951' m
V. x ‘
p.-. .......v

u. unto-on

 

 

 

 

1.:
”:3: x

.1}. u- I

.-q 9.... 3,.

,... . . ‘ .Le WI
.U. ‘ , , 3:3? ‘ . x , in?

it:

 

 

 

IIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/II

3150 644747

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Uses and Gratifications of the Internet

presented by

Tamar Rachel Charney

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mam—degree inlelecnmmnnications

MamMr 0

Date December 91 ]996

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

- .- - --—-—- A

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOXto romavothll checkout from your record.

 

 

To AVOID FINES return on or baton date duo.
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
A” _
5 ~ 2
JAN; 4001 W25: ¥
ozifiafifls~
NOV} 9 2001 ‘
I101 4 D . “(1‘ I
”M IR 2002 ‘ ‘
l
MSU!e.A.-!“" ’1 2r “,imu‘iuikm
m.

.4”, _

  
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF THE INTERNET
By

Tamar Rachel Chamey

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunications

1 996

ABSTRACT
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF THE INTERNET
By

Tamar R. Chamey

There is a popular perception that since the Internet (‘Net) and on-Iine services are
so-called “information services” they are used for information seeking. But research
on computers and e—mail raise the suspicion that lntemet use may in fact be
motivated by a desire for entertainment. This study examines why people use the
lntemet from a uses-and-gratifications perspective. While using the ‘lntemet to meet
a need for entertainment-diversion was the most frequent use of the ‘Net, using it to
keep informed and for communication explained nearly 36% of the variance in time
spent using the lntemet. Additionally, the phenomena known as ‘netsurfing was
examined. Reasons for surfing the lntemet were to find something, for fun, to pass

time, and to see what is going on.

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Telecommunication, College of
Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment

of the require

 

 

Director of Thesis V a

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to my committee - Bradley Greenberg, Carrie Heeter, and Robert LaRose
- and also to the rest of the faculty who put up with my incessant questions. Ben
Fauber was invaluable as my liaison to the wonderful world of SPSS. I’d also like
to thank my family for their assistance in helping me return to school to pursue an
MA. and for all that data entry. Paul, I’m glad you didn’t nuke my thesis files while
A Ieaming C++. And thank you is due to Simon the cat for leaving his mark on this

project.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
....................................................... vii
Introduction
STUDY RATIONALE ....................................... 1
Chapter 1
DEFINING THE INTERNET .................................. 3
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................... 5
Uses-and-gratifications: The Theory ....................... 6
Previous Studies ..................................... 8
What communication needs are being filled by the lntemet . . . . 13
Surfing the Media .................................... 16
‘Net Choices ........................................ 17
Research Questions .................................. 20
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY ......................................... 21
Data Collection ...................................... 21
Instrument Development ............................... 21
Chapter 4
RESULTS ............................................... 28
Demographics ...................................... 28
Computer and ‘Net Use ............................... 28
‘Net Activities ....................................... 29
‘Netsurfing ......................................... 30
‘Net Frustrations ..................................... 31
Gratifications ....................................... 32
Predicting time spent on the ‘Net ................... 40
Predicting Gratifications .......................... 44
Predicting Keep Informed ......................... 44
Predicting Diversion Entertainment ................. 48
Predicting Peer Identity .......................... 53
Predicting Good Feelings ......................... 53
Predicting Communications ....................... 53

V

Predicting Sights & Sounds ....................... 63

Predicting Career ............................... 67
Predicting Coolness ............................. 71
Gratification Regression Summary .................. 75
Predicting ‘Netsurfing Time ............................. 76
Predicting ‘Net Frustrations ............................ 81

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION ............................................ 86
Appendix .................................................... 101
References .................................................. 103

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Uses-and-Gratifications from Past Studies .................... 10
Table 2 - ‘Net Activities .......................................... 30
Table 3 - Reasons for ‘Netsurfing .................................. 31
Table 4 - Frustration with the ‘Net .................... . .............. 32
Table 5 - A Priori Gratification Scales ............................... 33
Table 6 - Gratification Factor Analysis Results ........................ 38
Table 7 - Regression: Gratifications => Time Spent Using the ‘Net ......... 40
Table 8 - Demographic Variables =>Time Spent Using the ‘Net ............ 41
Table 9- How Learned to Use ‘Net => Time Spent Using the ‘Net .......... 41
Table 10- Location ‘Net Is Used =>Time Spent Using the ‘Net ............ 42
Table 11- Activities => Time Spent Using the ‘Net ..................... 43
Table 12- Final Regression to Predict Time Spent Using the ‘Net .......... 44
Table 13 - Keep lnforrned Regressions .............................. 46
Table 14 - Significant Variables from Block Regression => Keep Informed . . . 48
Table 15 - Diversion-Entertainment Regressions ....................... 50
Table 16 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Diversion Entertainment
....................................................... 52
Table 17 - Peer Identity Regressions ................................ 55
Table 18- Good Feeling Regressions ............................... 58
Table 19- Communication Regressions ............................. 61
Table 20- Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Communication. .63
Table 21- -Sights & Sounds Regressions ............................. 65
Table 22 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Sights & Sounds
....................................................... 67
Table 23 - Career Regressions .................................... 69
Table 24 - Significant Variables from Block Regression => Career ......... 71
Table 25 - Significant Variables from Block Regression => Coolness ....... 73
Table 26 - Time Spent Surfing Regressions .......................... 78
Table 27 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Time Spent Surfing
....................................................... 81
Table 28 - Frustration Regressions ....... ' .......................... 83
Table 29 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Frustration ..... 85
Appendix Table - Number of Responses per Variable .................. 101

vii

Introduction

STUDY RATIONALE

What motivates people to use the lntemet? Knowing what needs people are looking
to fulfill and what types of activities they enjoy pUrsuing on-Iine will enable
companies, media producers, policy makers, and media effects researchers to better
understand how to deal with this emerging media form. Understanding how people
use new technologies can help researchers predict the impact the technology will
have on society. As Deborah Cowles points out the “use to which a medium is put
helps determine its impact.” Thus it is important that energies be directed “to the
study of interactive media because interactive media can be put to many different

uses” (Cowles, 1989).

If the lntemet is being uwd for entertainment purposes, the way people allocate their
time to other entertainment sources may shift. If 9.0..t.h§..9_th§.t..h§0d the Internmetjs ,
games“! forresegrghang intermatiqn seekingjt figwglxgbat theiegnggiggy
will achiegthedegreegfafloption as would a technology used for entertainment
and other mass appeal purposes. As Williams, Phillips and Lum noted, “we are
seeing modifications in the choice environment. Some of these may be short

Iived...and others may change the media environment forever (Williams, Phillips, 8

Lum, 1985).

 

Knowledge about why We use the lntemet will be helgful in business forecasting
and decision making. Should companies be developing on-line video applications
and games or reference and research tools or communication applications? Since
“the proliferation of new communication technologies may affect the structure of
communication in society” (Vlfilliams, Phillips, & Lum, 1985), knowledge about the
amount of use and type of use is important when policy makers and business
leaders make decisions about the design and architecture of the “information
superhighway.” Currently there is a lot of speculation about lntemet use by the
business, academic, and governmental sectors. Business leaders wants to know
where to invest, the government wants to know how to regulate (or not), and the
academicians want to know how on-Iine services are going to affect society, but
there is a paucity of research being done to explain and categorize what people are

actually doing on-line and why.

Chapter 1

DEFINING THE INTERNET

While there is debate overhwain studying what
is commonly referred to as “the ‘Net”, Wellman and Gulia proposed a definition
that concurs with common usage in the mass media. Their study focused on
“the Internet, dialogue or chat lines (ie: Internet Relay Chat), e-mail,
newsgroups, bulletin board systems, commercial networks such as America On-
Line or Prodigy, MUD’s, MOO’s, etc....we refer to the sum of all these systems
as the ‘Internet’ or simply, ‘the Net'” (Wellman & Gulia, 1995). John December
points out “researchers studying communication on an on-line service (for
example Prodigy) must be careful to realize that they are not studying Internet
communication” (December, 1996). Wellman and Gulia acknowledge that while

“some of these systems are strictly speaking not part of the Internet, they are

 

rapidly becoming connected to it. Indeed thexNet has never been a single
flit-L Rather, it is a flflgwms” (Wellman & Gulia, 1995).
However, despite its shortcomings Wellman and Gulia’s broad definition seems
to best describe the Internet from a user’s perspective without drawing
distinctions based on protocol and technological factors that are transparent

when using the medium with current software. For the purposes of this

discussion and study, the Internet (‘Net) will be defined as what is technically

4

the lntemet, as well as, the World Wide Web, Inter Relay Chat (IRC) functions,
newsgroups, commercial networks such as America On-Line or Prodigy,
MUD’s, MOO’s, gopher, and the other activities possible on the Network of
Networks.

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Unlike conventional media “the computer is an object without a fixed or
predetermined function...depending on how the computer is used it may take the
form of a work tool, a calculator, a toy“ etc. (Caron et al., 1989). .The same can be
said for the lntemet: it can be used for a variety of purposes - research,
correspondence, games, shopping, etc. If the computer and by extension the
lntemet really have no inherent set of functions, how do people decide how to use
it? Unless fomd, people would have to be engaging in an active decision to use the
medium for a specific purpose or purposes that the user specifies based on an
internal desire, need, or goal. Currently, while there is no formal explanation of why
and how someone decides that they are going to use the lntemet, it would appear
that uses-and-gratifications might be an appropriate framework from which to
examine ‘Net use since the theory accepts the idea of an active audience.

Newhagen argues in a Winn Symposium that “the perspective
seems to hold some prospect for understanding the lntemet because it addresses
the problem of its mutability...the lntemet offers the user a broad range of
communication opportunities...[and] uses-and-gratifications offers a vehicle to lay out
a taxonomy of just what goes on in cyberspace” (Newhagen, 1996). Elsewhere in
the same issue of the When it is argued that the comprehensive

nature of uses-and- gratifications makes the theory useful when studying the ‘Net

5

/‘\§L_//§

6
because the ‘Net is “a media environment where [there are] not only home and
business applications, but also work and play functions“ (Mom's & Ogan, 1996).
Uses-and gratifications, therefore, is likely to be helpful when trying to understand

the ‘Net because it can describe (the range of activities W the ‘Net.
wwww/ J --r\-—-~.W ’

O"
\J

 

Uses-and-gratifications: The Theory

The uses-and-gratifications approach to media studies is described by Katz, Blumler,
and Gurevitch (1974) as one that looks at “(1) the social and psychological origins
of (2) needs, which generate (3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other
sources, which lead to (5) differing patterns of media exposure... resulting in (6)
need gratifications and (7) other consequences.” Thus the social and psychological
characteristics of people influence their motivations for using media sources. While

the model posits a connection from the origins of needs to the effects of media in

that “the strength of needs (gratifications sought) 'll u “mate determine the im of
W ’./N -..,
of. n I communica‘ ' f 19 7, this connection is

rarely investigated. Lichtenstein and Rosenfeld (1984) explain that since people
W
“choose their media experiences according to the particular gratifications, . . .research

has focused primarily on the exploration of audiences’ decision making processes.”

Currently uses-and-gratifications seems to be most useful for describing the various
reasons or motivations for choosing one medium over another one. Lichtenstein and
Rosenfeld ( 1984) found that “the decision to utilize mass communications channels

involves a two part process. The first part involves the acquisition of normative

7
expectations about gratifications from different media. The second part concerns
individualistic decisions about how to seek gratifications.’ People use their
perception of the ability of a medium or channel to fulfill them in making a decision
to use that medium. “Media selection is goal-directed, purposive, and motivated...in

order to satisfy felt needs or desires” (Rubin, 1994). Unfortunately there is no one

 

 

master list of ”the gratifications obtained from medigggg instead there are

E, ‘13....- m “M;

 

 

numerous classification“ systems and categories. Examples of gratifications
W ___ -......,,__,,_,___,,,_

uncovered in past research on conventional media include a need for factual

 

 

 

 

information, substitute companionship, social validation, relaxation, behavioral
guidance, excitement, companionship and affective guidance (Lometti et al, 1977).
These and other gratifications have been used in examining which media outlets

people seek for what purpose (See Table 1).

In a study of television use among children six uses of television emerged - as a
habit, for arousal, for companionship, to relax, to forget, and to pass time
(Greenberg, 1974). A recent study of the telephone resulted in four gratifications -
sociability, entertainment, acquisition, and time management (O’Keefe & Sulanowski,
1995). Eight utility factors emerged in a study of the uses-and-gratifications of the
VCR - library storage, music videos, exercise tapes, movie rental, child viewing,
time-shifting, socializing, and critical viewing (Rubin, 1987). Interestingly the
entertainment and information gratifications often seen as the result of uses-and-
gratifications studies did not emerge in Rubin’s study. The item “it is entertaining”

loaded with library storage. There were no items that reflected informational uses.

8
Instead, many of the motivations for use identified by Rubin are specific to VCR’s
unlike the more general gratifications seen in many uses-and-gratifications studies.
The uses-and-gratifications model has been used extensively to look at television
use, as well as other conventional media outlets, it has also been applied to newer
technologies such as VCR’s (Rubin, 1987). However, as of yet, little research has
examined the uses-and-gratifications of computer based new media such as the

lntemet.

Previous Studies

Deborah Cowles (1989) identified a “pivotal, unanswered question” which is whether
Videotext is used by people “to satisfy the same needs they have been thought to
satisfy with the more traditional...media.” She then examined the use of interactive
media in the context of financial planning services from a uses-and-gratifications
perspective. While her study suggests that the uses-and-gratifications approach
holds promise for explaining interactive media use, her study was not an
investigation of “media gratification theory as it relates to interactive media” since
she was examining the utility and consumer perceptions of interactive media in the

context of seeking financial information.

Elizabeth Perse and John Courtright (1993), in a study conducted in 1988 prior to
the advent of the World WIde Web', compared how twelve different communication

channels including television, VCR’s, cable television, movies, conversation,

 

' The Web was first introduced in 1991. 1993 is considered the year that it began to gain
prominence (World Wide Web Consortium, 1995 & Kirsner, 1996).

Table 1 - Uses-and-Gratifications from Past Studies

 

10

Table 1 - Uses-and-Gratifications from Past Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1974)

 

Them" Gratification: Study Medium
Arousal Arousal A Greenberg (1974) TV
Arousal Rubin (1981) TV
Divert Habit Greenberg (1974) TV
Pass Time/Habit Rubin ( 1981) TV
Pass Time Greenberg (1974) TV
To Kill Time Lichtenstein 8. Rosenfeld Commercial TV, radio,
(1934) magazines
Diversion McQuail, Blumler, 8. TV
Brown (1972)
Forget Greenberg ( 1974) TV
Escape Rubin (1981) TV
To get away from usual Lichtenstein 8 Rosenfeld film, recorded music,
cares and problems (1984) friends, books, radio
Entertainment Entertainment O'Keefe and Sulanowskl Telephone
(1995)
Entertainment Rubin (1981) TV
To be entertained Lichtenstein 8. Rosenfeld recorded music, film,
( 1984) radio
Relationships Sociability O’Keefe and Sulanowski Telephone
(1995)
Social Rubin (1981) TV
To Overcome loneliness Lichtenstein 8 Rosenfeld Friends, recorded
(1984) music, radio
Personal Relationships McQuail, Blumler, 8. TV
Brown (1972)
Companionship Rubin (1981) Greenberg TV

 

 

Table 1 (cont’d).

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theme‘ Gratification: Study Medium
Information Surveillance McQuail, Blumler, 8. TV
Brown (1972)
lnforrnation Rubin (1981) TV
Learning Greenberg (1974) TV
To keep up with the Lichtenstein a Rosenfeld Newspapers,
government (1984) magazines, TV
To Obtain information Lichtenstein 8. Rosenfeld Newspapers, friends,
about daily life (1984) magazines, books
To get to know the Lichtenstein 8 Rosenfeld Newspapers, Public TV,
quality of our leaders (1984) magazines
Relax To release tension Lichtenstein 8. Rosenfeld recorded music, radio,
(1984) friends, film
Relax Greenberg (1974) TV
Relaxation Rubin (1981) TV
Self To learn about myself Lichtenstein 8. Rosenfeld Books, friends
(1 984)
Personal Identity McQuail, Blumler, & TV
Brown (1972)
Misc To feel I’m involved in Lichtenstein 8. Rosenfeld newspapers, books,
important events (1984) public TV, recorded
music
Acquisition O’Keefe and Sulanowski Telephone
(1 995)
Program content Rubin (1981) TV
TIme Management O’Keefe and Sulanowski Telephone
(1995)

 

 

* Gratifications listed together in theme groups are not necessarily interchangeable. Cleariy some of
the studies have shown a difference in items that are listed together in this table. Grouping by theme,
however illustrates the range and breadth of gratifications among certain categories.

12
newspapers, telephones, music, books, magazines, radio, and computers fill needs.
In contrast to the other media studied,_Pe__rse and Cougrjght found computer based

“communication activities ”$9.3... [§.U.K§Q..!9.wer.atmtfillingmpst all needs. However,

“W J‘JCM“”

 

 

since that study was conducted two changes have occurred with computers that
might alter the results of the study were it conducted today - personal computers
continue to be used “to an increasing extent and for more varied purposes in leisure
and work situations” (Steinfield, Dutton, & Kovaric, 1989) and the lntemet and

Worid Wide Web have gained prominence.

Estimates indicate that between 29 million (Hoffman, Kalsbeek, 8 Novak, 1996) and
37 million people in the United States and Canada use their computers to access the
lntemet and on-line services (Nielsen Media Research, 1995). These people spend
considerable amounts of time doing so. Specifically the Nielsen study found that use
of the lntemet and on-Iine services averages 5.5 hours per week which. is equivalent
“to playback of rented videocassettes” (Nielsen Media Research, 1995). Pitkow and
Kehoe (1995) found that 78% of lntemet users use the World Wide Web daily.
Additionally, anecdotes abound in the media of people addicted to the ‘Net, of
workers calling in sick so they can surf the lntemet (Ritter, 1996), and of children
spending hours on the lntemet at the expense of homework (McCartney, 1994).
Users must find the computer and the lntemet more effective than other media in
fulfilling certain needs; otherwise they would not devote large amounts of time to the
use of the medium nor would World Wide Web users be reporting that they are

using the web instead of watching television (Pitkow 8 Kehoe, 1995). Thus it would

13

seem that such services are being selected either to fulfill needs formerly met by

other media or perhaps even needs not formerly met by conventional media.

What communication needs are being filled by the lntemet?

In a study of one of the early attempts at VIdeotext services in the United States
Atwater, Heeter, and Brown (1985) asked participants in a laboratory trial of the
Viewtron system to indicate the gratifications they would seek to fulfill when using
Videotext. After using the Vrewtron system, participants believed VIdeotext was
most likely to fill surveillance needs and least likely to fill entertainment needs
despite the fact that the system was “designed for both information retrieval and
entertainment” (Atwater, Heeter, 8 Brown, 1985). However, the gratification options
given to the participants were “based on gratifications identified in television and
newspaper research” and thus the study does not reflect any new gratifications

possible with VIdeotext.

Interestingly, while lntemet services are commonly referred to as information
services and while the Viewtron study found VIdeotext to fill information needs, terms
such as “surfing the ‘Net' suggest that the use of the lntemet might be motivated by
more than a quest for information. Ninety percent of World Wide Web users in the
Nielsen study and 79% of users in the Pitkow & Kehoe study reported engaging in
browsing or exploring otherwise known as “netsurfing.” These results seem to
suggest that lntemet use might also be motivated by a need for entertainment or

time passing. Looking again to computers as a guide, it is commonly thought that

14
computers are mainly information processing tools and educational tools. Yet,
according to market research cited in the Wall Street Journal (1994, November 15)
while computer purchasers cite information and education as the motivators‘for
purchasing their computers, 70% of computer owners cite entertainment as the most
frequent use of their computers. Given that finding, it would seem less surprising
that Pitkow and Kehoe’s World Wide Web User study (1985) found that 79% of

respondents used the web for browsing, 63% for entertainment, and 52% for work.

Perse and Courtright’s study yields some information about the possible utility of
computers for satisfying communication needs: Learning needs, passing time, and
diversion were found to be the top three gratifications sought when using computers.
Are people seeking the same gratifications when using the lntemet? It is easy to
see how the ability to access information, attend virtual classes and universities, and
exchange ideas with other people on-line are all ways people might meet learning
needs through lntemet use. On-Iine games, music, and videos, as well as browsing
or exploring the lntemet are examples of time passing, entertainment, and diversion
activities that are possible with the medium. The Nielsen study and the Pitkow and
Kehoe study found that common uses of the lntemet include searching for
information, browsing and exploring, e-mail, discussions, accessing news and
magazines, and shopping. While some of these activities clearly fall into the three
previously mentioned categories, other activities such as e-mail and on-line
discussions could be motivated by a number of reasons. And many of the

transactional activities that are possible on the ‘Net such as shopping do not seem

15

to be easily fit into the conventional uses-and-gratifications categories.

The literature frequently suggests the importance of the emerging contrast
between technologies that are interactive versus those that are non-
interactive. This contrast is particulariy evident in experiences with new text
services. ...Services have been designed to meet a wide variety of media
needs, presumably many of which would be definable in terms of traditional
uses and gratifications. On the other hand there are the gratifications
associated with specific utilitarian services that are so specifically task related
that general gratifications seem irrelevant (VWlIiams, Phillips, & Lum, 1985)
such as banking and making travel reservations. .
A characteristic of some of the most used text services is that the satisfied
need often reflects accomplishment of a specific task (such as booking
theater tickets) than a traditional media related satisfaction (such as being
entertained.) The task may have emotional dimensions as well. People may
use computer ...services to meet new friends or to share ideas (Williams,
Phillips, & Lum, 1985).
Wellman’s research Mailman & Gulia, 1995, Wellman et al, 1996) suggests that a
large part of e-mail and lntemet use is socially motivated . Wellman argues that the
‘Net is a virtual community, “if the ‘Net were solely a means of information exchange,
then virtual communities...would mostly contain narrow, specialized relationships.
However, there is evidence that information is only one of many social resources

that is exchanged on the ‘Net.’

While there is little research into on-line service use, e-mail use has been
researched fairly heavily. Within organizations a traditional assumption had been
that email systems were used primarily for task-related communication (Steinfield,
1986). However, studies indicate that a large portion of e-mail even within work

settings is of a social nature. Rice and Steinfield (1994) found that the use of office

16
e-mail fell into three categories often seen in uses-and-gratifications research -
entertainment, consensus/control, and surveillance. WIthin the cluster of
entertainment related uses, office e-mail was used to “fill up free time”, “take breaks
from work”, and “participate in entertaining events.” Worded differently, e—mail was
used, even in the workplace, for entertainment, for diversion, and to pass time - the
three motivations for computer use from the Perse and Courtright study. Like we
saw with computer use, e-mail in reality is used for entertainment purposes more

than suspected.

Surfing the Media

In the VIewtron study it was noted that “the browse and tour accessing modes [of the
Viewtron system] are suited to “pleasure reading” (Atwater, Heeter, & Brown,
1985). Clearly browsing or netsurfing involves more than information seeking. Both
a pilot study conducted for this project and the Pitkoe and Novak (1995) study
indicate that this activity is frequently engaged in. Unfortunately it is unclear exactly
what surfing is. Is it just engaged in to pass time, is it entertaining, is it in fact a
surveillance function, or is it a way of coping with the large volume of options
available? “New media use has created new audience activity dimensions such as
grazing, or using the remote control device to graze over many viewing options” (Lin,

1993).

17
Heater suggests that channel surfing with the remote control “when a viewer does
not already know what they want to watch...may be an examination of program
options (generating alternatives), accompanied by a covert matching of needs with
programs that fulfill them (assessing consequences), leading eventually to selection
of a matched needs-program option” (Heeter, 1985). Thus is ‘netsurfing merely a
means of finding that which is gratifying? On the other hand, Hoffman and Novak
(1994) posit that netsurfing and “time-passing” ritualistic use characterize “early
interactions with hypermedia.“ People netsurf because they enjoy gaining mastery
over the medium. They anticipate that more and more instrumental use will develop
over time while frequency of engaging in browsing will decrease. While time studies
should be conducted to test their assertion, if the uses-and—gratifications of on-line
services parallel conventional electronic media closely, then the use of on-line
services in a ritualistic manner is not likely to disappear. Another possibility
suggested in the popular. press is that ‘netsurfing is “a procrastinators
dream...[offering] us the opportunity to waste time, to wander aimlessly, to daydream

about the countless other lives, the other people” also on the ‘Net (Gibson, 1996).

“Net Choices

While it is unclear what motivates netsurfing, lntemet content providers seem to be
creating more and more applications and more and more content designed for
entertainment, social, and time passing activities. Chat groups, on-Iine comic strips,
games, interactive extensions of television programs, audio, video, and absurdities

such as cameras on fish tanks and bathrooms are increasing in an environment

18

once characterized by databases, search and retrieval programs, and
academic/militarylgovemment information. Services catering to certain segments
of society such as children and the elderly focus less on information germane to
these groups and more on fostering a sense of community and providing pass time
activities targeted at the demographics of the user (Rigdon, 1994). Wellman (1995)
argues that one of the motivators of ‘Net use is the construction of a virtual
community and society. The “Net is a way of meeting people and becoming part of
a community. On the other hand, lntemet commerce by means of actual
transactions, product information, and advertising on the lntemet is also increasing.
However, there remain a plethora of information and research tools available on the .
lntemet. One can “make a case for a ‘fun’ or entertainment function of the
telephone” (O’Keefe & Sulanowski, 1995) likewise the lntemet may have an
entertaining function despite the fact that, Iike the telephone, it started out as a

means of surveillance, information gain, purchasing goods, and scheduling.

With so many different activities, types of content, and options on the ‘Net how does
someone decide what to do or know what to do unless they come to the Internet
seeking gratifications of some sort or other based on their psychological or social
conditions. People can engage in passive use of the radio or television if already on,
or even turned on for no real reason. To use the lntemet the user has to actively
direct the service to a specific function. Accidental exposure is possible, but not as
likely as accidental exposure to television or radio. Unfortunately with few real

studies of lntemet use one can only guess at and read in between the lines of

19
previous research when trying to ascertain what the motives are that lead people to

use it.

Palmgreen (1984) cautions that in studying new communications technologies
“researchers should not be wedded to gratification typologies that the very changes
under study may have rendered incomplete, if not obsolete.” Thus it may be that
previous research has not yet uncovered the gratifications lntemet users are seeking
to fill. With many on-line services allowing users to choose aliases and “Net
activities such as Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) encouraging users to create the
identity of their choosing, the use of alternative personas and identities are common
on the ‘Net. Age, gender, and other elements of identity become “a property that
can be reset with a line of code“ (Bruckman, 1993). Could the ability to transcend
race, age, gender, and mobility motivate users? Parks quotes Bruckman as noting
that “cyberspace creates an identity workshop’ in which people learn and test social
skills” (Parks, 1996). Conventional media uses-and-gratifications research has not
provided a category of gratifications for such activities facilitated by the interactive

nature of the "Net.

Unfortunately exame what constitutes interactivity is unclear. Rafaeli defines
interactivity as “an expression of the extent that in a given series of communication
exchanges and third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to the degree to
which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions ..... [the] definition

of interactivity would be one predicated on the issue of responsiveness” (Rafaeli,

20
1988). Heeter posits that there is not a definition per se but dimensions of
interactivity such as “complexity of choice available, effort users must exert,
responsiveness to the user, monitoring information use, ease of adding information,
and facilitation of interpersonal communication“ (Heeter, 1989). Thus if the lntemet
and other “new media possess attributes not possessed by the traditional media, in
particular, interactivity“ (Cowles, 1989), then the “consequences for audience
members include greater selection, more personal control over (selection, and the
sense that one can be a communications source as well as a receiver... Interactivity
also provides opportunities for interpersonal-like transactions between individuals
or among groups of communicators“ (WIlliams, Phillips, 8. Lum, 1985). However we
do not know if the changes brought about by interactivity change the gratifications
sought. Luckily the uses-and-gratification approach assumes that one can merely
ask “individuals who use the medium...what purposes motivate specific uses of a

medium or its content” (Rubin, 1987).

Research Questions

First of all this study seeks to describe the gratifications sought by lntemet users.
What are people doing on the lntemet and what is motivating ‘Net use? What
accounts for the amount of time people spend on the ‘Net? Of secondary
importance is the question of netsurfing. Are users netsurfing? What motivates

netsurfing? Finally, what predicts the gratifications sought when using the ‘Net?

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

Data for this study were collected in August of 1996 through an in-class self
administered survey. The questionnaire administration was supervised by the
principal investigator. Respondents were a purposive sample of students in
Telecommunications 100 an introductory class taught by The Department of
Telecommunication at Michigan State University. All respondents had free access
to the lntemet through the University. A total of 200 completed questionnaires were
obtained out of the 216 that were distributed. Of the 200 questionnaires 168

respondents reported that they use the ‘Net.

Instrument Development

In a preliminary study, 14 students in a Physical Education class at Michigan State
University and 8 members of a Detroit area office described the different activities
they engaged in on-Iine. For each activity the respondent listed, the respondent was
asked to list the main reasons or motivations for engaging in that activity.

Responses were subjected to a content analysis which yielded eight categories of

lntemet use:

. e-mail

. chat rooms

. work 8 school related research

21

22

job hunting

travel information

transactions (ie: obtaining or delivering products)
netsurfing

games or “playing”

Five dimensions of motivations for use emerged in the analysis:

school/work necessity

social

entertainment

boredom- time passing
exploration-novelty seeking-surveillance

This information was used to supplement and adapt items used in previous
gratifications research yielding the following dimensions:

SOCIAL

I use the ‘Net to stay in touch with people I don’t see very often.
I use the ‘Net to get advice or support.

I use the ‘Net to get information to pass on to other people.

I use the ‘Net to meet new people.

I use the ‘Net to find companionship.

I use the ‘Net to find people like me.

ENIEBIAINMENI
I use the ‘Net to have fun.

I use the ‘Net to feel good.

I use the ‘Net to be entertained.
I use the ‘Net to find excitement.
I use the ‘Net to play.

ACQUISIIIQN

I use the ‘Net to get information about products or services.

I use the ‘Net to learn about how to do things.

I use the ‘Net to order products or services.

I use the ‘Net to make reservations.

I use the ‘Net to find information.

I use the “Net to deliver information or documents to someone.

SURVEILLANCE
I use the “Net to be informed about what is going on in the world.

I use the ‘Net to get immediate knowledge of big news events.

23

I use the ‘Net to keep up with news that isn’t available elsewhere.
I use the ‘Net to get information like timelweatherlstock prices/sports scores .
I use the ‘Net to find out about job opportunities.
I use the ‘Net to get information I can trust.

W

I use the “Net to relax.

I use the ‘Net to combat boredom.

I use the ‘Net to pass time.

I use the ‘Net to satisfy a habit.

I use the ‘Net to find new things.

I use the ‘Net to avoid doing what I am supposed to.

W
I use the ‘Net to feel important.

I use the ‘Net to gain status.

I use the 'Net to be cool.

I use the 'Net because I know I should.

I use the ’Net because everyone else does.

flfllIBE

I use the 'Net to develop new interests.

I use the ‘Net to be a part of the “information sUperhighway.”

I use the 'Net to stay up to date for my career.

I use the 'Net because I know it will be even more important in the future.
I use the 'Net to keep Ieaming.

I use the 'Net to keep up with technology.

lQENIIJI

I use the ‘Net to try out new identities.

I use the ‘Net to escape who I am.

I use the ‘Net to be accepted for my ideas.

I use the ‘Net to experience things I can’t in the real world.
I use the ‘Net to live out a fantasy.

EAME

I use the ‘Net to publish materials.

I use the ‘Net to let people know who I am.

I use the 'Net to learn about famous people.

I use the 'Net to read home pages of other people.

AESIHEIIC

I use the “Net to look for visually interesting graphics and pages.
I use the 'Net to enjoy the sights and sounds.

I use the ‘Net to look at graphics and animation

24 ,
For each item respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they use
the lntemet for that reason on a 5 point scale (1=not at all, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes,

4=often. 5=very often).

The categories social, entertainment, surveillance, diversion, and many of the
individual items under these headings came directly from previous uses-and-
gratifications research (Lin, 1993; Dobos 8 Dimmick, 1988; AMater, Heeter, 8
Brown, 1985; Perse 8 Courtright, 1993; etc). The social category was augmented
heavily by Wellman‘s research into the community like aspects of the ‘Net (1995).
The acquisition category incorporates items from a study of the uses-and-
gratifications of the telephone (O'Keefe 8 Sulanowski, 1995) and the preliminary
study. The remaining five categories - aesthetic, fame, identity, future, and peer
pressure - are a combination of ideas culled from responses in the preliminary
study, the Wellman article, the popular press, conversations with users and media
researchers. These categories are an attempt to tap into some of the unique
features and capabilities of the ‘Net such as the ease of being a "publisher", the
ability of the ‘Net to create "an identity workshop where people can learn and test
social skills” (Parks, 1996), the fashionable status of the ‘Net, and the novelty of the

medium.

Frustration with the ‘Net
Respondents were also asked to indicate the frequency with which they found

themselves experiencing various frustrations with the ‘Net (scale 1-5, 1=not at all).

25
NELEBQSIBAIIQNS

l have trouble remembering how to get onto the ‘Net

I get disconnected while I’m on the ‘Net

I get frustrated because the ‘Net is running slowly

I have trouble finding what I am looking for on the ‘Net

The ‘Net graphics take too long to access

I find I’m seeing the same stuff over and over

I find myself thinking that the novelty of using the ‘Net is gone

I get bored using the ‘Net

I get frustrated having to wait while things are downloading

I find the “Net is over rated

l have trouble using the ‘Net

Questions about computer use

Respondents were asked about their computer use. They were asked to answer
yes or no to the question “do you personally own a computer at this time?“ They
were also asked “how many hours per week do you use a computer for fun/play?“
and “how many hours per week do you use your computer for work?” The response
options for these two questions were “none”, “under 5 hours”, “6-10 hours“, “11-20
hours”, “21-30 hours”, “31-40 hours”, and “over 40.” Response options for these

two questions were guided by the options used by Pitkow and Kehoe (1995).

History with the “Net

Two questions were asked about the respondents’ history with the ‘Net. The
question “how long have you been using the ‘Net” was asked. Response options
were “less than 6 months", “6-11 months”, “1-3 years”, “4-6 years”, and “7 years or
more.” For the question “how did you learn to use the ‘Net” respondents were
asked to select one answer from the following options: junior high class, high school
class, college class, extracurricular class, on my own, from a friend, from a parent

or relative, from computer lab staff, at work, or other.

26

Questions about “Not use

To the question “where do you most often use the ‘Net’ respondents where asked
to select one answer from the choices “home”, “school computer lab”, “work”,
“friend’s home”, “relative’s home”, “library”, “community center”, “other.” For each
of the following, respondents were asked to circle “yes” or “no” to indicate whether
they do that activity on the “Net: research for school, research for work,
browsing/surfing, leaming, shopping, reading on-line news or magazines, doing work
on-line, entertainment, e-mail, playing games, newsgroups/IRC, accessing general
information (e.g.: time, weather, stock prices, etc), accessing information on

products.

Respondents were asked to indicate “how many hours a week do you spend on-line”
by choosing from “less than one hour“, “2-4 hours per week”, “5-7 hours per week”,
“8-10 hours per week”, “11-20 hours per week”, and “more than 20 hours per week.”
For the questions “how much time do you spend ‘Netsurfing each week” respondents
had the options “less than 1 hour”, “2-4 hours”, “5-7 hours”, “7-9 hours”, “10 hours
or more”, and “don’t surf.” Respondents were also asked “which reason best
describes why you surf or browse the ‘Net.” Answer choices to this question were
“to find something in particular”, “to pass time”, “to see what’s going on”, “for fun”,

“to feel less lonely”, “I feel I should”, “to learn how to use the “Net”, and “don’t surf.”

27
Demographic Questions
Demographic questions included “are you male or female?”, “what is your age?”,
“what is your class level” (response options: freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
graduate student, continuing education, not an enrolled student), and “what is your
current marital status” (response options: single, domestic partnership/living with

someone, married, widowed, divorced.)

Chapter 4

RESULTS
Number of respondents for each question ranged from 150 to 168. The questions
with the lowest number of respondents were the questions about frustrations with
the ‘Net due to its position at the end of the instrument. Only the questions on

frustration with the ‘Net had less than 160 respondents per question (see Appendix).

Demographics

30 percent of the respondents were female (n=51) and 67 percent were male
(n=112). All but one of the respondents were undergraduates. 56 were freshman,
49 were sophomores, 36 were juniors, 21 were seniors, and one respondent was a
continuing education student. Mean age of the respondents was 19.7 years with
respondents ranging from 17 to 38 years of age. 81% of the sample was between

18 and 21 years old. 93% were single.

Computer and ‘Net Use

54% of respondents personally owned their own computer. 13% indicated they did
not spend anytime doing work on a computer. 47% spent less than 5 hours a week
using a computer for work, 23% spent 6-10 hours a week working at a computer,
and 16% spent more than 11 hours a week using a computer for work. 8.3% said

they never use a computer for fun. 61% spent less than 5 hours a week using a

28

29
computer for fun, 22% spent 6-10 hours, and 8% used the computer for fun in

excess of 11 hours a week.

Most respondents had been using the lntemet for less three years (27% less than
6 months, 25% 6-11 months, 41% 1-3 years, 5% more than 3 years). Home and in
a school computer lab were the locations at which most respondents used the ‘Net
(39% home, 43% school lab, 9% work, 4% friends house) 26% of the respondents
reported that they learned how to use the ‘Net on their own while 22% learned from
a friend, 21% Ieamed in a class in college, and 11% Ieamed in a high school class,
7% Ieamed from a parent or relative, 5% Ieamed at work, and between 1 and 2%
Ieamed in a junior high school class, an extracurricular class, or from a computer lab

staff member.

Most respondents spent less than 4 hours a week using the ‘Net. 38% spent less
than one hour on the ‘Net, 36% spent 2-4 hours, 6% spent 5-7 hours, and 11%
spent in excess of 7 hours on the “Net. Amount of time spent on the ‘Net correlates
with owning a computer (.25 ps.001) and the amount of time the user has known

how to use the ‘Net (.48 ps.001).

‘Net Activities
E-mail, browsing or surfing, research for school, entertainment, research for work,
and teaming were the most common activities engaged in on the “Net (See Table 2).

Accessing information on products, doing work on-line, using the newsgroups or IRC

30
were engaged in by only a third of the respondents while only 16% of the students

used the “Net for shopping.

Table 2 - “Net Activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTIVITY % yes
e-mail 88
browse or surf 79
research for school 77
entertainment 77
research for work 75
learning 73

 

read on-line news or magazines 60

 

access general information 52

 

play games 49

 

access information on products 38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do work on line 36

newsgroups IRC 35

shop 16
‘Neteurfing

39% of respondents spent less than one hour a week surfing the ‘Net. 36% spent
2-4 hours, 6% spent 5-7 hours, and 6% spent in excess of 7 hours a week surfing
the ‘Net. The most frequently identified reason for surfing the ’Net was “to find
something.” Other common reasons were “for fun”, “to pass time”, and “to see

what’s going on” (see Table 3).

31

Table 3 - Reasons for ‘Netsurfing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Surfing # of respondents percent of respondents
To find something 49 29
For fun 34 20 A
To pass time 28 17
To see what is going on 21 12
To learn how to use the ‘Net 6 4
To feel less lonely 1 <1
I feel I should 1 <1
Don’t surf 15 9
“Net Frustrations

Respondents were also asked about their level of frustration with the ‘Net. Mean
frustration index score was 2.6 (scale range 1-5, with 1=not at all) suggesting that
overall respondents were only sometimes frustrated by the ‘Net (Frustration scale
reliability alpha=.87). The frustration items receiving the highest ratings related to
users being frustrated by the amount of time it takes to access desired materials on
the ‘Net. The items on the frustration scale receiving the lowest scores dealt with
mastery over using the ‘Net (see Table 4). Respondents did not seem to have
trouble using or remembering how to use the lntemet from the responses to the

frustration questions.

32

Table 4 - Frustration with the ‘Net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRUSTRATION ITEMS MEAN“
I get frustrated because the “Net is running slowly 3.16
I get frustrated having to wait while things are downloading 3.13
The “Net graphics take too long to access 3.12
l have trouble finding what I am looking for on the ‘Net 2.73
I find I’m seeing the same stuff over and over 2.65
I find the ‘Net is overrated 2.58
I get bored using the ‘Net 2.46
I get disconnected while I’m on the ‘Net 2.24
I find myself thinking that the novelty of the ‘Net is gone 2.20
l have trouble using the ‘Net 2.18
l have trouble remembering how to get onto the 'Net 1.94

 

* 1=not at all, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often

Gratifications

The 10 a priori sets of gratification scales were examined. All the a priori groupings
were found to create generally reliable scales with alphas ranging from .67 for the
fame scale to .87 for the surveillance, entertainment, and aesthetic scales with the
average reliability equal to .80. Of the a priori gratifications entertainment

(mean=2.77), aesthetic (mean=2.75), and future (mean=2.60) were indicated as the

most frequent reasons for engaging in ‘Net use (see Table 5).

 

33

Table 5 - A Priori Gratification Scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A PRIOR! SCALES Reliability (1 Mean "
Entertainment .87 2.77
Aesthetic .87 2.75
Future .86 2.60
Surveillance .87 2.51
Pass Time/Diversion .80 2.49
Acquisition .73 2.32
Social .81 2.1 7
Fame .67 1.95
Identity .76 1.70
Peer Pressure! Status .79 1.66

 

 

 

 

 

“1=not at all, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often

The next step was to determine whether the a priori groupings were really the
appropriate groupings. A factor analysis was run using SPSSIWindows 6.1.3

__,

girtcipal components solution using VARIMAXeration. “Theproflcfledure yieldedlj

factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (see Table 6).

The first factor, keep informed, had an eigenvalue of 20.08 and explained 39% of
the variance. The a priori items from the surveillance and future scales load on this
factor as does information related items from acquisition, diversion, and celebrity.
The items loading on this factor were “to get information like timelweatherlstock
prices! sports scores”, “to get information about products or services”, “to get

information I can trust”, “to get immediate knowledge of big news events”, “to find

34
information”, “to keep learning”, “to find new things”, “to keep up with technology”,
“to keep up to date with news that isn’t available elsewhere”, “to develop new
interests”, “to get information to pass on to other people”, “because I know it will be
even more important in the future”, and “to read the home pages of other people.”
Mean score for the factor grouping was 2.64. Reliability alpha for the item set was

.94.

The second factor, diversion entertainment, had an eigenvalue of 3.81 and explained
7.3% of the variance. “To pass time”, “to combat boredom”, “to play”, “to be
entertained”, “to have fun”, “to relax”, “to find excitement”, and “to be a part of the
information superhighway” loaded together. All but one of the items on this factor
came from the diversion and entertainment a priori groupings: “be a part of the
information superhighway” was part of the future category. Mean scores for the
items in this factor were among the highest rated. The overall mean was 2.80.

Reliability alpha was .92.

The third factor was peer identity. This factor contained social items, peer pressure
items, and identity related items. Included on this factor was “because everyone
else does”, “to gain status”, “to live out a fantasy”, “to be accepted for my ideas”, “to
meet new people”, “to satisfy a habit”, “to find peeple like me”, and “to get advice or
support.” Eigenvalue was 3.13 with 6% of the variance being explained. Mean
scores tended to be rather low with the overall mean being 1.83 (reliability alpha

.87).

35

Good Feelings was the fourth factor (eigenvalue 1.90, variance explained 3.7%).
Items in this factor came from a variety of places, yet they share the common
element of describing ‘Net use for the purpose of improving mood or emotional state:
“To feel good”, “to feel important”, “to find companionship”, “to escape who I am.”

Mean score was 1.59 and reliability alpha was .79.

Factor five, communication, consists of two items, “to stay in touch with people I
don’t see very often” and “to deliver information to someone.” The mean score for

this factor was quite high, 2.74 (eigenvalue 1.71, 3.3% of variance).

The sixth factor, sights 8 sounds (Eigenvalue 1.33, 2.6% of variation) contains all
the items from the original aesthetics scale: “to look at graphics or animation”, “to
enjoy the sights and sounds”, and “to look for visually interesting graphics and
pages”, as well as “to learn about famous people” from the celebrity scale. Mean

score was 2.72 and reliability was .84.

The seventh factor, career, contains items from various a priori groupings that relate
to career research and planning: “to stay up to date for my career”, “to learn how to
do things”, “to find out about job opportunities.” (Eigenvalue=1.23, 2.4% of variation,

reliability alpha= .77, mean=2.33).

The final factor (eigenvalue=1.01, 1.9% of variation), coolness, originally contained three

items: “to be cool”, “because I know I should”, and “to make reservations.” “To make

36
reservations” did not fit conceptually. After the item was removed reliability improved
considerably. Remaining items had a mean of 1.74 and a reliability alpha of .78.

Three other factors emerged in the factor analysis. “To publish materials”, “to order
products or services”, and “to let people know who I am” clustered together. This
factor had a mean of 1.57 and a reliability alpha of .64. “To try out new identities”
and “to experience things I can’t in the real world” had a mean of 2.01 and a
reliability alpha of .61. Finally “to avoid doing what I’m supposed to” became its own
factor (mean=1.01). The low reliability scores (.61 to .64) suggest that these factors
do not create reliable scales. This lack of reliability combined with the fact that the
meaning of some of the items are captured in the other more reliable scales and the
lack of conceptual cohesion of these remaining factors led to the decision to not

further analyze these items.

37

Table 6 - Gratification Factor Analysis Results

38

Table 6 - Gratification Factor Analysis Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor Meanl_ng Loading Mean“ Alpha Eigen— %Var
Factor 1 Keep Informed 2.84 0.94 20.08 38.6
Surv To get information like 0.78 2.78
timelweatherlstock prices/sports
scores
Surv To be informed about what is going 0.74 2.76
on in the worid
Acq To get information about products or 0.71 2.40
serVIces
Surv To get information I can trust 0.70 2.52
Surv To get immediate knowledge of big 0.68 2.34
news events
Acq To find information 0.67 3.44
Fut To keep leamirLL 0.66 2.89
Div To find new thigqs 0.61 2.79
Fut To keep tpwith technolpgy 0.57 2.64
Surv To keep up to date with news that 0.57 2.58
isn‘t available elsewhere
F ut To develop new interests 0.55 2.43
Soc To get information to pass on to other 0.51 2.38
people
Fut Because I know it will be even more 0.46 2.75
important in the future
Fame To read home pages of other people 0.44 2.26
Factor 2 Diversion-Entertainment 2.80 0.92 3.81 7.30
Div To pass time 0.78 2.78
Div To combat boredom 0.75 2.88
Ent To play 0.73 2.98
Ent To be entertained 0.70 3.20
Ent To have fun 0.69 2.88
Div To relax 0.68 2.20
Ent To find excitement 0.62 2.86
Fut To be a part of the information 0.58 2.59
superhighway
Factor 3 Peer Identity 1.83 0.87 3.13 6.00
Peer Because evegone else does 0.75 1.80
Per To gain status 0.72 1.51
ld To live out a fantasy 0.71 1.46
Id To be accepted for my ideas 0.67 1.63
Soc To meet new people 0.59 2.02
Div To satisfy a habit 0.49 1.98
Soc To find people like me 0.48 2.17
Soc To get advice or sgpport 0.45 1.57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8 (cont‘d).
Factor Meaning Loading Mean‘ Alpha Elgen 9w:
Factor 4 Good Feellrggg 1.59 0.79 1.90 3.70
Peer To feel important 0.68 1.49
Ent To feelpood 0.63 1.91
Soc To find companionship 0.60 1.51
Id To escape who I am 0.59 1.41
Factor 8 Communication 2.74 0.78 1.71 3.30
Soc To stay in touch with people I don't 0.77 2.92
see very often
Acq To deliver information to someone 0.73 2.51
Factor 8 Sights 8 Sounds 2.72 0.84 1.33 2.80
Aesth To looka_tgraphics or animation 0.74 2.90
Aesth To enjoy the sights and sounds 0.62 2.67
Aesth To look for visually interesting 0.56 2.64
raphics and pages
Fame To learn about famouspeople 0.51 2.24
Factor 7 Career 2.33 0.77 1.23 2.40
- Sur To find out about job opportunities 0.64 2.15
Acq To learn how to do thiflgs 0.60 2.61
Fut To stay up to date for my career 0.53 2.26
Factor 8 Coolness 1.74 .78 1.01 - 1.90
Peer To be cool 0.68 1.62
Peer Because I know I should 0.67 1.86
“Acq To make reservations 0.40 1.51
Dropped 1.57 1.48 2.80
Fame To publish materials 0.73 1.56 0.64
Acq To orderproducts or services 0.63 1.40
Fame To let people know who I am 0.52 1.74
Dropped 2.01 0.81 1.18 2.20
ld To try out new identities 0.72 1.95
ld To experience things I can‘t in the 0.51 2.07
real wortd
Dropped ,
_I_)iv To avoid doing what I'm sgpposed to 0.71 2.25 1.01 1.90

 

" 1=not at all, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often
“ Item dropped due to low reliability and conceptual reasons

 

4O
Predicting time spent on the ‘Net
Part of the goal of this study was to determine what accounts for the amount of time
users spend on the ‘Net. Five blocks of independent variables were used in multiple
regressions to try to determine what accounts for time spent on the ‘Net: the
gratifications, demographics, how respondents Ieamed to use the ‘Net, where

respondents use the ‘Net, and the activities respondents engage in on the ‘Net.

In the first multiple regression the keep informed, diversion-entertainment, peer
identity, good feelings, communication, sights 8 scunds, career, and coolness
scores were used as the independent variables. And time spent using the ‘Net per
week was used as the dependent variable. 40% of the variance in time spent on the
‘Net was explained by these gratification variables (Multiple R= .63, ps.01).
However, only the gratification variables keep informed and communication were
significant at the .05 level (see Table 7)

, d'
/I

Table 7- Regression: Gratifications- 9/Tim pent Using the ‘Net

r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[V/adabllx Beta 'Svlgplflcance
Keep Inrgnned j .27 I: bid ..
V '1’, "
Diversion En Itainment .10 .364
Peer Identity .15 .159
Good Feelings .00 .92:
Communications > .27 <. <.001/}
Looks —/ .01 .894
Career .06 .518
Coolness .. .2 1 -.11 , .182

 

 

 

 

 

(Multiple R=.63,"ps .orf
W

41
Next grade, age, and gender were used as independent variables (see Table 8).
Demographics were found to explain no (<1%) variance in time spent on the ‘Net
(Multiple R=.10, p= .70).

Table 8 - Demographic lambles = ime pent Using the ‘Net

 

 

 

 

Variable Beta Significance
gender’ .10 .236
age 7 -.02 .842
grade . .09 .857

 

 

 

 

 

(Multiple 3:1 91-31.20)!

In the third regression, where one learns how to use the ‘Net were the independent
variables. The outcome was that how one learns to use the ‘Net has little predictive
value in explaining the time spent on the ‘Net (multiple R=.30, p=.11). None of the

variables in this block were found to be significant (see Table 9).

Table 9 - l-lqw Learned to Use ‘Net => .Timmeéspent Using the ‘Net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Beta Significance
Learned in junior high .03 .768
Learned in high school .09 .640
Learned in college .02 g .947
Learned in extra curricular class .11 .239
Learned on my own .32 .219
Learned from a friend .06 .806
Learned from parent or relative .04 .812
Learned from computer lab staff .14 .212
Learned at work .07 .615

 

 

 

(multiple R=.30, p=.11)

 

42

Next the location at which the ‘Net is used variables were used in a multiple
regression as the independent variables to see if they had any value in explaining
time spent using the ‘Net (see Table 10). Location at which respondents use the
‘Net was found to have no merit in predicting the variance in time spent on the ‘Net

(Multiple R=.26, p=.09).

Table 10 - chationw‘Net is Used ==>Time Spent Using the ‘Net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Beta Significance -
Use at home -.19 .590 /.-/
Use at School -.31 .383 "/7 4
Use at work -.04 .847

Use at friend’s -.28 .086

Use at library -. 16 .193

 

 

 

 

(Multiple R=.26, p=.09)

The final set of variables used as the independent variables in the multiple
regressions with time spent on the ‘Net as the dependent variable were the activities
participants engage in on the ‘Net. Activities engaged in on the ‘Net explained 26%
of the variance in ‘Net time (see Table 11). However, none of the variables
explained time on the ‘Net at an acceptable (.05 or better) signifieance level (Multiple
R=.52, ps.01).

/..

43

Table 11 Actl T,yjtl‘es => Time Spent Using the ‘Net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Beta Significance
research for school -.01 .905
research for work -.15 .095
browsing/surfing -. 10 .306
learning -.07 .486
shopping .07 .409

reading on-line news or magazines -.04 .715

doing work on-line -.06 .506
entertainment -.18 .062 A
e-mail -.05 .491

playing games .06 .492
newsgroups/IRC -.16 .101
accessing general information (stocks, -.08 .394
weather...)

accessing information 9n products -.02 .863

 

(Multiple R=.52, p301);

\‘oQ-‘(f—"zrmn I

FinaQ/all thesignificant variables from the previous five multiple regressions were

\V"~
. 1‘

used as the independent variables in a regression with time spent using the ‘Net as
the dependent variable. As already described, of all the blocks of variables
analyzed, only two variables from the gratifications block were found to significantly
explain variance in time spent on the “Net.
contained only these two significant variables (see Table 12). The end result being

that keep informed and communication explained 36% of the variance in ‘Net time

(Multiple R=.598, p301).

Thus the final multiple regression

 

44

Table 12 - Final Regression to Predict Time Spent Using the ‘Net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
KeepJntormed A .42 <.001 .' .56
Communicatiog .26 .001 «A .484; ’1

 

(Multiple R=.598, 9.5.9.1)

,,

Predicting Gratifications

Regression analysis was also run using each gratification factor as the dependent
variable to determine what accounts for variation in motivations for using the ‘Net.
For each gratification a multipleiregression first was run using the demographic
variables as independent variable. Then the time variables, time spent on the ‘Net,
time spent surfing the ‘Net, time spent using a computer for work, and time spent
using a computer for fun, were used as the independent variables. Next how the
lntemet is Ieamed was used to try to predict the variance in each gratification. The
same process was repeated using the location at which the “Net is used and the

activities respondents engage in on the ‘Net.

Predicting Keep Informed

From the five multiple ragressions using each block of variables to predict variance
in the keep informed gratification age, amount of time using a computer for fun,
amount of time surfing the ‘Net, learning to use the ‘Net from a parent, friend, on
ovrln, or at work, using the ‘Net to read on-line news or magazines, accessing
information on products and to Ieam were the variables found to be significant (see

Table 13). These ten significant variables were then used in the final regression

45

\‘m_.-1-P‘ "WE“.—

   

...j
9
E
CD
J
U

“K

. a...

«..z Aegressions

I

I
I

46

Table 13,-, Keep Informed Regressions

 

Demographics Multiplé: .241,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Beta
‘ 'Gender .14
a (6:93”: 25)
\L\ i, T ixGrade . g f i :18
.. 7..-“ \\- I
., Emanultiple R = .66‘, Variable Beta
x/ " " it Time spohtuslng—tge “Net .10
Time using computer for fun 699
Time using computer for work M06
Time Surfing on “Net :4?)
How Learned Multiple R = .35‘ Variable Beta
Junior High .15
High School .31
College .36
On own .74"
Extra Curricular Class .15
From Friend .46”
From Parent .31“
From Computer lab staff .15
At Work .32”
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .27 Variable Beta
home .25
school .04
work .19
friend's -.07
relative's -.02
library .02

 

 

 

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13 (cont’d).

Net Activities Multiple R= .77” Variable Beta
research for school .09
research for work -.1 1
browsing surfing -.13
Learning -.26“
shopping .09
Reading on-line news or magazines 7g};
doing work on-Iine 406*
entertainment -.12
e-mail -.1 1
playing games -.01
newsgroups/IRC -.13
accessing general information -.12
accessing information on products -.19*

 

 

 

 

’ps.001 ”p505

 

48
analysis. The final result being that 61% of the variance in the keep informed
(gratification was explained (see Table 14). An increase in time spent surfing the ‘Net
and using the ‘Net for Ieaming, for reading on-line news or magazines, and for
accessing information on products were found to be significant at the .001 level for

predicting use of the ‘Net to keep informed (Multiple R=.76, ps.01).

Table 14 - Significanfixa/riajesfrom Block Regression => 1991;!!!me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

variable beta significance R
Ieaming -.23 <.001 -.57
read on-Iine news or magazines -.20 .001 -.53
access into on products -.21 .001 -.49
age .05 .412 .13
Ieam on own .09 .152 .28
learn from friend .03 .574 -.05
Ieam from parent .10 .078 .01
Ieam at work .00 .943 ‘ .06
time using computer for fun .08 .221 .50
time sperysurfing the ‘Net .34 <.001 .62

 

(Multiple R=.76, I... .01)

V

 

Predicting Diversion Entertainment

From the five multiple regressions to determine what variables may significantly
explain variance in the Diversion-Entertainment gratification time using the computer
for fun, time surfing on the ‘Net, time using a computer for work, Ieaming to use the
‘Net in an extra curricular class, Ieaming to use the ‘Net on one’s own, browsing or

surfing, Ieaming on the ‘Net, engaging in entertaining

49

Table 15 - Diversion-Entertainment Regressions

50

Table 15 - Diversion-Entertainment Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .16 Variable Beta
gender .06
age -.00
grade -.15

Time Multiple R = .48“ Variable Beta
Time using ‘Net .08
Time using computer for fun .24“
Time using computer for work -.19'
Time Surfing on ‘Net .41“

How Learned Multiple R = .39‘ Variable Beta
Junior High .06
High School .22
College .25
In a class .19“
On own .67“
From friend .36
From Parent .25
From computer lab staff .19
At work .16

Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .19 Variable Beta
home .14
school -.04
work .02
friend’s -.06
relative’s -.04
library -.01

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15 (cont’d).

Net Activities Multiple R= .69” Variable Beta
research for school .11
research for work .05
browsing/surfing -.19*
Ieaming -.19"
shopping .07
reading on-line news or magazines .-07
doing work on line .06
entertainment -.26‘
e—mail -.07
playing games -.26“
newsgroups/IRC -.16"
accessing general information -.01
accessing information on products -.01

 

 

 

 

*ps.001 "p595

 

52

activities on the ‘Net, playing games on the ‘Net, and using the newsgroups or IRC
were found to be significant at the .05 level or better (see Table 15). These ten
variables were then used in the final multiple regression to explain variance in
diversion-entertainment. This final analysis resulted in 51% of the variance in
diversion-entertainment being explained (see Table 16). An increase in time spent
surfing the ‘Net and engaging in the activities surfing or browsing, playing games,
and entertaining activities were the significant variables predicting the diversion-

entertainment gratification (Multiple R=.71, pg .01).

Table 18 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Diversion
Entertainment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- VARIABLE BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
browsing or surfing -.18 - .015 -.48
learning -.12 .079 -.39
entertainment -.20 .008 -.51
playing games -.14 .026 -.38
newsgroups/IRC .01 .862 -.26
Ieam in extracurricular class .08 .215 .11
Ieam on own .13 .056 .33
time spent using computer for fun .1 1 .183 .43
time spent using computer for work -.09 .164 .12
time spent surfing .27 .001 .53

 

(Multiple R=.71, pg .01)

53
Predicting Peer Identity
None of the variables from any of the five blocks of variables were found to be

significant in predicting variance in the peer identity gratification (see Table 17).

Predicting Good Feelings
Out of all the variables in the five blocks only engaging in entertaining activities
(R=.30) on the “Net was found to explain variance in the good-feelings gratification

at the .05 level of significance or better (see Table 18).

Predicting Communications

From the five block regressions seven variables - age, grade, time using computer
for fun, using the “Net at home, browsing/surfing, e-mail, newsgroups/IRC - were
found to be significant (see Table 19). These seven variables were then used in the
final regression analysis (see Table 20). 37% of variance in use of the ‘Net to fulfill
communication needs was explained in the final regression. Grade, the amount of
time the computer is used for fun, using the ‘Net at home, uses of newsgroups/IRC,
and use of e-mail were found to be the variables explaining communication with
significance at the .05 level or better (Multiple R=.60, ps.01). Lower grade levels
and an increase in the amount of time the computer is used for fun were predictive

of higher levels of use of the ‘Net to fulfill a need for communication.

54

Table 17 - Peer Identity Regressions

55

Table 17 - Peer Identity Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .05 Variable Beta
gender .04
age -.01
grade -.03

Time Multiple R = .47‘ Variable Beta
time spent using ‘Net .21
time using computer for fun .14
time using computer for work -.08
time spent surfing .22

How Learned Multiple R = .18 Variable Beta
Junior High .17
High School .17
College .33
In a class .02
On own .37
From friend .29
From Parent .22
From computer lab staff .07
At work .20

Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .10 Variable Beta
home .27
school .22
work .20
friend’s .06
relative’s .06
library .08

 

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17 (cont’d).

Net Activities Multiple R= .45“ Variable Beta
research for school .05
research for work -.07
browsing/surfing .01
Ieaming -. 16
shopping .16
reading on-line news or magazines -.09
doing work on line -.00
entertainment -.19
e-mail -.02
playing games -.11.
newsgroups/IRC -.09
accessing general information -.03
accessing information on products -.05

 

 

 

 

*ps.001 “p505

 

57

Table 18 - Good Feeling Regressions

58

Table 18 - Good Feeling Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .12 Variable Beta
gender -.08
age .07
grade -.12
“me Multiple R = .38“ Variable Beta
time spent using the ‘Net .16
time spent using computer for fun ' .12
time spent using computer for work -. 12
time spent surfing the ‘Net .19
How Learned Multiple R = .25 Variable Beta
Junior High .15
High School .13
College .04
In an extra- curricular class .05
On own .28
From friend .08
From Parent .15
From computer lab staff .12
At work .06
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .11 Variable Beta
home .24
school .23
work . 1 7
friend's .05
relative’s .09
library .13

 

 

 

 

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18 (cont’d).

Net Activities Multiple R: .43" Variable Beta
research for school .07
research for work <.01
browsing/surfing .08
Ieaming -.09
shopping .06
reading on-Iine news or magazines -.11
doing work on line .15
entertainment -.20”
e-mail -.04
playing games -.17
newsgroups/IRC -. 19
accessing general information -.01
accessing information on products -.08

 

 

 

 

'ps.001 "p505

 

60

Table 19 - Communication Regressions

61

Table 19 - Communication Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .21 Variable Beta
gender -.10
age .22"
grade -.21"*
Time Multiple R = .56' Variable Beta
Time spent on the ‘Net .19
Time spent using computer for fun .29“
Time spent using computer for work .1 1
Time spent surfing the “Net .08
How Learned Multiple R = .29 Variable Beta
Junior High .08
High School .24
College .17
In a class .14
On own .49
From friend .24
From Parent .19
From computer lab staff .18
At work .15
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .24 Variable Beta
home .68“
school .55
work .40
friends .12
relative’s .05
library .10

 

 

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 19 (cont’d).

Net Activities Multiple R= .56” Variable Beta
research for school .04
research for work -.00
browsing/surfing -.18**
Ieaming -.06
shopping .01
reading on4ine news or magazines .03
doing work on line -.06
entertainment .09
e-mail -.30*
playing games -.01
newsgroups/IRC -.26‘“
accessing general information .00
accessing information of products -.16

 

 

 

 

$5.001 "p805

 

63

Table 20 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
browsing/surfing -.09 .189 -.25
e-mail -.22 .002 -.35
newsgroups/IRC -.26 <.001 -.40
age .09 .300 .10
grade -. 18 .036 -.07
use “Net at home -.01 .942 .15
Time spent using computer for fun .32 <.001 . .47

 

 

 

 

(Multiple R=.60, p301)

Predicting Sights 8 Sounds

From the five block regressions using the demographics, time, Ieamed, location, and
activity variables to predict variance in sights 8 sounds; grade, time spent using the
computer for fun, time spent surfing the ‘Net, using the ‘Net to learn and to play
games were found to be the significant variables for explaining variance (see Table
21). These five variable were used in the final regression. 31% of the variance in
using the ‘Net to fulfill aesthetic needs was explained by the final regression (see
Table 22). Using the ‘Net to learn and increased time spent surfing on the ‘Net were

found to be the significant variables in the final regression (Multiple R=.56, ps.01).

64

Table 21 - Sights 8 Sounds Regressions

65

Table 21 - Sights 8 Sounds Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .19 Variable Beta
gender .1 1
age .16
grade -.19“
Time Multiple R = .53“ Variable Beta
Time spent on the ‘Net .01
Time spent using computer for fun .20“
Time spent using computer for work -.12
Time spent Surfing on ‘Net .43“
How Learned Multiple R = .29 Variable Beta
Junior High .02
High School .07
College .07
In a class .16
On own .32
From friend .08
From Parent .21
From computer lab staff .01
At work .07
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .19 Variable Beta
home .00
school -.21
work -.07
friend’s -.05
relative’s -.02
library -.05

 

 

 

 

Table 21 (cont'd).

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Net Activities Multiple R= .59‘ Variable Beta
research for school .11
research for work -.06
browsing/surfing -.17
learning -.19“
shopping .05
reading on-line news or magazines -.07
doing work on line .15
entertainment -.13
e-mail -.09
playing games -.23*
newsgroups/IRC -.14
accessing general information .00
accessing information of products -.09

 

"ps.001 ”p505

 

67

Table 22 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Sights 8.
Sounds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLES BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
Ieaming -.18 .017 -.38
playing games -.13 .066 -.31
grade -.04 .607 -. 10
Time spent using computer for fun .12 .164 .41
Time spent surfing the ‘Net .33 <.001 .50

 

(Multiple R=.56, ps.01)

Predicting Career

From the demographic and location blocks no variables were found to be significant.
From the time block only the amount of time spent using the computer for work was
significant. The activities using the ‘Net to Ieam, access product information, and
using the newsgroups/IRC were significant. Having Ieamed to use the ‘Net in high-
school, college, from a parent, friend, at work, and on own were the significant
variables from the Ieamed block (see Table 23). When these significant variables
from each block were used in the final regression analysis, 44% of the variance in
using the ‘Net to meet career needs was explained (see Table 24). Using the
newsgroups/IRC, using the ‘Net to Ieam, accessing information on products, and
greater levels of time spent using the computer for work were the significant

variables (Multiple R=.66, ps.01) predicting use of the “net for career purposes.

68

Table 23 - Career Regressions

Table 23 - Career Regressions

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .22“ Variable Beta
gender .08
age .12
grade .12
Time Multiple R = .57‘ Varlable Beta
Time spent on the ‘Net .17
Time spent using computer for fun ' .11
Time spent using computer for work .22‘
Time spent Surfing on ‘Net .20
How Learned Multiple R = .33“ Variable Beta
Junior High .15
High School .45"
College .49“
In a class .11
On own .77'
From friend .52“
From Parent .35“
From computer lab staff .19
At work .47’
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .24 Variable Beta
home .01
school -.03
work . 1 9
friends -.12
relative’s -.03
library .03

 

 

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 23 (cont’d).

“Net Activities Multiple R: .64‘ Variable Beta
research for school -.00
research for work -.15
browsing/surfing -.03
Ieaming -.25‘
shopping .07
reading on—line news or magazines .05
doing work on line -.04
entertainment .01
e-mail -.08
playing games .02
newsgroups/IRC -.23*
accessing general information -.03
accessing information of products -.21“

 

 

 

 

'ps.001 “p505

 

71

Table 24 - Significant Variables from Block Regression => Career

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
Learning -.24 .001 -.47
newsgroups/IRC -.26 .001 -.47
accessing information on products -.19 .013 -.42
Learned in high school .15 .182 -.02
Learned in college .11 .379 -.13
Learned on my own .16 .227 .19
Learned from friend .08 .519 -.09
Learned from parent or relative .15 .097 .001
Learned at work .02 .780 .17
Time spent using computer for work .25 <.001 .40

 

(Multiple R=.66, p301)

Predicting Coolness
Few of the variables from any of the blocks were significant in explaining variance
in using the ‘Net to be cool. Only having Ieamed to use the ‘Net from a parent or

relative (R=.20) was found to be significant (see Table 25).

72

Table 25 - Significant Variables from Block Regression => Coolness

73

Table 25 - Significant Variables from Block Regression => Coolness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .16 Variable Beta
Gender -.01
Age .06
Grade -.19
Time Multiple R = .26“ Variable Beta
Time spent on the “Net .09
Time spent using computer for fun <.01
Time spent using computer for work -.07
Time spent Surfing on ‘Net .20
How Learned Multiple R = .28 Variable Beta
Junior High .11
High School .36
College .26
In a class .08
On own .29
From friend .26
From Parent .38‘
From computer lab staff .07
At work .21
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .15 Variable Beta
home .42
school .32
work .23
friend’s .09
relative’s .08
library .18

 

 

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 25 (cont’d).

Net Activities Multiple R= .32 Variable Beta
research for school .16
research for work -.09
browsing/surfing .00
Ieaming -.09
shopping .08
reading on—line news or magazines -.04
doing work on line .02
entertainment -.10
e-mail --08
playing games -. 17
newsgroups/IRC .05
accessing general information -.00
accessing information of products -.07

 

 

 

 

'ps.001 “p505

 

75

Gratification Regression Summary

To summarize, after performing five regressions on each of the eight gratifications

using each of the blocks of five variables, the significant variables from each block

were used in a final regression for each gratification. In the end the variables found

to be significant in predicting variance in each gratification are as follows:

Keep Informed: time spent surfing the ‘Net and whether the subject used the
‘Net for learning, reading on-line news or magazines, and accessing

information on products (Multiple R=.79).

Entertainment-Diversion: time spent surfing the ‘Net and engaging in surfing

or browsing, playing games, and entertainment (Multiple R=.71).

Good Feelings: Whether the subject engages in entertaining activities on the

‘Net (R=.30).

Communication: Grade, the amount of time the computer is used for fun,
using the ‘Net at home, whether the subject uses newsgroups/IRC, and e-

mail (Multiple R=.60).

Sights & Sounds: Amount of time the subject surfs the ‘Net and engaging in

learning activities on the ‘Net (Multiple R=.56).

76
- Career. Amount of time spent using a computer for work, use of newsgroups
or IRC, Ieaming on the ‘Net, and accessing information on products (Multiple
R=.66).

. Coolness: Whether the subject Ieamed to use the ‘Net from a parent or

relative (R=.20).

Predicting ‘Netsurfing Time

To determine what accounts for the variance in time spent surfing the ‘Net separate
regressions were performed using the variables in each of the following blocks:
reasons for surfing, demographics, time, ‘Net gratifications, how Ieamed to use the
‘Net, location ‘Net is used, and ‘Net activities (see Table 26). From each of these
blocks of regressions the significant items - to find something in particular, to pass
time, to see what’s going on, for fun, to feel less lonely, time spent using the
computer for work, time spent using the computer for fun, the gratification keep
informed, Ieamed in high school, Ieamed on own, using the ‘Net for entertaining
activities - were used in the final regression analysis (see Table 27). The final
regression analysis using time spent surfing the ‘Netas the dependent variable '
indicated that the significant predictors of an increase in time spent surfing were
surfing to try to find something in particular, surfing for fun, or to feel less lonely;
greater frequency of using the “Net for surveillance; whether respondents Ieamed to
use the ‘Net in high school; and greater amounts of time spent using a computer for

fun and for work. (Multiple R=.74, p501).

77

Table 26 - Time Spent Surfing Regressions

78

Table 26 - Time Spent Surfing Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surf Reasons Multiple R = .41‘ Variable Beta
to find something in particular .65‘
to pass time .48‘
to see what’s going on .48‘
for fun .53‘
to feel less lonely .21‘
because I feel I should .04
to learn how to use the ‘Net .16
Demographics Multiple R = .12 Variable Beta
gender .18
age .01
grade -.03
Time Multiple R = .59‘ Variable Beta
Time using computer for fun .48‘
Time using computer for work .21"
Gratifications Multiple R = .67‘ Variable Beta
Keep Informed .30“
Diversion Entertainment .18
Peer Identification .12
Good Feelings -.07
Communication .14
Aesthetics .1 1
Career .09
Coolness -.09

 

 

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Table 26 (cont’d).

How Learned Multiple R = .29 Variable Beta
Junior High .19
High School .49”
College .37
In a class .13
On own .71“
From friend .47
From Parent .29
From computer lab staff .23
At work .31

Location ‘Net Used Multiple R=24 Variable Beta
home .41
school .32
work .32
friends <.01
relative’s .09
library .05

‘Net Activities Multiple R= .56“ Variable Beta
research for school -.01
research for work -.1 1
browsing/surfing -.09
Ieaming -.13
shopping .01
reading on-Iine news or magazines -.01
doing work on line -.08
entertainment -.23*

 

 

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 26 (cont’d).

‘Net Activities (cont’d). Variable Beta
e—mail -.05
playing games -.07
newsgroups/IRC -. 14
accessing general information -.01
accessing information of products -.02

 

 

8]

Table 27 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Time Spent
Surfing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
surf to find something .23 ’ .019 .13
surf to pass time .17 .055 .03
surf to see what’s going on .11 .234 .08
surf for fun .21 .021 .05
surf to feel less lonely .14 .019 .12
keep informed .36 <.001 .62
use “Net for entertainment -.13 .064 -.39
Ieamed in high school .15 .018 .04
Ieamed on own -.03 .684 .17
time spent using computer for fun .28 <.001 .56
time spent using computer for work .15 .020 .40

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Multiple R=.74, pg .01)

Predicting ‘Net Frustrations

In order to further examine frustration with the ‘Net, regressions were performed to
see what variables explain variance in the frustration index scores. To this and five
multiple regressions were performed. The first analysis used the demographic
variables as independent variables. None of the demographic variables were found
to be significant. The second analysis usedthe time variables. Time spent surfing
the ‘Net and time spent using the ‘Net were found to be significant in explaining

variance in the frustration index (Multiple R=.23). The third analysis used the

Table 28 - Frustration Regressions

83

Table 28 - Frustration Regressions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics Multiple R = .13 Variable Beta
Gander .02
Age .01
Grade .12
Time Multiple R = .23” Variable Beta
Time spent on the ‘Net .37‘
Time spent using computer for fun -.13
Time spent using computer for work -.06
Time spent Surfing on “Net -.34"
How Learned Multiple R = .23 Variable Beta
Junior High .02
High school .21
College .35
In a class .02
On own .16
From friend .23
From Parent .15
From computer lab staff -.04
At work .05
Location ‘Net Used Multiple R: .15 Variable Beta
home -.03
school .00
work -.15
friend’s -.01
relative’s .02
library .04

 

 

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 28 (cont’d).

‘Net Activities Multiple R: .34 Variable Beta
research for school -. 15
research for work -.05
browsing/surfing -.02
Ieaming .21“
shopping .07
reading on-Iine news or magazines -.05
doing work on line .07
entertainment .09
e-mail -.16
playing games .04
newsgroups/IRC -.04
accessing general information -.06
accessing information of products .16

 

 

 

 

'ps.001 “p305

 

85

variables that described how the ‘Net was Ieamed. Nothing was found to be
significant. The variables describing where the ‘Net is used were used as the fourth
set of independent variables, and none were found to be significant. The fifth
regression used the ‘Net activities as the independent variables. Engaging in
Ieaming activities on the ‘Net was found to be a significant predictor of the variance
(Multiple R=.34) (see Table 28). Then a final regression was performed using the
significant variables from the five previously explained regressions (see Table 29).
This regression analysis determined that 7% of the variance in frustration scores
was explained by the amount of time respondents spent on the ‘Net and by the
amount of time spent surfing the ‘Net (Multiple R=.26, p=.01). Greater amounts of
time spent using the ‘Net was associated with greater frustration with the ‘Net while
greater amounts of time spent surfing the ‘Net was associated with less frustration

with the ‘Net.

Table 29 - Significant Variables from Block Regressions => Frustration

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE BETA SIGNIFICANCE R
Ieaming .13 .129 .15
Time spent surfing the ‘Net -.33 .014 -.14
Time spent using the ‘Net .31 .019 . .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Multiple R=.26, p=.01)

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The mgressions predicting variance in the gratifications are pretty much as common
sense would dictate. Keep informed was predicted by the amount of time spent
surfing, using the ‘Net to learn, reading on-line news and magazines, and accessing
product information. Reading magazines, accessing product information, and using
the ‘Net to Ieam are clearly information gathering activities. Time spent surfing is
consistent with information use since it was found that the most common reason fer
surfing was to find something. Thus, all the variables that predict the keep informed

gratification relate to information or finding information.

Entertainment-diversion was predicted by the amount of time spent surfing, using the
‘Net to surf or browse, playing games on-Iine, and engaging in entertaining activities.
Since the second most common reason for surfing was for fun, variance in the
entertainment-diversion gratification, as one would expect, was predicted by

variables describing fun uses of the ‘Net.

Communication was predicted by using e-mail, newsgroups/IRC, time spent using
a computer for fun, using the ‘Net from home, and being in a lower grade level in
college. E-mail and newsgroups/IRC are avenues for communicating with other

people on the ‘Net. These are the activities where people can exchange ideas

86

87

directly with others. Thus it makes sense that these activities have value in
explaining variance in using the ‘Net for communication. Using the ‘Net at home is
logical if people are using the ‘Net as a replacement for the phone in communicating
and talking with others. The appearance of time spent using the computer for fun
as a predictor variable supports the idea that the ‘Net is used as a way to have fun

talking with others much in the same way a phone is used.

Interestingly engaging in Ieaming activities on the ‘Net showed up as a predictor of
using the ‘Net for sights and sounds. It may be that subjects were “Ieaming” about
celebrities, since one of the items on this factor was “Ieam about famous people.”
Or it could be that subjects wished to learn about the visuals and other features of
the ‘Net. It is less surprising that surfing or browsing predicts variance in the sights
and sounds gratification. Surfing or browsing is consistent with sights and sounds.
The idea of wandering around the ‘Netsurfing or browsing goes hand in hand with

enjoying the aesthetics of the web.

Not surprisingly time spent using a computer for work, engaging in Ieaming activities,
and using the newsgroups/IRC explained variance in using the ‘Net for career
purposes. Employers often post job Openings and job seekers often post résumes
on various employment related newsgroups. Accessing information on products or
services would make sense as a predictor of career uses of the ‘Net if the
information being accessed relates to research on products made by prospective

employers or research into job placement services.

‘ 88
Only engaging in entertaining activities was found to be a significant predictor of
using the ‘Net for good feelings which is logical though not very enlightening.
Variance in using the ‘Net to increase one’s feeling of coolness was predicted by
whether the ‘Net was Ieamed from one’s parents or relatives. Do people who
Ieamed from their parents or relatives have a greater need to feel cool than people

who Ieamed to use the ‘Net elsewhere?

More research needs to be conducted to determine what explains variance in the
peer-identity gratification. Nothing was found to be a significant predictor in this
study, though time spent on the “Net is correlated with the peer-identity gratification
(.44). This gratification may need to be investigated further with a sample that
includes more heavy users of the ‘Net since few respondents in this study spent

much time using the ‘Net.

Overall the uses-and-gratifications theory explained a good deal of the variance in
time spent using the ‘Net. This study shows that the uses-and-gratifications theory
holds promise for explaining ‘Net use. Nearly forty percent of the variance in time
spent using the ‘Net was explained by the gratifications that were examined in this
study. The ‘Net is used primarily to keep informed, for entertainment and diversion,
to maintain communication, and to look at the sights and sounds of the ‘Net. In
general this study has basically supported popular perceptions of the ‘Net.
Gratification items that tried to tap into new and unique features of the ‘Net did not

fare anywhere near as well as the gratifications uncovered time and time again by

89

media researchers. Information, entertainment, diversion, and social gratifications
are seen over and over again. This study, too, found that keep informed
(information), entertainment-diversion, communication (social) gratifications fueled

use of the medium.

The use of the ‘Net as a career tool is unique. While newspapers may also be able
to fulfill career gratifications, no other media offers the career research and job
search opportunities that the ‘Net offers. The global scope and ease of posting

information makes the ‘Net uniquely suited for this use.

It should be noted that none of the gratifications had a mean of over 2.8 on a scale
of 1 to 5 (1=not at all, 5=very often). The low level of the means suggests that there
is not one or even two needs for which users always go to the ‘Net to fulfill. It
appears that the huge number of activities available on the ‘Net prevent any one
gratification from being often or very often sought out by users. Respondents,

instead, sometimes use the ‘Net for one purpose and sometimes use it for another.

Users in this study spent very little time using the ‘Net for making transactions or
acquisitions aside from information. It may be that the “Net is being used by college
students for transactions in the form of information, but not for ordering other goods
and services. Studies of the Qube system in the mid-eighties prompted “researches
to predict that...the surveillance function of this information utility [Qube-type

services] will be adopted more rapidly than the transaction function” (Williams et al,

90
1984). From the results of this study this prediction may also apply to the “Net.
lnforrnation and surveillance functions are common uses among college students,

but shopping and ordering products or services via the ‘Net are not.

While using the ‘Net to meet a need for entertainment-diversion was the most
frequent use of the ‘Net, using the ‘Net to keep informed and for communication
explained nearly 36% of the variance in time spent using the ‘Net. From this result
it seems that the majority of users engage in ‘Net use to be entertained or diverted,
but what may separate heavy users from light users is use of the ‘Net for
communication and informational needs. Is this just because it takes longer to read
information and correspondence or are people who use the ‘Net for information and

communicating with people more reliant on the ‘Net?

The “Net offers easy and inexpensive access to information about geographically
distant events, institutions, and locations that would be inconvenient to obtain
through other means. And using the phone or face to face for communication can
be more costly. For students the free nature of ‘Net communication with friends and
relatives may be an attractive element of the ‘Net. Could it be that the users seeking
information and wmmuniwtion gratifications have become more dependent on the
‘Net because it offers forms of information that are sometimes hard to come by
elsewhere and an inexpensive means of communication? Could it be that people
who use the “Net for entertainment and diversion spend less time on-Iine because

there are other alternatives for seeking those gratifications?

91

Reasons for using the ‘Net are not radically different from the motivations for using
other media outlets. In some ways the biggest difference may be that the ‘Net acts
as ‘one stop shopping” for a variety of different needs. Could the ‘Net be a
functional alternative for all forms of conventional media? Perse and Courtright
(1993) found that conversation best fulfills any communication needs; telephones ‘
fulfill interpersonal needs; television, videos, and movies fulfill entertainment and
escapist needs; and the print media fulfills Ieaming or informational needs. The ‘Net
does all of this. Entertainment-diversion needs, interpersonal communication needs,
informational needs, aesthetic needs, career research, and improving mood either
by improving a sense of good feelings or coolness can be achieved by use of the

‘Net.

Like television and radio the ‘Net can be used for entertainment, information, and
passing time. Like a newspaper the ‘Net can be used to learn, for entertainment,
and to pass time (Lichtenstein & Rosenfeld, 1984). The interactive nature of the ‘Net
makes the ‘Net a communication tool like the telephone that is used by people to
keep in touch with others. Additionally the ‘Net like a telephone is used for seeking
information and entertainment (LaRose & Mettler, 1990, O’Keefe & Sulanowski,
1995). Television and radio are used for parasocial interaction or companionship
(Greenberg, 1974, Conway & Rubin, 1991), the ‘Net can be used for real
interaction. In these respects the ‘Net could become a substitute for television use,

radio, use, newspapers, telephone, and even face to face communication.

92

As Williams, Phillips, and Lum (1985) suggested, new communication media “may
affect the structure of communication in society and make available a greater range
of choice for satisfying communication needs. New media uses may complement
uses already studied. Previously identified uses may shift to new media from old
media.” From the results of this study it appears the ‘Net has done just that -
provided users with an additional choice. Thus, now that the ‘Net has gained
prominence it would be worthwhile to include the ‘Net in a repeat of Perse and
Courtright’s (1993) study The Normative Images of Communication Media in the
New Media Environment in order to better understand how the ‘Net compares with

other media.

Few users in the sample were heavy users of the ‘Net. 74% of respondents spent
four hours or less a week using the ‘Net. Only five respondents spent more than
twenty hours a week using the ‘Net. Thus little support was found for the idea that
people are addicted to the ‘Net. The majority of the respondents spent less than an
hour a day on the ‘Net. Thus, due to the sample, few conclusions can be drawn
about differences between heavy and light users of the ‘Net. Further research
should be conducted with heavy users. The results of this study indicate that the
communication and keep informed motivations predict the amount of time spent on
the ‘Net, but given the general low level of ‘Net use among the respondents it would
be premature to say that ‘Net addicts have a higher than average need to keep

informed and to communicate with others using the ‘Net.

93

Interestingly time spent surfing the ‘Net, not time spent using the ‘Net was the
measurement of time that was most often a significant predictor of gratifications
sought. Time spent surfing was a significant predictor of keep informed,
entertainment-diversion, and sights and sounds. Time spent using the ‘Net did not
show up as a significant predictor of any of the gratifications. Possibly time spent
surfing measured non-compulsory use of the ‘Net, while time spent using the ‘Net

may have captured both compulsory and non-compulsory uses.

Uses-and-gratifications may explain media use in a non-compulsory situation when
the users are making a decision based on internal desires, emotional states, and
other psychological states of being. Uses-and-gratification studies of television,
radio, and other conventional media may have measured mainly optional or non-
compulsory media use. Few people are instructed to watch television or listen to the
radio for work or school - media insiders, scholars, and students notwithstanding.
Previous studies with media less likely to be used for work or school purposes have
not had to grapple much with a distinction between using because you want to and
using media because you have to. Since use of the ‘Net can be mandated by
classroom assignments or work assignments not all use of the ‘Net stems from the
psychological and sociological motivations that the uses-and-gratifications theory
initially set out to capture (Rubin, 1994). None of the scales measured motivations
such as “because I had to”, “it was what I was told to do”, or “it was part of the
assignment.” Such motivations may need to be investigated with relation to the ‘Net.

Creation of these type items and an investigation of compulsory use versus non-

94
compulsory use may be helme in identifying why time spent using the ‘Net and time
spent surfing the ‘Net appeared to be very different things. Investigating compulsory

use of the ‘Net may also help to explain more variance.

Reasons for surfing the ‘Net were to find something, for fun, to pass time, and to see
what is going on. Reasons for surfing were very similar to the gratifications that are
predicted by time spent surfing. The gratifications that are predicted by time spent
surfing are keep informed, entertainment-diversion, and sights and sounds. For fun
and to pass time are very similar to items in the entertainment-diversion scale. To
find something and to see what’s going on is similar to keep informed. However, to
see what’s going on can also be easily construed as looking around at the sights and
sounds of the ‘Net. Time spent surfing is predicted by surfing to find something,
surfing for fun, surfing to feel less lonely, using the ‘Net to keep informed, Ieaming
to use the ‘Net in high school, the amount of time the computer is used for fun, and
the amount of time the computer is used for work. All of these predictors suggest
a high affinity with and orientation toward computers. People who Ieamed the ‘Net
early on in high school, people who spend a lot of time using computers for fun or
for work, and people with a high need to keep infomed by using the ‘Net are likely

to spend a lot of time surfing to find things, for fun, and to feel less lonely.

The findings about reasons for ‘Netsurfing suggest that Heeter’s (1985) theory about
channel surfing being a means of coping with an “abundance of choice” may very

well apply to ‘Netsurfing. ‘Netsurfing is used as a tool for finding information or

95
situations on-Iine that meet the needs of a user. With a medium like the ‘Net, users
may approach the ‘Net “with a variety of overt and covert potential goals (or needs)
that might be satisfied by [accessing] any number of different available” (Heeter,
1985) activities or services. Thus surfing is part of the decision making and
selection process. However, as suggested in Ihe New Ygrk Times, ‘Netsurfing is
also engaged in by people to “waste time” (Flynn, 1995 & Gibson, 1996). Passing
time was a major reason for ‘Netsurfing, as was ‘Netsurfing for fun. What is unclear
is whether Hoffman and Novak’s (1994) assertion that people ‘Netsurf because they
enjoy gaining mastery of the medium has been supported or rejected by the
respondents. Users say they surf for fun, but it is unclear whether the fun element
is the gaining of mastery. Few users (4%) reported surfing in order to learn how to
use the ‘Net. However, this option may or may not have captured the essence of

Hoffman and Novak’s theory of surfing.

Research needs to be conducted in order to better define ‘Netsurfing. ls ‘Netsurfing
the same as browsing? ls ‘Netsurfing using the ‘Net when you are‘not forced to?
The term is not well defined either in the press or in this study. ‘Netsurfing clue to
its value in predicting gratifications sought is worthy of research attention. However,
if the feasibility of a channel surfer being able to truthfully articulate the uses-and-
gratifications of the selection made as a result of channel surfing is questionable
(LaRose, 1992), can users be expected to be able to articulate the uses-and-
gratifications of a selection made as the result of ‘Netsurfing? What does ‘surfing

really mean? What do users really do when they surf? Where do they go, how do

96
they navigate or surf? Are channel surfers likely to be ‘Net surfers? Are the two
activities similar? Are they engaged in for the same reason? Neither channel
surfing nor ‘Netsurfing are well understood. What are the uses-and-gratifications
of ‘Netsurfing or channel surfing as an activity or use of media in and of itself?
Clearly this study suggests that further investigation is needed to better understand

both ‘Netsurfing and the results of this current study.

The main frustration with the “Net was found, as suggested In the popular press,
(Flynn, 1995 & Garfinkel, 1996) to be the slowness of accessing materials.
Respondents were frustrated by having to wait. The other major frustration with the
‘Net was that users have trouble finding what they are looking for. Greater amounts
of time spent using the ‘Net was associated with greater frustration with the ‘Net
while greater amounts of time spent surfing the ‘Net was associated with less
frustration with the “Net. Clearly the speed of the ‘Net is a major concern. Few
users in the sample were frustrated because they had trouble using the ‘Net or
remembering how to use the ‘Net. It may be that the students in this study were
fortunate in having the ability to access the ‘Net in computer labs where little skill
above basic computer competency is needed. It may also be a case of self
selection, ‘Net users may be more computer competent in general and hence are
less likely to have trouble using the “Net than would users who did not opt on their
own to use the “Net. Research into frustration with the ‘Net ought to be carried out
with a sample of the general public and also with users who had to learn the ‘Net

either for work or school.

97

The majority of respondents did learn how to use the ‘Net in a manner that is
consistent with them choosing to learn the ‘Net instead of being compelled. 55% of
the sample either Ieamed on their own or from a friend or relative. 36% Ieamed in
a class in school or at work. The suggestion is that most ‘Net users are self
selected. They learned and maybe continue to use the ‘Net because they want to
not because they have to. However, from the data nothing conclusive can be said
in this regard. People who Ieamed in a class may have opted to take a class In
order to learn how to use the ‘Net. Likewise, a friend, parent, or relative may have
compelled the respondent to learn to use the ‘Net through peer pressure or parental
pressure. Further research and examination would be required to truly determine

how and why people Ieam to use the ‘Net.

Demographics were of little value in understanding ‘Net use in this study. This may
be do to the homogenous nature of the student sample. On the other hand
demographics may be more useful in predicting who uses the ‘Net. This study only
looked at people who used the ‘Net. Thus little information is known about the
demographics of non-’Net users. There were no gender differences found among
‘Net users. Though more males than females filled out the instrument, it is not
known whether the number of females using the ‘Net is proportional to the number
of females in the class where the survey was administered. As previously mentioned
the only time a demographic variable was found to have any predictive value was

that grade level explained variance in using the “Net for communication needs with

98

lower grade levels being associated with increased use of the ‘Net to fulfill
communication needs. Clearly to understand the relationship between ‘Net use and
demographics a representative sample of the population at large needs to be

studied.

Given the student sample, the results of this study cannot be generalized to the
population at large. Similar research using a general population sample is needed.
As previously mentioned further work must be undertaken to better define and
understand terms such as ‘Netsurfing. Research may need to be conducted to
better separate information from entertainment. It appears people use information
for fun on the ‘Net. When time surfing predicts keep informed and for fun predicts
time spent surfing, there is some unclarity about what information, surfing, and fun

is in the ‘Net environment.

From this study the only variables having any merit in explaining variance in time
spent using the ‘Net were the uses-and-gratifications variables. It would be
worthwhile to investigate whether technology related issues such as the type and
speed of the connection to the lntemet help to explain additional variance in time
spent on the ‘Net. As previously mentioned exploring compulsory use of the ‘Net
may also be of assistance in explaining the variance. While explaining 36% of the
variance in time spent using the ‘Net through uses-and-gratifications is a good start,

there is still 64% of the variance unaccounted for. Uses-and-gratifications shows

99

promise, but communication scholars have a long way to go in fully understanding

use of the lntemet.

APPENDIX

100

Appendix

Appendix Table - Number of Responses per Variable

101

Appendix

Appendix Table - Number of Responses per Variable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable N Variable N

Act - Browse/surf 161 ug - entertained 164
Act - e-mail 161 ug - escape 168
Act - entertainment 160 ug - everyone else does 165
Act gen info 16] ug - excitement 167
Act - Leamigg 160 ug — exp. things I can't 163
Act - nwsgrpstRC 161 ug - fantasy 164
Act 9131 games 161 ug - feel good 167
Act - prod info 160 ug - feel important 166
Act - Read mags 160 ug - find companionship 166
Act - Research Sch] 161 ug - find new things 162
Act - Research er 161 ug - find people 168
Act - Shopping 160 ug - gain status 165
Act - wrk on ‘Net 160 ug jet advice 165
Age 160 ug - get immed knowledge 16]
Comp time for fun 167 ug -get info 167
Frust - Bored 151 ug - get info 164
Frust - can'tget on 154 ug -get info I can trust 164
F rust - Disconnected 153 ug - graphics & pages 162
Frust - Graphics slow 154 uflaphics 168
Frust - novelty worn off 150 ug - habit 164
Frust - overrated 152 u& have fun 162
Frust - same old 153 ug - info to pass on 162
Frust - Slow 153 ug - job ops 168
Frust - Slow dwnld 151 ug - keep Ieaming 164
Frust - Trouble finding 153 ug - keep up with tech 163
Frust - trouble using 152 ug - Ieam to do thifls 168
Gender 163 ug - let people know me 168
Grade 163 ug - lm about famous 164
How Learned 166 ug - make rsrv 163
Length known net 167 ug - meet new people 164
Location used 166 ug - more import in future 168
Marital 162 _ ug - new ids 168

 

 

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table (cont’d)
Own Computer 167 ug - new interests 168
Time Spent on ‘Net 164 ug - news 167
Time glent surfinL 155 ug - ordeflirod srvs 168
Time use comp for wrk 167 ug -part of infohwy 167
ug - accepted for ideas 164 ug jaws time 168
_gg - avoid 168 ug - play 167
_ug - be I should 162 ug - prod srv info 163
mg - be cool 162 ug - publish 168
lg - be informed 165 ug - read hm pgs 163
ug - boredom 168 ug - relax 163
ug - career 168 ug - sights & sounds 167
ug- deliver info 166 ug - stay in touch 168
Why surf 155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

References

Atwater, T., Heeter, C., & Brown, N. (1985) Foreshadowing the Electronic

Publishing Age: First Exposures to Viewtron. lIgj,lmajj_sm__Qj.larte_l:|y62, pp. 807-
815.

Babrow, A. S. (1988) Theory and Method in Research on Audience Motives.
W 32 4 pp 471-487

Becker, L. B. (1979) Measurement of Gratifications. W 6,
pp. 54-73.

Blumler, JG. (1979) The Role of Theory in Uses and Gratification Studies.
Commumcaticnfieseatch 3. pp. 9-36-

Bruckman, A. (1993) Gender Swapping on the lntemet. Presented at the lntemet
Society, San Francisco. FTP: media.mit.edu/publasblpapers/gender—
swappingtxt. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Caron, A., Giroux, L., & Douzou, S. (1989) Uses and Impacts of Home
Computers in Canada: A Process of Reappropriation. In Salvaggio, J. L. & Bryant
J(Ed$)li.~t'v, [11:]. l 01-." u ..l. 'zr‘l e ‘eee en - e

W Hillsdale NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 147-162.

Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991) Psychological Predictors of Television
Viewing Motivation WI: 13 pp 443-463

Cowles, D. (1989) Consumer Perceptions of Interactive Media. Jgumalgj
W33 99 83-89

December, J. (1996) Units of Analysis for lntemet Communication mm
Qammuaicaticnfifi pp 14-38

Dobos, J & Dimmick, J. (1988) Factor AnalySIs and Gratification Constructs
W323 pp 335-350

Flynn, L. (1996, October 2) Making Searches Easier In the Web’s Sea of Data.
Wines. pp. 05-

103

104

Garfinkel, S. (1996, September) Web Brownout: Why the Hell is the Web So
Slow? jam, pp. 94-100.

Gibson, W. (1996, July 14) The Net IS a Waste of Time: And That’ s Exactly
What’s Rlant About It IheNeLorlslimesMagazme pp 31

Greenberg, B. S. (1 974) Gratifications of Television Viewing and Their Correlates
for British Children. In Blumler, J. G. & Katz, E. (Eds) IMgegaLMags

on --i , ‘ 1 l ' : an ‘ l 12.21 I i ‘ 5.21 .Beverly Hills.
Sage Publications. pp. 71-92.

Gutek, B.A. & Larwood, L. (1987) Information Technology and Working Women
in the USA. In Davidson, M.J. & Cooper, C.L. (Eds) W
W. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 71-94. ‘

Heeter, C. (1985) Program Selection with abundance of Choice: A Process
Model W12 pp 126-152

Heeter, C. (1989) Implications of New Interactive Technologies for
Conceptualizing Communication. In Salvaggio, J. L. & Bryant, J. (Eds. ) Mgdja
LHH'IIIOHv-.0l-‘ m‘ovpl: 0.000 n no or u :

Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 217- 236.

Hoffman, D., Kalsbeek, W.D., 8. Novak, T. (1996) lntemet and Web Use in the
United States.
Http:llwww2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edulbaselinelintemet.demos.july9. 1996.html
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Owen Graduate School of Management.

Hoffman, D. & Novak, T. (1994) Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated
Environments: Conceptual Foundations. Http:llwww2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.
edulcmeconceptual.foundations.html Nashville: Vanderbilt University Owen
Graduate School of Management.

Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974) Utilization of Mass Communication
by the Individual. In Blumler, J.G. & Katz, E. (Eds.)]’_he_u_sag91_ljdags

. m ni-.. ion : n P ate-mt . i -. ion i- :.r hBeverly Hills:
Sage Publications. pp. 19-32.

Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Hass, H. (1973) On the Use of the Mass Media for
Important Things. Ameuoanfimiologicalfiexm 33. pp. 164-181.

Kirsner, S. (1996, October) The Ultimate Webmaster: An Interview with Tim
Bemers-Lee. Wabmasjgr, pp. 38-44.

105

LaRose, R. (1992) Not Your Father’s Old Mass Media: The Mass Media Aren’t
Dead But Some of Our Assumptions About Them Are Not Doing So Well. (Paper
presented to the lntemational Communication Association.)

LaRose, R. & Mettler, J. (1990) Social and Antisocial Uses of the Telephone: An
Exploration of Social Learning Explanations of Personal Telephone Behavior.
(Paper presented to the lntemational Communication Associations).

Lewis, P. (1995, October 2) On-Line Middleman Opens for Business. 1.33.1131!
Ygrk limes, pp. C5.

Lichtenstein, A. & Rosenfeld, L. (1984) Normative Expectations and Individual
Decisions Concerning Media Gratification Choices. WW _1,
pp. 393-413.

Lin, C. A. (1993) Adolescent Viewing and Gratifications in a New Media
Environment MasLQommumcatbn—Rexiewzqm pp 39- 50

Lin, C. A. (1993) Modeling the Gratification-Seeking Process if Television Vlewing.
_umLQQmmumratheseaLch 29 2 pp 224-244

Lometti, G. E., Reeves, 8., & Bybee, C R. (1977) Investigating the Assumptions of
Uses and Gratifications Research. W5, pp. 321 -.338

McCartney, S. (1994, December 8) Society’s Subcultures Meet by Modern: For
Teens Chatting on lntemet Offers Comfort of Anonymity. 1011013113391
Joumal. pp. Bi. 34—

McQuail, D, Blumler, J, & Brown, J. R. (1972) The Television Audience: A
Revised Perspective. In McQuail, D. (Ed) mm

W. New York: Penguin Books. pp. 135-165.

Morris, M. and Ogan, C. (1996) The lntemet as Mass Medium. Mam
Commulliianon 4.6. pp- 39-50.

Newhagen, J.E. & Rafaeli, S. (1996) Why Communication Researchers Should
Study the lntemet: A Dialogue. W 46, pp. 4-13.

Nielsen Media Research/Commercenet lntemet Demographics Survey: Executive
Summary (1995 Nielsen Media Research)
Http:llwww.nielsenmedia.com/whatsnew/execsumz.html

O’ Keefe, G. J. & Sulanowski, B. K. (1995) More Than Just Talk: Uses and
Gratifications, and the Telephone. WW
Quaneclxzz pp 922- 933

106

Palmgreen, P. (1984) Uses and Gratifications a Theoretical Perspective.
Communicaticnlearbmls 3. pp. 20-55

Parks, MR. (1996) Making Friends In Cyberspace. Jgumal gt ngrmjnigtjgn
46, pp. 80-97.

Perse, E. M. (1994) Gratifications Sought and Obtained Scales. In Rubin, R. B.,

Palmgreen P &Sypher H E (Eds)Ccmn1unlcanoli_Besearcl1MeasuLes.A
W New York: Guilford Press. pp. 173-176.

Perse, E. M., 8. Courtright, J. A. (1993) Normative Images of Communication
Media. Mass and Interpersonal Channels in the New Media Environment. Hgman
W 13. pp 485-503.

Perse, E M. & Rubin, A. M. (1990) Chronic Loneliness and Television Use.
JoumaLoLEmadrastfimniElectmmcMedia 31. pp 37- 53

Pitkow. J. & Kehoe. C. (1995) WW3
Wm. Http:llwwwcc.gatech.edulgvuluser_surveyslsurvey-10-

1995. Georgia Tech Research Corporation.

Rafaeli, S. (1988) Interactivity: From New Media to Communications. In Hawkins,

R P Wiemann J M & Pinaree S (Eds ) W

W Newbury Park: Sage Publications
pp. 110-133.

Rice, R.E. & Steinfield, C. (1994) Experiences with New Forms of Organizational
Communication via Electronic Mail and Voice Messaging. In Andriessen, J.H.,
Roe, R. A. (Eds,) Ialanmjcgammlgk Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
pp. 109-135.

Rigdon, J. (1994, December 8) Homebound and Lonely, Older People Use
Computers to Get ‘Out’. WW, pp. 81, B14.

Ritter, M. (1996, August 11) Study: Being Online Can Become Addictive. Lite
AnaArmLNm. on A3-

Rubin, A. M. (1981) An Examination of Television Viewing Motivations.
WW 3 pp 141-155

Rubin, AM. (1993) Audience Activity and Media Use. W193
Monomaphs 5.0. pp. 89-105.

Rubin, AM. (1994) Media Uses and Effects: A Uses and Gratifications

Perspective. In Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (Eds.)Mag_ja_EflgctgA61agcfigja
W. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 417-436.

107

Rubin, AM. 8. Bantz, C. R. (1987) Uses and Gratifications of Videocassette
Recorders. In Hawkins, R. P. ,Wiemann, J. M. & Plingree, S. (Eds)Mng

Hill I .=. on e x u ' 0 i -on In ‘M Pm. ; Newbury
Park: Sage Publications. pp. 181-195.

Steinfield, C. W. (1986) Computer Mediated Communication in an Organizational
Setting: Explaining Task Related and Socioemotional Uses. In McLaughlin, M. L.

(Ed) WM. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications pp. 777- 804.

Steinfield, C. W., Dutton, W H., & Kovaric, P. (1989) A Framework and Agenda
for Research on Computing in the Home. In Salvaggio, J. L. 8. Bryant J. (Eds)
uvfliv. [ l‘ 9 -. 01-“. ll 'l'P -31 ll 0 -0" 01-10

W Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp.61-86.

Swisher, K. (1995, October 31) lntemet’s Reach in Society Grows, Survey Finds.
WM. Dp- A1-

Webster, J. (1989) Assessing Exposure to the New Media. In Salvaggio, J.L. &
BryantJ. (Eds)M i in h In i m r in P

W Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 3-
20.

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1995) Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual
Communities as Communities. Prepared for Kollock, P. 8. Smith, M (Eds)

WW. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Preliminary version presented at annual meeting of American Sociological
Association.

Wellman, B. and others (1995) Computer Networks as Social Networks:
Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Unpublished draft to be
presented at Annual Review of Sociology 1996.

Williams, F. “Phillips A. F. ,& Lum, P. (1985) Gratifications Associated with New
Communication Technologies. In Rosengren, K. E., Wenner L. A., & Palmgreen

P (Eds )MWMJS Beverly Hills:
Sage. pp 241-252.

World Wide Web Consortium (1995) A Little History of the World Wide Web
http://www.w3.org/pubNVWW/History.html. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology & The World Wide Web Consortium.

Ziegler, B. (1994, November 15). Bought for Work, PC’s Are Used for Play. '_l’_h_e
WI. on. 31.

1.__~.» ______.

"Iitilillilllilli‘llilili