This article explores how the time spent on the Internet is associated with printed and online newspaper reading. The direct and moderating effects of gender are especially investigated. The survey data (N = 612) collected from Finland in 2011 are analysed by using hierarchical regression modelling. The results of the study show that Internet use has a displacement effect on printed newspaper reading but only among male respondents. In contrast, results show that more women spend time on the Internet the more frequently they also read printed newspapers. This finding is in line with the so-called efficacy hypothesis. No similar moderating effect of gender was found when exploring online newspaper reading. However, it was noted that men read more online newspapers than women. Lastly, the results of this study call for further investigations on other interaction effects, which have capacity to clarify how one medium can substitute and displace the other.
BimberB (2000) Measuring the gender gap on the internet. Social Science Quarterly81(3): 868–876.
2.
ChungDS (2008) Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(3): 658–679.
3.
De WaalESchoenbachKLaufE (2005) Online newspapers: A substitute or complement for printed newspapers and other information channels?Communications30(1): 55–72.
4.
DiMaggioPHargittaiENeumanRWRobinsonJP (2001) Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology27: 307–336.
5.
DimmickJChenYLiZ (2004) Competition between the internet and traditional news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. Journal of Media Economics17(1): 19–33.
6.
ElvestaEBlekesauneA (2008) Newspaper readers in Europe: A multilevel study of individual and national differences. European Journal of Communication23(4): 425–447.
7.
FortunatiLManganelliA-M (1998) La comunicazione tecnologica: Comportamenti, opinioni ed emozioni degli Europei [Technological communication behaviour, opinions and emotions in Europe]. In: FortunatiL (ed.) Telecomunicando in Europa [Telecommunication in Europe]. Milan: Angeli, pp. 125–194.
8.
GrossJ (2003) Linear Regression. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
9.
JonesSJohnson-YaleCMillermaierSPerezFS (2009) U.S. college students’ internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 244–264.
10.
JungheeLHyunjooL (2010) The computer-mediated communication network: Exploring the linkage between the online community and social capital. New Media and Society12(5): 711–727.
11.
JyrkiäinenJ (2007) The Finnish media landscape. In: TerzisG (ed.) European Media Governance: National Regional Dimensions. Bristol: Intellect Books, pp. 99–110.
12.
KayeBKJohnsonT (2002) Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media46(1): 54–71.
13.
KayeBKJohnsonT (2003) From here to obscurity? Media substitution theory and traditional media in an on-line world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54(3): 264–274.
14.
KrautRPattersonMLundmarkV. (1998) Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being. American Psychologist53(9): 1017–1031.
15.
LaufE (2001) Research note: The vanishing young reader. Sociodemographic determinants of newspaper use as source of political information in Europe, 1980–98. European Journal of Communication16(2): 233–243.
16.
LeePSNLeungL (2008) Assessing the displacement effects of the internet. Telematics and Informatics25(3): 145–155.
17.
LucasKSherryJL (2004) Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research31(5): 499–523.
18.
MokhtariKReichardCAGardnerA (2009) The impact of internet and television use on the reading habits and practices of college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy52(7): 609–619.
NieNHHillygusDSErbringL (2002) Internet use, interpersonal relations, and sociability: A time diary study. In: WellmanBHaythornthwaiteC (eds) The Internet in Everyday Life. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 215–243.
21.
OECD (2009) PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS Second Edition. Paris: Programme for International Student Assessment, OECD.
22.
OnoHZavodnyM (2003) Gender and the internet. Social Science Quarterly84(1): 111–121.
23.
On the Move: The Role of Cellular Communications in American Life (2006) Department of Communication Studies. University of Michigan. Available at: itudcmc.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/onthemove1.pdf (accessed 9 August 2011).
24.
RobinsonJPKestenbaumMNeustadtlAAlvarezAS (2002) The internet and other uses of time. In: WellmanBHaythornthwaiteC (eds) The Internet in Everyday Life. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 244–262.
25.
SchoenbachKLaufEMcLeodJMScheufeleDA (1999) Research note: Distinction and integration. Sociodemographic determinants of newspaper reading in the USA and Germany, 1974–96. European Journal of Communication14(2): 225–239.
26.
SelwynNGorardSFurlongJ (2005) Whose internet is it anyway? Exploring adults’ (non)use of the internet in everyday life. European Journal of Communication20(1): 5–26.
27.
ShahDSchmierbachMHawkinsJ. (2002) Nonrecursive models of internet use and community engagement: Questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly79(4): 964–987.
28.
ShklovskiIKrautRRainieL (2004) The internet and social participation: Contrasting cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(1).
29.
Statistics Finland (2011) Ajankäyttötutkimus 2009 [Time use survey 2009]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
30.
TewksburyDAlthausSL (2000) Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 457–479.
31.
WassermanIMRichmond-AbbottM (2005) Gender and the internet: Causes of variation in access, level, and scope of use. Social Science Quarterly86(1): 252–270.
32.
WeiserEB (2000) Gender differences in internet use patterns and internet application preferences: A two-sample comparison. CyberPsychology and Behavior3(2): 167–178.
