E-LIS logo Global map logo and E-LIS moto

Advanced Search
Home
 
Browse
Author
Conferences
Countries
Journals/Books
Subjects
Submit Date
Title
Years
 
Sign on to
Receive email
updates
My DSpace
authorized users
Edit Profile
 
About us
About E-LIS
Governance
Supporting organizations
Volunteer opportunities
The Acropolis Strategy
Contact us

E-LIS. E-prints in Library and Information Science > List of countries by continent > AMERICA: North and Central America > United States > Preprint >

Buente, W., & Robbin, A. Trends in Internet Information Behavior, 2000-2004, 2008. [Preprint].

See the references list of this item

Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/11691

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormatVisibility
RobbinTrends-2008Jun2-EntirePaper.pdf300.34 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Author(s): Buente, Wayne
Robbin, Alice
Title: Trends in Internet Information Behavior, 2000-2004
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BH. Information needs and information requirements analysis
L. Information technology and library technology
B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information
B. Information use and sociology of information > BC. Information in society
L. Information technology and library technology > LC. Internet, including WWW
B. Information use and sociology of information > BG. Information dissemination and diffusion
Date: 2008
Abstract: By 2000, the Internet became an information and communication medium that was integrated in our everyday lives. Following an interdisciplinary approach, the research reported in this article analyzes the wide variety of information that people seek on the Internet and investigates trends in Internet information activities between 2000 and 2004, using repeated cross-sectional data from the Pew Internet & American Life surveys to examine Internet activities that contribute to everyday life and their predictors. The objective is to deepen our understanding of Internet activities and everyday life and contribute to a growing body of research that utilizes large-scale empirical data on Internet use and everyday life. We ask: who is embedding the Internet into their everyday lives and what are the activities they pursue to facilitate everyday life? Findings demonstrate the differential returns for Internet use, particularly in key demographic categories. The study also contributes to emerging research on the digital divide, namely emphasis on the study of use rather than access to technology. Identifying trends in key Internet use dimensions enables policymakers to target populations who underutilize the potential of networked technologies.
Keywords: information behavior; Internet; digital divide; trends in Internet information seeking
Country: United States
Type: Preprint
Rights: http://eprints.rclis.org/copyright/



References

  • Anderson, B., & Tracey, K. (2002). Impact (or otherwise) of the Internet on everyday British life. In B. Wellman & C. A. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 139-163). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  • Boneva, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). Email, gender and personal relationships. In B. Wellman & C. A. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 372-403). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  • Broos, A., & Roe, K. (2006). The digital divide in the Playstation generation: Self-efficacy, locus of control and ICT adoption among adolescents. Poetics, 34(4-5), 306-317.
  • Brynin, M. (2006). The neutered computer. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Brynin, M., & Kraut, R. (2006). Social studies of domestic information and communication technologies. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 3-18). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Buente, W. (2008). Alternative models of the digital divide: Antecedents, outcomes, and consequences. Qualifying paper submitted to the Indiana University Bloomington School of Library and Information Science, January 2008. Available: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~wbuente/Buente_qualifyingpaper.pdf
  • Clancy, R. E., & United States Bureau of the Census. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. New York: Novinka Books.
  • Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Courtright, C. (2007). The challenge of context in information behavior research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 273-306.
  • Cummings, J. N., & Kraut, R. (2002). Domesticating computers and the Internet. Information Society, 18(3), 221-231.
  • Davis, J. (1985). The logic of causal order. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Davison, E., & Cotton, S. R. (2003). Connection discrepancies: Unmasking further layers of the digital divide, First Monday, 8(3). Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/davison/index.html
  • Dewan, S., & Riggins, F. J. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 298-338.
  • DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Fisher, K., Naumer, C., Durrance, J., Stromski, L., & Christiansen, T. (2005). Something old, something new: Preliminary findings from an exploratory study about people's information habits and information grounds. Information Research, 10(2). Retrieved February 2005, from http://informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper223.html
  • Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 5(4), 499-522.
  • Hargittai E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_4/hargittai/index.html
  • Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in context. New Media & Society, 6(1), 137-143.
  • Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448.
  • Harwood, P., & Rainie, L. (2004, March). People who use the Internet away from home and work (Memo). Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/-
  • PIP_Other_Places.pdf
  • Hinton, P. R. (2004). Statistics explained. London: Routledge.
  • Horrigan, J. (2006). Portraits of American Internet use. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 21-31). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Horrigan, J. B., & Rainie, L. (2002). The broadband difference: How online Americans’ behavior changes with high speed Internet connections at home. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved September 21, 2002, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_Report.pdf
  • Horrigan, J., Garrett, K., & Resnick, P. (2004). The Internet and democratic debate. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Political_Info_Report.pdf
  • Howard, P. N. (2004). Embedded media. In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society online (pp. 1-27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Howard, P. N., & Jones, S. (2004). Society online: The Internet in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Howard, P. N., & Massanari, A. (2007). Learning to search and searching to learn: Income, education, and experience online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 846-865.
  • Howard, P. N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2002). Days and nights on the Internet. In B. Wellman & C. A. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 45-73). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisters.
  • Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2003). Around the World Wide Web in 80 ways. Social Science Computer Review, 21(3), 304-325.
  • Kari, J., & Savolainen, R. (2003). Toward a contextual model of information seeking on the Web. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 4(2), 155-175.
  • Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kennedy, T., Wellman, B., & Klement, K. (2003). Gendering the digital divide. IT&Society, 1(5), 72-96.
  • Kraut, R. E., Brynin, M., & Kiesler, S. (Eds.). (2006). Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., & Shklovski, I. (2006). Examining the effect of Internet use on television viewing. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 70-83). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, B. (1999). Information and communication: Alternative uses of the Internet in households. Information Systems Research, 10(4), 287-303.
  • Krosnick, J. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
  • Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States. American Politics Research, 30(5), 476-498.
  • Lenhart, A., & Horrigan, J. B. (2003). Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT&Society, 1(5), 23-39.
  • Lievrouw, L. A. (2001). New media and the “pluralization of life-worlds.” New Media & Society, 3(1), 7-28.
  • Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Losh, S. C. (2004). Gender, educational, and occupational digital gaps 1983-2002. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 152-166.
  • Mislevy, R. J. (1986). Recent developments in the factor analysis of categorical variables. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11(1), 3-31.
  • Mullis, R. L., Mullis, A. I., & Cornille, T. A. (2007). Relationships between identity formation and computer use among black and white emerging adult females. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2), 415-423.
  • National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the "have-nots" in rural and urban America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1998). Falling through the net II: New data on the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet and society: A preliminary report. IT&Society, 1(1), 275-283.
  • Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
  • Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175.
  • Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. N. (2002). Capitalizing on the net: Social contact, civic engagement and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. A. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 291-324). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  • Raban, Y., & Brynin, M. (2006). Older people and new technologies. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 43-50). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Rainie, L., & Bell, P. (2004). The numbers that count. New Media & Society, 6(1), 44-54.
  • Rainie, L., Fox, S., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., & Spooner, T. (2000). Tracking online life: How women use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Report1.pdf
  • Rainie, L., Fox, S., & Fallows, D. (2003). The Internet and the Iraq War: How online Americans have used the Internet to learn war news, understand events, and promote their views. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & Life Project. Retrieved May 10, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Iraq_War_Report.pdf
  • Robbin, A., Courtright, C., & Davis, L. (2004). ICTs and political life. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 411-462. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
  • Robinson, J. P., & Martin, S. (2005). IT and social change, 2000-2004: Behavioral and attitudinal evidence from the General Social Survey. Webuse & Society, 1(8), 1-33.
  • Robinson, J. P., DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2003). New social survey perspectives on the digital divide. IT& Society, 1(5), 1-22.
  • Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. 2000. Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-501.
  • Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3–37.
  • Savolainen , R. (2002). Network competence and information seeking on the Internet: From definitions towards a social cognitive model. Journal of Documentation, 58(2), 211-226.
  • Suchman, L., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(409), 232-241.
  • Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). "Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141-162.
  • Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E.C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21(3), 315-338.
  • Shklovski, I., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2006). The Internet and social interaction: A meta-analysis and critique of studies, 1995-2003. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 251-264). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the Internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259-287.
  • Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy. The Information Society, 19(5), 407 - 416.
  • Stempel III, G. H., Hargrove, T., & Bernt, J. P. (2000). Relation of growth of use of the Internet to changes in media use from 1995 to 1999. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 71-79.
  • van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Pub.
  • van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315-326.
  • Wellman, B. (2004). The three ages of Internet studies: Ten, five and zero years ago. New Media & Society, 6(1), 123-129.
  • Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. A. (Eds.). (2002). The Internet in everyday life. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

 
E-LIS is supported by
CIEPI logo AePIC team @ CILEA logo CILEA logo Duraspace logo DSpace logo FAO AIMS logo