See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324278149

Mobile phones and inequality: Findings, trends, and future directions

Article  in  New Media & Society · April 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1461444818765154

CITATIONS READS

22 1,651

1 author:

Will Marler
Northwestern University
2 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Will Marler on 12 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

765154
review-article2018
NMS0010.1177/1461444818765154new media & societyMarler

Review Article

new media & society

Mobile phones and inequality:

2018, Vol. 20(9) 3498­–3520
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Findings, trends, and future sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1461444818765154
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818765154
directions journals.sagepub.com/home/nms

Will Marler
Northwestern University, USA

Abstract
Smartphones are more prevalent than computers in the digital age, particularly in poor
and minority communities. Is it the effect to reduce or perpetuate socioeconomic
disparities? This article reviews two decades of research investigating whether mobile
phones contribute to enhancing the status of disadvantaged populations. Conclusions
on the nature and extent of the mobile effect vary across areas of inquiry, including
digital inequality, social networks, and coordination and mobility. Advantages accrue in
particular areas, such as strengthening core ties, promoting particular Internet activities,
and enhancing daily coordination and safety. Device limitations and structural inequalities
overwhelm the mobile effect in many arenas, though new conditions emerge with
changes in mobile technology and digital habits. Future research will benefit from closer
attention to how mobile affordances, user motivation and habituation, popular mobile
uses, and the particular conditions of disadvantage shape outcomes for marginalized
populations.

Keywords
Digital divide, digital inequality, inequality, mobile Internet, mobile phone, smartphones

Introduction
Mobile phones have diffused across the globe faster than any other communication tech-
nology in history (Castells et al., 2007). Subscriptions for mobile phone service now
exceed the global population, due in part to multiple-subscribing individuals (International

Corresponding author:
Will Marler, Northwestern University, Frances Searle Building, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208,
USA.
Email: willmarler@u.northwestern.edu
Marler 3499

Telecommunications Union, 2016). It is projected that by 2022, 90%of all mobile sub-
scriptions will be for Internet-enabled “smartphones,” which are already in the majority
(Ericsson, 2016). In the United States, more time is spent on digital activity on smart-
phones than on computers (ComScore, 2015). Mobile phones are credited with expedit-
ing Internet access for the global poor (see Howard, 2007), though researchers warn of
dependence on the devices among low-income and minority users (Napoli and Obar,
2014; Smith, 2015).
What do we know about the use of mobile phones that translates into opportunities for
social and economic advancement? Does the widespread uptake of mobile telephony and
mobile Internet represent a step forward or back for the alleviation of socioeconomic
disparities? The potential for mobile phone technology to alter patterns of stratification
across socioeconomic groups and regions of the globe is the subject of an extensive bib-
liography with contributions from numerous fields (Campbell, 2015; Campbell and
Park, 2008; Castells et al., 2007; Donner et al., 2011; Gonzales, 2014; Ishii, 2004; Napoli
and Obar, 2014; Park, 2015; Pearce and Rice, 2013; Rice and Katz, 2003; Schwanen and
Kwan, 2008; Ureta, 2008). The nature of the relationships between mobile phones and
inequality has implications outside of academia, as policymakers question the value of
public investments in mobile phones access for the poor and judicial institutions consider
the privacy rights of phone users (Federal Communications Commission, 2016; Selbst
and Ticona, 2017).
Mixed conclusions emerge from a heretofore uncollected body of work spanning a
number of disciplinary traditions and methodologies. The identification of three threads
of scholarship provides the grounds for debating the role of mobile phones in the allevia-
tion or reproduction of socioeconomic inequalities. I review studies of the mobile effect
in relation to digital inequality, social networks, and coordination and mobility, asking
how research in each area has conceived and tested the proposition that mobile phones
contribute to enhancing or retrenching the status of disadvantaged populations. Then I
discuss the challenges and opportunities facing the existing body of work on mobile
phones and inequality, and offer suggestions for future directions. The review extends to
research on cellular phones and smartphones, with an emphasis on the latter. It will be
important to incorporate research on the consequences for inequality of other mobile and
“portable” devices such as laptops, tablets, and “wearables” as more research emerges
(Campbell, 2013).

Mobile phones and digital inequality

Access
The digital divide refers to a basic level of stratification in access to a computer and
Internet connection (National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
1995). In terms of access, mobile phones are notable as an information and commu-
nication technology (ICT) for the portion of people who have them. The degree of
mobile phone penetration across social groups, economic classes, and geographic
region is, considering the more modest diffusion rates of other ICTs, itself taken as a
measure of relative equality (Castells et al., 2007; Donner, 2008). However, the
3500 new media & society 20(9)

degree of mobile phone penetration remains stratified across higher and lower income
countries, and across gender and level of education within most countries (International
Telecommunications Union, 2016). In addition, insufficient data from least-devel-
oped countries make estimations of access difficult for populations of particular inter-
est to inequality researchers (International Telecommunications Union, 2016).
An important basis for scholarly interest in the potential for mobile phones to allevi-
ate socioeconomic disparities has been the assumption of affordability (Castells et al.,
2007; Rice and Katz, 2003). Not all studies find that mobiles advantage users in terms
of cost. Reporting on focus group and survey data collected in 2009, Brown et al. (2011)
illustrate the role of class and race in structuring Internet engagements across mobile
and personal computer (PC) platforms. Low-income and minority teens are found to be
more likely to access the Internet by phone, and paying more for Internet access on that
platform. The same group of young people was more likely to pay their own phone bill
as opposed to these costs being covered by a family plan, the experience of most teens
from households of higher income. Changing pricing models for mobile phone service
(Gideon, 2012; Kalba, 2008), in addition to the proliferation of publicly available Wi-Fi
(Middleton and Chambers, 2010), may mitigate the concerns raised by Brown et al.
(2011).
Second, researchers point to discrepancies between how mobile phone access is
measured and its reality, particularly for marginalized populations. Two trends investi-
gated are shared access and instability of access. The fact that individuals, typically in
lesser-developed countries, often share ownership and use of a mobile phone has been
taken as a sign that access is more widespread than individual ownership rates may sug-
gest (International Telecommunications Union, 2016). However, research points to the
disadvantages of phone sharing for the likelihood of benefiting from access. In inter-
views with low-income Chilean families, Ureta (2008) finds that a shared mobile phone
amounts to a landline phone, in that families kept the device at home to allow for shared
use. Phone sharing is found to be gendered, with men more often in the position of own-
ing and lending phones than women (Blumenstock and Eagle, 2010; Burrell, 2010). The
phenomenon of phone sharing further emphasizes the persistence of affordability as a
barrier to access for portions of the global poor (International Telecommunications
Union, 2016).
In addition to phone sharing, instability of mobile phone access has been studied as a
lingering concern of digital inequality (Donner et al., 2011; Gonzales, 2014). In inter-
views with low-income residents of New York City, Gonzales (2014) finds that mobile
access for the poor is “dependably” unstable. Low-income users come to expect periodic
disconnection from their devices due to several factors. The first relates to the quality of
hardware. Mobiles are often secondhand, shared, or government-subsidized models,
subject to faulty batteries, cracked screens, and unreliable service. The second factor is
a matter of stable access over time. Respondents regularly lose service due to inability to
pay their phone bill. Mobile phones are regularly lost, broken, and stolen, experiences
consistent with those of phone users in the developing world (Donner et al., 2011; Le
Dantec and Edwards, 2008).
Marler 3501

Productive use
A key question for mobile inequality research is whether mobile phones are put to use in
ways that enhance the status of their users. The question of productive use emerges out
of a scholarly effort to connect technology access to life outcomes in digital inequality
research (DiMaggio et al., 2004). In this line of analysis, particular online activities are
theorized to advance the economic, health, educational, and political status of Internet
users. For example, research has shown that higher income individuals use the Internet
for “information-based” and “transaction-based” activities, while disadvantaged users
tend toward social and entertainment uses (Zillien and Hargittai, 2009). The “usage gap”
exists to the extent that Internet users of higher socioeconomic status engage in produc-
tive activities more than disadvantaged users, thus amplifying already-existing inequali-
ties (van Deursen and van Dijk, 2014; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009).
The quality of hardware, software, and connection by which Internet access is
achieved is an important factor in the production of the usage gap (van Deursen and van
Dijk, 2014). The notion is that a gap has emerged with the diffusion of mobile Internet
between those who access the Internet by phone and those who do so by computer,
known as the “device divide” (Pearce and Rice, 2013). The debate over the extent to
which mobile Internet properly replaces computer-based access emerged in studies of
the developing world (Donner et al., 2011; Pearce and Rice, 2013), where the promise of
the mobile phone is cast in light of a lack of landline infrastructure for telephone and
Internet connectivity (Howard, 2007; James, 2009).

Mobile voice and text

In the vein of research on productive use, research suggests that voice and text services
remain critical features of the mobile phone for disadvantaged populations. Rice and
Katz (2003) argue that mobile phones are uniquely situated for “contacting government
representatives and resources, seeking job opportunities, citizen mobilization, social
integration, and spreading messages of social concern” (p. 603). Mobile phones may
have “distinct advantages in areas that might make the most difference to the digitally
disadvantaged” (Rice and Katz, 2003: 603). These include “remote accomplishment and
pursuit of jobs” and “quick-time coordination of personal or household activities” (Rice
and Katz, 2003: 603). The authors further emphasize personal safety. Here, the mobile is
“far superior to the Internet and the regular telephone” for alerting authorities to personal
threats or emergencies (Rice and Katz, 2003: 603).
More recent findings confirm the ongoing importance of non-Internet mobile phone
features. Gonzales (2014) examines the utility of cell phones for the urban poor, citing
research that shows that individuals in low income, inner-city communities are more
likely to suffer threats to health and safety (Blau and Blau, 1982; Pantazis, 2000), as well
as evidence that social support networks are of particular importance for mitigating these
threats (Sampson et al., 1997). Respondents in Gonzales (2014) relied on mobile phones
to address crises in personal mental health and in community health and safety.
Participants emphasized the capacity cell phones give them to contact mental health
professionals and manage the location of their children. They described using cell phones
3502 new media & society 20(9)

to report health crises, traffic accidents, and gang activity. Outside of active use, the low-
income interviewees in the study emphasized the sense of reassurance cell phone owner-
ship offers, in contrast to landline and pay phones (Gonzales, 2014).

Internet uses
The widespread diffusion of mobile Internet enables comparison of typical Internet
activities across smartphone and computers, with an eye toward productive uses.
Researchers have explored the implications for usage of accessing the Internet only by
mobile phone, only by computer, or by both mediums (Napoli and Obar, 2014; Park,
2015; Pearce and Rice, 2013; Tsetsi and Rains, 2017). Mobile Internet users are found to
tend toward social rather than instrumental activities, arising a debate over the interpreta-
tion of social activities as productive or unproductive of status enhancement.
Surveying Armenian households on their Internet habits across devices, Pearce and
Rice (2013) find that mobile Internet access is associated most strongly with the use of
social networking sites (SNSs). Armenians who accessed the Internet through a PC,
whether alone or in tandem with mobile access, engaged a wider range of Internet uses,
including reading the news, browsing the web, and those related to work Mobile-only
Internet users were less likely to engage in this range of activities. Sociodemographics
may account for some of the variation observed in typical uses across devices, as those
with Internet access only by phone were more often from a lower-income background
and younger, while those with computer and mobile Internet access had more education
and higher incomes.
The implications of predominant uses of mobile Internet is the subject of additional
studies within the digital inequality literature. The results of Park (2015) indicate that
female and minority teens are more capable and diverse in their mobile engagements.
Older teens also appeared to engage in more mobile activities. Teens who had higher
skills in content production and who turned to their phones more often to accomplish
particular tasks were more likely to also be civically engaged, such as volunteering in the
community or debating politics with family and friends. Greater civic engagement was
not observed for teens who showed greater skill in using the phone for entertainment
purposes. The findings of Park (2015) are significant in light of frameworks which place
instrumental and entertainment activities at odds in defining “productive” or “capital-
enhancing” Internet uses (DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001; Norris, 2001; Zillien and
Hargittai, 2009). Park (2015) does suggest that, in unique cases, mobile phone use may
contribute to overcoming existing inequalities. For example, urban mobile users exhibit
greater likelihood of engaging volunteering if their instrumental use of phones is high.
However the results indicate social stratification persists in mobile phone use among
teens surveyed. Teens of higher socioeconomic status who had enhanced mobile access
tended to use their mobile phones in ways associated with greater social and civic
engagement (Park, 2015).
More recent research focuses on a growing proportion of US citizens who have Internet
access on their phones but not on a personal computer, a population referred to as “smart-
phone dependent” (Smith, 2015). Drawing on Pew data from 2012, Tsetsi and Rains
(2017) explore the sociodemographics of mobile-only Internet users while analyzing
Marler 3503

smartphone use more broadly. Notably, the researchers consider social activities on smart-
phones as productive of positive life outcomes. The theory is that the use of SNSs benefits
disadvantaged groups in particular, as potential remedies to the social isolation that results
from socioeconomic marginalization (DiMaggio and Garip, 2012; Gonzales, 2017;
Mesch, 2012). Conversely, the study predicts that disadvantaged groups will be less likely
to pursue news and information on smartphones, based on previous research (Chigona
et al., 2009; Donner et al., 2011; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2014). The researchers find
that those marginalized by race, income, and education are more likely to depend on a
smartphone for Internet access, supporting the hypothesis of a “device divide” among
Internet users (Pearce and Rice, 2013). Usage differences are observed among smart-
phone users by socioeconomic status, in support of the usage gap hypothesis (Van Dijk,
2005). Minorities and younger people were more likely than their counterparts to engage
in social activities on smartphones, while older and higher-income users were more likely
to pursue news or information activities (Tsetsi and Rains, 2017).

Technical (in)capacity for Internet use

A growing body of work examines the hypothesis that technological characteristics of
the mobile phone limit or drive particular patterns of mobile Internet use (Donner et al.,
2011; Gitau et al., 2010; Napoli and Obar, 2014; Wang and Liu, 2017). Donner et al.
(2011) draw attention to mobile-only Internet use in the resource-constrained context of
a women’s cooperative in South Africa. The researchers offered a group of participants
with no computer experience access to the Internet on their mobile phones. Participants
experienced barriers in accessing particular websites and services through their mobiles.
Although mobile email allowed initial contact with employers, limited functionality pre-
vented users from uploading a resume to a job application. Noting that mobile phones
were designed for higher income markets where access to computers is more widespread,
the authors conclude that ICT poverty in relation to mobile-only use means lacking the
necessary components of a communication repertoire (Licoppe, 2003) or ecology (Nardi
and O’Day, 1999).
In the US context, Napoli and Obar (2014) draw on technical literature, usage studies,
and development and digital inequality research to argue that mobile phones are techno-
logically limited in ways that lead to less productive Internet use. On the “demand” side,
memory, storage capacity, and connection speed are “intrinsically limited” on mobile
devices relative to PCs, by nature of their hardware (Finamore et al., 2011: 345). On the
“supply” side, Internet content is more often optimized for PC access. Content designed
for mobile phones is delivered differently than on a PC. For example, mobile “apps” and
the brand-specific platforms that deliver them restrict conditions for browsing and infor-
mation-seeking relative to a PC-based Web browser. Mobile delivery platforms of this
kind result in “a much less open Internet ecosystem” for mobile users (Napoli and Obar
2014: 327).
Research cited in Napoli and Obar (2014) indicates that, based on the available tech-
nology in the mid-2000s, mobile users are stymied in their attempts to search for infor-
mation, browse the web, and create content. For example, web searches on mobile
phones are less sophisticated and more often fail (Baeza-Yates et al., 2007; Church et al.,
3504 new media & society 20(9)

2007, 2008). Usage studies indicate a lower quantity and breadth of websites visited on
mobiles relative to PCs (Ishii, 2004). Studies show that users type slower, enter less text,
and create less complex documents on mobile interfaces relative to PCs (Yesilada et al.,
2010).
Napoli and Obar (2014) go further to argue that the limitations of mobile use stem-
ming from technological characteristics may have direct links to missed opportunities for
advancing status through Internet use. The relative difficulty or lack of sophistication of
mobile search may have potential direct economic impacts, as studies link ease in Web
searching with access to a cheaper and greater variety of goods, as well as lower levels
of unemployment (Ghose et al., 2013). The tendency of mobile users to consume rather
than produce content (Ghose and Han, 2011; Hinman et al., 2008) risks an exacerbation
of “participation divides” with those who have PC Internet access, a key dimension in
assessing who benefits from Internet access (Hargittai and Walejko, 2008).
While studies in previous years have suggested that mobile devices are technologi-
cally limited in ways that prevent more intensive, content production and work-related
activities (Donner et al., 2011; Napoli and Obar, 2014), it is possible that as the capacities
of smartphones increase, the device divide in usage will narrow. For example, it is nota-
ble that the technical barrier to completing a job application by mobile phone, mentioned
in Donner et al. (2011), namely, the inability to upload a resume in pdf format, is obvi-
ated by newer model smartphones and web-based applications (Schindler, 2017). The
increasing sophistication of “task-supportive” (Donner, 2015) mobile applications may
lead users to prefer smartphones for activities formerly possible only on PCs. Nevertheless,
advanced digital technologies are generally unavailable to disadvantaged populations at
the time of their introduction (Donner, 2015: 43; Napoli and Obar, 2014). Moreover, the
device divide extends to use conditions, as low-income populations experience regular
loss of service, hardware dysfunction, and device theft (Donner et al., 2011; Gonzales,
2014, 2016).

Mobile phones and social networks

Expanding ICT access and promoting status-enhancing ICT uses are the two means by
which mobile phones might be said to promote socioeconomic equality for marginalized
populations. Another area in which use of mobile phones might produce advantage for
disadvantaged populations is through the expansion or diversification of personal net-
works. The relationship between social network composition and the well-being of indi-
viduals and communities has been documented in influential research over several
decades (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 2000). Hampton et al. (2011) discuss research
which shows that the existence of a network of close confidents promotes health and the
ability to cope with adverse events (Cohen, 2004; Dickens et al., 2004; Hurlbert et al.,
2000; Klinenberg, 2003). The question of whether mobile phones grow, constrict, or,
otherwise, alter social networks is the subject of a growing body of research (Campbell,
2015).
Media scholars have had a long-standing interest in the role of telephone communica-
tion in shaping social networks (Fischer, 1992; Wellman and Tindall, 1992). Fischer
(1992) finds in the diffusion of landline phones in the United States, a closer cultivation
Marler 3505

of the private sphere without a necessary growth in contacts. The emergence of mobile
phone technology altered the conditions of contact by telephone, in what has been
described as a transition from the “conversational” to “connected” mode (Licoppe,
2003). Mobile phones facilitate a frequency and flexibility of communication, producing
rituals of constant contact that effect “bounded solidarity” within core groups (Ling,
2008). The result is that mobiles may shape life into “telecocoons” of known people and
ideas, weakening motivation or opportunity for new contact (Habuchi, 2005; Kobayashi
and Boase, 2014).
Observing trends among mobile users in Japan, Ishii (2006) asks how mobile use
relates to other forms of mediated contact in influencing network composition. The study
considers mobile texting and voice-calling alongside PC email and landline calls, com-
paring how often respondents ranging in age engaged each medium. Data on social rela-
tionships were gathered by asking respondents the number of close relationships they
had. Respondents were asked to specify 10 close relationships and the mediums through
which they communicated with that person. Mobile use was found to be most prominent
among young groups of friends who were in close geographical proximity and had regu-
lar face-to-face contact. Those who exhibited higher social skills show a greater willing-
ness to make phone calls, while message threads appear to be the haven of the less
socially inclined. Network size was not found to be impacted by use of any of the medi-
ums. The author concludes that teens are driven to mobile media for the privacy of com-
munication with existing friends, supporting the findings of earlier studies of the Japanese
case (Habuchi, 2005). In Norway, mobile use has similarly been associated with geo-
graphically proximate networks of close ties (Ling et al., 2014).
A different finding emerges from another study involving Japanese youth. Boase and
Kobayashi (2008) observe a relationship between the intensity of mobile texting and the
bridging of ties among a sample of high-schoolers. The researchers asked participants
questions to gauge how using a mobile phone impacted their social relationships,
employing survey items associated with bridging, bonding, and breaking ties. Youth who
texted more often were likely to report they used the phone to meet friends outside of
school and to keep in touch with new acquaintances. The bonding effect was significant,
while no evidence supported the claim that mobile phone use contributed to the breaking
of ties. Due to self-reporting, it is uncertain whether confident, frequent text users had an
inflated impression of the role of their mobiles in forming new ties, or whether reports
play out in real-life connections.
Shrum et al. (2011) assess the network implications of mobile use in Kenya through a
survey of over 700 professionals. Surveys in 2002 and 2007 asked different sets of par-
ticipants to name the people “most important” to them across domains of work, family,
friends, and romantic life. Respondents are queried on their access to, use of, and famili-
arity with mobiles, as well as on their use of email. Qualitative interview data with a
portion of the population supplement the surveys. The authors find an overall increase in
the size of core networks reported by individuals across the two surveys. Nevertheless,
no relationship is found between measures of mobile phone use and observed network
growth. The authors turn to qualitative data to discuss the importance that Kenyans
attribute to mobile phones in their communication routines with family and in
3506 new media & society 20(9)

professional life. Mobile phones are concluded to have had a role in the growth of ties in
these domains.
Other studies offer quantitative findings supporting the hypothesis that mobile phone
use contributes to the development of social networks. Hampton et al. (2011) consider
the size and diversity of core networks of mobile phone and Internet users as well as non-
users in a representative US survey. The researchers find that the number of individuals
with whom an individual could “discuss important matters” was on average 12% larger
for mobile phone owners than non-owners. The effect was larger than that of Internet
use, for which instant messaging (IM) and uploading photos to share online was associ-
ated with larger core networks.
With only minor effects for network growth observed in studies of the Japanese and
Kenyan contexts (Habuchi, 2005; Ishii, 2006; Shrum et al., 2011), alongside consistent
evidence that mobile phone use intensifies contact with close ties (Ling, 2008), further
research tests the proposition that mobiles contribute to strengthening core ties at the
expense of new and diverse ties. Campbell (2015) terms the potential for a loss of new
and diverse ties due to mobile phone use “network privatism” in a review of research.
Kobayashi and Boase (2014) are the only ones cited indicating the tendency of mobile
communication to constrain networks ties. The majority of the reviewed studies con-
clude that the effect of mobile phone use on growth, diversification, or shrinking of
personal networks is overwhelmed by other factors, primarily sociodemographics.
Across studies, communication with strong ties best accounts for the uniqueness of
mobile users (Miyata et al., 2008).
A more recent study of mobile networks addresses the potential for mobile phone use
to expand and diversify network ties for minority populations, in particular. In a study of
phone logs of Jewish and Arab Israeli business customers, Arie and Mesch (2016) sought
to describe the effect of mobile phones on patterns of in-group and out-group communi-
cation. They conclude that the minority Arab Israelis were no more likely to engage in
communication with the Jewish majority due to mobile phone use. In other words, the
nature of the communication network that would be expected of a population segregated
socially and spatially was reflected in the mobile communications of Arab Israelis. The
author’s link their conclusion with the stratification hypothesis, which argues that pat-
terns of new media use are strongly influenced by existing structural disparities
(DiMaggio et al., 2001; Norris, 2001; Van Dijk, 2005).

Mobile phones for coordination and mobility

In theorizing the social implications of mobile phones, scholars have relied on notions of
mobile phones as devices that offer flexibility, autonomy, and mobility for users to pur-
sue their ends (Katz and Aakhus, 2002; Ling, 2004; Ureta, 2008). In research on mobile
effects on digital inequality and social networks, these characteristics of the mobile are
connected to outcomes such as productive activity (Cotten et al., 2009; Park, 2015;
Pearce and Rice, 2013; Tsetsi and Rains, 2017) and network composition (Boase and
Kobayashi, 2008; Campbell, 2015; Habuchi, 2005; Ishii, 2006; Shrum et al., 2011). The
frame of reference shifts for the body of scholarship concerned with how mobile phones
impact social relations as a matter of daily interaction. Under examination in these
Marler 3507

typically qualitative studies is how mobile phones impact daily habits and individuals’
public presence. In this vein, a number of authors theorize a historical shift to a more
personal and mobile age of communication (Castells et al., 2007; Srivastava, 2005).
Included are the multiple studies by Ling (2004, 2008, 2012) that describe the embed-
ding of mobile phones into interactions and mobility in physical space.
One way the impact of mobile phones on daily routines has been conceptualized is in
terms of enhanced capacities for coordination. A subset of “perpetual contact” (Katz and
Aakhus, 2004), this entails both practical and expressive ways of keeping in touch with
contacts on a day-to-day basis. Drawing from interview data with Norwegians across age
groups, Ling and Yttri (2002) account for the content and form of daily mobile commu-
nication. “Micro-coordination” describes how users have adopted mobile phones to
address logistical challenges related to transportation and caregiving in the intimate
sphere. The ability to rearrange plans or address parental responsibilities remotely has
the potential to reshape expectations and roles for relationships in the intimate sphere (cf.
Schwanen and Kwan, 2008). Where micro-coordination is more often related to con-
cerns of logistics and safety, “hyper-coordination” involves the management of relation-
ships at a symbolic level, the negotiation of social relationships through the newfound
capacities of group text and mobile photo sharing (Ling and Yttri, 2002). The authors
find a generational gap in the phone use for different forms of coordination, with older
adults focused on safety, middle-aged users with logistics, and youth with the coordina-
tion of their social lives and identity. Thus, mobile phones might be said to impact life
outcomes as a matter of capacity for achieving daily tasks safely and efficiently, though
age and motivation are likely to have greater influence for younger users.
There are other ways to conceive of the effect of mobile phones on daily routines and
daily social interaction. Geographers seek to understand mobility in terms of constraints
of space and time felt differently across populations within a physical environment
shaped by social processes (Hägerstrand, 1976). If mobile phones allow individuals to
accomplish new tasks at distance and in short order, a cumulative benefit for mobile
users may be observed. Schwanen and Kwan (2008) probe the relationship of mobile
phone use to geographic mobility through interviews in the Netherlands and the United
States. The authors conclude that while the mobile phone enables new capacities for act-
ing at a distance, the standards for carrying out these actions are embedded in existing
social expectations and roles. For example, the mobile phone may aid in announcing a
late arrival, but being late remains taboo. The influence of social norms on mobile use
relate to gender. Schwanen and Kwan (2008) observed the trend that women in their
study took on the additional responsibility of cultivating and maintaining the social net-
works enabled by the mobile phone.
The social structuring of outcomes for spatial mobility from mobile phone use is simi-
larly on display in studies of the developing world. Ureta (2008) undergoes a series of
in-depth interviews and observation with 20 low-income families living in Santiago,
Chile. The author sought to determine whether mobile phones facilitated greater engage-
ment with urban spaces for low-income families outside of the “small and relatively
isolated environments” inhabited on the urban periphery. The context of the campa-
mento, or shanty town, is of further interest, as the infrastructure for landline phones is
3508 new media & society 20(9)

lacking, making mobile phones the primary communication tool for inhabitants (Donner
et al., 2011; Pearce and Rice, 2013).
Ureta (2008) concludes that mobile phones do not enhance spatial mobility for disad-
vantaged residents of Santiago. While interviewees expressed the vital importance of the
mobile phone to their lives in terms of closer local connection, they did not report a
greater likelihood to expand their travel routines outside of their existing confines. First,
mobile phones are found to be used in a non-mobile way. Due to the price of devices, and
more importantly, of phone service, families in the study often shared a device, and kept
the phone at home. Costs also resulted in more limited use of the device. Ureta (2008)
suggests that the potential for the mobile to affect routines of travel for the urban poor is
overshadowed by the socioeconomic dividing lines of urban spaces.
Other research addresses the outcomes of mobile phone use for political and public
engagement. Campbell and Kwak (2010) explore how public use of mobiles influences
the likelihood of interaction in public spaces. The researchers find the use of mobiles for
information and coordination needs correlates with greater public interaction, while rela-
tional uses do not. The authors argue that checking news on mobile phones relates to
greater social engagement in shared spaces, while the ability to coordinate by mobile
phones promotes public presence more broadly. The findings offer contrast to those of
Hampton et al. (2010), who found that mobile users were less interactive in public spaces
than users of other media.

Key debates and future directions

Many routes to mixed findings
The body of literature examining the place of mobile phones in the reproduction and
alleviation of socioeconomic inequality has matured to include a variety of concepts,
methods, and assumptions. Although the devices share characteristics with other ICTs,
the use of mobile phones has been shown to have unique relationships to digital activities
(Cotten et al., 2009; Park, 2015; Tsetsi and Rains, 2017), the formation of social net-
works (Campbell, 2015; Campbell and Kwak, 2012; Ishii, 2006; Shrum et al., 2011), and
everyday coordination and mobility (Ling and Yttri, 2002; Schwanen and Kwan, 2008;
Ureta, 2008). Several important debates emerge from the accumulation of diverse find-
ings and approaches, reflecting mixed findings on the potential for mobile phones to
enhance the lives of disadvantaged communities. After a summary of key findings, the
article turns to an assessment of future directions for research.
Digital inequality research offers the significant and consistent finding that sociode-
mographics influence how mobile phones are adopted and put to use. At an early stage,
populations were split by class as to whether they maintained Internet access on a com-
puter or a mobile phone alone (Anderson, 2005; Rice and Katz, 2003). Mobile phone
users tended to report having more consistent Internet access over time—perhaps due to
the relative affordability of the mobile phone as an access device in periods of disconnec-
tion from computer-based access (Anderson, 2005). Later research suggests that reliance
on a mobile phone for communication and information needs is a problematic stop-gap
for low-income individuals lacking computer access; despite the advantages for safety,
Marler 3509

psychological reassurance, and social connection, mobile phones in the hands of the
economically destitute are suspect to theft, loss, breakdown, and regular periods of dis-
connection due to unaffordable service (Gonzales, 2014, 2016).
Research in the area of digital inequality further identifies peculiarities in mobile
phone use and skill across sociodemographics and in relation to computer use. Minority
teens in the United States were more skilled on mobile devices but were more likely to
pursue social and entertainment activities, as opposed to instrumental and information-
gathering activities displayed among White youth (Park, 2015). Those who relied on
mobile phones for Internet access in the Armenian context were both poorer and tended
toward social networking sites rather than work activities or checking the news online
(Pearce and Rice, 2013). The tendency for minority and low-income phone users to
engage more in social and expressive activities on mobile phones with Internet access is
confirmed in a representative sample of the United States (Tsetsi and Rains, 2017).
In social network studies, the use of mobile phones is shown to bring those who are
already close, closer together, with diffuse effects on relationships with the wider world
(Campbell, 2015). Qualitative studies of everyday mobile use observe the advantages for
maintenance and enhancement of close contacts (Ling, 2012; Ureta, 2008), as do several
quantitative studies (Boase and Kobayashi, 2008; Campbell and Kwak, 2012). There is
little firm evidence that the use of mobile phones contributes on its own to the enhance-
ment of social or economic status of marginalized populations through the formation of
new social ties (Arie and Mesch, 2016; Campbell, 2015). Survey evidence does find that
mobile phones users maintain significantly larger networks of core confidants, though
the direction of causality is not established (Hampton et al., 2011).
The lasting significance of mobile phones for social life may emerge from new ways
of coordinating the social and instrumental facets of daily life. Research points to shifts
in the way that individuals arrange meetings and coordinate care for their children while
negotiating new boundaries between work and private life (Campbell and Park, 2008;
Ishii, 2006; Katz and Aakhus, 2002; Ling and Yttri, 2002). Mobile phones use may also
change the relationship that individuals have with physical spaces, including urban areas
marked by segregation and violence. The possession of a mobile phone is unlikely on its
own to facilitate new pathways through segregated urban spaces (Ureta, 2008) or across
social networks (Arie and Mesch, 2016). However, mobile phone users report a sense of
reassurance from the presence of a communication device ready at hand, and turn to their
phones to report emergencies and threats to public and personal safety (Gonzales, 2014;
Haddon, 2000).

Challenges and future directions

Trends in adoption and usage suggest that smartphones have a central role to play in the
digital futures of the socioeconomically marginalized, both in the developing world and
in affluent societies (Ericsson, 2016; International Telecommunications Union, 2016;
Smith, 2015). To keep up, researchers need to think critically about how to adapt their
approaches. Researchers can draw on an increasingly broad and sophisticated set of tools
for collecting data on mobile phone use (Büscher and Urry, 2009; Calabrese et al., 2014;
Sohn, 2008). Yet, where and how researchers look at the use of mobile phones within
3510 new media & society 20(9)

conditions of disadvantage matters for how we understand the outcomes for inequality.
The study of mobile phones and inequality will benefit from putting existing frameworks
into conversation with emerging methods and approaches while drawing closely on
related research in the study of socioeconomic disadvantage.
The framework of digital inequality research offers a starting point for future contri-
butions, drawing lines through questions of access to popular uses to outcomes of those
uses (DiMaggio et al., 2004; van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). First, research must acknowl-
edge that access inequality manifests uniquely for the mobile phone in relation to com-
puters or the Internet, at large. The extent of mobile penetration cannot be taken as a
standalone measure of access equality, due to both statistical unreliability in many
developing countries (International Telecommunications Union, 2016) and the variabil-
ity in access conditions that marginalized users encounter (Gonzales, 2014; Napoli and
Obar, 2014). Researchers cannot take for granted the quality or dependability of basic
phone access for low-income populations, neither in developed nor in developing coun-
tries, even in an age of apparently ubiquitous access (Donner et al., 2011; Gonzales,
2014). The observation of device sharing and support networks as critical elements of
low-income access to mobile phone technology provides an important area of overlap
between sociocultural and technological studies across developed and developing set-
tings (Gonzales, 2014; Ureta, 2008).
A significant piece of the access puzzle as it relates to smartphones and inequality is
the question of smartphone dependence. Beyond first-level access, the quality of Internet
access and its usability on mobile devices is a critical component of the debate over
whether mobile Internet is a boon or a trap for poor communities (Howard, 2007; Napoli
and Obar, 2014). An understanding of motivations is also critical: further elaboration is
necessary to understand the terms of preferential adoption of mobile devices in relation
to other mediums among disadvantaged populations (Smith, 2015). Academic and popu-
lar accounts turn to affordability to account for why poorer populations adopt mobile
phones and Internet and at a higher rate than desktop and fixed-line alternatives (see
Brown et al., 2011), suggesting that deprivation rather than choice drives preferential
adoption of mobile phones (Donner et al., 2011; Napoli and Obar, 2014; Pearce and Rice,
2013; Smith, 2015; Tsetsi and Rains, 2017). While affordability and lack of landline
alternatives are significant drivers, particularly in communities of poverty in the devel-
oping world (Donner, 2008), other factors may lead users to adopt mobile phones as their
primary device for information and communication needs. Young people may prefer the
autonomy and social status afforded by a smartphone relative to a desktop (Cotten et al.,
2009; Ishii, 2006; Katz and Aakhus, 2004; Oksman and Turtiainen, 2004; Srivastava,
2005). For the unstably housed, mobility of communication device may be priority,
alongside affordability (Gonzales, 2014; Le Dantec and Edwards, 2008).
Researchers must also grapple with the key finding that minority and low-income
populations have incorporated mobile-based social media more intensively into their
digital habits than majority communities, as evident in the US context (Park, 2015; Tsetsi
and Rains, 2017). Studies find that mobile Internet users, and especially minorities,
youth, and low-income users, tend toward a narrower set of activities, typically centered
on social-expressive uses such as social media (Park, 2015; Pearce and Rice, 2013;
Smith, 2015). The initial challenges are to verify the finding and expand the inquiry
Marler 3511

outside the American context. For example, a recent study in the United States found that
higher income respondents were more likely than their counterparts to use Facebook on
a mobile phone (Kuru et al., 2017). In addition, research in the developing world tends
to emphasize the economic applications of mobile phones (Aker and Mbiti, 2010;
Donner, 2008); less is known about how the global poor use mobile phones to connect
for social support and personal expression (Chigona et al., 2009; Shrum et al., 2011).
A parallel challenge for research into digital inequality is to interpret the meaning of
social media use, pursued intensively on mobile phones, for life outcomes. There is a
particular blind spot over whether smartphone-reliant marginalized communities are
able to leverage SNSs like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat to build and tap
into resources stored in their networks (Campbell and Kwak, 2010; Gonzales, 2017).
Relational and expressive activities are typically considered outside the range of produc-
tive or capital-enhancing Internet uses (DiMaggio et al., 2004; Zillien and Hargittai,
2009). However, there may be purchase in social media activity for growing social net-
works and accessing social support (Ellison et al., 2007, 2014), capacities which poverty
research identifies as critical for well-being in poor communities (DiMaggio and Garip,
2012; Stack, 1975).
Researchers of mobile communication stand to contribute to the question of social
media use among disadvantaged communities by investigating the coupling of social
media with the smartphone. Mobile phones have become the preferred medium for social
media, in large part, due to native applications which take advantage of the unique
affordances of the mobile phone, from its mobility to the ability to record photos and
videos to location awareness (Bayer et al., 2015; Donner, 2015; Sutko and de Souza e
Silva, 2011). The shift requires new means of assessing social media as a means for the
alleviation of conditions of disadvantage. For example, research has only begun to
explore the implications for communities prone to violence, both at the hands of gangs
and police, of an ability to record and broadcast media from personal devices as events
unfold (Bock, 2016; Bonilla and Rosa, 2015; Gonzales, 2014; Neumayer and Stald,
2014; Patton et al., 2017). We know little about how the smartphone as a locative tool
and token of reassurance of personal security influences the relationship of marginalized
communities to urban space (Arie and Mesch, 2016; Schwanen and Kwan, 2008; Ureta,
2008). The most promising research in these areas will take advantage of the range of
tools developed for collecting mobile data (Calabrese et al., 2014; Eagle et al., 2009;
Sheller and Urry, 2006), while engaging directly with poor communities to understand
how disadvantaged communities network and relate to urban space by dint of smart-
phone access (Horst and Miller, 2005; Lane, 2016).
The success of attempts to connect mobile phone use to socioeconomic outcomes for
disadvantaged communities may rely on the ability to decipher how people come to be
uniquely habituated to mobile phones as tools for communication and expression. Doing
so will require drawing from research agendas outside the digital inequality tradition.
Researchers have made important though limited progress toward understanding the
diverse motivations behind mobile phone adoption. Wirth et al. (2008) develop a model
for mobile phone appropriation based on a feedback loop between dimensions of “usage
and handling” and “prestige and social identity” (p. 493). The model draws on theories
of technology acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2003), technology diffusion (Rogers, 2010),
3512 new media & society 20(9)

and media appropriation (Silverstone and Haddon, 1996), as well as sociocultural theo-
ries of technology (Pinch and Bijker, 1987). Results from an application of Wirth et al.’s
(2008) model found little cross-cultural difference in conception and use of the mobile
Internet between German and American college students (Humphreys et al., 2013).
Future studies should apply mobile-specific theoretical frameworks to investigate
whether there are significant differences in how minorities and low-income individuals
conceive of mobile Internet and its appropriate uses in relation to individuals of majority
and high-income status (e.g. Kuru et al., 2017).
Uncovering the motivations behind particular mobile activities and their outcomes
will at once benefit from closer attention to the social and cultural conditions of
mobile phone use. The view that sociocultural factors underlie differences in the ends
pursued through technology is not new to studies of the telephone (Fischer, 1992).
Qualitative research in developing countries has taken the lead in giving attention to
how cultural and social imperatives shape particular engagements with the mobile
phone (de Souza e Silva et al., 2011; Donner, 2008; Horst and Miller, 2005; Sey, 2011;
Shrum et al., 2011; Ureta, 2008). Relying on surveys in the US context, Park (2015)
theorizes that the foundation for differences among those that pursue social or enter-
tainment versus creative or civic ends through their mobile phones emerge from the
habits and motivations cultivated through membership in a particular social class
(Bourdieu, 1984). In line with the theory, Park (2015) found that higher parental sta-
tus and urban location had an influence on the use of mobiles for ends considered
more socially productive.
At a higher level, researchers must decide whether the mobile phone is, on its own,
the proper object of inquiry. What makes the mobile phone unique as a driver of socio-
economic outcomes, in relation to computer access or the Internet at large? One means
to gauge the relative role of the mobile phone is by considering mobile phones within a
broader constellation of devices, identifying routines of use across digital mediums and
asking how mobiles contribute to those ends. For example, applying for a job may entail
submitting an online application, calling to confirm its acceptance, coordinating a time
to interview, looking up directions to the work site, and following up from the inter-
viewer (e.g. Donner et al., 2011). The theoretical frame of interest may be what research-
ers of human-computer interaction have referred to the “personal information ecosystem,”
which accounts for media use across platforms (Tungare et al., 2006). To explore the
“device variable,” researchers can focus on what kinds of uses flow from different com-
binations of devices, and for which populations. The effect of device combination can be
explored by incorporating a device variable in cross-sectional research (Kuru et al.,
2017; Kuru and Pasek, 2016; Pearce and Rice, 2013; Rice and Katz, 2003). Qualitative
research will be useful for identifying novel combinations and routines (Donner et al.,
2011; Gonzales, 2014; Sey, 2011), while experimental research can more particularly
isolate the device variable as a factor in successful engagements with particular tasks
(Hinman et al., 2008).
Expanding the frame to include a repertoire of devices need not obscure the unique-
ness of mobile phones. One lesson is for researchers to keep in view the non-Internet
uses of mobile phones. Mobile users with and without Internet subscription retain the
ability to make calls, capture images and video, send multimedia messages, store
Marler 3513

contacts, play games, and keep a calendar, among other functions depending on the
device and service. Indeed, researchers across areas of inquiry have relied on non-Inter-
net mobile functions to trace inequalities and social implications of use (Horst and Miller,
2005; Kobayashi and Boase, 2014; Park, 2015; Rice and Katz, 2003; Robinson et al.,
2015). There is particular significance in current efforts to decipher how differences in
Internet use manifest across access devices. Drawing on the work of mobile communica-
tion theorists, Kuru et al. (2017) argue that mobile phones engender a more “habitual and
immersive” engagement with Facebook than do fixed platforms. Other theories relate
styles of mobile and PC engagements through metaphors of extractive versus immersive
(Humphreys et al., 2013) and “snorkeling” versus “diving” (Isomursu et al., 2007; Napoli
and Obar, 2014).
Future research should elaborate the implications of smartphone-specific styles of
Internet use to the dependence on the devices by disadvantaged populations. Does reli-
ance on a smartphone as the primary means of Internet access engender poor and minor-
ity users to different style of Internet use than experienced by the rest of the population?
What are the implications for the potential to benefit from access to information, eco-
nomic opportunities, and social networking (Tsetsi and Rains, 2017)? What are the risks
for mental health (Lee, 2015; Samaha and Hawi, 2016) and privacy (Chin et al., 2012;
Palen and Dourish, 2003; Park and Jang, 2014) of smartphone attachment? Indeed, as
researchers consider the stakes of smartphone diffusion for disadvantaged communities,
the risks of smartphone dependence should take center stage with investigations of
opportunity.

Conclusion
The study of mobile phones and inequality deserves ongoing attention as smartphones
come to occupy an evermore central role in digital access and activities globally
(ComScore, 2015; Ericsson, 2016; International Telecommunications Union, 2016;
Smith, 2015). The stakes are not only academic. As the bulk of digital activity shifts to
smartphones from computers, scholars have a role to play articulating the risks and
opportunities of a more mobile Internet for policymakers and judicial institutions. In the
United States, the question of the indispensability of mobile phone access for employ-
ment, safety, and government services stands to inform policy debates over subsidies for
low-income phone users (Federal Communications Commission, 2017) and legal debates
over phone-based surveillance (Selbst and Ticona, 2017).
Existing research identifies several avenues through which mobile phones, and smart-
phones in particular, may contribute to the fortunes of disadvantaged populations. Mobile
phones are considered separately as tools which are used to take advantage of digital
resources (Cotten et al., 2009; Donner et al., 2011; Park, 2015; Rice and Katz, 2003;
Tsetsi and Rains, 2017), strengthen and grow personal networks (Campbell, 2015;
Habuchi, 2005; Ishii, 2006; Shrum et al., 2011), and enhance coordination and mobility
in everyday life (Campbell and Kwak, 2011; Ling and Yttri, 2002; Schwanen and Kwan,
2008; Ureta, 2008). Future research will benefit from infusing existing frameworks for
the study of digital inequality with novel approaches and methods (Büscher and Urry,
3514 new media & society 20(9)

2009; Calabrese et al., 2014; Kuru et al., 2017; Wirth et al., 2008), while keeping a close
eye on the particular conditions challenging marginalized communities across societies.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Eszter Hargittai for her support and feedback.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Will Marler https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0380-1279

References
Aker JC and Mbiti IM (2010) Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives 24(3): 207–232.
Anderson B (2005) The value of mixed-method longitudinal panel studies in ICT research: transi-
tions in and out of “ICT poverty” as a case in point. Information, Community & Society 8(3):
343–367.
Arie Y and Mesch GS (2016) The spatial and social network dimensions of mobile communica-
tion: a test of the social stratification and social diversification hypotheses. Communication
Research 43(5): 713–734.
Baeza-Yates R, Dupret G and Velasco J (2007) A study of mobile search queries in Japan. In:
Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference.
Bayer JB, Ellison NB, Schoenebeck SY, et al. (2016) Sharing the small moments: ephemeral
social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society 19: 956–977.
Blau JR and Blau PM (1982) The cost of inequality: metropolitan structure and violent crime.
American Sociological Review 47: 114–129.
Blumenstock J and Eagle N (2010) Mobile divides: gender, socioeconomic status, and mobile
phone use in Rwanda. In: ICTD ’10. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international con-
ference on information and communication technologies and development, London, 13–15
December, Article 6. New York: ACM.
Boase J and Kobayashi T (2008) Kei-Tying teens: using mobile phone e—mail to bond, bridge,
and break with social ties—a study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 66: 930–943.
Bock MA (2016) Film the police! Cop-watching and its embodied narratives. Journal of
Communication 66(1): 13–34.
Bonilla Y and Rosa J (2015) #Ferguson: digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial poli-
tics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist 42(1): 4–17.
Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brown K, Campbell SW and Ling R (2011) Mobile phones bridging the digital divide for teens in
the US? Future Internet 3(2): 144–158.
Burrell J (2010) Evaluating shared access: social equality and the circulation of mobile phones in
rural Uganda. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15(2): 230–250.
Marler 3515

Büscher M and Urry J (2009) Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social
Theory 12(1): 99–116.
Calabrese F, Ferrari L and Blondel VD (2014) Urban sensing using mobile phone network data: a
survey of research. ACM Computing Surveys 47(2): 1–20.
Campbell SW (2013) Mobile media and communication: a new field, or just a new journal? Mobile
Media & Communication 1(1): 8–13.
Campbell SW (2015) Mobile communication and network privatism: a literature review of the
implications for diverse, weak, and new ties. Review of Communication Research 3: 1–21.
Campbell SW and Kwak N (2010) Mobile communication and social capital: an analysis of geo-
graphically differentiated usage patterns. New Media & Society 12(3): 435–451.
Campbell SW and Kwak N (2011) Mobile communication and civil society: linking patterns and
places of use to engagement with others in public. Human Communication Research 37(2):
207–222.
Campbell SW and Kwak N (2012) Mobile communication and strong network ties: shrinking or
expanding spheres of public discourse? New Media & Society 14(2): 262–280.
Campbell SW and Park YJ (2008) Social implications of mobile telephony: the rise of personal
communication society. Sociology Compass 2(2): 371–387.
Castells M, Fernandez-Ardevol M, Qiu JL, et al. (2007) Mobile Communication and Society: A
Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chigona W, Beukes D, Vally J, et al. (2009) Can mobile internet help alleviate social exclu-
sion in developing countries? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing
Countries 36: 1–16.
Chin E, Felt AP, Sekar V, et al. (2012) Measuring user confidence in smartphone security and
privacy. In: Proceedings of the eighth symposium on usable privacy and security—SOUPS
’12, Washington, DC, 11–13 July, Article 1. New York: ACM.
Church K, Smyth B, Bradley K, et al. (2008) A large scale study of European mobile search behav-
iour. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Human computer interaction
with mobile devices and services, ACM, pp. 13–22.
Church K, Smyth B, Cotter P, et al. (2007) Mobile information access: A study of emerging search
behavior on the mobile Internet. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), ACM 1(1): 4.
Cohen S (2004) Social relationships and health. American Psychologist 59(8): 676–684.
ComScore (2015) Digital Future in Focus. Reston, VA: ComScore.
Cotten SR, Anderson WA and Tufekci Z (2009) Old wine in a new technology, or a different type
of digital divide? New Media & Society 11(7): 1163–1186.
de Souza e Silva A, Sutko DM, Salis FA, et al. (2011) Mobile phone appropriation in the favelas
of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New Media & Society 13(3): 411–426.
Dickens CM, McGowan L, Percival C, et al. (2004) Lack of a close confidant, but not depression,
predicts further cardiac events after myocardial infarction. Heart 90(5): 518–522.
DiMaggio P and Garip F (2012) Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology
38(1): 93–118.
DiMaggio P and Hargittai E (2001) From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”: studying
Internet use as penetration increases. Working paper 47. Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and
Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Celeste C, et al. (2004) From unequal access to differentiated use: a
literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In: Neckerman K (ed.) Social
Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 355–400.
DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Neuman WR, et al. (2001) Social implications of the Internet. Annual
Review of Sociology 27(1): 307–336.
3516 new media & society 20(9)

Donner J (2008) Research approaches to mobile use in the developing world: a review of the lit-
erature. The Information Society 24(3): 140–159.
Donner J (2015) After Access: Inclusion, Development, and a More Mobile Internet. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Donner J, Gitau S and Marsden G (2011) Exploring mobile-only Internet use: results of a training
study in urban South Africa. International Journal of Communication 5: 574–597.
Eagle N, Pentland AS and Lazer D (2009) Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile
phone data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(36): 15274–15278.
Ellison NB, Steinfield C and Lampe C (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capi-
tal and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 12(4): 1143–1168.
Ellison NB, Vitak J, Gray R, et al. (2014) Cultivating social resources on social network sites:
Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(4): 855–870.
Ericsson (2016) Mobility report. Available at: https://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2016/ericsson-
mobility-report-2016.pdf (accessed 21 June 2017).
Federal Communications Commission (2016) Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order,
and Order on Reconsideration. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
Available at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-38A1.pdf
Federal Communications Commission (2017) Order on Reconsideration. Washington, DC:
Federal Communications Commission. Available at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DA-17-128A1.pdf
Finamore A, Mellia M, Munafo MM, et al. (2011) Youtube everywhere: Impact of device and
infrastructure synergies on user experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM
conference on Internet measurement conference, ACM, pp. 345–360.
Fischer CS (1992) America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Ghose A and Han SP (2011) An empirical analysis of user content generation and usage behavior
on the mobile Internet. Management Science 57(9): 1671–1691.
Ghose A, Goldfarb A and Han SP (2013) How is the mobile Internet different? Search costs and
local activities. Information Systems Research 24(3): 613–631.
Gideon C (2012) The phoneless in the broadband age: a pilot study in Massachusetts.
Telecommunications Policy 36(9): 704–723.
Gitau S, Marsden G and Donner J (2010) After access: challenges facing mobile-only Internet
users in the developing world. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors
in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April, pp. 2603–2606. New York: ACM.
Gonzales A (2014) Health benefits and barriers to cell phone use in low-income urban US neigh-
borhoods: indications of technology maintenance. Mobile Media & Communication 2(3):
233–248.
Gonzales A (2016) The contemporary US digital divide: from initial access to technology mainte-
nance. Information, Communication & Society 19: 234–248.
Gonzales AL (2017) Disadvantaged minorities’ use of the Internet to expand their social networks.
Communication Research 44: 467–486.
Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–
1380.
Habuchi I (2005) Accelerating reflexivity. In: Itō M, Okabe D and Matsuda N (eds) Personal,
Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
pp. 165–182.
Marler 3517

Haddon L (2000) Social exclusion and information and communication technologies: lessons from
studies of single parents and the young elderly. New Media & Society 2(4): 387–406.
Hägerstrand T (1976) Geography and the study of interaction between nature and society.
Geoforum 7(5): 329–334.
Hampton KN, Livio O and Goulet LS (2010) The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use,
social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication 60: 701–722.
Hampton KN, Sessions LF and Her EJ (2011) Core networks, social isolation, and new media:
how Internet and mobile phone use is related to network size and diversity. Information,
Communication & Society 14(1): 130–155.
Hargittai E and Walejko G (2008) The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the
digital age. Information, Community and Society, Taylor & Francis 11(2): 239–256.
Hinman R, Spasojevic M and Isomursu P (2008) They call it surfing for a reason: identifying
mobile internet needs through pc internet deprivation. In: CHI’08 extended abstracts on
human factors in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April, pp. 2195–2208. New York: ACM.
Horst H and Miller D (2005) From kinship to link-up: cell phones and social networking in
Jamaica. Current Anthropology 46(5): 755–778.
Howard PN (2007) Testing the leap-frog hypothesis: the impact of existing infrastructure and tel-
ecommunications policy on the global digital divide. Information, Communication & Society
10(2): 133–157.
Humphreys L, Von Pape T and Karnowski V (2013) Evolving mobile media: uses and conceptual-
izations of the mobile Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18: 491–507.
Hurlbert JS, Haines VA and Beggs JJ (2000) Core networks and tie activation: what kinds of
routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations? American Sociological Review
65: 598–618.
International Telecommunications Union (2016) Measuring the information society report.
Available at: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2016.aspx
Ishii K (2004) Internet use via mobile phone in Japan. Telecommunications Policy 28(1):
43–58.
Ishii K (2006) Implications of mobility: the uses of personal communication media in everyday
life. Journal of Communication 56(2): 346–365.
Isomursu P, Hinman R, Isomursu M, et al. (2007) Metaphors for the mobile Internet. Knowledge,
Technology & Policy 20(4): 259–268.
James J (2009) Leapfrogging in mobile telephony: a measure for comparing country performance.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76(7): 991–998.
Kalba K (2008) The adoption of mobile phones in emerging markets: global diffusion and the rural
challenge. International Journal of Communication 2: 631–661.
Katz JE and Aakhus M (2002) Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public
Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katz JE and Aakhus MA (2004) Perpetual Contact. Ipswich, MA: EBSCO Academic eBook
Collection.
Klinenberg E (2003) Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Kobayashi T and Boase J (2014) Tele-cocooning: mobile texting and social scope. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 19(3): 681–694.
Kuru O and Pasek J (2016) Comparing social media use and political engagement: toward a valid
measurement strategy. In: Richardson GW (ed.) Social Media and Politics: A New Way to
Participate in the Political Process. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 243–276.
Kuru O, Bayer J, Pasek J, et al. (2017) Understanding and measuring mobile Facebook use: who,
why, and how? Mobile Media & Communication 5: 102–120.
3518 new media & society 20(9)

Lane J (2016) The digital street: an ethnographic study of networked street life in Harlem. American
Behavioral Scientist 60(1): 43–58.
Le Dantec CA and Edwards KW (2008) Designs on dignity: perceptions of technology among the
homeless. In: CHI ‘08. Proceedings of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors
in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April, pp. 627–636. New York: ACM.
Lee EB (2015) Too much information: heavy smartphone and Facebook utilization by African
American young adults. Journal of Black Studies 46(1): 44–61.
Licoppe C (2003) Two modes of maintaining interpersonal relations through telephone: from the
domestic to the mobile phone. In: Katz JE (ed.) Machines That Become Us: The Social Context
of Personal Communication Technology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers,
pp. 171–185.
Ling R (2004) The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. Burlington, MA:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Ling R (2008) New Tech, New Ties. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ling R (2012) Taken for Grantedness: The Embedding of Mobile Communication into Society.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ling R and Yttri B (2002) Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In: Katz JE
and Aakhus M (eds) Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public
Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–169.
Ling R, Bjelland J, Sundsøy PR, et al. (2014) Small circles: mobile telephony and the cultivation
of the private sphere. The Information Society 30(4): 282–291.
Mesch GS (2012) Minority status and the use of computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research 39(3): 317–337.
Middleton KL and Chambers V (2010) Approaching digital equity: is wifi the new leveler?
Information Technology & People 23(1): 4–22.
Miyata K, Boase J and Wellman B (2008) The social effects of keitai and personal computer e-mail
in Japan. In: Katz JE (ed.) Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp. 209–222.
Napoli PM and Obar JA (2014) The emerging mobile Internet underclass: a critique of mobile
Internet access. The Information Society 30: 323–334.
Nardi BA and O’Day V (1999) Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1995) Falling Through the Net: A
Survey of the ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America. Washington, D.C.
Neumayer C and Stald G (2014) The mobile phone in street protest: texting, tweeting, tracking,
and tracing. Mobile Media & Communication 2(2): 117–133.
Norris P (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet
Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oksman V and Turtiainen J (2004) Mobile communication as a social stage: meanings of mobile
communication in everyday life among teenagers in Finland. New Media & Society 6(3):
319–339.
Palen L and Dourish P (2003) Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. In: Proceedings of
the conference on Human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘03, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 5–10
April, pp. 129–136. New York: IEEE.
Pantazis C (2000) “Fear of crime,” vulnerability and poverty. British Journal of Criminology
40(3): 414–436.
Park YJ (2015) My whole world’s in my palm! The second-level divide of teenagers’ mobile use
and skill. New Media & Society 17(6): 977–995.
Marler 3519

Patton DU, Lane J, Leonard P, et al. (2017) Gang violence on the digital street: case study of a
South Side Chicago gang members Twitter communication. New Media & Society 19: 1000–
1018.
Pearce KE and Rice RE (2013) Digital divides from access to activities: comparing mobile and
personal computer Internet users. Journal of Communication 63(4): 721–744.
Pinch TJ and Bijker WE (1987) The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology
of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: Bijker WE, Hughes
TP and Pinch T (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in
the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 11–44.
Putnam RD (2000) Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rice RE and Katz JE (2003) Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage,
adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy 27(8–9): 597–623.
Robinson L, Cotten SR, Ono H, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information,
Communication & Society, Taylor & Francis 18(5): 569–582.
Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Samaha M and Hawi NS (2016) Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic per-
formance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human Behavior 57: 321–325.
Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW and Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel
study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328): 918–924.
Schindler E (2017) The best mobile scanning apps of 2017. PC Magazine, 3 January. Available at:
http://www.pcmag.com/roundup/349681/the-best-mobile-scanning-apps
Schwanen T and Kwan MP (2008) The Internet, mobile phone and space-time constraints.
Geoforum 39(3): 1362–1377.
Selbst AD and Ticona J (2017) Supreme Court must understand: cell phones aren’t optional.
Wired, 11 November. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/supreme-court-must-under-
stand-cell-phones-arent-optional
Sey A (2011) New media practices in Ghana. International Journal of Communication 5: 380–
405.
Sheller M and Urry J (2006) Mobile Technologies of the City. New York: Routledge.
Shrum W, Mbatia PN, Palackal A, et al. (2011) Mobile phones and core network growth in Kenya:
strengthening weak ties. Social Science Research 40(2): 614–625.
Silverstone R and Haddon L (1996) Design and the domestication of information and communica-
tion technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Mansell R and Silverstone R (eds)
Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 44–74.
Smith A (2015) U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.
pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/
Sohn T (2008) A diary study of mobile information needs. In: CHI ‘08. Proceedings of the 26th
annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April, pp.
433–442. New York: ACM.
Srivastava L (2005) Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour & Information
Technology 24(2): 111–129.
Stack CB (1975) All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Basic
Books.
Sutko DM and de Souza e Silva A (2011) Location-aware mobile media and urban sociability.
New Media & Society 13(5): 807–823.
Tsetsi E and Rains SA (2017) Smartphone Internet access and use: extending the digital divide and
usage gap. Mobile Media & Communication 5: 239–255.
3520 new media & society 20(9)

Tungare M, Pyla PS, Pérez-Quinones M, et al. (2006) Personal information ecosystems and impli-
cations for design. arXiv preprint cs/0612081.
Ureta S (2008) Mobilising poverty?: mobile phone use and everyday spatial mobility among low-
income families in Santiago, Chile. The Information Society 24(2): 83–92.
van Deursen AJ and van Dijk JA (2014) The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New
Media & Society 16(3): 507–526.
van Dijk J and Hacker K (2003) The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The
Information Society 19(4): 315–326.
Van Dijk JAGM (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27: 425–478.
Wang L and Liu C (2017) The mobile Internet underclass: reality or hyperbole? Journal of
Information Science. Epub ahead or print 23 January. DOI: 10.1177/0165551517690083.
Wellman B and Tindall D (1992) How telephone networks connect social networks. In: Richards
W and Barnett G (ed.) Progress in Communication Sciences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing,
pp. 64–93.
Wirth W, Von Pape T and Karnowski V (2008) An integrative model of mobile phone appropria-
tion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(3): 593–617.
Yesilada Y, Harper S, Chen T, et al. (2010) Small-device users situationally impaired by input.
Computers in Human Behavior, Elsevier 26(3): 427–435.
Zillien N and Hargittai E (2009) Digital distinction: status-specific types of Internet usage. Social
Science Quarterly 90(2): 274–291.

Author biography
Will Marler is a doctoral candidate in the Media, Technology, and Society program at Northwestern
University. His research centers on the adoption and use of digital technologies by Americans in
poverty. Will has degrees from Drury University (BA in Political Science) and Washington
University in St. Louis (MA in Islamic and Near East Studies).

View publication stats