Further to the binary notion of accessibility and lack of accessibility to digital technology, this study examines Internet usage as the outcome of choice made by an individual to use the Internet. In identifying the determinants of choice, this study integrates the social cognitive theory notion of the human agency with the ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) framework. The results of path modeling analysis of the data collected from 270 respondents in Malaysia showed that digital skill was the most significant predictor of Internet usage. Opportunity and extrinsic motivation were also significant predictors, whereas intrinsic motivation had no significant effect on Internet usage. Besides, the findings revealed that the traditional sociodemographic determinants of the digital divide are still prevalent in Malaysia.
AlamGMMAlamKMushtaqS, et al. (2018) Influence of socio-demographic factors on mobile phone adoption in rural Bangladesh. Information Development: 026666691879204. DOI: 10.1177/0266666918792040.
2.
BagozziRP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(7): 244–254. DOI: Article.
3.
BanduraA (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 1–26. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
4.
BignéERuizCAndreuL, et al. (2015) The role of social motivations, ability, and opportunity in online know-how exchanges: evidence from the airline services industry. Service Business9(2): 209–232. DOI: 10.1007/s11628-013-0224-8.
5.
BlankGGroseljD (2014) Dimensions of internet use: amount, variety and types. Information, Communication and Society17(4): 417–435. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.889189.
6.
BoatengHAdamDROkoeAF, et al. (2016) Assessing the determinants of internet banking adoption intentions: A social cognitive theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior65. Elsevier Ltd: 468–478. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.017.
7.
BrownCCzerniewiczL (2010) Debunking the ‘digital native’: Beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning26(5): 357–369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x.
8.
CooperJ (2006) The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning22(5): 320–334. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.
9.
CorreaT (2015) Digital skills and social media use: how internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Information, Communication & Society4462(September): 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1084023.
10.
CourtoisCVerdegemP (2016) With a little help from my friends: An analysis of the role of social support in digital inequalities. New Media & Society18(8). SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England: 1508–1527. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814562162.
11.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
12.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology22(14): 1111–1132. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
13.
DeciELRyanRM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Boston, MA: Springer US. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7.
14.
DimaggioPHargittaiECelesteC, et al. (2004) Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In: NeckermanK (ed.) Social Inequality. Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 355–400.
15.
EastinMSLaRoseR (2000) Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication6(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.t…g.
16.
Economic Planning Unit (2015) Eleventh Malaysia plan 2016 - 2020: Anchoring growth on people. Rancangan Malaysia Kesebelas (Eleventh Malaysia Plan): 2016-2020. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
GhobadiSGhobadiZ (2015) How access gaps interact and shape digital divide: A cognitive investigation. Behaviour & Information Technology34(4): 331–340. DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.833650.
19.
GursteinM (2003) Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital divide. First Monday8(12). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v8i12.1107.
20.
HairJHollingsworthCLRandolphAB, et al. (2017) An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems117(3): 442–458. DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130.
21.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2013) Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning46(1–2): 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.
22.
HargittaiE (2002) Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday7(4). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v7i4.942.
23.
HargittaiE (2004) Internet access and use in context. New Media & Society6(1): 137–143. DOI: 10.1177/1461444804042310.
24.
HargittaiE (2005) Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review23(3): 371–379. DOI: 10.1177/0894439305275911.
25.
HargittaiE (2010) Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the ‘net generation’. Sociological Inquiry80(1): 92–113. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x.
26.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research35(5): 602–621. DOI: 10.1177/0093650208321782.
27.
HargittaiEHsiehYP (2012) Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Social Science Computer Review30(1): 95–107. DOI: 10.1177/0894439310397146.
28.
HelsperEJEynonR (2013) Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication28(6): 696–713. DOI: 10.1177/0267323113499113.
29.
HenselerJRingleCMSinkovicsRR (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing20(2009): 277–319. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8116(92)90003-4.
30.
HughesJHJ (2007) The ability-motivation-opportunity framework for behavior research in IS. 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07): 1–10. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2007.518.
31.
JungJ-Y (2016) Connectedness and disconnectedness to new and old media within different age groups. First Monday21(8): 1–18. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v21i8.6330.
32.
KhanAQutabS (2016) Understanding research students ‘behavioural intention in the adoption of digital libraries: A Pakistani perspective. Library Review65(4/5): 295–319. DOI: 10.1108/LR-06-2015-0070.
33.
LiXPo-An HsiehJJRaiA (2013) Motivational differences across post-acceptance information system usage behaviors: An investigation in the business intelligence systems context. Information Systems Research24(3): 659–682. DOI: 10.1287/isre.1120.0456.
34.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society9(4): 671–696. DOI: 10.1177/1461444807080335.
35.
MacInnisDJMoormanCJaworskiBJ (1991) Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing55(4): 31. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
MartensRLGulikerstJBastiaensT (2004) The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning20(5): 368–376. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00096.x.
38.
MatzatUSadowskiB (2012) Does the “do-it-yourself approach” reduce digital inequality? Evidence of self-learning of digital skills. The Information Society28(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2011.629023.
MossbergerKTolbertCJHamiltonA (2012) Measuring digital citizenship: mobile access and broadband. International Journal of Communication6: 2492–2528. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2010.533571.
41.
NaikGJoshiSBasavarajKP (2012) Fostering inclusive growth through e-Governance Embedded Rural Telecenters (EGERT) in India. Government Information Quarterly29(SUPPL. 1). DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.009.
42.
OnoHZavodnyM (2008) Immigrants, english ability and the digital divide. Social Forces86(4): 1455–1480. DOI: 10.1353/sof.0.0052.
43.
PotnisD (2016) Inequalities creating economic barriers to owning mobile phones in India. Information Development32(5): 1332–1342. DOI: 10.1177/0266666915605163.
44.
PuspitasariLIshiiK (2016) Digital divides and mobile Internet in Indonesia: Impact of smartphones. Telematics and Informatics33(2). Elsevier Ltd: 472–483. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2015.11.001.
45.
RientiesBTempelaarDVan den BosscheP, et al. (2009) The role of academic motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior25(6): 1195–1206. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.012.
46.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoH, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 569–582. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532.
47.
RyanRDeciE (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist55(1): 68–78. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
48.
SiemsenERothA V.BalasubramanianS (2008) How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management26: 426–445. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2007.09.001.
49.
StraubET (2009) Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research79(2): 625–649. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325896.
50.
TeoTS.LimVK.LaiRY. (1999) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. International Journal of Management Science27: 25–37. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00028-0.
51.
van DeursenAJAMvan DijkJAGM (2015a) Internet skill levels increase, but gaps widen: a longitudinal cross-sectional analysis (2010–2013) among the Dutch population. Information, Communication & Society18(7): 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.994544.
52.
van DeursenAJAMvan DijkJAGM (2015b) Toward a multifaceted model of internet access for understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation. The Information Society31(September): 379–391. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2015.1069770.
53.
Van DijkJAGM (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: 10.4135/9781452229812.
54.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
55.
VenkateshVBrownSAMarupingLM, et al. (2008) Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: the competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Quarterly32(3): 483–502.
56.
VodanovichSSundaramDMyersM (2010) Research commentary—digital natives and ubiquitous information systems. Information Systems Research21(4): 711–723. DOI: 10.1287/isre.1100.0324.
57.
WeiL (2012) Number matters: the multimodality of internet use as an indicator of the digital inequalities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 303–318. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01578.x.
58.
WoodRBanduraa (1989) Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology56(3): 407–415. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407.
ZhangP (2008) Motivational affordances: fundamental reasons for ICT design and use. Communications of the ACM51(11): 145. DOI: 10.1145/1400214.1400244.
