The introduction of the internet in American life has led to debate among media scholars, sociologists and political scientists about the role of the internet in society. Two areas of research that have received substantial attention in the domain of internet effects are the digital divide and social capital. Digital divide researchers have pointed out the critical gaps in society among different groups in the context of their access to new media and technology. Social capital researchers have focused on the influence of the internet on community life. The article contributes to the literature by (a) consolidating the two concepts of access and community participation to articulate the community correlates of the digital divide, and (b) applying a complementary resource-based perspective to capture the relationship between the internet and community outcomes. It investigates the role of community access to the internet in the context of the participation of individuals in their communities and their satisfaction with community life.
Brehm, J. and W.M. Rahn (1997) ‘Individual Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital’, American Journal of Political Science41(3): 999-1023.
2.
Brown, R.B. (1993) ‘Rural Community Satisfaction and Attachment in Mass Consumer Society’, Rural Sociology58(3): 387-403.
3.
Campbell, A. (1981) The Sense of Well-being in America: Recent Patterns and Trends. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2002) ‘Beyond Demographic Variables: Using Psychographic Research to Narrate the Story of Internet Users’, Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education2(3), URL (consulted 28 June 2002): http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/journal/ejournals/simile
5.
Filkins, R., J.C. Allen and S. Cordes (2000) ‘Predicting Community Satisfaction Among Rural Residents: An Integrative Model’, Rural Sociology65(1): 72-86.
6.
Finholt, T. and L. Sproull (1990) ‘A Social Influence Model of Technology Use’, in J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology, pp. 117-140. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, M. Morgan and N. Signorielli (1980) ‘The “Mainstreaming” of America: Violence Profile No. 11’, Journal of Communication30(3): 10-29.
8.
Hammond, A.S. (1997) ‘The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Codifying the Digital Divide’, Federal Communications Law Journal50(1): 179-214.
9.
Hawe, P. and A. Shiell (2000) ‘Social Capital and Health Promotion: A Review’, Social Science and Medicine51(6): 871-885.
10.
Hawkins, R.P. and S. Pingree (1981) ‘Uniform Messages and Habitual Viewing: Unnecessary Assumptions in Social Reality Effects’, Human Communication Research7(4): 291-301.
11.
Heaton, T., C. Fredrickson, G.V. Fuguitt and J.J. Zuiches (1979) ‘Residential Preferences, Community Satisfaction, and the Intention to Move’, Demography16(4): 565-573.
12.
Hindman, D.B. (2000) ‘The Rural-Urban Digital Divide’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 549-560.
13.
James, M.L., C.E. Wotring and E.J. Forrest (1995) ‘An Exploratory Study of the Perceived Benefits of Electronic Bulletin Board Use and Their Impact on Other Communication Activities’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media39(1): 30-50.
14.
Marans, R.W. and W. Rodgers (1975) ‘Toward an Understanding of Community Satisfaction’, in A. Hawley and S.M. Mazie (eds) Nonmetropolitan America in Transition, pp. 299-352. New York: Halsted Press.
15.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (1995) Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce.
16.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (1998) Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce.
17.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (1999) Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce.
18.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (2000) Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce.
19.
Nie, N.H. and L. Erbring (February, 2000) Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. URL (consulted 8 July 2003): http://stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/Preliminary_Report.pdf
20.
Pastore, M. (2001a) ‘Women Maintain Lead in Internet Use’, Cyberatlas, URL (consulted 9 August 2003): http://cyberatlas.internet.com
21.
Pastore, M. (2001b) ‘Internet Use Continues to Pervade US Life’, Cyberatlas, URL (consulted 9 August 2003): http://cyberatlas.internet.com
22.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2000) Internet Sapping Broadcast News Audience. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
23.
Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology24(1): 1-24.
24.
Putnam, R.D. (1995) ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital’, Journal of Democracy6(1): 65-78.
25.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
26.
Robinson, J., K. Barth and A. Kohut (1997) ‘Social Impact Research: Personal Computers, Mass Media, and Use of Time’, Social Science Computer Review, 15(1): 65-82.
27.
Scheufele, D.A. and D.V. Shah (2000) ‘Personality Strength and Social Capital: The Role of Dispositional and Informational variables in the Production of Civic Participation’, Communication Research27(2): 107-131.
28.
Shah, D.V., N. Kwak and R.L. Holbert (2001) ‘”Connecting” and “Disconnecting” With Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital’, Political Communication18(2): 141-162.
29.
Shah, D.V., J.M. McLeod and S. Yoon (2001) ‘Communication, Context, and Community: An Exploration of Print, Broadcast and Internet Influences’, Communication Research28(4): 464-506.
30.
Sparrow, J. and A. Vedantham (1996) ‘Inner-City Networking: Models and Opportunities’, Journal of Urban Technology3(1): 19-28.
31.
Theodori, G.L. (2001) ‘Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and Attachment on Individual Well-Being’, Rural Sociology66(4): 618-628.
32.
Times Mirror (1995) Technology in the American Household: Americans Going Online. Washington D.C.: Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press.
33.
Uslaner, E. (1998) ‘Social Capital, Television, and the Mean World: Trust, Optimism and Civic Participation’, Political Psychology19(3): 441-467.
34.
Veenstra, G. (2000) ‘Social Capital, SES and Health: An Individual-level Analysis’, Social Science and Medicine50(5): 619-629.
35.
Veenstra, G. and J. Lomas (1999) ‘Home is Where the Governing Is: Social Capital and Regional Health Governance’, Health and Place5(1): 1-12.
36.
Verba, S., K.L. Schlozman and H.E. Brady (1995) Violence and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
Yankelovich Partners (1995) The Yankelovich Cybercitizen Report. Atlanta: Yankelovich Partners.
38.
Zuiches, J.J. (1981) ‘Residential Preferences in the United States’, in A. Hawley and S.M. Mazie (eds) Nonmetropolitan America in Transition, pp. 72-115. New York: Halsted Press.
