The Effect of Gender, Ethnicity, and Income on College Students��� Use of Communication Technologies Reynol Junco, D.Ed., 1 Dan Merson, M.A.,2 and Daniel W. Salter, Ph.D.3 Abstract Because campus officials are relying on personal communication technologies to communicate with students, a question arises about access and usage. Although communication technologies are popular among college stu- dents, some evidence suggests that differences exist in ownership and use. We examined patterns of student ownership and use of cell phones and use of instant messaging, focusing on three predictors of digital inequality: gender, ethnicity, and income. Logistic and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to analyze results from 4,491 students. The odds that female and white students owned cell phones were more than twice as high as for men and African-American students. Students in the $100,000���$149,000 per year income bracket were more than three times as likely to own a cell phone than those from the median bracket. However, being female, African- American, and=or from the highest income brackets was positively predictive of the number of text messages sent and the amount of time spent talking on a cell phone per week. We found no differences between students on the use of instant messaging. Implications of these results, as well as areas for further research, are provided. Introduction Rcampuses ecent emergencies and tragic events on college have highlighted the need for effective and immediate communication with students and staff.1���3 In- creasingly, school officials are using electronic communica- tion strategies (e.g., campus-wide texting, computer-generated voice mail) to assure that accurate information is dispersed quickly. Importantly, even though student use of technology has rapidly increased, campus officials should remain mindful that students are not a homogenous group of users. In this study, we examined patterns of student use of communication technology, focusing specifically on three of the commonly recognized predictors of digital inequality: gender, ethnicity, and income.4���6 Communication technologies on campus Communication technologies come in a variety of forms and are quickly becoming ubiquitous among college students. Appreciably, almost all students own or have access to com- puters on campus.7���9 The vast majority of students also own a cell phone, many of whom have no landline number.7,10 Other hardware items, such as digital music players, are increas- ingly prevalent. Phone and computer technologies are now merging with video, as seen in the increased use of technol- ogies such as Skype, which reports over 300 million users worldwide (http:==www.skype.com). Most recently, the ������smart phone������ (e.g., iPhone, Blackberry, or Palm) has emerged as a single device to replace all the others, and is poised to change the communication landscape yet again.11 These new hardware items allow students to communicate in new and novel ways, and to be connected to the Internet more than the general population.12 College students consult Wikipedia,13 play online games, own blogs, and download music more than individuals from earlier generations.7,14,15 Their styles of communication may be evolving as well.16 Instead of e-mail, which is less immediate and personal, many students now prefer to communicate with their peers through instant messaging (IM), text messaging, and=or social- networking sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace), all of which are becoming integrated into sites like Twitter (which allows texting-based micro-blogging or ������tweets������).7,16 Websites like YouTube and Flickr have pushed these boundaries even fur- ther by offering an easy method to incorporate user-generated photos and video. A new shorthand language has emerged (e.g., BRB, LOL, OMG), and all of these patterns are becoming increasingly integrated into students��� digital lifestyles.7,16 Many campus officials and educators have been quick to embrace the opportunities presented by these technologies, 1Department of Academic Development and Counseling, Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. 2Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 3College of Education and Leadership, Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota. CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 13, Number 6, 2010 �� Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089=cyber.2009.0357 619

and have done so in a number of ways. Not only do they prepare students to live and work within a technological world, these newer technologies can be used to enhance student engagement and improve learning outcomes.16���19 For example, Apple���s iTunes University (http:==www.apple .com=itunesu=) allows students to download lectures onto an MP3 player to listen to as they walk to class.20 Recent campus emergencies have revealed how the ������instant������ quality of these newer communication strategies is also a key component of safety and security.2 Nowadays, at the touch of a button, a detailed voice mail or text message can be sent to all faculty, staff, and students in a matter of seconds, and received on any number of mobile devices. A question arises, however, as to whether everyone gets the message. Digital inequalities on campus As compared to other societal groups, college students tend to be some of the heaviest users of technology.12,14,21 Yet educators should be aware that important inequalities in technology use may still exist between subgroups of students, which reflect the broader sociocultural strata in society.4 We conceptualize these inequalities along two dimensions: (a) a digital divide in access to or use of technology, and (b) digital inequalities in how technologies are used.5,6 Differences in the level of usage have been found in members of ethnic-minority groups,5,6,22,23 women,24���26 and individuals from lower socioeconomic levels.5,6,23,27,28 This important research on access has almost exclusively focused on computers and the Internet, however, and has rarely addressed the communi- cation technologies that are increasingly popular with college students (for an exception, see Hargittai6). Hence, for this study, we examined three of the key predictors of digital in- equality in both ownership and use of communication tech- nologies. Gender. Although the original gender gap in computer and Internet use appears to have narrowed to the point of nonexistence,5,6,22 studies suggest that men and women use these technologies in different ways.21,29,30 For example, ad- olescent girls (aged 15���17) are slightly more likely than boys to use home computers for e-mail, word processing, and completing school assignments as opposed to connecting to the Internet, creating spreadsheets or databases, using graphics and design software, managing household records or finances, or playing games.21 Although time spent online is about equal for both genders, more female college students use the Internet for e-mail29,30 and to conduct academic re- search than males.29,31 Male college students are also more likely to research purchases, look for news, and play games online.29 Related research has suggested that, in general, women are more likely to use the Internet for interpersonal communication, while men are more likely to use it for en- tertainment and to shop online.21,26,32 Ethnicity and income. In many fundamental ways, digi- tal inequalities could be considered to be a result of the larger income divide in society. Although many students own a computer, some students do not. Hence, they must use them in campus labs, which results in a different user experience that may have implications for technology skills.6 Further- more, income and ethnicity are so intricately intertwined in US society that it makes separate discussions of these vari- ables difficult.33,34 For example, white and Asian students are more likely to use computers and the Internet than their counterparts, partially because of the disproportionate re- sources available to them at school and at home, and partially because of cultural and societal influences that encourage their use of technology and discourage use by students of other ethnicities.6,7,23,27,28,35,36 Because of their interrelated- ness, these two variables are worth considering for studies of college-student use of technology.4 A focus on communication technologies Most research into aspects of digital inequality has con- cerned Internet access and computer use but has not ad- dressed newer communication technologies currently being used by students. In this study, we begin to remedy this oversight by examining students��� electronic communication patterns related to cell-phone use, text messaging, and IM, and identifying any differences in access and use based on gender, ethnicity, and income. Clarifying those differences should help higher-education researchers, staff, and admin- istrators better understand how students interact with the university and with each other. Cell phones. University administrators have started to recognize the impact and potential of cell phones as a com- munication device.1,16 The vast majority of students (94%) report owning one, and many (42%) have no landline num- ber.7 Not only do cell phones allow one-to-one voice com- munication, the newer smart mobile devices also provide text messaging, web browsing, calendaring, data storage and retrieval, e-mailing, music listening, and even television viewing���all in a single device. In the next few years, these mobile devices are ������likely to have a large impact on teaching, learning, or creative expression within higher education.������37 Important to this research, cell-phone service is not particu- larly cheap and, hence, may correlate with income, especially when data plans are added to or bundled with voice service. Further, as noted above, emerging research suggests that technology that supports increased social interaction tends to be used more frequently by women. Texting and instant messaging. Both messaging strate- gies rely on short text messages sent between users in real time, as opposed to the typically longer and asynchronous messages exchanged through e-mail. IM is the equivalent of a text-based conversation or chat between individuals on computers, using various Web sites, applications, or service providers (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, Adium, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, Skype, Google), although voice and video may be used as well. When logged into the service on their computers, students��� IM clients have the additional ability to show their buddy lists, which provide information on the availability of their contacts. In contrast, texting relies on the instantaneous communication of a short text message (no more than 160 characters) between cell-phone devices through Short Mes- sage Service (SMS) gateways. Although slightly more asyn- chronous than IM, a text message appears immediately on a digital phone, which a student is more likely to carry than their personal computer. In both cases, students must pur- posively share their contact information with others in order for these messaging processes to work. 620 JUNCO ET AL.