The study explores a concept defined as `internet anxiety', and uses mass communication theories to help explain it. Findings suggest we believe `other people' are responding to media messages about the internet, perpetuating beliefs that internet use is higher than it actually is, and that we are further behind other people than we actually are.
Evidence of third-person perception and overestimation of internet use were found. An understanding of internet anxiety can help structure messages for mass audiences, and lead to more efficient and appropriate use of the internet by business.
Atkin, D.J. , L.W. Jeffres and K. Neuendorf (1997) `Understanding Internet Adoption Dynamics', paper presented at the annual conference of AEJMC, Chicago, August.
2.
Bandalos, D. and J. Benson (1990) `Testing the Factor Structure Invariance of a Computer Attitude Scale over Two Grouping Conditions', Educational and Psychological Measurement50: 49-60.
3.
Brown, L. (1981) Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. London: Methuen.
4.
CommerceNet/Nielsen Media Research (1997) www.commerce.net/work/pilot/nielsen96/
5.
Davison, W.P. (1983) `The Third-Person Effect in Communication', Public Opinion Quarterly47: 1-15.
6.
Davison, W.P. (1996) `The Third-Person Effect Revisited', International Journal of Public Opinion Research8(2): 113-119.
7.
Dudczak, C.A. (1983) `Coping with Information Overload: Generic Argument as the Least Common Denominator', paper presented to the Central States Speech Association, Lincoln, NE, 7-9 April.
8.
Dukes, R.L. , R. Discenza and J. D. Couger (1989) `Convergent Validity of Four Computer Anxiety Scales', Educational and Psychological Measurement49: 195-203.
9.
Freedom Forum Media Studies Center (1994) `Separating Fact from Fiction on the Information Superhighway', white paper, Columbia University.
10.
Gunther, A. (1991) `What We Think Others Think: Cause and Consequence in the Third-Person Effect', Communication Research18(3): 355-372.
11.
Gunther, A.C. and E. Thorson (1992) `Perceived Persuasive Effects of Product Commercials and Public Service Announcements', Communication Research19(5): 574-596.
12.
Johnson, M.A. (1997) `Public Relations and Technology: Practitioner Perspectives', Journal of Public Relations Research9(3): 213-236.
13.
Kernan, M.C. and Howard, G.S. (1990) `Computer Anxiety and Computer Attitudes: An Investigation of Construct and Predictive Validity Issues', Educational and Psychological Measurement50: 681-690.
14.
Krugman, D.M. (1985) `Evaluating the Audiences of the New Media', Journal of Advertising14(4): 21-27.
15.
Larosa, D.L. (1989) `Real and Perceived Effects of “Amerika” ', Journalism Quarterly66: 373-378, 529.
16.
Levy, S. (1995/1996) `This Changes Everything', Newsweek25 December/1 January: 23-30.
17.
Lin, C.A. (1994) `Exploring Potential Factors for Home Videotext Adoption', Advances in Telematics2: 111-121.
18.
Lincoln, Y.S. (1992) `Virtual Community and Invisible Colleges: Alterations in Faculty Scholarly Networks and Professional Self-image', paper presented to the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN, 29 Oct-1 Nov.
19.
McCombs, M.E. and D.L. Shaw (1972) `The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media', Public Opinion Quarterly36: 176-187.
20.
McGrath, P. (1997) `The Web: Infotopia or Marketplace?', Newsweek27 January: 82-84.
21.
Nadeau, R. , R. G. Niemi and T. Amato (1994) `Expectations and Preferences in British General Elections', American Political Science Review88(2): 371-383.
22.
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
23.
Perloff, R.M. (1993) `Third-Person Effect Research 1983-1992: A Review and Synthesis', International Journal of Public Opinion Research5(2): 167-184.
24.
Raman, N. and C. White (1998) `Managing the New Media: What Web Site Decision Makers Plan, Know, and Believe', paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Advertising, March.
25.
Robertson, T.S. (1971) `The Diffusion Process', in Innovative Behavior and Communication, pp. 29-55. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
26.
Rogers, E.M. (1976) `New Product Adoption and Diffusion', Journal of Consumer Research2 (March): 290-301.
27.
Rogers, E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
28.
Salwen, M.B. and P.D. Driscoll (1997) `Consequences of Third-Person Perception in Support of Press Restrictions in the O.J. Simpson Trial', Journal of Communication47(2): 60-78.
29.
Schmitt, B. (1996) `Mass Media, The Electorate, and the Bandwagon: A Study of Communication Effects on Vote Choice in Germany', International Journal of Public Opinion Research8(3): 266-291.
30.
Signorielli, N. and M. Morgan (1990) Cultivation Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
Szajna, B. (1994) `An Investigation of the Predictive Validity of Computer Anxiety and Computer Aptitude', Educational and Psychological Measurement54(4): 926-934.
32.
Tiedge, J.T. , A. Silverblatt, M.J. Havice and R. Rosenfeld (1991) `Discrepancy between Perceived First-Person and Perceived Third-Person Mass Media Effects', Journalism Quarterly68(1/2): 141-154.
33.
White, C. (1995) `Uses and Impacts of Computer Mediated Communication: A Survey of Faculty in Mass Communication and Related Disciplines', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Georgia.
34.
Whitson, D. and M. Day (1994) `Country Roads and Superhighways: Information Access in the 1990s', Adult Learning (Nov/Dec): 26-27.
35.
Wurman, R.S. (1989) Information Anxiety. New York: Doubleday.
