Reshaping Digital Inequality in the European Union: How Psychological Barriers Affect Internet Adoption Rates

In the past years, scholars have assessed the social differences that the Internet has generated from its use (or its non-use). The issue has been largely referred to as Digital Divide, describing the social division between those who are using the technology and those who are not; or in other words, the "haves" and "have nots" of the Internet. Generally, the phenomenon has been explained from a perspective in which infrastructural and demographics aspects are considered as the main barriers to overcome in order to narrow this digital inequality. Albeit partially true, this trend of research does not consider people's perceptions toward the Internet and how they can also explain connectivity, or lack thereof. Analyzing data from 1) the 55th Eurobarometer collected by the EU Commission (N = 16,134); and 2) data collected from the National Statistical Institutes of each State Member of the European Union, this paper suggests that there is a necessity to approach the problem from another perspective. This does not mean that the other trend was wrong, but rather, one explanation of the problem is not enough. Thus, this research enlightens how psychological barriers are involved in impeding EU citizens' complete adoption of the Internet. For instance, perceptions of what opportunities were missed by not accessing the WWW, perceptions of the kind of content that should be on the Net and perceptions of how the Internet would change their daily lives were all factors that indicated that not only demographical or structural obstacles were involved. In a sense, people do not think that they are missing many Job-Training, Consumption or improvement of Social Integration opportunities by not being connected to the Internet. In addition, the content that should be available over the Net is not appealing enough to induce them to seek out Internet access.

[1]  Leslie Regan Shade,et al.  Canada's SchoolNet: Wiring up schools? , 2005 .

[2]  P. Howard,et al.  Days and Nights on the Internet , 2001 .

[3]  Valerie Price,et al.  Narrowing the Digital Divide , 2006 .

[4]  張卿卿 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: Financial Statements , 1988 .

[5]  O. Gandy The Real Digital Divide: Citizens versus Consumers , 2002 .

[6]  N. Nie,et al.  Internet and society: a preliminary report , 2001 .

[7]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide , 2004, New Media Soc..

[8]  Kristopher K. Robison,et al.  Globalization and the Digital Divide: The Roles of Structural Conduciveness and Global Connection in Internet Diffusion* , 2006 .

[9]  Larry Cuban Teachers and machines : the classroom use of technology since 1920 , 1986 .

[10]  Harald Bock,et al.  Metropolitan DWDM: a dynamically configurable ring for the KomNet field trial in Berlin , 2001, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[11]  Sheizaf Rafaeli,et al.  The Electronic Bulletin Board: A Computer-Driven Mass Medium , 1984 .

[12]  Andrea L. Kavanaugh,et al.  The Impact of Community Computer Networks on Social Capital and Community Involvement , 2001 .

[13]  P. Korgaonkar A Multivariate Analysis of Web Usage , 1999 .

[14]  Lisa J. Servon Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy , 2002 .

[15]  John Eighmey,et al.  Adding Value in the Information Age: Uses and Gratifications of Sites on the World Wide Web , 1998 .

[16]  Merrill Morris The Internet as Mass Medium , 1996, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[17]  N. Charness Computer and internet use in the USA: influence of age, attitude, employment status, and education , 2008 .

[18]  Brenda Dervin,et al.  Rethinking Communication: Paradigm Issues , 1989 .

[19]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Demystifying the digital divide. , 2003, Scientific American.

[20]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  The Internet, 1995-2000 , 2001, ArXiv.

[21]  Thomas J. Johnson,et al.  Online and in the Know: Uses and Gratifications of the Web for Political Information , 2002 .

[22]  Lawrence A. Wenner,et al.  Model specification and theoretical development in gratifications sought and obtained research: A comparison of discrepancy and transactional approaches , 1986 .

[23]  A. Rubin Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. , 1994 .

[24]  Steven P. Martin IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE REALLY CLOSING? A CRITIQUE OF INEQUALITY MEASUREMENT IN A NATION ONLINE , 2003 .

[25]  Charles R. Wright FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND MASS COMMUNICATION , 1960 .

[26]  Penelope J. Haile,et al.  Book Review: More Than a Tool?, Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds–For Better and Worse , 2001 .

[27]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  National Information Policy developments worldwide I: electronic government , 2002, J. Inf. Sci..

[28]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Hurdles to Information Seeking: Spelling and Typographical Mistakes During Users' Online Behavior , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Alexis S. Tan Mass communication theories and research , 1985 .

[30]  Wallace Koehler,et al.  Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  A. Rubin The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. , 2002 .

[32]  D. L. Swanson,et al.  Understanding audiences: Continuing contributions of gratifications research , 1992 .

[33]  Graham Murdock Past the Posts , 2004 .

[34]  Lee W. McKnight,et al.  Bridging broadband Internet divides: reconfiguring access to enhance communicative power , 2004, J. Inf. Technol..

[35]  A. Rubin,et al.  Predictors of Internet Use , 2000 .

[36]  Y. Enoch,et al.  Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: university students’ use of web‐based instruction , 2006 .

[37]  A. Rubin Ritualized and Instrumental Television Viewing , 1984 .

[38]  Qimei Chen,et al.  Attitude Toward the Site , 1999 .