This research addresses the question: What are the predictors of internet leisure patterns? With the barriers to internet access receding the question can be asked: Whether or not social groups are beginning to distinguish themselves through different types of internet activities? This research will focus on the domain of internet leisure and entertainment within the United States population. Internet leisure is measured in this study by playing games, doing hobbies, reading, watching videos and listening to music. Predictors are drawn from a digital inequality and a Weberian status group perspective. Binary logistic regression models are run on a nationally representative survey from the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project (N = 2013). This research suggests that: (1) both digital inequality and status group perspectives tend to work together to explain all internet activities, but a status group perspective provides more explanation for leisure patterns, (2) internet leisure is best conceptualised as a form of popular culture with minorities and people of low socioeconomic status consuming leisure at higher rates.
AdamsJ., and RoscginoV. J. (2005) ‘White Supremacists, Oppositional Culture and the World Wide Web’, Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 759–778.
2.
AttewellP. (2001) ‘The First and Second Digital Divides’, Sociology of Education, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 252–259.
3.
BenklerY. (2006) The Wealth of Networks.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BimberB. (2000) ‘Measuring the Gender Gap on the Internet’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 868–876.
5.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrunstingS., and PostmesT. (2002) ‘Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age: Predicting Offline and Online Collective Action’, Small Group Research, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 525–554.
7.
CastellsM. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
ChakrabortyJ., and BosmanM. M. (2005) ‘Measuring the Digital Divide in the United States: Race, Income, and Personal Computers’, Professional Geographer, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 395–410.
9.
ChanW. T., and GoldthorpeJ. (2007) ‘Class and Status: the Conceptual Distinction and its Empirical Relevance’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 512–532.
10.
CrangM., CrosbieT., and GrahamS. (2006) ‘Variable Geometries of Connection: Urban Digital Divides and the Uses of Information Technology’, Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 13, pp. 2551–2570.
11.
DeeryJ. (2003) ‘TV.com: Participatory Viewing on the Web’, The Journal of Popular Culture Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 161–183.
12.
DianiM. (2000). ‘Social Movement Networks Virtual and Real’, Information, Communication, and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 386–401.
13.
DimaggioP. E., HargittaiE., NewmanW.R., and RobinsonJ. P. (2001) ‘Social Implications of the Internet’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 307–336.
14.
DimaggioP., HargittaiE., CelesteC., and ShaferS. (2004) ‘Digital Inequality, From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use’, in NeckermanK. (editor) Social Inequality, pp. 355–400. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15.
DurndellA., and ZsoltH. (2002) ‘Computer Self Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, Attitudes towards the Internet and Reported Experience with the Internet, by Gender, in an East European Sample’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 521–535.
16.
GarofaloR., HerrickA., MustanskiB.S., and DonenbergG.R. (2007) ‘Tip of the Iceberg: Young Men Who Have Sex with Men, the Internet, and HIV Risk’, American Journal of Public Health Vol. 97, No. 6, pp. 1113–1117.
17.
GatesH. (2000). ‘Black to the Future’Education Week, January 12, P. 72
18.
GansH. (1999) Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste.New York: Basic Books.
19.
GefenD., and StraubD.W. (1997) ‘Gender Differences in the Perception and use of E-mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 389–400.
20.
GerthH. H., and MillsC.W. (1958) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
HargittaiE. (2004) ‘Internet Access and Use in Context’, New Media and Society, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 137–143.
22.
HargittaiE. (2008) ‘The Role of Expertise in Navigating Links of Influence’, in TurowJ., and TsuiL. (editors) The Hyperlinked Society.Michigan: The University of Michigan Press
23.
JacksonL., ErvinK., GardnerP., & SchmittN. (2001). ‘Gender and the Internet: Women Communicating and Men Searching - Statistical Data Included’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research Vol. 44, No. 5/6, pp. 363–380.
24.
KatzJ.E., and RiceR.E. (2002) Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement and Expression.Cambridge: MIT Press
25.
KeeganM. (2004). ‘Digital Divide in Computer Access and Use between Poor and Non-Poor Youth’, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 91–112.
26.
KochS. C., MeullerB., KruseL., and ZumbachJ. (2005) ‘Constructing Gender in Chat Groups’, Sex Roles, Vol. 53, No. 1/2, pp. 29–41.
27.
KvasnyLynette (2006) ‘Cultural (Re)production of Digital Inequality in a US Community Technology Initiative’, Information, Communication, and Society, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 160–181.
28.
LaceyM. (2000). ‘Clinton Enlists Top-Grade Help for Plan to Increase Computer Use’, New York Times, February 3, p. A25.
29.
LorenceD. P., and ParkH. (2006) ‘New Technology and Old Habits: The Role of Age as a Technology Chasm’Technology & Health Care Vol. 14, No. 2: 91–96.
30.
MartinS. P., and RobinsonJ. P. (2007) ‘The Income Digital Divide: Trends and Predictions for Levels of Internet Use’, Social Problems, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 1–22.
31.
Morahan-MartinJ., and SchumacherP. (2003) ‘Loneliness and Social Uses of the Internet’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 659–671.
32.
MorrelR.W., MayhornC.B., and BennetJ. (2000) ‘A Survey of World Wide Web use in Middle-Aged and Older Adults’, Human Factors, Vol. 42: 175–182.
33.
MossbergerK., TolbertC.J., GilbertM. (2006) ‘Race, Place, and Information Technology’, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 583–620.
34.
NATIONAL Telecommunications, and Information Administration. U. S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion.Washington, DC.
35.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. (2002). A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their use of the Internet.Washington, DC.
36.
NATIONAL Telecommunications, and Information Administration. U. S. Department of Commerce. (2004). A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age.Washington, DC.
37.
OnoH., and ZavodnyM. (2003) ‘Gender and the Internet’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp. 111–121.
38.
OnoH., and ZavodnyM. (2008) ‘Immigrants, English Ability, and the Digital Divide’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 1135–1155.
39.
RheingoldH. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
40.
SchumacherP., and Morahan-MartinJ. (2001) ‘Gender, Internet and Computer Attitudes and Experiences’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 95–110.
41.
ServonL. J., and NelsonM. K., (2001). ‘Community Technology Centers: Narrowing the Digital Divide in Low-Income, Urban Communities’, Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 3/4, pp. 279–291.
42.
SpottsT. H., BowmanM. A., and MertzC. (1997) ‘Gender and Use of Instructional Technologies’, Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 421–426.
43.
StoreyJ. (1999) Cultural Consumption and Everyday Life.New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
Van EijckK. (2001). ‘Social Differentiation in Musical Taste Patterns‘, Social Forces, Vol. 79. No. 3, pp. 1163–1184.
45.
WarschauerM. (2003) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide.Cambridge: MIT Press.
46.
WilloughbyT. (2008) ‘A Short-Term Longitudinal Study of Internet and Computer Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls: Prevalence, Frequency of Use, and Psychosocial Predictors’, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 195–204.
47.
WhittyM. T., and MclaughlinD. (2007). ‘Online Recreation: The Relationship between Loneliness, Internet Self-Efficacy and the use of the Internet for Entertainment Purposes’. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 1435–1446.
48.
XieB., and JaegerP. (2008) ‘Older Adults and Political Participation on the Internet: A Cross-cultural Comparison of the USA and China’Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1–15.
