Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide

References

• Agarwal R., Animesh A., Prasad K. Social interactions and the “digital divide”: Explaining variations in Internet use. Inform. Systems Res. (2009) 20(2):277–294Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R., Sambamurthy V., Stair R. M. The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy—An empirical assessment. Inform. Systems Res. (2000) 11(4):418–430Link, Google Scholar
• Akker J. V. D., Keursten P., Tjeerd P. The integration of computer use in education. Internat. J. Educational Res. (1992) 17(1):65–75Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alavi M., Marakas G. M., Yoo Y. A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(4):404–415Link, Google Scholar
• Attewell P. The first and second digital divides. Sociol. Ed. (2001) 74:252–259Crossref, Google Scholar
• Attewell P., Battle J. Home computers and school performance. Inform. Soc. (1999) 15:1–10Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psych. Rev. (1977) 84(2):191–215Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A.Social Foundations of Thought and Action (1986) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bandura A.Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (1997) (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York) Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Rev. Psych. (2001) 52:1–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron R. M., Kenny D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1986) 51:1173–1182Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barry J., Wise B. J. Fuelling inclusion through technology. School Admin. (1996) 53(4):24–27Google Scholar
• Becker H. J. Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer technology. Children Comput. Tech.: Future Children (2000) 10:44–75Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Comm. ACM (1993) 36(12):66–77Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu D. V. Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psych. Bull. (1993) 114:542–551Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bussey K., Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psych. Rev. (1999) 106:676–713Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell D. T., Fiske D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psych. Bull. (1959) 56(1):81–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carswell A. D., Venkatesh V. Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance learning environment. Internat. J. Human-Comput. Stud. (2002) 56:475–494Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cassidy S., Eachus P. Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender, and experience with computers. J. Educational Comput. Res. (2002) 26(2):133–153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chin W. Partial least squares for researchers: An overview and presentation of recent advances using the PLS approach. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (2000) (Association for Information Systems, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) 741–742Google Scholar
• Ching C. C., Basham J. D., Jang E. The legacy of the digital divide, gender, socioeconomic status, and early exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use among young adults. Urban Ed. (2005) 40(4):394–411Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chinn M. D., Fairlie R. W. The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Econom. Papers (2007) 59:16–44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Churchill G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Marketing Res. (1979) 16(1):64–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Compeau D. R., Higgins C. A. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quart. (1995a) 189–211Crossref, Google Scholar
• Compeau D. R., Higgins C. A. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Inform. Systems Res. (1995b) 6(2):118–143Link, Google Scholar
• Cook M., Campbell D. T.Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (1979) (Houghton Mifflin, Boston) Google Scholar
• Cooper J. The digital divide: The special case of gender. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. (2006) 22(5):320–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeBell M., Chapman C.Computer and Internet Use by Students in 2003 (NCES 2006–065) (2006) (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• DeVellis R.Scale Development: Theory and Application (1991) (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA) Google Scholar
• Dewan S., Riggins F. J. The digital divide: Current and future research directions. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems (2005) 6(12):298–337Google Scholar
• Dewan S., Ganley D., Kraemer K. L. Across the digital divide: A cross-country multi-technology analysis of the determinants of IT penetration. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems (2005) 6(12):409–432Google Scholar
• Downey J. Measuring general computer self-efficacy: The surprising comparison of three instruments in predicting performance, attitudes, and usage. Proc. 39th Annual Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (2006) (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC) 210?Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eastin M. S., LaRose R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. J. Computer-Mediated Comm. (2000) 6(1). Accessed March 1, 2010, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.htmlCrossref, Google Scholar
• Felter M. Sex differences on the California state-wide assessment of computer literacy. Sex Roles (1985) 13:181–192Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishman B. J. Characteristics of students related to computer-mediated communication activity. J. Res. Comput. Ed. (1999) 32(1):73–93Accessed March 1, 2010, http:jmcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issues1/eastin.htmlCrossref, Google Scholar
• Frankel K. A. Women and computing. Comm. ACM. (1990) 33(11):34–45Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman W. H. The digital divide. Proc. Seventh Americas Conf. Inform. Systems (2001) Long Beach, CA:2081–2086Google Scholar
• Gefen D., Straub D. W. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quart. (1997) 21(4):389–400Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green C. S., Bavalier D. Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature (2003) 423:534–537Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenberg V. C. Falling into the digital divide in the U.S.A. computer use with laptop computers in a small American University. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Tech., Comm. Development (2001) (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Kathmandu, Nepal) Google Scholar
• Hooper-Greenhill E. Measuring learning outcomes in museums, archives, and libraries: The learning impact research project (LIRP). Internat. J. Heritage Stud. (2004) 10(2):151–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsieh J. J., Rai A., Keil M. Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the social-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quart. (2008) 32(1):97–126Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunt N. P., Bohlin R. M. Teacher education and students' attitudes toward using computers. J. Res. Comput. Ed. (1993) 25:487–497Crossref, Google Scholar
• InfoComms Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) Singapore iN2015 IT masterplan offers a digital future for everyone. (2006) . Accessed July 2007, http://www.ida.gov.sg/idaweb/marketing/infopage.jsp?infopagecategory=&infopageid=I3881&versionid=1Google Scholar
• InfoComms Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) 2006 Annual survey on infocomm usage in households and by individuals. (2007) . Accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070823161317.aspxGoogle Scholar
• Jaeger B. Trapped in the digital divide? Old people in the information society. Sci. Stud. (2004) 17(2):5–22Google Scholar
• Johnson R. A., Wichern D. W.Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis (2002) (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Joo Y. J., Bong M., Choi H. J. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Tech. Res. Development (2000) 48(2):5–17Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kafai Y., Fishman B. B. J., Bruckman A. S., Rockham S. Models of educational computing @ home: New frontiers for research on technology in learning. Educational Tech. Rev. (2002) 10(2):52–68Google Scholar
• Karsten R., Schmidt D. Ten years later: Changes in business student computing efficacy. Proc. Second Midwest United States Assoc. for Inform. Systems (2007) Springfield, IL:18–19Google Scholar
• Kauffman R. J., Techatassanasoontorn A. A. Is there a global digital divide for digital wireless phone technologies? J. Assoc. Inform. Systems (2005) 6(12):338–382Google Scholar
• Kennedy T., Wellman B., Klement K. Gendering the digital divide. IT Soc. (2003) 1(5):72–96Google Scholar
• Kerlinger F. N.Foundations of Behavioral Research (1986) (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth, TX) Google Scholar
• Krissoff A., Konrad L. Computer training for staff and patrons. Comput. Libraries (1998) 18(1):28–32Google Scholar
• Kvasny L., Keil M. The challenges of redressing the digital divide: A tale of two cities. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (2002) Barcelona, Spain:817–828 http:aisel.aisnet.org/icis2002/84Google Scholar
• Mann D., Shakeshaft C., Becker J., Kottkamp R. West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. (1999) . Report, Milken Exchange on Education Technology and West Virginia Department of Education. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sq/content_storage01/00000196/80/17/87/a1.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Marakas G. M., Johnson R. D., Clay P. F. The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability, and stability over time. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems (2007) 8(1):16–46Google Scholar
• Marakas G. M., Yi M. Y., Johnson R. D. The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and a framework for research. Inform. Systems Res. (1998) 9(2):126–163Link, Google Scholar
• Mineta N. Y. Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. (2000) . Report, Americans' Access to Technology Tools by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Miura I. The relationship of computer self-efficacy expectations to computer interest at course enrollment in college. Sex Roles (1987) 16(5/6):303–311Crossref, Google Scholar
• MOE (Ministry of Education, Singapore) MasterPlan, IT in education. (2003) . Accessed July 2005, http://www1.moe.edu.sg/iteducation/masterplan/Google Scholar
• Moore G. C., Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inform. Systems Res. (1991) 2(3):192–222Link, Google Scholar
• Multon K. D., Brown S. D., Lent R. W. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. J. Counseling Psych. (1991) 38:30–38Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mumtaz S. Children's enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Comput. Ed. (2001) 36(4):347–362Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nunnally J. C.Psychometric Theory (1978) 2nd ed.(McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• OECD Publications Understanding the digital divide. (2001) . Accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.oecd.org/decument/51/0,3343,en_2649_33757_1814131_1_1_1_,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
• OECD Publications Broadband and ICT access and use by households and individuals. (2007) Google Scholar
• OECD Publications OECD Factbook. (2008) . Accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_33703_39869350_1_1_1_1,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Oliver T. A., Shapiro F. Self-efficacy and computers. J. Computer-Based Instruction (1993) 20(1):81–85Google Scholar
• Olson J., Eaton S.Case Studies of Microcomputers in the Classroom (1996) (Ministry of Education, Toronto) Google Scholar
• Ono H. Digital inequality in East Asia: Evidence from Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Asia Econom. Papers (2005) 4(3):116–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papasratorn B., Wangpipatwong T., Reeves T., Yamashita S. The effects of self-efficacy and attitude on e-learning outcomes. Proc. World Conf. E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (2006) (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Chesapeake, VA) 2264–2270Google Scholar
• Papert S. A.The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap (1996) (Longstreet Press, Atlanta) Google Scholar
• Payton F. C. Rethinking the digital divide. Comm. ACM. (2003) 46(6):89–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ramamurthy K., Premkumar G. Determinants and outcomes of electronic data interchange diffusion. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (1995) 42(4):332–351Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross A., Ernstberger K. Benchmarking the IT productivity paradox: Recent evidence from the manufacturing sector. Math. Comput. Modelling (2006) 44:30–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Selwyn N. The effect of using a home computer on students' educational use of IT. Comput. Ed. (1998) 31:211–227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shu W., Strassmann P. A. Does information technology provide banks with profit? Inform. Management (2005) 42:781–787Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soker Z. Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students' use of Web-based instruction. (2005) . Accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier1/soker.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Starbuck W. H., Webster A. When is play productive? Accounting, Management Inform. Tech. (1991) 1(1):71–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Subrahmanyam K., Kraut R. E., Greenfield P. M., Gross E. F. The impact of home computer use on children's activities and development. Children Comput. Tech. (2000) 123–144Google Scholar
• Sutherland R., Facer K., Furlong R., Furlong J. A new environment for education? The computer in the home. Comput. Ed. (2000) 34(3–4):195–212Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thatcher J. B., Perrewe P. L. An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents of computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quart. (2002) 26(4):381–395Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thurstone L. L. The learning curve equation. Psych. Monographs (1919) 26(3):1–51Google Scholar
• Vallerand R. J. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1997) 27:271–360Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Dijk J., Hacker K. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Inform. Soc. (2003) 19(4):315–326Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V. Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quart. (1999) 23(2):239–260Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform. Systems Res. (2000) 11(4):342–365Link, 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):72–102Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Davis F. D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sci. (1996) 27(3):451–482Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Morris M. G. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quart. (2000) 24(1):115–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker C. O., Greene B. A., Mansell R. A. Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learn. Individual Differences (2006) 16(1):1–12Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang D., Xu L., Chan H. C. Understanding users' continuance of Facebook: The role of general and specific computer self-efficacy. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (ICIS 2008) (2008) Paper 168, Association of Information SystemsParisGoogle Scholar
• Warschauer M. Technology and equity: A comparative study. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (2003a) (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• Warschauer M. Dissecting the “digital divide”: A case study in Egypt. Inform. Soc. (2003b) 19(4):297Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waxman H. C., Lin M., Michko G. M. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. (2003) . Learning Point Associates, Accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/waxman.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Webster J., Martocchio J. J. The differential effects of software training previews on training outcomes. J. Management (1995) 21(4):757–787Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiedenbeck S., Ramalingam V., Sarasamma S., Corritore C. L. A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting Comput. (1999) 11(3):255–282Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilhelm T., Carmen D., Reynolds M. Connecting kids to technology: Challenges and opportunities. Snapshots (2002) . Kids Count Project, accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/42/a5.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Winter G. Wider gap found between wealthy and poor schools. New York Times (2004) . Accessed March 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/education/06gap.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Zangwill W. I., Kantor P. B. The learning curve: A new perspective. Internat. Trans. Oper. Res. (2000) 7(6):595–607Crossref, Google Scholar