This study investigated to what extent sons and daughters influence their parents’ adoption of digital media, particularly the internet, compared to other influence sources. It also explored structural factors that play a role in this bottom-up process, such as socio-economic differences and gender. Finally, it examined the relationship between this bottom-up technology transmission process and parents’ levels of internet self-efficacy and online activities. Drawing from socialization and diffusion of innovation research and using a self-administered random mail survey, we found that children play a role in including their parents in the digital environment, particularly among women, people who are older (35 years old and above), and belong to lower socio-economic groups. We also found that this bottom-up technology transmission is somewhat negatively associated with parents’ internet self-efficacy. Implications and possible interpretations of these results are discussed.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84: 191–215.
2.
BeattySETalpadeS (1994) Adolescent influence in family decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research21: 332–341.
3.
BrennerJSmithA (2013) 72% of Online Adults Are Social Networking Site Users. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
4.
BroosARoeK (2006) The digital divide in the playstation generation: self-efficacy, locus of control and ICT adoption among adolescents. Poetics34(4–5): 306–317.
5.
BrownSVenkateshV (2005) Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly29(3): 399–426.
6.
ChenWFunkMStraubhaarJD. (2013) Still relevant? An audience analysis of public and government access channels. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(3): 263–281.
7.
CooperJ (2006) The digital divide: the special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning22: 320–334.
8.
CorreaT (2010) The participation divide among “web experts”: experience, skills, and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication16(1): 71–92.
9.
CorreaT (in press) Bottom-up technology transmission within families: exploring how youths influence their parents’ digital media use with dyadic data. Journal of Communication.
10.
CorreaTJeongSH (2011) Race and online content creation: why minorities are actively participating in the Web. Information, Communication, & Society14(5): 638–659.
11.
CurtinRPresserSSingerE (2002) Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly69: 87–98.
12.
De HaanJ (2004) A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. IT & Society1(7): 66–88.
13.
De LeeuwEDe HeerW (2002) Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international comparison. In: GrovesRMDillmanDAEltingeJ. (eds) Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley, pp. 41-54.
14.
DholakiaRRDholakiaNKshetriN (2004) Gender and Internet usage. In: BidgoliH (ed.) The Internet Encyclopedia. New York: John Wiley, pp. 12–22.
15.
EastinMSLaRoseR (2000) Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication6. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.html (accessed 28 September 2008).
16.
GrovesRM (2006) Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly70: 646–675.
17.
GrovesRMPeytchevaE (2008) The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: a metanalysis. Public Opinion Quarterly72(2): 167–189.
18.
GrusecJEDavidovM (2007) Socialization in the family: the role of parents. In: GrusecJEHastingsPD (eds) Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 284–308.
19.
HaddonL (2006) The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. Information Society22: 195–203.
20.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research35(5): 602–621.
21.
HargittaiEWalejkoG (2008) The participation divide: content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society11(2): 239–256.
22.
HorstH (2009) Families. In: MizukoIHorstHBitantiM. (eds) Hanging Out, Messing around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 149-194.
23.
ItoMHorstHBittaniM. (2009) Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24.
KamJA (2011) The effects of language brokering frequency and feelings on Mexican-heritage youth’s mental health and risky behavior. Journal of Communication61: 455–475.
25.
KatzVS (2010) How children of immigrants use media to connect their families with the community. Journal of Children and Media4(3): 298–315.
26.
KempfAMRemingtonAJ (2007) New challenges for telephone survey research in the twenty-first century. Annual Review Public Health28: 113-126.
27.
KennedyTLMSmithAWellsAT. (2008) Networked Families. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
28.
KieslerSZdaniukBLundmarkV. (2000) Troubles with the Internet: the dynamics of help at home. Human-Computer Interaction15: 323–351.
29.
KuczynskiLParkinCM (2007) Agency and bi-directionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In: GrusecJEHastingsPD (eds) The handbook of Socialization. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 259-283.
30.
LaRoseREastinM (2004) A social cognitive explanation of Internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new theory of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media48(3): 458-477.
31.
LivingstoneSBovillM (2001) Families and the Internet: An Observational Study of Children and Young People’s Internet Use. London: British Telecommunications.
32.
LivingstoneSHoldenKBovillM (1999) Children’s changing media environment. In: Von FeilitzenCCarlssonU (eds) Children and Media: Image, Education, Participation. Goteborg: Nordicom/Unesco, pp. 156-169.
33.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society9(4): 671–696.
34.
McDevittMChaffeeS (2000) Closing gaps in political communication and knowledge: effects of a school intervention. Communication Research27(3): 259–292.
35.
MangioneTWVan NessJH (2009) Mail surveys. In: BickmanLRogDJ (eds) The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 475-497.
MerazS (2008) Women and technology: how socialization created a gender gap. In: PoindexterPMMerazSSchmitz-WeissA (eds) Women, Men and News: Divided and Disconnected in the News Media Landscape. New York: Routledge, pp. 99–116.
38.
MerkleDEdelmanM (2002) Nonresponse in exit polls: a comprehensive analysis. In: GrovesRMDillmanDAEltingeJ. (eds) Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley, pp. 243-258.
39.
NewhagenJEBucyEP (2004) Routes to media access. In: BucyEPNewhagenJE (eds) Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3-23.
40.
PrenskyM (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon9: 1–6.
41.
PutneyNMBengstonVL (2002) Socialization and the family revisited. In: SetterstenRAOwensTJ (eds) New Frontiers in Socialization. Amsterdam: JAI Press, pp. 165–194.
42.
RogersE (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed.New York: The Free Press.
43.
RojasVStraubhaarJSpenceJ. (2012) Communities, cultural capital and digital inclusion: ten years of tracking techno-dispositions. In: StraubhaarJDSpenceJTufekciZ. (eds) Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender and the Digital Divide in Austin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 223-264.
44.
RyanRMRigbyCPrzybylskiA (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation & Emotion30(4): 344–360.
45.
SelwynN (2004) Exploring the role of children in adults’ adoption and use of computers. Information, Technology, & People17(1): 53–70.
46.
SelwynN (2009) The digital native-myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives61(4): 364-379.
47.
SilverstoneR (1994) Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
48.
StraubhaarJDSpenceJTufekciZ. (2012) Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender and the Digital Divide in Austin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
49.
TrippLMHerr-StephensonR (2009) Making access meaningful: Latino young people using digital media at home and at school. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 1190–1207.
50.
TufekciZ (2003) In search of lost jobs: the rhetoric and practice of computer skills training. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
51.
Van DijkJ (2005) The Deepening Divide Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
52.
Van RompaeyVRoeKStruysK (2002) Children’s influence on Internet access at home. Information, Communication, & Society5(2): 189–206.
53.
WashingtonE (2006) Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect their Legislator Fathers Voting on Women’s Issues. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
54.
WheelockJ (1992) Personal computers, gender, and an institutional model of the household. In: SilverstoneRHirschE (eds) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. London: Routledge, pp. 97–112.
55.
ZickuhrK (2010) Generations 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
56.
ZickuhrKSmithA (2012) Digital Differences. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
