Research into digital inequalities has shifted from a binary view of Internet use versus non-use to studying gradations in Internet use. However, this research has mostly compared categories of users only. In addition, the role of attitudes in digital inequalities has been largely overlooked. This article addresses these limitations by performing a systematic analysis of factors that distinguish low Internet users from non-users, regular users, and broad users. In addition to socio-demographic characteristics, we examine attitudinal variables. Results drawn from multinomial regressions indicate that attitudes play at least as large a role as socio-economic factors in determining the likelihood of belonging to specific (non-)user categories. This identifies positive attitudes toward technologies and the Internet as a crucial step toward Internet adoption. Hence, digital inequality research needs to consider factors other than traditional socio-economic ones to draw a complete picture.
AcockAC (2013) Discovering Structural Equation Modeling Using Stata, Revised Edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
2.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3.
BakardjievaM (2005) Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life. London: SAGE.
4.
BakerC (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
5.
BlankGGroseljD (2014) Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety and types. Information, Communication and Society17(4): 417–435.
6.
BrandtzægPBHeimJKarahasanovićA (2011) Understanding the new digital divide—a typology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies69(3): 123–138.
7.
ChoJDe ZunigaHGRojasH. (2003) Beyond access: the digital divide and Internet uses and gratifications. IT & Society1(4): 46–72.
8.
DiMaggioPHargittaiECelesteC. (2004) Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In: NeckermanKM (ed.) Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 355–400.
9.
DuttonWHBlankG with GroseljD (2013) Cultures of the Internet: The Internet in Britain (Oxford Internet Survey 2013). Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute; University of Oxford.
10.
EgeaJMOMenéndezMRGonzálezMVR (2006) Diffusion and usage patterns of Internet services in the European Union. Information Research12(2): 15.
11.
EynonRGenietsA (2012) On the periphery? Understanding low and discontinued Internet use amongst young people in Britain. Report for the Nominet Trust, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, 16August.
12.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13.
GonzalesA (2016) The contemporary US digital divide: from initial access to technology maintenance. Information, Communication & Society19(2): 234–248.
HelsperEJ (2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory22(4): 403–426.
19.
HelsperEJEynonR (2013) Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication28(6): 696–713.
20.
HelsperEJReisdorfBC (2013) A quantitative examination of explanations for reasons for internet nonuse. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking16(2): 94–99.
21.
HelsperEJVan DeursenAJ (2015) Digital skills in Europe: research and policy. In: AndreassonK (ed.) Digital Divides: The New Challenges and Opportunities of e-Inclusion (Series no. 195). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 125–148.
KatzEBlumlerJGurevitchM (1974) Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In: BlumlerJKatzE (eds) The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 19–34.
24.
KimHWChanHCGuptaS (2007) Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems43(1): 111–126.
25.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society9(4): 671–696.
26.
LongJS (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London: SAGE.
27.
LongJSFreeseJ (2014) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. 3rd ed.College Station, TX: Stata Press.
28.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
PengHTsaiCCWuYT (2006) University students’ self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the Internet: the role of students’ perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies32(1): 73–86.
30.
PorterCEDonthuN (2006) Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research59(9): 999–1007.
31.
ReisdorfBC (2011) Non-adoption of the Internet in Great Britain and Sweden: a cross-national comparison. Information, Communication & Society14(3): 400–420.
32.
ReisdorfBCAxelssonASSöderholmH (2012) Living Offline-A Qualitative Study of Internet Non-Use in Great Britain and Sweden (Selected Papers of Internet Research, 2). Available at: http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/10
33.
RogersEM (2001) The digital divide. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies7(4): 96–111.
34.
RománS (2010) Relational consequences of perceived deception in online shopping: the moderating roles of type of product, consumer’s attitude toward the internet and consumer’s demographics. Journal of Business Ethics95(3): 373–391.
35.
SelwynN (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society6(3): 341–362.
36.
SelwynNGorardSFurlongJ (2005) Whose Internet is it anyway? Exploring adults’ (non) use of the Internet in everyday life. European Journal of Communication20(1): 5–26.
37.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJAGM (2014) The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society16(3): 507–526.
38.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJAGM (2015) Towards a multifaceted model of internet access for understanding digital divides: an empirical investigation. The Information Society31(5): 379–391.
39.
Van DeursenAJHelsperEJEynonR (2014) Measuring Digital Skills: From Digital Skills to Tangible Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute; University of Oxford.
40.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJAGMPetersO (2011) Rethinking Internet skills: the contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium-and content-related Internet skills. Poetics39(2): 125–144.
41.
Van DijkJAGM (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. London: SAGE.
42.
Van DijkJAGMVan DeursenAJ (2014) Digital Skills: Unlocking the Information Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
44.
WarschauerM (2004) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
45.
ZillienNHargittaiE (2009) Digital distinction: status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly90(2): 274–291.
