The digital divide: conveying subtlety in online communication

  • Monica A. Riordan
  • Roger J. Kreuz
  • Alyssa N. Blair


In this study, we tested the idea that people born after online technology became a part of daily life (“digital natives”) interpret online communication differently when compared with those born before the Internet age (“digital immigrants”). Specifically, across two experiments, 213 participants recruited from a crowdsourcing site were presented with 16 text messages that either included or did not include a line break or a period, in a fully crossed 2 × 2 design. Both immigrants and natives rated the messages on an affect scale and indicated their confidence in their rating. In a third experiment, 72 participants produced responses to 16 text message prompts each, and these responses were coded for line breaks and periods to test whether production of these cues varies between natives and immigrants. The results suggest that immigrants and natives are alike in how they interpret messages, but that natives are more sensitive to minor linguistic cues, especially the use or nonuse of a period in a text message, considering this cue to carry more negative affect than immigrants do. This suggests that, even in cases in which immigrants make use of the same communication technology to the same extent as natives, they still have a digital “accent,” and fail to make subtle distinctions that are meaningful to natives. We further discuss how such subtle differences could impact online classroom communication, particularly between students of different generations and between the students and the teacher. As texting becomes increasingly used as a classroom management or communication tool, older students and faculty must be sensitive to the fact that younger students may consider the use of periods to signal negative affect and may respond differently to such messages than intended by the writer. We issue a call for more research exploring how the use of technology, and even subtle cues, may impact classroom dynamics, particularly in classrooms made up of mixed age groups.


Digital divide Texting Computer-mediated communication 


  1. Ajman, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71–80.
  2. Baron, N. (2010). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don’t trust anyone under 30). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2011). ‘Digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ discourses: A critique. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital difference: Perspectives on online learning (pp. 159–169). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, S. (2012). Digital natives. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research on cyber behaviour (Vol. 1, pp. 212–219). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: Beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, N. (2008, July/August). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic.
  9. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Criar, B. (2013, November). The period is pissed: When did our plainest punctuation mark become so aggressive? The New Republic. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from
  11. Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28, 7–12.Google Scholar
  13. Demirbilek, M. (2014). The ‘digital natives’ debate: An investigation of the digital propensities of university students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10, 115–123.Google Scholar
  14. Fortunati, L., Taipale, S., & de Luca, F. (2017). Digital generations, but not as we know them. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 1–18.Google Scholar
  15. Friemel, T. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2008). Can we use Twitter for educational activities? Paper presented at the 4th International Scientific Conference for eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  17. Gunraj, D. N., Drumm-Hewitt, A. M., Dashow, E. M., Upadhyay, S. S. N., & Klin, C. M. (2016). Texting insincerely: The role of the period in text messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1067–1075. Scholar
  18. Hackforth, R. (translator). (1952). Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36, 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Telecommunication Union. (2013). Measuring the world’s digital natives. In Measuring the information society: 2013 (pp. 127–158). Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54, 722–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  23. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119–132.
  24. Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 108–122.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kovaz, D., Wilson, J. D., Rogers, J. W., Dahlke, L. A., Black, R. K., Sable, J. J., & Kreuz, R. J. (2015, November). Are you laughing when you lol?: Examining emotion in texting shortcuts using event-related potentials. Poster presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Kreuz, R., & Roberts, R. (2017). Getting through: The pleasures and perils of cross-cultural communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Laverne, L. (2014). Born before 1985? Then you’re a ‘digital immigrant.’ The Guardian. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from
  29. McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 729–740.Google Scholar
  30. Librero, F., Ramos, A. J., Ranga, A. I., Trinona, J., & Lambert, D. (2007). Uses of the cell phone for education in the Philippines and Mongolia. Distance Education, 28, 231–244. Scholar
  31. Ling, R., & Baron, N. S. (2007). Text messaging and IM: Linguistic comparison of American college data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 291–298. Scholar
  32. Lugano, G., & Peltonen, P. (2012). Building intergenerational bridges between digital natives and digital immigrants: Attitudes, motivations and appreciation for old and new media. In E. Loos, L. Haddon, & E. Mante-Meijer (Eds.), Generational use of new media (pp. 151–170). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher education faculty use social media. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from
  34. National Center of Education Statistics (2014). Characteristics of postsecondary students [Data file]. Retrieved from
  35. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  36. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-Xers and millennials: Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review, 38, 37–47.Google Scholar
  37. Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.Google Scholar
  38. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2011). Reclaiming an awkward term: What we might learn from “Digital Natives”. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 7, 33–55.Google Scholar
  40. Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance: Reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5). Retrieved from
  41. Pew Research Center. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education. Retrieved March 2017 from
  42. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from
  45. Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riordan, M. A. (2016). Appear happier: Text with emojis. Presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  47. Riordan, M. A. (2017). The communicative role of non-face emojis: Affect and disambiguation. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 75–86. Scholar
  48. Riordan, M. A., & Kreuz, R. J. (2010). Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1667–1673.
  49. Sakai, N. (2013). The role of sentence closing as an emotional marker: A case of Japanese phone e-mail. Discourse, Context and Media, 2, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native—myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61, 364–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, E. E. The digital native debate in higher education: A comparative analysis of recent literature (2012). Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3).Google Scholar
  52. Taipale, S. (2016). Synchronicity matters: Defining the characteristics of digital generations. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van den Beemt, A., Akkerman, S., & Simons, P. (2010). Patterns of interactive media use among contemporary youth. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vie, S. (2008). Digital divide 2.0: “Generation M” and online social networking sites in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 25, 9–23. Scholar
  55. Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides? Students and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 54, 1202–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Normal University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica A. Riordan
    • 1
  • Roger J. Kreuz
    • 2
  • Alyssa N. Blair
    • 3
  1. 1.Chatham UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.The University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  3. 3.The University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations