Von Eye. 2008. “Race, Gender, and Information Technology Use: The New Digital Divide.” CyberPsychology & Behavior. 11(4): 437-442. Klofstad, Casey A. 2007. “Talk Leads to Recruitment: How Discussions about Politics and Current Events Increase Civic Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (2): 180-191. Klofstad, Casey A. 2009. “Civic Talk and Civic Participation: The Moderating Effect of Individual Predispositions.” American Politics Research 37 (5): 856-878. Little, Roderick J. A., and Donald B. Rubin. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley. Margolis, Michael and David Resnick. 2000. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution. London: Sage. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York: Cambridge University Press. McClurg, Scott D. 2003. “Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (4): Min, S. 2010. “From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 7(1): 22-35. National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA). 1995. Falling through the Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America. National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA). 1999. Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Norris, Pippa. 2001. The Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet
worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. 2003. “Gender and the Internet.” Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), Park, S. 2009 “Concentration of internet usage and its relation to exposure to negative content: Does the gender gap differ among adults and adolescents?” Women’s Study International Forum. 32: 98-107. Prado, Paola Ph.D., "The Impact of the Internet in Six Latin American Countries" (2011).Western Hemisphere Security Analysis Center. Paper 6. Online pdf available from URL: Radwanick, Sarah. 2011. The Rise of Social Networking in Latin America. ComScore, Inc. Online pdf available at URL: Robinson, K. and E. Crenshaw. 2010. “Reevaluating the Global Digital Divide: and Conflict Barriers to the Internet Revolution.” Sociological Inquiry. 80 (1): 34-62. Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free Press. Schmidt, Eric, and Jared Cohen. 2013. “The Central Paradox of the Digital Age. New Perspectives Quarterly. 30: 131–135. Servon, Lisa. 2002. Bridging the Digital, Divide. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, Publishing. Steenberger, Marco R. 2012. “Hierarchical Linear Models for Electoral Research: A Worked Example in Stata.” ELECDEM. Online pdf available at URL: . Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2014. Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tarrow, Sidney. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Valenzuela, Sebastián, Namsu Park, and Kerk F. Kee. 2009. “Is There Social Capital in a Social
Random Effects/Gender Equality Constant (s.d.) 0.01** 0.01** 0.01** (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Halved chi2 p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: Table entries are multilevel maximum likelihood estimates with robust standard errors in parentheses. ** p<0.01, * p<0.05. Table 3: Variation in Random Intercepts across Gender Equality Frequency Social Media Political < μ Gender Equality > μ Gender Equality < μ Gender Equality > μ Gender Equality < μ Gender Equality > μ Gender Equality Intercepts < μ 72 % 15 % 53 % 32 % 82 % 44 % > μ 28 % 85 % 47 % 68 % 18 % 56 % Χ2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: Table entries are percentages based on the average of the best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) of the random intercepts across each of the 5 imputed data sets for each of the respective models, μ = mean. The Χ2 p-value represents the probability that we cannot reject the null hypothesis of cell independence. Figure 1: Gender Equality across Latin American Countries