8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsesandGratifications:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

By

RobertLaRose,PhD
DepartmentofTelecommunication
MichiganStateUniversity
EastLansing,MI48824
larose@msu.edu

MatthewS.Eastin,PhD
SchoolofJournalismandCommunication
OhioStateUniversity
Columbus,OH

ApapersubmittedtotheCommunicationandTechnologyDivision,
InternationalCommunicationAssociation

November1,2002

Theauthorsgratefullyacknowledgetheassistanceofthefollowingstudentsincollectingthedataforthisproject:MikeMackert,SriSukotjo,YuChiehLin,JinheeHong,SongyiPark,WenYa
Wu,LiAnLiu,CharintipTungkittisuwan,KuangChiuHang

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsesandGratifications:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

WhilemostofthepriorresearchexplainingInternetusagehasfollowedtheconventionalusesandgratificationsparadigm,someextensionsandchallengestothat
prevailingtheoryofmediaattendancehaveemerged.Theseincludethediscoveryofnewgratificationsoverlookedintheannalsofmasscommunicationresearch
andtheintroductionofpowerfulnewexplanatoryvariables.However,muchoftheextantresearchhasfocusedoncollegestudentspopulations,whiletheInternet
haspenetrateddeeplyintothegeneralpopulation.Thepresentstudyextendspreviousresearchtomorediversepopulationsandevaluatesnewexplanatoryvariables
withintheframeworkofBanduras(1986)SocialCognitiveTheory.RespondentsfromtwoMidwesternstateswerecontactedbymailtocompleteanonline
questionnaire.AmongconventionalUsesandGratificationsvariables,expectationsaboutparticipatinginenjoyableactivitiesonlineandexpectedsocialoutcomes
explained23percentofthevarianceinInternetusage.Habitstrength,deficientselfregulationandInternetselfefficacycombinedinastepwisemultipleregression
modelthatexplained40percentofthevarianceinusage,inamodelinwhichconventionalUsesandGratificationsvariableswerenotsignificantpredictors.Anew
modelofmediaattendancewasproposed.

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsesandGratifications:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

TheadditionoftheInternettotheelectronicmediaenvironmenthasrenewedinterestinthequestionofmediaattendance:thefactorsthatexplainandpredict
individualexposuretothemedia.MuchoftheresearchhasfollowedtheconventionsofUsesandGratificationsframework,buttherehavebeenfreshapproachesto
conceptualizingtheproblemofmediaattendancethathaveintroducednewconceptualandoperationalapproachesandnewvariables.However,theserelationships
havebeenexploredamongcollegestudentsamplesandmustnowbeextendedtothegeneralonlinepopulation.Thepresentresearchtestsamodelofmedia
attendanceinspiredbyBanduras(1986)SocialCognitiveTheory(SCT)thatbuildsupontheconventionalUsesandGratificationsapproach.

UsesandGratificationsMeettheInternet

.Numerousstudies(e.g.Kaye,1998Eighmey&McCord,1998Perse&GreenbergDunn,1998Korgaonkar&Wolin,1999Lin,1999Parker&Plank,
2000Ferguson&Perse,2000Papacharissi&Rubin,2000Dimmicketal.,2000Chou&Hsiao,2000,Flanagin&Metzger,2001Charney&Greenberg,2001
LaRose,Mastro&Eastin,2001Stafford,2001Song,LaRose,Lin&Eastin,2002)haveappliedUsesandgratificationstotheInternet,extendingawellknown
theoryofmediaattendancethatisarguablythedominantparadigmofmediaattendance(Palmgreen,Wenner&Rosengren,1985).Collectively,thesestudieshave
generallyupheldthebasicpropositionaboutmediaattendancefromtheUsesandgratificationstradition:thegratificationssoughtfromtheInternetpredictindividual
exposuretothemedium.
However,manyofInternetrelatedstudiesthathaveexaminedtherelationshipsbetweengratificationsandmediaexposure(e.g.Kaye,1998Ferguson&
Perse,2000Papacharissi&Rubin,2000Parker&Plank,2000)havealsoreconfirmedabasicweaknessofUsesandgratificationsasatheoryofmediaattendance:
itdoesnotpredictmediaexposureverywell.ConsistentwithUsesandgratificationsstudiesofothermedia(cf.Palmgreen,Wenner&Rosengren,1985),theInternet
studiesthathewedmostcloselytotheconceptsandoperationalmeasuresoftheUsesandgratificationstraditionhaveexplainedlessthantenpercentofthevariance
inInternetusagefromgratifications.
ThattheInternetisinmanywaysauniquemedium(Morris&Ogan,1996)hasnotescapedtheattentionofUsesandgratificationsresearcherswhohave
contributedinnovativevariationsonconventionalapproaches.Oneresponsehasbeentoexpandthetimehonoredlistofmediagratificationsderivedfromearly
televisionstudies(notablyGreenberg,1974Rubin,1983)toexploreuniquefacetsoftheInternetmedium.Forexample,PapacharissiandRubin(2000)developed

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

1/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

measuresofinterpersonalcommunicationgratifications,recognizingthatcommunicationfunctionslikeemailandchatroomsarethedominantmodeofInternet
usage.KorgaonkarandWolin(1999)foundthatdimensionsofinformationcontrol,interactivecontrol,andeconomiccontrol,aswellasmoreconventionalescapist,
socialandinformationalgratifications,distinguishedInternetusersfromnonusers.
Otherresearchersreopenedthebasicquestionofwhatdoweusethemediaforbybeginningwithfocusgroups(Charney&Greenberg,2001)orbroader
theoriesofhumanbehavior(Songetal.,2002)togenerategratificationitems.Thisresultedinthediscoveryofnewgratificationsthatwereeitherdownplayedin
conventionalmassmediaUsesandgratificationsresearch(e.g.interpersonalcommunication,Papacharissi&Rubin,2000problemsolving,persuadingothers,
relationshipmaintenance,statusseeking,andpersonalinsightforFlanagin&Metzger,2001)orpreviouslyunexplored(e.g.Songetal.svirtualcommunity
gratification,Charney&Greenbergscoolness,sightsandsounds,career,andpeeridentityfactors).
Othershaveinnovatedwithconceptualandoperationaldefinitionsofgratifications,creatingwhatmightbecalledprospective,orexpectedgratifications.
TheseaskrespondentstoindicatethegratificationsthattheyexpectfromtheInternetinthefutureasopposedtothosethattheydesireorhaveobtainedinthepast.
Thisisadeparturefromthegratificationssought/gratificationsobtained(GS/GO)formulationthathaslongguidedUsesandgratifications(Palmgreenetal.,1985).
Studiesthathaveemployedprospectivemeasures(e.g.,Lin,1999Charney&Greenberg,2001LaRose,Mastro&Eastin,2001)havedoubledandortripledthe
amountofvarianceexplainedinInternetattendancebehaviorcomparedtoconventionalapproaches.
ASocialCognitivePerspectiveofUsesandgratifications
ProspectivegratificationmeasuresareconsistentwithasocialcognitiveviewofmediaattendancederivedfromBanduras(1986,1989)SocialCognitive
Theory(SCT).InSCT,theexpectedoutcomesofabehaviorareimportantdeterminantsofitsperformance.LaRoseetal.(2001)foundthatexpectedoutcomes
producedsuperiorpredictionsofInternetattendancecomparedtoconventionalUsesandgratificationsresearch.Theyarguedthatexpectedoutcomes(e.g.when
usingtheInternetitislikelythatIwillhavefun)improveupontheexplanatorypowerofbothgratificationssoughtandgratificationsobtained.
UnsuccessfulattemptsbyUsesandgratificationsresearchers(Babrow&Swanson,1988)todistinguishthepredictivepowerofoutcomeexpectations
(derivedfromarelatedtheory,theTheoryofPlannedBehavior,Ajzen,1985)fromgratificationsperhapsindicatedthatthetwoarerelatedconstructs.However,the
distinctionbetweenoutcomeexpectationsandgratificationsispotentiallyconsequential.Gratificationsobtained(e.g.IusetheInternettohavefun)failto
distinguishthelikelihoodofencounteringthedesiredoutcomesinthefuture.IfwesayweusetheInternetforfunbutseldomhaveany,thenthatbeliefisunlikelyto
influenceourusage.Gratificationssought(e.g.IusetheInternetbecauseIwantfun)neglectthepossibilitythatwemaybelookingforsomethingthatjustisnot
available.So,insomeinstances,thegratificationssoughtcouldbeanegativepredictorofexposure,inothersapositiveone,butintheaggregatearejustpossiblya
confoundedone.Comparinggratificationsobtainedwiththosesoughtmayproduceconfoundinginstances(e.g.gratificationsthatareobtainedbutnotsought)that
mayhavenoreliablerelationshiptoexposure.Outcomeexpectationscutthroughtheambiguitybecausetheyreflectcurrentbeliefsabouttheoutcomesof
prospectivefuturebehaviorbutarepredicateduponcomparisonsbetweenincentivesexpectedandincentivesattainedinthepast.(LaRoseetal.,2001,p.399)
SCTisfamiliartomanymediascholarsinitsearlierincarnationasSocialLearningTheory(Bandura,1977),asatheoryofmediaeffects.Specifically,the
vicariouslearningmechanismisrecognizedasadeterminantoftheeffectsofthemedia,televisioninparticular.However,SCTisabroadtheoryofhumanbehavior
thatmaybeappliedtomediaattendanceaswellastotheeffectsonbehaviorthatresultfromthatexposure.SCTpositsreciprocalcausationamongindividuals,their
behavior,andtheirenvironment,mediatedbyhumansymbolizingprocessesthatintegratestimulusresponseexperiencesintocognitivemodelsthatguidebehavior.
Thevicariousreinforcementmechanismofinteresttomediaeffectsresearchersdescribeshowobservationsofothersbehaviormodifiesexpectationsofthe
outcomesofourownbehavior.Enactivelearningisthemechanismthroughwhichwelearnfromourownexperiences,theprocessbywhichourpersonal
experiencewiththemediamayshapeourexpectationsaboutoutcomesofmediaexposurethatdetermineourfuturelevelsofmediaattendance.
SCThasitsownversionofgratificationcategories.Theseareaprioricategoriesofbehavioralincentivesderivedfromobservationsofbehavioracrosswide
varietyofdomainsofhumanbehavior.Categoriesincludenovelsensorystimuli,monetary,social,status,activity,andselfevaluativeincentives.Acloseanalysisof
thesecategoriesagainstInternetgratifications(LaRoseetal.,2001)revealedthatconventionalUsesandgratificationsresearchunderemphasizedstatusand
monetaryincentivesthathadsignificantpositivecorrelationswithInternetusage(seealsoKorgaonkar&Wolin,1999Flanagin&Metzger,2001Charney&
Greenberg,2001.WhenexpectedoutcomemeasuresreflectingthefullrangeofthesecategoriesweresubjectedtoexploratoryfactoranalysisinconventionalUses
andgratificationsstyleanewvirtualcommunitydimensionwasuncoveredthatdrewheavilyonthestatusincentiveslackinginconventionalUsesand
gratificationsresearch(Songetal.,2002).OthersparalleledconventionalUsesandgratificationsdimensions.Activityincentives,predicatedonthedesiretotake
partinenjoyableactivities,correspondtotheentertainmentfactorsfoundinmanyUsesandgratificationsstudies.Selfevaluativeincentives,whichinvolveattempts
toregulatedysphoricmoods,parallelpasstimeorboredomgratifications.Novelsensoryincentivesincludethesearchfornovelinformation,theyparallel
informationseekinggratifications.Socialincentivesstemmingfromrewardinginteractionswithotherscorrespondwelltosocialgratifications.
SCTstressestheimportanceofselfefficacy,orbeliefinonescapabilitytoorganizeandexecuteaparticularcourseofaction(Bandura,1997).Selfefficacy
isparticularlyrelevanttotheInternetsinceitisasomewhattroublesomemedium.Thisisespeciallysofornoviceuserswhohavenotasyetacquiredtherequisite
skillstoobtainusefulinformationanddealwiththediscontentsoflifeonline,fromvirusestobalkyhomeinternetconnections.Selfefficacyhasproventoberobust
asasignificantpredictorofInternetusage(Eastin&LaRose,2000LaRoseetal.,2001).

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

2/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

SelfRegulationandInternetUsage
TheSCTconstructofselfregulation(Bandura,1991)hasalsoemergedasanimportantpredictorofInternetconsumption(LaRoseetal.,2002).Theself
regulatorymechanismdescribeshowindividualscontinuallymonitortheirownbehavior(selfmonitoring),judgeitinrelationtorelevantpersonalandsocial
standards(judgmentalprocess),andapplyselfreactiveincentivestomoderatetheirbehavior(selfreaction).Selfregulationisanimportantpointofdistinction
betweenSCTandfunctionalistorstimulusresponsetheoriesofhumanbehaviorinthatitdescribesselfgeneratedinfluencesthatfreetheindividualfromblindly
followingthedictatesofexternalreinforcement.SelfregulationisperhapswhatbestdistinguisheshumansfromSkinners(1938)pigeons:weareableto
conceptualizeandevaluateourownbehaviorandformulateandimplementourowncoursesofaction,pigeonsarenot.
Selfregulationmaynormallybeexpectedtomoderatemediaconsumption.Indeed,anexperimentalmanipulationofselfregulationasitisunderstoodin
SCTreducedmediausage(Robinson,1999).However,whenselfregulationfailsincreasedmediaconsumptionmaybeexpected.Thisissuehasbeenconceptualized
intermsofhabitanddeficientselfregulation(LaRoseetal.,2002).
Ahabitissimplyarecurringbehaviorpattern.Habitisawellestablishedpredictorofbehavior(Triandis,1980Oulette&Wood,1998)thathasperhapsbeen
somewhatoverlookedincommunicationresearch(cf.Stone&Stone,1990Rosenstein&Grant,1997).There,ithasbeenassociatedwithritualisticgratifications
suchaspassingthetime(afterRubin,1984).However,thereisagrowingbodyofresearch(e.g.Aarts,Verplanken,&vanKnippenberg,1998Bargh&Gollwitzer,
1994)suggestingthathabitisaformofautomaticity,apatternofbehavior(e.g.checkingonesemail)thatistriggeredbyanenvironmentalstimulus(e.g.seeing
onescomputerdesktopinthemorning)andperformedwithoutfurtheractiveconsideration.Thisisperhapsoutsidetherealmofactivemediaselectionprocesses
thatarepresumedbyUsesandgratificationstheorists.Atbest,automaticmediaconsumptionbehaviorswereinitiallyframedbysuchactiveconsiderations,which
wereeventuallyforgotten(cf.Stone&Stone,1990).Wemayhavethoughtcarefullyaboutourcommunicationoptionsthefirsttimeweusedemailforexample,but
bythehundredthtimewedidnot.
WithinSCTwemightdescribethisasafailureoftheselfmonitoringsubfunctionofselfregulation.Throughfrequentrepetitionwebecomeinattentiveto
thereasoningbehindourmediabehavior,ourmindnolongerdevotesattentionresourcestotheconsiderationofsuchroutinebehavior,freeingitselfformore
importantdecisions.Inonestudy,ameasureofhabitwasfoundtobeasignificantpredictorofInternetusage(LaRoseetal.,2001).
DeficientSelfRegulationisdefinedasastateinwhichconsciousselfcontrolisrelativelydiminished.Workingfromconceptualandoperationaldefinitions
ofbehavioraladdictions,LaRoseandhiscolleagueshaveshownthevariabletobeapowerfulpredictorofbothecommerceactivity(LaRose&Eastin,2002)and
generalInternetusage(LaRoseetal.,2001)andhaveproposeditasanexplanatorymechanismforsocalledinternetaddictions(LaRoseetal.,2002).
However,therelationshipbetweenhabitanddeficientselfregulationhasnotbeenclearlydistinguished.Addictions,includingbehavioraladdictions,maybe
regardedasaformofhabitualbehavior(Marlatt,Baer&Kivlahan,1988)sothetwoconstructsoverlaponaconceptuallevel.SinceLaRoseetal.soperational
definitionsofdeficientselfregulationweredrawnfromthesymptomsofbehavioraladdictions,thereisthepossibilityofconfounding.Attheoperationallevel,the
measuresofhabithavebeenunderdeterminedthatis,theyhavehadtoofewitemstoproducereliablemeasurement.LaRoseetal.(2002)wereforcedtoconclude
thattheycouldnotclearlydistinguishhabitfromdeficientselfregulation,leavingatopicforfurtherresearch.Thepresentresearchwillassesstheseconstructsto
determineiftheyareempiricallydistinct.
AreCollegeStudentsTypicalInternetUsers?
MuchoftheextantresearchonInternetusagehasfocusedoncollegestudents.Therationaleoftenofferedisthatcollegestudentsareapopulationofinterest
becauseofthereadyaccesstotheInternettheyenjoyandthehighincidenceofusersfoundinthatpopulation.Assuch,theymightrepresenttypicalpopulationsof
usersandalso,aspartofthefirstInternetgeneration,acohortofparticularinteresttoscholarswishingtofollowthenewmediumfromitsbirth.And,thereisthe
generalcaveatthatscholarsareinterestedinthelawfulrelationshipsamongvariablesthatshouldbeobservableamongmanygroups,includingpurposivesamplesof
collegestudents.
Buttherearealsosomeimportantwaysthatcollegestudentsdifferfromthegeneralpopulationthatmayaffecttherelationshipsamongvariables,andthese
areparticularlysalientfromtheSCTperspective.Internetusagehasbecomesuchavitalpartofcollegiatelifethatstudentsarevirtuallyforcedtoembracethe
mediumwhentheyentercollege.ButhalfdonotbeginusingtheInternetuntilaftertheyreachcollege(PewResearchCenter,2002a).InSCTterms,thismaycreate
alargesubclassofstudentuserswithlowInternetSelfEfficacyandthusexaggeratetheimportanceofthatvariableinstudentpopulations.Nonvolitionalusesin
whichstudentsarerequiredtoperformclassrelatedtasksontheInternetmightdiminishtheimpactofactiveselectionprocessesrepresentedbytheconventional
Usesandgratificationsapproach.Collegestudents,andparticularlythefreshmenwhopopulatethelargeintroductoryclasssectionsfromwhichmanywillingsurvey
respondentsaredrawn,haverelativelyhighlevelsofdepression(Rich&Scovel,1987)anddepressionisknowntoinhibiteffectiveselfregulation(Bandura,1991),
possiblyexaggeratingtheeffectofthatvariableaswell.Onereasonthatfreshmenaredepressedisbecausetheyhavebeenseizedfromthebosomoftheirfamilyand
friends.ThatmayunnaturallyheightentheimportanceofsociabilityorsocialinteractiongratificationsandcontributetodisproportionateusageoftheWebfor
socialsupport.Indeed,collegestudentsdemonstrateanespeciallyheavyreliancetheInternetforsocialinteractionandtheyarealsomorelikelytoengageinfun
activitiesthanotherInternetusers(PewResearchCenter,2002a).Nowthatresearchhascompiledanamplenumberofstudiesdevelopingpsychologicalmotivesfor

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

3/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

Internetuseandusagenowreachesdeeplyintothegeneralpopulation,itisfeasibletosurveyInternetusersinthegeneralpopulationanddeterminewhetherthe
relationshipsamongvariablesfoundincollegepopulationscanbereplicatedinbroaderpopulations.
Hypotheses
FollowingLaRoseetal.,(2001)weproposethatthegratificationsoftheInternet,reconceptualizedasoutcomeexpectationsreflectingeachoftheincentive
categoriesrecognizedbySCTwillbepositivelyrelatedtoInternetusage.Inthepresentstudy,selfevaluativeandactivityoutcomes,combinedintheprevious
researchtoattainsatisfactoryreliability,willbeseparatedtomatchtheconceptualdistinctionbetweenthesetwoincentivecategories.Previously,selfevaluative
outcomeswerealsofoundtopredictInternetusage(LaRoseetal.,2002).

H1:Internetusagewillbepositivelyrelatedtoa)novelsensory,b)activity,c)social,d)status,ande)selfevaluativeoutcomeexpectations.

Alsoconsistentwithearlierresults,statusandmonetaryincentivesthatwereunderrepresentedinpriorUsesandgratificationsresearchareexpectedto
predictInternetusageaswell:

H2.Internetusagewillbepositivelyrelatedtoa)statusandb)monetaryoutcomeexpectations.

AlthoughstrugglingnoviceInternetusersmaybeespeciallyprevalentamongcollegefreshmen,wealsoexpecttofindtheminthegeneralpopulation.For
example,Cole(2001)estimatedthat7percentofthegeneralpopulationofInternetusersratedtheirInternetabilityaspoorandanother30percentrateditonly
fair.Thus,InternetSelfEfficacymightstillberelatedtoInternetusageinageneralpopulationsample:

H3:InternetselfefficacywillbepositivelyrelatedtoInternetusage.

Onthequestionofthedistinctionbetweenhabitanddeficientselfregulation,theremaybeavalidtheoreticaldistinctionbetweenthetwoconcepts.Habit
couldrepresentthefailureofselfmonitoring,oneofthethreesubfunctionsofselfregulation,whiledeficientselfregulationmayrepresentafailureofthe
judgmentalandselfreactivesubfunctions.Individualswhoareinattentivetorepetitivepatternsintheirbehaviorarealsounlikelytocompareittopersonalorsocial
normsortoselfgenerateincentives(e.g.indulginginfeelingsofguiltorrewardsformoderatebehavior).However,theconceptualdefinitionofdeficientself
regulation(basedonsymptomsofpathologicalgamblingandsubstancedependence)anditsoperationalization(e.g.,IfeelmyInternetuseisoutofcontrol,Ifeel
tensemoodyorirritableifIcantgetontheWebwhenIwant)betrayanintense,evenpainfulselfawarenessofmediaconsumption.Deficientselfregulation
reflectsaquitedistinctstateofmindfromoneinwhichweareinattentivetoarepetitivebehaviorpatternandbothmighthaveindependenteffectsonmedia
attendance.Ausermightbepainfullyawareofdeficientselfregulationwithrespectto,say,onlinegamblingsitesorInternetpornography,whilestillremaining
blissfullyunconcernedthatshespendsevenmoretimeonemail.Thus,habitanddeficientselfregulationcouldhaveindependenteffects:

H4:InternethabitstrengthwillbepositivelyrelatedtoInternetusage.

H5:DeficientInternetSelfRegulationwillbepositivelyrelatedtoInternetusage.

AlsoconsistentwithLaRoseetal.(2001),thenewvariablesshouldimproveuponthepredictivepowerofconventionaldemographicandUsesand
gratificationsdimensions.Race(Hoffman&Novak,1998)andgender(AAUW,2000)havebeensuggestedasrelevantdemographicvariablesexplainingInternet
usage.
H6:Statusandmonetaryincentives,habitstrength,InternetselfefficacyanddeficientInternetselfregulationwillbepositivelyrelatedtoInternetusage
aftercontrollingfordemographicvariablesandconventionalusesandgratificationsdimensions.

RESEARCHMETHODS
Therespondentswerethusasomewhatbiasedsampleoftherespectivepopulationsfromwhichtheydrawn.However,thepurposeofthestudywasnotto
estimatethepopulationdistributionoftheitemsinthesurveybutrathertoexaminelawfulrelationshipsbetweenvariables.Assuch,adiversesampleofadult
respondentswasdeemedsuitableforthepurposeofthepresentstudy.
Procedure
AdultInternetuserswerethepopulationofinterest.ToobtainadiversesampleofthegeneralpopulationofadultInternetusers,respondentswererecruited
bymailfromtwoMidwesterncommunitiestocompleteanonlinesurvey.Bothofthecommunitiessurveyedincludedthehometownofamajoruniversityand
severalsurroundingcounties.

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

4/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

Acommercialmailinglistvendorprovidedarandomsampleofhouseholdaddressesinthedesignatedcommunities.Theinitialmailingincludedaletter
advisingrespondentsofthepurposeofthestudyandtheirrightsashumansubjects.Halfthelettersrequestedthatthesurveybefilledoutbyamaleheadof
householdandtheotherhalfbyafemaleheadofhousehold,ifsuchapersonwereavailable.Alsoincludedintheenvelopewasanominalcashincentiveanda
postcardwiththeURLandarespondentIDforthesurvey.InternetuserswereinstructedtousethecardandIDnumberthenexttimetheywentontheInternet.Non
userswereinstructedtoindicatetheirgenderandyearofbirthandreturnthecardbymailsothatresponseratescouldbecalculatedandtheresultscomparedtoU.S.
Censusdata.
Respondents
Ofthe1100solicitationssent,170(15%)badaddresseswerereturnedleavingatotalusablesampleof930.Atotalof334respondedtothesolicitation.One
hundredandseventyfiveInternetuserscompletedthesurveyand159returnedthenonInternetuserpostcard(36%totalresponserate).Therewerenoresponse
differencebycityandthusdatawerecollapsed.Asatotalsample(N=334)participantswere55percentmaleand45percentfemale.Incomparisontothegeneral
population,whichconsistsof50percentfemale(U.S.Census,2002).Sixpercentoftheparticipantswerebetweentheagesof1824(censuspopulation=17%),48
percentwerebetweentheagesof2544(censuspopulation=30%)34percentwerebetween4565yearsold(censuspopulation=40%),andfinally,13percentwere
overtheageof65(censuspopulation=14%).Therespondentswerethusasomewhatbiasedsampleoftherespectivepopulationsfromwhichtheyweredrawn.
However,adiversesampleofadultrespondentswasobtainedandthus,thissamplewasdeemedsuitableforthepurposeofthisstudywhichwastoexamine
relationshipsbetweenvariables.
ThenonInternetusers(N=159cardreturns)consistedof48percentmaleand52percentfemaleandtheirmeanagewas52yearsold.Givencurrent
estimatesofInternetpenetration(54%,NTIA,2002)weestimatedthatrespondentsat504(outof938)ofthevalidaddresseshadaccesstheInternet,andthus,could
havecompletedtheonlinesurvey.Therefore,weestimatethatthe175peoplewhocompletedthesurveyrepresentanInternetuserresponserateof35percent.Of
those,42percentwerefemaleand55percentweremale(with2percentnotindicatingtheirgender)withanaverageageof42yearsold.Eightyeightpercentwere
Caucasian,fivepercentwereAfricanAmerican,twopercentwereLatinoandtheremainingfourpercentwereAsian,PacificIslander,NativeAmericanorother.
Fortytwopercentofthesampleindicatedanaveragehouseholdincomeunder$50,000theremaining58percentindicatedanaverageannualincomegreaterthan
$50,000.Educationally,participantsrangedbetween922yearsbeyondkindergarten(M=16,SD=2.61).
OperationalMeasures
TheusualprocedureforanalyzinggratificationsintheUsesandgratificationstraditionistoconductanexploratoryfactoranalysisofthegratificationitems.
Thisprocedurewasnotfollowedinthepresentresearchsinceaprioritheoreticalassumptionsaboutthenatureofthegratificationvariableswereavailable,inthe
formoftheincentivecategoriesrecognizedinSCT.Instead,gratificationitemswerecollectedfrompriorUsesandgratificationsstudies,rephrasedasoutcome
expectations(i.e.,usingtheInternethowlikelyareyouto..onascaleofonetoseven,whereonewasveryunlikelyandsevenverylikely).Thesestatementsof
outcomeexpectationswereclassifiedintoSCTincentivecategoriesbyconsultingtheconceptualdefinitionsfoundinBandura(1986,pp.233ff)andsupplemented
withitemsreflectingstatusandmonetaryincentivesthatwereunderreprestentedrepresentedinUsesandgratificationsresearch(cf.LaRoseetal.,2001).Internal
consistency(Cronbachalphas)werecomputedforeach.
Sixcategoriesofexpectedoutcomes,onerepresentingeachincentivecategory,wereoperationalized.Therange,means,andstandarddeviationsofthese
variablesarefoundinTable1.Theseincludednovelsensoryoutcomes

[1]

(a=.74),activityoutcomes

[2]

[3]
(a=.73),socialoutcomes (a=.89),andselfevaluative

[4]
[5]
outcomes (a=.77)thatcorrespondedtoUsesandgratificationsdimensionscommoninmasscommunicationresearch.Measuresofstatusoutcomes (a=.75)
andmonetaryoutcomes

[6]

(a=.72)werealsoincluded.

Previousresearch(LaRoseetal.,2002)hadleftthedistinctionbetweenhabitstrengthanddeficientselfregulationunresolved.Underdetermination(i.e.
toofewitems)ofthehabitstrengthvariablewasapossibleconfoundingfactor.Accordingly,newitemsweredevelopedbydrawingupontheoreticalworks
describinghabitualbehavior(Aartsetal,1998Oulette&Wood,1998Bargh&Gollwitzer,1994).Thecombinedpoolofhabitstrengthanddeficientselfregulation
[7]
itemswassubjectedtoanexploratoryfactoranalysisusingvarimaxrotation.Twointerpretablefactorsemerged.Onone,threeofthehabitstrengthitems had
[8]
loadingsof.6ormoreandwerecombinedintoanadditiveindex(a=.76).Ontheotherfactor,itemsreflectingdeficientselfregulationappeared,andnine with
factorloadingsover.6(andnosecondaryloadingsover.4)werecombinedintoameasureofdeficientselfregulation(a=.91).Thesefactorsseemedtoreflectthe
distinctionbetweentheselfobservationsubfunctionofselfregulationontheonehandandthejudgmentalprocessandselfreactivesubfunctionsontheotherhand.
InternetSelfEfficacyScale(Eastin&LaRose,2000)wasreplicated,buttwoitemsweredeletedbecauseofpotentialceilingeffects.Theresulting5item
additivescale

[9]

hadaCronbachalphaof.91.Gender(1ifmale,0iffemale),age(inyears),race(1ifwhite,0ifminority)wereallassessedthroughsingle

questionnaireitems.
ThedependentInternetusagevariablewasthesumofthetotalnumberofminutesspentontheInternetinthetypicalweekday,thetypicalweekendday,and
thedaypriortothesurvey.Aninspectionofthedistributionsofresponsestotheseitemsrevealedthatoutlierswerepresentandsoalog10(1+value)transformwas
https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

5/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

appliedtoeachonebeforesummingthethreeitems.TheresultingcompositeindexhadaCronbachalphaof.66.
DataAnalysis
Pearsonproductmomentcorrelationcoefficients,exploratoryfactoranalysis,andmultipleregressionanalyseswereperformedusingSPSSversion
10.1(SPSS,Inc.,2000).
Hypothesis6wastestedthroughahierarchicalstepwiseregression.FollowingtheUsesandgratificationstradition,demographicvariableswereenteredfirst,
followedbygratificationdimensions,recasthereasexpectationsofnovelsensory,activity,selfevaluativeandsocialoutcomes.Next,monetaryandstatusoutcome
expectationswereentered,reflectingthetwotypesonincentivesunderrepresentedinconventionalUsesandgratificationsresearch.TheSCTderivedvariables
InternetSelfEfficacy,habitstrength,deficientselfregulationwereaddedinthefinalstep.
Aninspectionofthezeroorderrelationships(Table1)revealedseveralcorrelationsbetweenindependentvariablesover.6,acommonruleofthumbfor
detectingpossiblemulticollinearityproblems,andsotheSPSSmulticollinearitydiagnosticswererun.ThemaximumVIF(varianceinflationfactor)was2.83and
maximumconditionindexwas18.5,whichweredeemedacceptable.
RESULTS
TheresultsshowninTable2showthatHypothesis1wasfullysupported.Internetusagewaspositivelyrelatedtomeasuresofa)novelsensory(r=.338,p<
.001),b)activity(r=.428,p<.001),c)social(r=.429,p<.001),d)status(r=.528,p<.001),ande)selfevaluative(r=.392,p<.001)outcomeexpectations.
ConsistentwithHypothesis2,Internetusagewasalsopositivelyrelatedtostatus(r=.528,p<.001)andmonetaryoutcomeexpectations(r=.266,p<.001).
InternetSelfEfficacy(r=.405,p<.001),habitstrength(r=.494,p<.001),anddeficientselfregulation(r=.469,p<.001)werealsorelatedtoInternetusageas
predictedbyHypotheses3,4,and5,respectively.
StepwisemultipleregressionresultsareshowninTable2.Thepredictionequationthatresultedaftereachblockofvariableswasenteredisshown,along
withtheassociatedregressionstatistics.Noneofthedemographicvariablesemergedassignificantpredictors,althoughethnicityhadasignificant,butlow,zero
ordercorrelationwiththedependentvariable(r=.157p<.05).AftertheoutcomeexpectationvariablescorrespondingthemostcloselytoconventionalUsesand
gratificationsfactorswereadded,asignificant(F2,164=26.023,p<.001,R=.491,correctedR2=.232)regressionequationwasobtained(labeledUsesand
gratificationsinTable2).Social(b=..290,t=3.76,p<.001),andActivity(b=.282,t=3.65,p<.001)outcomeexpectationsweresignificantpredictors.Inthe
nextmodel(labeledUsesandgratifications+F3,163=22.355,p<.001,R=.540,correctedR2=.278),towhichgratificationdimensionsatypicalofconventional
Usesandgratificationsresearchwereadded,statusoutcomeexpectationsweretheonlyremainingsignificantpredictorofInternetusage(b=.350,t=3.41,p<
.001),producingasignificantincreaseintheoverallvarianceexplained(Rsqchange=.051,p<.001).AfterSCTvariableswereintroducedafinalprediction
equationwasobtained(F6,160=19.386,p<.001,R=.649,correctedR2=.399)inwhichInternetselfefficacy(b=.152,t=2.16,p<.05),deficientselfregulation
(b=..218,t=3.02,p<.01),andhabitstrength(b=.239,t=3.23,p<.001)weresignificantpredictors.
DISCUSSION
Thepresentresultsbothaffirmandextendtheprevailingparadigmofmediaattendanceandexposureincommunicationstudies,addingbothtoour
understandingofthefactorsthatpredictInternetusageandourunderstandingofunderlyingtheoriesofmediaattendance.AbasicimplicationofUsesand
gratifications,thatmediaexposuremaybepredictedfrommediagratificationswasagainupheld.However,newvariablesandnewoperationaldefinitionsfromSCT
greatlyimprovedandintheendsubsumedthepredictivepowerofmediagratifications,herereconstruedasoutcomeexpectations.
UsingdimensionsthatparalleledthosecommontoUsesandgratificationsstudiesoftheInternet,butchangingtheconceptualandoperationalfocusfrom
gratificationssoughttooutcomesexpected,resultedinexplainingnearlythreetimesthevarianceinInternetusagepreviouslyreported(e.g.,9percentfor
Papacharissi&Rubin,2000,comparedto28percenthere).Expectedactivityoutcomes,whichcloselyparallelentertainmentgratificationsinUsesandgratifications
research,andsocialoutcomes/gratificationsweresignificantpredictors,muchastheyhadbeeninpriorresearchinvolvingcollegestudents(e.g.,Papacharissi&
Rubin,2000LaRoseetal.,2001Kaye,1998).
Statusoutcomes,agratification/outcomedimensionidentifiedbySCTbutunderrepresentedinpriorUsesandgratificationsresearchinwhichpredictionsof
exposurelevelswerethefocus,furtheraddedtoourabilitytoexplainInternetattendance.Indeed,thisvariablesubsumedtheeffectsofthetwoconventional
gratificationdimensionsonInternetusage.TheperceivedabilityoftheInternettoimproveoneslotinlifethusemergesasapowerfulmotivatingfactorfortheuse
ofthemedium.
Usesandgratificationsresearch,includingInternetstudies,havetendedtosubsumehabitinothergratificationsdimensions,usuallyundereitheran
entertainmentorpasstimefactor.Here,itemergedasapowerfulandindependentpredictorofmediaexposureevenaftertheeffectsofgratifications
sought/expectedoutcomeshadbeenaccountedfor.Thislendscredencecredibilitytotheinitialsuppositionthatthesignificanceofhabitstrengthhadbeenpreviously
overlookedowingtounderidentificationofthevariable:theitemsusedinpreviousstudieswereperhapstoofewortooambiguouslywordedtoproperlydistinguish
thisvariable.Thisfindinglendscredencetotheconceptualizationofhabitstrengthasadistinctconstructfromgratifications/expectedoutcomes.Thelowto
moderatezeroordercorrelationsbetweenhabitandexpectedoutcomesperhapsindicatedtheavailabilityofmemoriesofpastactivemediaselectionprocesses,inthe

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

6/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

formanticipatedbyUsesandgratificationsresearch,thathadbecomedormantwithrepetition.Inthisvein,itisinterestingtonotethatamongnewerInternetusers
(thosewhohadbeenonlinelessthanthreeyears)thecorrelationsbetweenexpectedoutcomesandusagewerehigherthanamongthosewithmoreexperience.For
example,thecorrelationbetweenactivityoutcomesandusagewas.545fornewusers,comparedto.345forthemoreexperiencedones.Thiscouldindicatethatthe
neweruserswerestillmakingactivemediaselectiondecisionsonthebasisofexpectedoutcomeswhileveteranusershadlapsedintomorehabitualmodesof
Internetconsumption.
Therelationshipofhabitanddeficientselfregulationwasalsofurtherclarified.Habitperhapsindicatesafailureofthefirstofthethreesubfunctionsofself
regulationproposedbySCT,selfobservation.Habitualmediaattendancemeansengaginginmediaconsumptionbehaviorindirectresponsetoenvironmental
stimuli,withoutengagingin(oratleastwithoutreplicating)theactiveanalyticthoughtprocessesassumedbyUsesandgratifications.Assuch,thisaspectof
unregulatedmediabehavioriscloselyrelatedtonotionsofautomaticity(Bargh&Gollwitzer,1994).Deficientselfregulationderivesfromthefailureofthe
judgmentalandselfreactivesubprocessesofselfregulation.Itreflectsaconsciousfailureofselfcontrolwhereinindividualsstrugglewiththemselvestojudgetheir
ownbehavioragainstappropriatestandardsandtoapplyincentivestomoderatetheirconsumption.Thetwovariablesaretheoreticallyrelatedinthatexcessive
habitualusagemighttriggerthestruggleforselfcontrol.However,habitualbehaviorisinherentlyautomaticandunobserved,whileindividualswithhighlevelsof
deficientselfregulationarekeenly,evenperhapspainfully,awareoftheirbehavior.Bothvariableswereuniquesignificantpredictorsofusageinthepresentstudy.
Thissuggeststhatthesetwoconstructsareinfactdifferent,confirmingthenotionproposedbyLaRoseetal.(forthcoming).
InternetselfefficacywasalsoasignificantpredictorofInternetusage,althoughitwasnotaspowerfulapredictorasitwasinpreviousstudiesinvolving
collegestudentpopulations(LaRoseetal.,2001).ThesubstantialcorrelationsobservedbetweenInternetselfefficacyandnovelsensoryoutcomes(r=.496)and
statusoutcomes(r=.488)perhapssuggestthatselfefficacybuildingisanongoingprocess.EvenafterbasicInternetskillsareacquired,usersmustcontinueto
developskillsandconfidenceinusingtheInternettoobtainusefulinformation(i.e.,obtainnovelsensoryexperiences)andimprovetheirsocialposition.Further,as
virtualenvironmentsbecomemoreprevalentorastechnologicalconvergencetechnologicallyadvances,selfefficacywilltheoreticallyplayanimportantroleinthe
adoptionandutilizationprocess.
TheInternetemergesfromthepresentstudyassomethingofadistinctivemedium,butperhapsnotinwayspreviouslydescribed.ThattheInternetisa
mediumofsocialinteractionisindisputable,butaquestionnowarisesastothepurposeofthesocialinteraction.Priorresearch,especiallythatsurroundingtheso
calledInternetParadox(Kraut,Patterson,Lundmark,Kiesler,Mukophadhyay,&Scherlis,1998)focusedonsocialinteractionasameansofsecuringsocialsupport
andtherebyimprovingpsychologicalwellbeing.Nowitappearsthatsocialstatus,notsocialsupportmightbetheprimemoverinInternetusage.And,theenjoyable
activitiespursuedontheInternetmayalsobeameansofachievingstatus,suchasthebraggingrightstothecoolestselectionofMP3recordings.Perhapsby
findinglikemindedindividualsontheInternetandexpressingourselvesinthosevenuesweenhanceoursocialstatus.Or,recallingTurkles(1995)Lifeonthe
Screenethnography,perhapstheInternetisameansofconstantlyexploringandtryingoutnew,improvedversionsofourselves.Fromthisweshouldbeginto
empiricallyexplorethealternativedimensionsofsocialexpectationssuchassocialdevelopment(asselforwithvirtualother)andsocialmaintenance(asupport
mechanism).
ThefailureofdemographicvariablestoexplainInternetusagemayseemsomewhatsurprisinginviewoftheextensiveattentionthattheDigitalDividehas
received.However,itmaybethatoncedisadvantagedgroupsgainaccesstheyareabletotoclosethegapinusage.Indeed,onewaytointerpretthenegative
correlationsbetweenraceandoutcomeexpectations(recallingthateffectscodingwasused,inwhichAngloswerecodedas1andminoritiesas0)isthatminorities
havetheirexpectationsmetbetterbytheInternetthanAnglos.Thismaybeespeciallytrueofstatusoutcomes.However,therewasapositivecorrelationbetween
gender(withmalescoded1,females0)andInternetselfefficacy(r=.239,p<.05),suggestingaconfidencegapstillmayexistbetweenmaleandfemaleusers.The
inferiorformsofaccessthatfemalesexperience(AAUW,2000)isapossibleexplanationforthisdeficit.
Limitations
Thegeneralizabilityofthepresentresearchislimitedduetoitslimitedgeographicscope.TheInternetusersamplecontaineddisproportionatelysmall
representationsofyoungpeopleandmales.Asaoneshotsurveystudy,thedirectionofcausationcannotbeestablished.Indeed,withinSCTreciprocalcausationis
recognized.Forexample,selfefficacyisapreconditionforsuccessfulperformanceofabehaviorbutsuccessfulperformancealsoincreasesselfefficacy.However,
giventhatthisprocessisongoing,conventionallongitudinalresearchmethods,whichevaluatesperceptionsseveraltimesayear,maymisssubtlechangesovertime.
Here,experimentallabbasedresearchthatallowstheusertocontinuallymarkperceivedexpectationsandselfbeliefswouldprovideamoreenlighteningpictureof
thereciprocalprocess.
ImplicationsforFurtherResearch
Habitstrength,deficientselfregulation,andselfefficacymightbeproductivelyappliedtothestudyofothermedia.Televisionaddiction(Kubey&
Csikszentmihalyi,2002)hasbeendescribedinthesametermsofbehavioraladdictionthatunderliethepresentconceptualizationofdeficientselfregulation,for
example.Awidevarietyofmediaconsumptionbehaviors(fromreadingthenewspaperoverbreakfasttotuninginTVcomediansatbedtime)wouldseemtobe
habitproneontheirfaceinthattheyrecurinaconsistentcontext,perhapswithlittleactivereevaluationeachtimethebehaviorisrepeated.Whilefewmassmedia
consumptionbehaviorsrequireskillsascomplexasthoseneededtosurftheWeb,thereareperhapsparallelmediaselfefficacyconstraints.Anyonewhohaseverput

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

7/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

downabookbecauseitwastoodeeporturnedawayfromatelevisiondramathatwastoodisturbingmightbesaidtohaveexperiencedaselfefficacy
constraint.Consideringtelevisionormorerelevantadvancedtelevisionsystems,selfefficacycouldbeausersperceivedabilitytomanagetheirviewingneeds.
ThepresentresearchsuggestssomenewdeparturesfortheUsesandgratificationstradition.Itappearsthatredefininggratificationsasexpectedoutcomes
mayhavemerit,onbothaconceptualandoperationallevel.Secondly,theprocessofcontinuallyrecyclinggratificationdimensionsfromprevious(mostlymass
mediaoriented)researchmayhaveleftoutsomepotentiallyimportantvariables,particularlyregardingthestatusthatmediaconsumptionmayconfer.Third,habit
strengthappearstobeaconceptuallyandempiricallydistinctconstructfromgratifications.EarlyconceptualizationsofUsesandgratifications(e.g.Palmgreenetal.,
1985,p.17)observedthatdistinctionbutitappearstohavebeenlostovertheyears,buriedinthefactorstructureofentertainmentandpasstimegratifications.
Giventhis,scholarswouldbewellservedtorevisitresearchcomparingmodelsofdisplacementbetweentelevisionandtheInternet.Suchanalysis(orreanalysis)of
theseconstructswouldofferamoreaccuratepictureregardinghowusersareviewingeachmediasabilitytofulfillexpectations.
SomedeparturesfromUsesandgratificationsareperhapsalsoinorder.Thepresentfindingsareconsistentwiththeviewthatactiveselectionofmedia
contentandmediachannelstakesplaceonlyatthehabitformationstage.Thatmighthappeneitherwhen,asthecaseoftheInternet,anewmediumisintroducedor
whenthereissomedisruptionofpersonalroutines.Thereafter,mediaconsumptionisprimarilyhabitualandautomaticastheonceactivemediaselectionthought
processesfadeintomemory.Thereisstillactivemonitoringofmediaconsumptiontakingplace,butnotthetypeofactiveseekingofgratificationsthatUsesand
gratificationsposits.Instead,onlythegenerallevelsofmediaconsumptionarebeingmonitored.Thatis,oncehabitualconsumptionpatternsareestablishedusersno
longerthinkmuchaboutwhethertheInternetoraphonecallisabetterwayofgratifyinganeedforsocialinteraction.Perhapsexplainingwhyteensandyoung
adultsnolongerpreferthetelephoneovercomputermediatedcommunication(PewResearchCenter,(2002b).TheyUsersdoperhapsstillmonitortheiroverall
levelofInternetusageandapplyselfreactiveincentivestoeitherincreaseordecreasetheamountofusagetoappropriatelevels.Butsomeusersmaylosethepower
toselfregulatetheirownconsumptionaswell,perhapsthroughaprocessofoperantconditioning(cf.LaRoseetal.,2002)atwhichpointtheymightbesaidtohave
amediaaddiction,ormediadependency.SCTprovidesaframeworkforintegratingUsesandgratificationsmechanismswiththesecompetinginfluenceson
individualmediaattendance.

REFERENCES
Aarts,H.,Verplanken,B.,&vanKnippenberg,A.(1998).Predictingbehaviorfromactionsinthepast:Repeateddecisionmakingoramatterofhabit?
JournalOfAppliedSocialPsychology,28,13551374.
AAUWEducationalFoundation(2000).Techsavvy:Educatinggirlsinthenewcomputerage.Washington,DC:Author.
Ajzen,I.(1985).Fromintentionstoactions:Atheoryofplannedbehavior.InJ.Kuhl&J.Beckman(Eds).Actioncontrol:Fromcognitiontobehavior
(pp.1139).Heidelberg:Springer.
Babrow,A.S.,&Swanson,D.L.(1988).Disentanglingantecedentsofaudienceexposurelevels:Extendingexpectancyvalueanalysesofgratifications
soughtfromtelevisionnews.CommunicationMonographs,55,121.
Bandura,A.(1977).Sociallearningtheory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Bandura,A.(1986).SocialFoundationsofThoughtandAction:ASocialCognitiveTheory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Bandura,A.(1989).HumanagencyinSocialCognitiveTheory.AmericanPsychologist,44,11751184.
Bandura,A.(1991).Socialcognitivetheoryofselfregulation.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,50,248287.
Bandura,A.(1997).Selfefficacy:Theexerciseofcontrol.NewYork:W.H.FreemanandCompany.
Bargh,J.A.,&Gollwitzer,P.M.(1994).Environmentalcontrolofgoaldirectedaction:Automaticandstrategiccontingenciesbetweensituationandbehavior.In
W.D.Spaulding(Ed.),NebraskaSymposiumonMotivation(Vol41,pp.71124).Lincoln,NE:UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Charney,T.&Greenberg,B.(2001).UsesandgratificationsoftheInternet.InC.Lin&D.Atkin(Eds.),Communication,technologyandsociety:New
mediaadoptionanduses.HamptonPress.
Chou,C.,&Hsiao,M.C.(2000).Internetaddiction,usage,gratification,andpleasureexperience:theTaiwancollegestudents'case.Computersand
Education,35,6580.
Cole,J.(2001).Surveyingthedigitalfuture.LosAngeles,CA:UCLACenterforCommunicationPolicy.RetrievedfromtheWorldWideWebonSeptember
20,2002:http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pdf/UCLAInternetReport2001.pdf
Dimmick,J.,Kline,S.,&Stafford,L.(2000).Thegratificationnichesofpersonalemailandthetelephone.CommunicationResearch,27,227248.
Eastin,M.A.,&LaRose,R.L.(2000).Internetselfefficacyandthepsychologyofthedigitaldivide.JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication.6(1).
RetrievedNovember29,2000fromtheWorldWideWeb:http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html
Eighmey,J.,&McCord,L.(1998).Addingvalueintheinformationage:UsesandgratificationsofsitesontheWorldWideWeb.JournalofBusiness
Research,41,187194.

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

8/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

Ferguson,D.A.,&Perse,E.M.(2000).TheWorldWideWebasafunctionalalternativetotelevision.JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,44,
155174.
Flanagin,A.J.,&Metzger,M.J.(2001).Internetuseinthecontemporarymediaenvironment.HumanCommunicationResearch,27,153181.
Greenberg,B.S.(1974).GratificationsoftelevisionviewingandtheircorrelatesforBritishchildren.InJ.Blumler&E.Katz(Eds.)Theusesofmass
communication:Currentperspectivesongratificationsresearch(pp.7192).BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Hoffman,D.L.&.Novak,T.P.(1998).BridgingtheracialdivideontheInternet,Science,April17.
Kaye,B.K.(1998).UsesandgratificationsoftheWorldWideWeb:FromcouchpotatotoWebpotato.NewJerseyJournalofCommunication,6,2140.

Korgaonkar,P.&Wolin,L.(1999).AmultivariateanalysisofWebusage.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,39,5368.
Kraut,R.,Patterson,M.,Lundmark,V.,Kiesler,S.,Mukophadhyay,T.,&Scherlis,W.(1998).Internetparadox:Asocialtechnologythatreducessocial
involvementandpsychologicalwellbeing?AmericanPsychologist,53,10171031.
Kubey,R.,&Csikszentmihalyi,M.(2002).Televisionaddiction.ScientificAmerican,286(2),7481.
LaRose,R.&Eastin,M.S.(2002).Isonlinebuyingoutofcontrol?Electroniccommerceandconsumerselfregulation.JournalofBroadcastingand
ElectronicMedia,46(4).
LaRose,R.,Lin,C.,&Eastin,M.S.(2002).Mediaaddiction,mediahabitsanddeficientselfregulationinthecaseoftheInternet.Paperpresentedtothe
InternationalCommunicationAssociation,CommunicationandTechnologyDivision,Seoul,Korea,July,2002.
LaRose,R.,Mastro,D.A.,&Eastin,M.S.(2001).UnderstandingInternetusage:Asocialcognitiveapproachtousesandgratifications.SocialScience
ComputerReview,19,395413.
Lin,C.(1999).Onlineserviceadoptionlikelihood.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,39,7989.
Marlatt,G.A.,Baer,J.S.,Donovan,D.M.,&Kivlahan,D.R.(1988).Addictivebehaviors:Etiologyandtreatment.AnnualReviewofPsychology,39,223
252.
Morris,M.&Ogan,C.(1996).TheInternetasamassmedium.JournalofCommunication,46,3950.
NTIA(NationalTelecommunicationsandInformationAdministration(2002).ANationOnline:HowAmericansareexpandingtheiruseoftheInternet.
RetrievedOctober23,2002fromWorldWideWeb:http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/anationonline2.htm.
Ouellette,J.A.,&Wood,W.(1998).Habitandintentionineverydaylife:Themultipleprocessesbywhichpastbehaviorpredictsfuturebehavior.
PsychologicalBulletin,124,5474.
Palmgreen,P.,Wenner,L.,&Rosengren,K.(1985).Usesandgratificationsresearch:Thepasttenyears.InK.Rosengren,L.Wenner,&P.Palmgreen(Eds.),
MediaGratificationsResearch(pp.1137).BeverlyHills,CA:SagePublications.
Papacharissi,Z.,&Rubin,A.M.(2000).PredictorsofInternetusage.JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,44,175196.
Parker,B.J.,&Plank,R.E.(2000).AusesandgratificationsperspectiveontheInternetasanewinformationsource.AmericanBusinessReview,18,4349.
Perse,E.,&GreenbergDunn,D.(1998).Theutilityofhomecomputersandmediause:Implicationsofmultimediaandconnectivity.Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,42,435456.
PewResearchCenter(2002a).Theinternetgoestocollege:
Howstudentsarelivinginthefuturewithtoday'stechnology.RetrievedOctober20,2002fromtheWeb:http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71.
PewResearchCenter(2002b).TheInternetandEducation:FindingsofthePewInternet&AmericanLifeProject.RetrievedOctober1,2002fromtheWeb:
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports
Rich,A.R.,&Scovel,M.(1987).Causesofdepressionincollegestudents:Acrosslaggedpanelcorrelationalanalysis.PsychologicalReports.60,2730.
Robinson,T.N.(1999).Reducingchildrenstelevisionviewingtopreventobesity.JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,282(16),15611567.
Rosenstein,A.W.,&Grant,A.E.(1997).Reconceptualizingtheroleofhabit:Anewmodeloftelevisionaudienceactivity.JournalOfBroadcastingand
ElectronicMedia,41,324344.
Rubin,A.M.(1983)Televisionusesandgratifications:Theinteractionsofviewingpatternsandmotivations.JournalofBroadcasting,27,3751.
Rubin,A.M.(1984).Ritualizedandinstrumentaltelevisionviewing.JournalofCommunication,34,6777.

Song,I.,LaRose,R.,Lin,C.,&Eastin,M.S.(2002).GratificationsofInternetuseandInternetaddiction.PaperpresentedtotheInternationalCommunication
Association,CommunicationandTechnologyDivision,Seoul,Korea,July.
Skinner,B.F.(1938).Thebehavioroforganisms.NewYork:AppletonCenturyCrofts.
SPSS,Inc.(2000).SPSSforWindows,Version10.1.Chicago,IL:Author.
Stone,G.&Stone,D.(1990).Lurkingintheliterature:anotherlookatmediausehabits.MassCommunicationsReview,17,2533.
Triandis,H.C.(1980).Values,attitudesandinterpersonalbehavior.InNebraskaSymposiumonMotivation.Volume37,pp.195259.Lincoln:Universityof

NebraskaPress.
https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

9/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

Turkle,S.(1995).Lifeonthescreen:IdentityintheageoftheInternet.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.
U.S.CensusBureau(2002).State&CountyQuickFacts.RetrievedfromtheWebonOctober25,2002:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

Table1PearsonProductMomentCorrelationsofIndependentandDependentVariables

Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6

10

11

12

Min

Max

Mean

S.D.

1.InternetUsage
1.00

1.04

8.44

5.2323

1.61706

.072

1.00

19.00

78.00

41.8313

12.94951

.066

.044

1.00

.00

1.00

.5774

.49545

.157*

.136

.051

1.00

.00

1.00

.8889

.31519

.188*

.044

.183

1.00

7.00

28.00

19.5745

5.01349

.060

.076

.181

.436**

1.00

10.00

28.00

22.7386

3.91390

.192*

.076

.216* .650** .260**

1.00

3.00

21.00

13.3547

4.25699

.007

.049

.166* .475** .364** .507**

1.00

4.00

28.00

15.0235

6.40724

.056

.012

.168* .400** .528** .366** .320**

1.00

4.00

28.00

18.1190

5.08000

.109

.020

.248** .650** .444** .585** .673** .437**

1.00

4.00

27.00

17.1749

4.87411

.153*

.239*

.114

.332** .496** .312** .330** .379** .488**

1.00

5.00

35.00

24.1632

7.38008

.119

.077

.117

.360** .363** .386** .457** .335** .421** .351**

1.00

3.00

21.00

14.0468

4.78382

.155*

.171*

.158* .320**

.447**

9.00

54.00

17.5327

10.49921

2.Ageinyears

3.Sex

4.Race

5.ActivityOutcomes
.428**
6.NovelSensoryOutcomes
.338**
7.SelfevaluativeOutcomes
.392**
8.SocialOutcomes
.429**
9.MonetaryOutcomes
.266**
10.StatusOutcomes
.528**
11.InternetSelfEfficacy
.405**
12.HabitStrength
.494**
13.DeficientSelfRegulation
.469**

.174*

.411** .406**

.093

.450**

.201*

*Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(2tailed).
**Correlationissignificantatthe0.001level(2tailed).
Table2StepwiseMultipleRegressionofUsesandGratificationsandSocialCognitiveVariablesonInternetUsage

Model
Variable
Usesand
Usesand
SCT
gratificationsgratifications+
SocialOutcomes
.290**
.126
.012
ActivityOutcomes
.282**
.134
.089
StatusOutcomes

.350**
.180
HabitStrength

.239**

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

10/11

8/7/2016

ASocialCognitiveExplanationofInternetUsage:TowardaNewTheoryofMediaAttendance

DeficientSelfRegulation

InternetSelfEfficacy

MultipleR
.491
AdjustedR2
F

.218*

.152*

.540
.232
26.023**

.649
.278
22.355**

.399
19.386**

Note:Tableentriesarestandardizedbetaweights.
*Significantatthe.05level
**Significantatthe.001level

[1]
Theitemswere:ObtaininformationthatIcantfindelsewhere,getimmediateknowledgeofbignewsevents,findawealthofinformation,solveaproblem.
[2]
HearmusicIlike,feelentertained,havefun,playagameIlike.
[3]
FeellikeIbelongtoagroup,findsomethingtotalkabout,getsupportfromothers,maintainarelationshipIvalue.
[4]
Forgetmyproblems,findawaytopassthetime,relieveboredom
[5]
Improvemyfutureprospectsinlife,findpeoplelikeme,findotherswhorespectmyviews,getuptodatewithnewtechnology
[6]
Savetimeshopping,findbargainsonproductsandservices,getfreeinformationthatwouldotherwisecostmemoney,getproductsforfree
[7]
TheInternetispartofmyusualroutine,Ifindmyselfgoingonlineaboutthesametimeeachday,IwouldmisstheInternetifIcouldnolongergoonline
[8]
IhaveahardtimekeepingmyInternetuseundercontrol,Isometimeshavetostrugglewithmyselftolimitmytimeonline,IhavetokeepusingtheInternetmoreandmoretogetmythrill,I
havetriedunsuccessfullytocutdownontheamountoftimeIspendonline,IfeelmyInternetuseisoutofcontrol,Igettense,moody,orirritableifIcantgetontheWebwhenIwant,Ioftenthink
abouttheInternetevenwhenIamnotonline,IsometimestrytoconcealhowmuchtimeIspendonlinefrommyfamilyorfriends,IwouldgooutofmywaytosatisfymyInterneturges.
[9]

https://msu.edu/~larose/ica03post.htm#_ednref9

11/11