66 2.41 0.46
Middle 5171 0 13 7.10 4.44 0.46
Low 2238 0 13 2.79 3.87 0.08
Income High (more than 30,000$) 1131 0 13 9.98 2.86 0.14
Middle (20,000–30,000$) 1293 0 13 9.20 3.60 0.15
Low (0–20,000$) 8401 0 13 6.71 4.85 0.71
Occupation Manager/specialized 1610 0 13 10.67 2.37 0.22
Sales and service 1467 0 13 7.84 4.17 0.14
Blue collar 1570 0 13 6.10 4.54 0.12
Housewife 3066 0 13 5.83 4.84 0.22
Students 1935 0 13 9.88 3.17 0.24
Unemployed/others 1185 0 13 3.64 4.60 0.05
Desktop PC Non use 2507 0 13 3.53 4.56 0.11
User 8325 0 13 8.48 4.11 0.89
Laptop Non user 7819 0 13 6.59 4.81 0.65
User 3013 0 13 9.27 3.80 0.35
Internet No connection 2032 0 13 1.93 3.22 0.05
Connection 8800 0 13 8.58 4.07 0.95
Cellphone Non-user 984 0 13 2.42 3.88 0.03
User 9888 0 13 7.84 4.49 0.97
Smartphone Non-user 7347 0 13 5.84 4.74 0.54
User 3525 0 13 10.48 2.60 0.46

We performed a series of two-way ANOVAs to determine whether the differences outlined in Table 2
were statistically significant. Results of these analyses show that significant differences exist between
groups in the categories of smartphone, gender, age, education, income, and occupation. The interaction
effects seen between smartphone possession and a number of other variables (namely, gender, age, ed-
ucation, income, and occupation) were also significant. Details of the ANOVAs are outlined in Table 3.
Though they are significant, these results provide no evidence to suggest that the factors outlined above
are actual causes of the digital divide.
We carried out ANOVA analysis in order to verify that a gap in digital literacy is statistically signif-
icant. This was done in accordance with the following factors: 1) gender, age, education, income, and
occupation, 2) the possession of a smartphone and 3) the combination of the possession of a smartphone
and demographic variables (Does smartphone ownership make any difference in terms of the detailed
items of each aforementioned category?). First, the analysis results showed that there was a digital di-
vide related to each item: gender (7.98, 6.88), age (10.83, 7.47), education (10.66, 7.10, 1.71), income
(9.98, 9.20, 6.71), and occupation (10.67, 7.84, 6.10, 5.83, 9.88, 3.64). Second, the results show that
possession of a smartphone reflected a statistically significant gap at the level of their digital skills or
usage. In particular, access to a smartphone reflected a visible gap in digital skills or usages appeared in
every item: gender (10.48, 5.84), age (10.51, 5.89), education (10.48, 5.84), income (10.59, 7.45), and
occupation (10.34, 6.25). This demonstrates that access to a smartphone might be a hugely influential
factor in affecting the digital gap when this is combined with demographic variables. Third, access to a
smartphone led to a statistically significant gap being found in digital skills or usages among sub-groups.
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 299

Table 3
The result of ANOVA
Smartphone
User Non user Total Two-way ANOVA
Gender
Male 10.67 6.47 7.98 Smartphone: p < 0.001
Female 10.32 5.42 6.88 Gender: p < 0.001
Total 10.48 5.84 Smart*gen: p < 0.001
Age
Young 11.31 10.36 10.83 Smartphone: p < 0.001
Mid 9.56 6.42 7.47 Age: p < 0.001
Old 5.62 1.52 1.71 Smart*age: p < 0.001
Total 10.51 5.89
Education
High 11.29 9.91 10.66 Smartphone: p < 0.001
Middle 9.70 6.03 7.10 Education: p < 0.001
Low 8.20 2.43 2.79 Smart*edu: p < 0.001
Total 10.48 5.84
Income
High 10.78 9.12 9.95 Smartphone: p < 0.001
Middle 10.61 8.04 9.33 Income: p < 0.001
Low 10.38 5.28 7.83 Smart*inc: p < 0.001
Total 10.59 7.45
Occupation
Management/white collar 11.26 9.94 10.67 Smartphone: p < 0.001
Sales and service 9.90 6.42 7.84 Occupation: p < 0.001
Blue collar 9.63 4.82 6.10 Smart*occu: p < 0.001
House wife 9.93 4.56 5.83
Student 11.13 9.15 9.88
Unemployed/others 10.18 2.60 3.64
Total 10.34 6.25

This gap was wider in those sub-groups with lower digital literacy (male, young, high, and management
or white collar) than in those with higher digital literacy (female, old, low, blue collar or unemployed).
Considering the research findings discussed above, access to a smartphone seems to affect the digital
divide across various aspects. However, this does not indicate that there is a causal relationship between
smartphone accessibility and the digital divide. Therefore, we explore this relationship through panel
data analysis more deeply below.

4.2. Panel data multi-regression analysis

We conducted a factor analysis and reliability analysis to verify the validity of the dependent variable’s
measurements, before performing a multiple regression analysis (see the Appendix table A for more
details). In accordance with the results of a Hausman test, we also utilized a fixed-effects model.
In order to further analyze the control effects of smartphones, we set <Model I> and <Model II>
for the analysis. Key analysis results are as follows: The table associated with <Model I> shows the
results of the main effect analysis. These results provide evidence that the digital skill or usage of the
oldest group was lower than that of the younger group. Significant differences also emerged in the
occupation and income categories. As evidenced by <Model II>, we also evaluated interaction in order
to identify how smartphone use affected the existing digital divide. Having said this, the results did
provide evidence that the digital divide was affected by smartphone use in demographic categories. For
instance, smartphone use decreased the digital divide seen between middle-aged and young participants.
300 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

Table 4
The result of panel data analysis
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Model I Model II
Name Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err.
Dependent var. Digital skill/usage − −
Control var. Desktop 0.19∗ 0.11 0.19∗ 0.11
Laptop 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.08
Internet connection 0.66∗∗∗ 0.13 0.67∗∗∗
0.13
Cellphone 0.89∗∗∗ 0.15 0.85∗∗∗ 0.15
Independent var. Gender (vs female) Male 0 (omitted) 0 (omitted)
Age (vs young) Mid −0.23 0.16 −0.44∗∗∗ 0.17
Old 0.08 0.28 −0.15 0.28
Education (vs high) Middle 0.15 0.24 −0.02 0.26
Low −0.19 0.32 −0.46 0.36
Income (vs high) middle −0.21∗ 0.13 −0.46∗∗∗ 0.15
low −0.27∗∗∗ 0.13 −0.42∗∗∗ 0.15
Occupation (vs manager/ Sales and service −0.19 0.13 −0.26∗ 0.15
white collar)
Blue collar −0.52∗∗∗ 0.13 −0.67∗∗∗ 0.15
Housewife −0.23∗ 0.13 −0.37∗∗ 0.15
Students 0.14 0.23 −0.07 0.26
Unemployed/others −0.31∗∗∗ 0.15 −0.48∗∗∗ 0.17
Moderator var. Smartphone 0.56∗∗∗ 0.06 −0.23 0.18
Interaction terms gender (vs female smartphone*male − − −0.07 0.14
Age (vs young) smartphone*mid − − 0.45∗∗∗ 0.13
smartphone*old − − 0.30 0.27
Education (vs high) smartphone* − − 0.14 0.13
middle
smartphone*low − − 1.05∗∗∗ 0.32
Income (vs high) Smartphone* − − 0.50∗∗∗ 0.20
middle
smartphone*low − − 0.33∗ 0.19
Occupation (vs manager/ smartphone* − − 0.11 0.18
white collar) Sales and service
smartphone* − − 0.40∗∗ 0.20
Blue collar
Smartphone* − − 0.27 0.19
housewife
Smartphone* − − 0.28 0.22
students
Smartphone* − − 0.42 0.27
employed/others
_cons
Number of obs (Number of groups) 10418 (2648) 10418 (2648)
R-sq within = 0.0300, within = 0.0354,
between = 0.6239, between = 0.6703,
overall = 0.4905 overall = 0.5435
Hausman test: Prob > chi2 = 0.0000; Prob > F = 0, ∗∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗ p < 0.05, ∗ p < 0.1.

Most respondents in their 40 s and 50 s had access to advanced digital equipment at home and in their
workplaces. The versatility of the smartphone (particularly, its various functions for email, SNS, and
blogging) reduced the digital divide between these two age groups. Smartphone use also reduced the gap
between the most and least educated individuals. Among the uneducated, being able to use smartphones
without the requirement of formal training was seen to make these devices easier to use than desktop
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 301

PCs. Similarly, the digital divide between the high-income and middle- and lower-income groups was
also reduced because of smartphone use. Though they have similar functions, smartphones are relatively
cheaper than desktop computers and have the added benefit of basic mobile phone functionality. This
suggests that the expansion of low-cost smartphones has reduced the digital divide between individuals
of different incomes. Finally, there was a decrease seen between managers or white-collar workers and
blue-collar workers. Whereas upper-level employees were clearly the most adept at using digital devices
when desktops were the ubiquitous device, the proliferation of the smartphone has allowed lower-level
employees to narrow this gap.
These analysis results support this research’s hypothesis regarding the effects of a new digital device
in locations where the digital divide is present. As <Model I> has no control variables, access to a
smartphone emerged as an important cause for the digital divide, along with demographic variables
(income and occupation). Those results seem to support a hypothesis arguing for a growing digital
gap in the proliferation of smartphone technology, which results in the exacerbation of a new digital
divide. However, in order to more accurately analyze the impacts of the spread of smartphones on the
digital divide, it is necessary to examine the interaction between sociological variables and access to a
smartphone.
To this end, <Model II> includes an item for interaction between access to a smartphone and existing
digital divide factors. The analysis results, including the interaction item, found two changes. First,
access to a smartphone alone did not affect the digital divide. Second, access to a smartphone worked as
a control variable that influenced the digital divide, when combined with existing digital divide factors,
such as age, education, income, and occupation. More specifically, with the addition of the interaction
item, the explanatory power of the Model (R2) increased (0.4905 → 0.5435) and the coefficients of the
interaction item demonstrated a consistent direction (-). While demographic variables displayed negative
impacts (-) on the digital divide, the interaction item of including a smartphone showed a change towards
the positive direction (+). It means that access to a smartphone decreases the effects of digital divide
factors (age, education, income, and occupation). The analysis results support the shrinking digital divide
hypothesis, which states that if there is access to a digital device, this could reduce the existing digital
divide.
This appears to reflect the features of the telecommunications market in Korea, as well as the charac-
teristics of a smartphone. First, a smartphone could be defined as a digital device, because it is a mobile
phone that is additionally equipped with a high performance CPU, wireless connectivity, and multifunc-
tional applications. Second, a smartphone is easy to use and has shown constant improvements in its
user interface. Third, telecoms companies in Korea have adopted a policy to attract as many subscribers
as possible, and therefore increase their revenue in exchange for providing a wide range of subsidies and
lowering the purchase price. Consequently, the multi-functionality, easy-to-use features and lower price
of a smartphone increased the utility of a smartphone and thus contributed to the narrowing digital gap
seen among various social groups in Korea.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed whether the introduction of smartphones affected the digital divide across mul-
tiple demographic categories in Korea. Results of our analysis showed that the use of smartphones did
influence the digital divide for individuals of differing ages, education levels, occupations, and incomes.
More specifically, smartphone use reduced the digital divide between the middle-aged and the young,
302 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

those with higher and lower levels of education, white-collar and blue-collar employees, and high- and
low-income earners.
These results contradict the claim that it takes time to adapt to new digital devices, and that the early
stages of a new device’s introduction will increase the digital divide. The relatively lower price, im-
proved ease of operation, user interface, and multi-functionality of smartphones has served to reduce the
digital divide in multiple demographic categories. As such, policies geared towards reducing the digital
divide among multiple categories of users should seek to increase the accessibility and subsequent use
of smartphones.
Based on these research findings, we make the following recommendations for digital divide policy
that is required in the Information Age from an evidence-based research’s perspective.
First, the impacts that a change towards the Information Age has on the digital divide should be
closely examined for timely and relevant policy development and implementation. In the Information
Age, it is becoming increasingly possible to connect to networks with any device, anywhere, and at any
time. Systematic analysis on the extent to which this latest phase of the Information Age will change
the policy environment is needed. This is necessary for understanding the digital divide, as well as other
information policy areas, including Internet addiction, cyber bullying and privacy protection. Regarding
the digital divide, this research concluded that access to a smartphone could reduce the impacts of
existing digital divide factors. Smartphones are built with multi-functionality and easy-to-use features.
Therefore, it is necessary to focus on new opportunities for increasing accessibility of ICTS that could
be created to mitigate the divide brought by a new device itself. More specifically, based on the analyzed
results, practical contributions in narrowing the digital divide could be made if more smartphones were
provided and made available to those in their 40 s and 50 s, low and middle-income families or blue-
collar workers.
Second, traditional factors are still relevant in digital divide research, as shown in our analysis of the
Korean context. It is equally important to look into the timeliness and relevance of existing policies
regarding smartphones and ICTS in order to effectively address the digital divide. A key area of further
research could examine whether public digital education (one of the major policy tools in the Information
Age) would still be as relevant and effective in this most recent stage of the Information Age. Fewer
people receive specific training to use a smartphone than was the case with PCs. Having said this, middle-
aged or elderly people still tend to acquire digital skills through training and use various functions in
order to contact their family members, such as children or grandchildren. Accordingly, the policy to
increase digital literacy should be implemented through raising awareness, or by doing public relations
work based on the motivational factors of the existing groups that are vulnerable to the digital divide.
Finally, to ensure that digital divide research is conducted in an efficient, scientific manner, various
research methods should be used, and concepts such as the “digital divide” or “smart divide” should
be clarified further. The development and measurement of indicators on digital literacy and the digital
divide that reflect the most recent phase of the Information Age is also required. The review and anal-
ysis of psychological access that has been relatively overlooked among the four steps of digital access
(psychological access, material access, skills access, and usage access) should also be conducted [6,72].
Furthermore, international-level comparative research and empirical analysis is also required. Regres-
sion or structural equation modeling that could analyze differences in research methodology and also
measure causal factors would bolster this field of research.
Though we have addressed a number of important issues in this study, it does have a few limita-
tions that warrant commentary. First, this study did not include an evaluation of a wider range of items
related to digital literacy because the research was performed with questionnaires found in the media
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 303

panel’s survey. In addition, because the survey data was comprised of responses from Korean citizens,
it was related exclusively to the relationship between the digital divide and smart devices in Korea. As
such, our results may not apply to other countries. Still, Korea’s experiences with respect to smartphone
penetration can provide ways forward for other studies related to the digital divide.

References
[1] Schiller H, Information Inequality; the Deeping Social Crisis in America, New York: Routledge (1996).
[2] Toffler Alvin, The Third Wave, New York: Bantam Books (1980).
[3] Toffler Alvin, Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, New York: Bantam (1991).
[4] Naisbitts J and Megatrends, Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives, New York: Warner Books (1982).
[5] Negroponte N, Being Digital, London: Coronet (1996).
[6] Jan A.G.M. van Dijk, The Deepening Divide, SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi (2005).
[7] Pew Research Center, 35% of American adults own a smartphone, New York (2011).
[8] Pew Research Center, 46% of American adults are smartphone owners, New York (2012).
[9] National Information Society Agency, 2010 Digital Divide Index and Survey, Seoul (2011).
[10] National Information Society Agency, 2011 Digital Divide Index and Survey, Seoul (2012).
[11] National Information Society Agency, 2012 Digital Divide Index and Survey, Seoul (2013).
[12] S. Wyatt, F. Henwood, N. Miller and P. Senker, Technology and in/equality: Questioning the information society, London:
Routledge (2000), pp. 149-171.
[13] Wol-Suk Kang, Hae-Sool Yang, A Study on Efficient Policies of solving the Digital Divide for Weak Layers in the Smart
Phone Convergence Era, Digital Policy Research, 10(1) (2012), pp. 29-38.
[14] M Ragnedda, GW Muschert, Introduction. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The
internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[15] V Vehovar, P Sicherl, T Hüsing and V Dolnicar, Methodological challenges of digital divide measurements, The Infor-
mation Society 22(5) (2006), pp. 279-290.
[16] OECD, Understanding the Digital Divide, Paris (2001).
[17] M. Castells, The INTERNET GALAXY: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society, Oxford University Press
(2002).
[18] Dobson T.M. and Willinsky J. Digital literacy. In, D.R. Olson and N. Torrance (eds), The Cambridge haηdbook of
literacy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (2009), pp. 286-312.
[19] Eshet Y and Aviram R, European Journal of Open Distance E-Learning, Towards a theory of digital literacy:
Three scenarios for the next steps. Available from: http://www.eurodl.org/index.phpp?p=archives&year=2006&half
year=1&article=223.
[20] Eshet-Alkalai Y and Chajut E, Changes over time in digital literacy, CyberPsychology & Behavior 12(6) (2009), pp. 713-
715.
[21] Hargittai E, Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy, Social Science Computer Review 23(3) (2005), pp. 371-
379.
[22] Hargittai E, An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy, Social Science Computer Review 27(1)
(2005), pp. 130-137.
[23] Jenkins H, Clinton K, Purushotma R, Robinson AJ and Weigel M, Confronting the challenges of participatory cul-
ture: Media education for the 21st century, anoccasional paper written for the Mac Arthur Foundation, (2006) Avail-
able from: http://www.DigitalLearning.macfound.org/site/c.enJLKQN1FiG/b.2029291/k.97E5/Occasional_Papers.htm
(retrieved 10 January 2009).
[24] Livingstone S and Helsper E, Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: The role of online skills
and the Internet self-efficacy, New Media & Society 12(2) (2010), pp. 309-329.
[25] Perez-Tornero JM, Understanding digital literacy; Promoting digital literacy, (2004a) Available from: http://ec.europa.
eu/education/archive/elearning/doc/studies/dig lit en.pdf (retrieved 22 December 2008). Perez-Tornero JM, A new model
for promoting digital literacy, (2004b), Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/elearning/doc/workshops/
Digital_literacy/position_papers/perez tornero.ose.pdf retrieved 6 July 2009).
[26] Peter J and Valkenburg PM, Adolescents’ Internet use: Testing the “disappearing digital divide” versus the “emerging
digital differentiation” approach, Poetics 34 (2006), pp. 293-305.
[27] Bonfadelli H, The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation, European Journal of Commu-
nication 17(1) (2002), pp. 65-84.
[28] van Dijk J and Hacker K, The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon, Information Society 19 (2003),
pp. 315-326.
304 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

[29] Tilly C, Durable inequality, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (1999).
[30] Bimber B, Measuring the gεnder gap on the Internet, Social Scie nee Quarterly 81 (2002), pp. 868-876.
[31] DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Neuman WR and Robinson, The social implications of the Internet, Annual Review of Sociology
27 (2001), pp. 307-336.
[32] Clark C and Gorski P, Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on gender, Multicultural Perspectiνes 4(1)
(2002a), pp. 30-40.
[33] Cooper J and Weaver KD, Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide, Mahwah, NJ, US.: Erlbaum Asso-
ciates (2003).
[34] Losh SC, Gender and educational digital chasms in computer and Internet access and use over time: 1983–2000, IT &
Society 1(4) (2003), pp. 73-86.
[35] Ono H and Zavodny M, Gender and the Internet, Social science Quarterly’ 84 (2003), pp. 111-121.
[36] Cooper J, The digital divide: The special case of gender, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22(5) (2006), pp. 320-
334.
[37] Loges WE and Jung J-Y, Exploring the digital divide, Internet connectedness and age, Communication Research 28(4)
(2001), pp. 536-562.
[38] Saker Z, Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students’ use of web based instruction, Electronic Jour-
nal of Sociology (2005), Accessed 20 September 2012 from: http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tierl/soker.html.
[39] Palfrey J and Gasser U, Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives, New York: Basic Books (2008).
[40] Hargittai E, Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the Net generation, Sociological
Inquiry 80(1) (2010), pp. 92-113.
[41] Clark C and Gorski P, Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on race, language, socioeconomic class, sex,
and disability, Multicultural Perspectives 3(3) (2001), pp. 39-44.
[42] Attewell P, The first and second digital divides, Sociology of Education 74(3) (2001), pp. 252-259.
[43] Clark C and Gorski P, Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on socioeconomic class background,
M11lticultural Perspectives 4(3) (2002b), pp. 25-36.
[44] Bucy EP, Social access to the Internet, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 5(1) (2000), pp. 50-61.
[45] Zillien N and Hargittai E, Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage, Social Scieηce Quarterly 90 (2009),
pp. 274-291.
[46] Chen W, The global digital divide within and between countries, IT & Society 1(7) (2004), pp. 39-45.
[47] Chinn MD and Fairlie RW, The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and
Internet penetration, Oxford Economic Papers 59(1) (2007), pp. 16-44.
[48] Hoffman DL and Novak TP, The evolution of the digital divide: Examining the relationship of race to Internet access
and usage over time. In M.Benjamin (ed.), The digital diνide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA, US:
MIT Press (2001), pp. 47-97.
[49] Fairlie RW, Is there a digital divide? Ethnic and racial differences in access to technology and possible explanations. Final
report to the University of California, Latino Policy Institute and California Policy Research Center (2003), Accessed 15
September 2012 from: http://www.cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/r_techreport5.pdf.
[50] Fairlie RW, Race and the digital divide, Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy 3(1) (2004), Article 15.
[51] Nicole Zillen and Mirko Marr, The digital divide in Europe. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The
Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[52] James Witte, Marissa Kiss and Randy Lynn, The Internet and social inequalities in the U.S. in Massimo Ragnedda and
Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge
(2013).
[53] Mito Akiyoshi, Motohiro Tsuchiya and Takako Sano, Missing in the midst of abundance: The case of broadband adoption
in Japan. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed), The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in
international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[54] Bernardo Sorj, The digital divide in Brazil: Conceptual, research and policy challenges. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn
W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[55] Inna F. Deviatko, Digitizing Russia: The uneven pace of progress toward ICT equality. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn
W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge. (2013).
[56] P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan, The digital divide in India: Inferences from the information and communication technology
workforce. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W (2013).
[57] Shu-Fen Tseng and Yu-Ching You, The digital divide in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: The barriers of first order and
second order digital divide. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and
social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[58] Danica Radovanovic, The Internet and digital divide in South Eastern Europe: Connectivity does not end the digital
divide, skills do. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social
inequality in international perspective. Routledge (2013).
 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age 305

[59] Monica Barbovschi and Bianca Balea Closing the gap, are we there yet?: Reflections on the persistence of second-level
digital divide among adolescents in Central and Eastern Europe. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.),
The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[60] Veronika Kalmus, Kairi Talves and Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeld, Behind the slogan of “e-State”: Digital stratification in
Estonia. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in
international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[61] David M. Faris, Digitally divided we stand: The contribution of digital media to the Arab Spring. in Massimo Ragnedda
and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. Rout-
ledge (2013).
[62] Gustavo Mesch Ilan Talmud and Tanya Kolobov, Explaining digital inequalities in Israel: Juxtaposing the conflict and
cultural perspectives. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide: The internet and social
inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[63] Hamid Abdollahtan, Mehdi Semati and Mohammd Ahmadi, An analysis of the second-level digital divide in Iran: A case
study of University of Tehran undergraduate students. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital
Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[64] Daniela Trucco, The digital divide in the Latin American context. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.),
The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[65] Barney Ware, The Central Asian digital divide. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital Divide:
The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[66] Tomohisa Hirata, The double digital divide and social inequality in Asia: Comparative research on Internet cafes in
Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The Digital
Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[67] Gado Alzouma, Dimensions of the mobile divide in Niger. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.), The
Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[68] Sung Wookjoon, A study on the digital literacy and the digital divide in the smart society, Korean Society and Public
Administration 25(2) (2014), pp. 53-75.
[69] Wellman B and Berkowitz SD, Social structures, A network approach, London: JAI Press.
[70] K.J. Kim and D-H Shin, An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable
technology, Internet Research 25(4) (2014), pp. 527-541.
[71] Philip M. Napoli and Jonathan A. Obar, Mobile Leapfrogging and Digital Divide Policy: Assessing the Limitations of
Mobile Internet Access, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (2013).
[72] JAN A.G.M. van Dijk, Mirko Marr, A theory of the digital divide. in Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn W. Muschert (ed.),
The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective, Routledge (2013).
[73] Chen W and Wellman B, The global digital divide – within and between countries, IT & Society 1(7) (2004), pp. 39-45.
[74] Cuervo & Menendez, A multivariate framework for the analysis of the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union-
15, Information & Management 43(6) (2006), pp. 756-766.
[75] Cullen R, Addressing the digital divide, Online Information Review 25 (2001), pp. 311-320.
[76] Çiğdem Arıcıgil Çilana, Bilge Acar Bolata, Erman Coşkunb, Analyzing digital divide within and between member and
candidate countries of European Union, Government Information Quarterly 26(1) (2009), pp. 98-105.
[77] Seungmin Lee, Analysis of the Effects of Smart Devices on Digital Divide in America, Journal of Korean Library and
Information Science Society 43(2) (2012), pp. 29-52.
[78] N.A. Al-Qirim, The adoption and usage of mobile and wireless technologies in small to medium-sized enterprises: A
meta model for development, World Review of Science, Technology, and Sustainable Development 3(2) (2006), p. 126.
[79] Andromeda Yelton, Bridging the Digital Divide with Mobile Services, American Librariy Association (2012).
[80] Aaron Smith, Smartphone adoption and usage, Pew Internet & American Life Project (2011) http://www.pewinternet.
org/2011/07/11/smartphone-adoption-and-usage/.
306 W. Sung et al. / A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age

Appendix

Table A
Factor analysis and Reliability analysis
factor 1 Cronbach Alpha
Sending email 0.945 0.953
Receiving email 0.944
Using address bar on the web 0.924
Downloading a file from email 0.916
Searching information on the web 0.915
Attaching a file to email 0.909
Using Internet favorite lists 0.906
Playing a video file 0.842
Email account 0.820
Sending text message 0.687
Receiving a text message, 0.569
SNS account 0.384
Blog account 0.343
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) 0.930
Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi-Square 173329.128
df (p) 78 (0.000)
Factor extraction method: Principal Component analysis; Factor rotation: Verimax; Total variance explained factor analysis:
64.663.
Copyright of Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in
the Information Age is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.