Research Note—Social Interactions and the “Digital Divide”: Explaining Variations in Internet Use

References

• Angrist J., Lang K. Does school integration generate peer effects? Evidence from Boston's Metco Program. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2004) 94(5):1613–1634Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock W. A., Durlauf S. N. Discrete choice with social interactions. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2001a) 68(2):235–260Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock W. A., Durlauf S. N., Heckman J., Leamer E. Interactions-based models. Handbook of Econometrics (2001b) 5(North-Holland, Amsterdam) 3463–3568Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown S. A., Venkatesh V. Bringing Non-Adopters Along: The Challenge Facing the PC Industry. Communications of the ACM (2003) 46(4):76–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown S. A., Venkatesh V. Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quart. (2005) 29(3):399–426Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brueckner J. K., Largey A. G. Social interaction and urban sprawl. J. Urban Econom. (2008) 64(1):18–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bucy E. P. Social access to the Internet. Harvard Internat. J. Press/Politics (2000) 5(1):50–61Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burkhardt M. E. Social interaction effects following a technological change: A longitudinal investigation. Acad. Management J. (1994) 37(4):869–898Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen W., Wellman B. The global digital divide—Within and between countries. IT Soc. (2004) 1(7):39–45Google Scholar
• Dowling M. Mapping a future for digital connections: A study of the Digital Divide in San Diego County, San Diego Regional Technology Alliance. (2001) . http://www.webcitation.org/5LebWUdrPGoogle Scholar
• Duflo E., Saez E. Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: The influence of colleagues' choices. J. Public Econom. (2002) 85(1):121–148Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emmanouilides C., Hammond K. Internet usage: Predictors of active users and frequency of use. J. Interactive Marketing (2000) 14(2):17–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fong E., Wellman B., Kew M., Wilkes R. Correlates of the digital divide: Individual, household and spatial variation. (2001) . Report to Office of Learning Technologies, Human Resources Development, OttawaGoogle Scholar
• Glaeser E. L., Sacerdote B., Scheinkman J. A. Crime and social interactions. Quart. J. Econom. (1996) 111(2):507–548Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goolsbee A., Klenow P. J. Evidence on learning and network externalities in the diffusion of home computers. J. Law Econom. (2002) 45(2):317–343Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman J. Causal parameters and policy analysis: A twentieth century retrospective. Quart. J. Econom. (2000) 115(1):45–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hindman D. B. The rural-urban digital divide. Journalism and Mass Comm. Quart. (2000) 77(3):549–560Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman D. L., Kalsbeek W. D., Novak T. P. Internet and web use in the United States: Baselines for commercial development. Comm. ACM (1996) 39(12):36–46(Special Section “Internet in the Home”)Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong W., Thong J. Y., Wong W.-M., Tam K.-Y. Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and systems characteristics. J. MIS (2002) 18(3):97–124Google Scholar
• Hoxby C. M. The effects of classroom size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. Quart. J. Econom. (2000a) 115(4):1239–1285Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoxby C. M. Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation. (2000) . Working Paper 7867, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Katz J., Aspden P. Motivations for and barriers to Internet usage: Results of a national public opinion survey. Internet Res. (1997) 7(3):170–188Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraut R., Scherlis W., Mukhopadhyay T., Manning J. The HomeNet field trial of residential Internet services. Comm. ACM (1996) 39(12):55–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraut R. E., Mukhopadhyay T., Szczypula J., Kiesler S. Communication and information: Alternative uses of the Internet in households. Inform. Systems Res. (1999) 10(4):287–303Link, Google Scholar
• Liao S., Shao Y., Pu W., Huaiqing C.Ada. The adoption of virtual banking: An empirical study. Internat. J. Inform. Management (1999) 19(1):63–74Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loges W. E., Jung J.-Y. Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Comm. Res. (2001) 28(4):536–562Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loury G., Wallace P., Lamond A. A dynamic theory of racial income differences. Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination (1977) (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) Google Scholar
• Madden M. Internet Penetration and Impact, Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2006) . http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/182/report_display.aspGoogle Scholar
• Manski C. F. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1993) 60(3):531–542Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massey D. S., Denton N. A. The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc. Forces (1988) 67(2):281–315Crossref, Google Scholar
• McLaren J., Zappalà G. The “digital divide” among financially disadvantaged families in Australia. First Monday (2002) 7(11Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mills B. F., Whitacre B. E. Understanding the non-metropolitan-metropolitan digital divide. Growth and Change (2003) 34(2):219–243Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miniaci R., Parisi M. L. Educate the parents by subsidizing their children: Challenging the digital divide through social interactions. (2005) . Discussion Paper 50-2004, Universita degli Studi di Padova Scienze Economiche, Padua, ItaliaGoogle Scholar
• Munshi K. D. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: Technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. J. Development Econom. (2004) 73(1):185–213Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niles S., Hanson S. A new era of accessibility. Urban and Regional Inform. Systems Assoc. J. (2003) 15(1):35–41Google Scholar
• OECD Understanding the digital divide. (2001) (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris) . http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Putnam R. D.Bowling Alone (2000) (Simon and Schuster, New York) Google Scholar
• Rice R. E., Aydin C. Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1991) 36(2):219–244Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rice R. E., Grant A. E., Schmitz J., Torobin J. Individual and network influences of the adoption and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging. Soc. Networks (1990) 12(1):27–55Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers E. M.Diffusion of Innovation (1995) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Rohlfs J. A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service. Bell J. Econom. (1974) 5(1):16–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schelling T. C. Dynamic models of segregation. J. Math. Sociol. (1971) 1:143–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schiller R.Irrational Exuberance (2000) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Schmitz J., Fulk J. Organizational colleagues, media richness, and electronic mail: A test of the social influence model of technology use. Comm. Res. (1991) 18(4):487–523Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah D. V., Kwak N., Holbert R. L. “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Comm. (2001) 18(2):141–162Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shih C.-F., Venkatesh A. Beyond adoption: Development and application of a use-diffusion model. J. Marketing (2004) 68(1):59–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siu-Cheung C., Lu M.-t. Understanding Internet banking adoption and use behavior: A Hong Kong perspective. J. Global Inform. Management (2004) 12(3):21–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staiger D., Stock J. H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica (1997) 65(3):557–586Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stanley L. D. Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy. Inform. Soc. (2003) 19(5):407–416Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor S., Todd P. A. Understanding information technology usage—A test of competing models. Inform. Systems Res. (1995) 6(2):144–176Link, Google Scholar
• Teo T. S. H. Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Res.: Electronic Networking Appl. Policy (2001) 11(2):125–137Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teo T. S. H., Lim V. K. G., Lai R. Y. C. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega (1999) 27(1):25–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Topa G. Social interactions, local spillovers, and unemployment. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2001) 68(2):261–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Commerce A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. (2002) . Economics and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information AdministrationGoogle Scholar
• van Dijk J., Hacker K. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Inform. Soc. (2003) 19(4):315–327Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Brown S. A. A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quart. (2001) 25(1):71–102Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(3):425–478Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warschauer M. Social capital and access. Universal Access Inform. Soc. (2003) 2(4):315–330Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wellman B., Haase A. Q., Witte J., Hampton K. Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. Amer. Behavioral Scientist (2001) 45(3):437–456Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J. M.Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2002) (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Young H. P., Burke M. A. Competition and custom in economic contracts: A case study of Illinois agriculture. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(3):559–573Crossref, Google Scholar