Disparities on the Internet Use among European Countries
Internet Use among European Countries has been analyzed attending data provided by the European Social Survey (2016). The present article aims to offer broader information regarding Internet use and remark existing disparities among participant countries on the Survey. Sociodemographic variables as gender, age, education level or country have been taken into consideration for presenting a descriptive analysis of data. Furthermore, the frequency of internet use and time spent online, both, have been examined to explore differences among them. Results and conclusions are presented for discussion.
Armstrong, L., Phillips, J. G., & Saling, L. L. (2000). Potential determinants of heavier Internet usage. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(4), 537-550.
Attié, E., & Meyer-Waarden, L (2013). The Impacts of Social Value, Cognitive Factors and Well-Being on the Use of the Internet of Things and Smart Connected Objects.
Barney, D. (2004). The network society (Vol. 2). Polity.
Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social science quarterly, 868-876.
Blank, G., & Groselj, D. (2014). Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 417-435.
Blank, G., & Groselj, D. (2016). Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety, and types. In Current Research on Information Technologies and Society: Papers from the 2013 Meetings of the American Sociological Association (p. 27). Routledge.
Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices. Journal of business research, 58(5), 553-558.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.
De los Santos, G. E., de los Santos Jr., A. G., & Milliron, M. D. (Eds.). (2001). Access in the information age: Community college bridging the digital divide. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social inequality, 355-400.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 307-336.
Dobbs, R., Remes, J., Manyika, J., Roxburgh, C., Smit, S., & Schaer, F. (2012). Urban world: Cities and the rise of the consuming class. McKinsey Global Institute.
Dowling, N. A., & Quirk, K. L. (2009). Screening for internet dependence: do the proposed diagnostic criteria differentiate normal from dependent internet use? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 21-27.
Durahim, A. O., & Coşkun, M. (2015). # iamhappybecause: Gross National Happiness through Twitter analysis and big data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 92-105.
Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3-10.
Goslee, S., & Conte, C. (1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Benton Foundation.
Groys Boris, Art Power, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008
Heo, J., Chun, S., Lee, S., Lee, K. H., & Kim, J. (2015). Internet use and well-being in older adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(5), 268-272.
Khalaila, R., & Vitman-Schorr, A. (2018). Internet use, social networks, loneliness, and quality of life among adults aged 50 and older: mediating and moderating effects. Quality of Life Research, 1-11.
Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008). Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 45-59.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 43(6), 740-755.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of social issues, 58(1), 49-74.
Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research, 30(5), 476-498.
Kulviwat, S., Bruner, I. I., Gordon, C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007). Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology & Marketing, 24(12), 1059-1084.
Lifshitz, R., Nimrod, G., & Bachner, Y. G. (2018). Internet use and well-being in later life: a functional approach. Aging & mental health, 22(1), 85-91.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
Nowland, R., Necka, E. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2018). Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 70-87.
Odacı, H., & Çıkrıkçı, Ö. (2014). Problematic internet use in terms of gender, attachment styles and subjective well-being in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 61-66.
OECD- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014b) Council on Principles for Internet Policy Making, Council on Digital Government Strategies
OECD- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017) How's Life? 2017: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing.
OECD- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2017. Key Issues for Digital transformation in the G20.
OECD- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000b). Schooling for tomorrow: Learning to bridge the digital divide. Paris: Author.
Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS) 2013 Report: “Cultures of the Internet: The Internet in Britain 2013
Pal, D. (2017). Relationship between problematic internet use and psychological wellbeing among adolescents in Sweden.
Panel, I. L. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Educational Testing Service.
Pednekar, N. K., & Tung, S. (2017). Problematic internet use in adolescents: Role of identity styles, emotional autonomy, attachment, family environment and well-being. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 8(4).
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of business research, 59(9), 999-1007.
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64-88.
Tadajewski, M., Chelekis, J., DeBerry-Spence, B., Figueiredo, B., Kravets, O., Nuttavuthisit, K., ... & Moisander, J. (2014). The discourses of marketing and development: towards ‘critical transformative marketing research’. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(17-18), 1728-1771.
Teo, T. S. (2001). Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Research, 11(2), 125-137.
Tonioni, F., D'Alessandris, L., Lai, C., Martinelli, D., Corvino, S., Vasale, M., ... & Bria, P. (2012). Internet addiction: hours spent online, behaviors and psychological symptoms. General Hospital Psychiatry, 34(1), 80-87.
Tripathi, G., & Ahad, M. A. (2017). Impact of excessive use of internet on cognitive development of youngsters. International Journal of Information Technology, 9(3), 281-286.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly, 695-704.
Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New media & society, 13(6), 893-911.
Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221-235.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2013). News as discourse. Routledge.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Copyright (c) 2020 Sabrina Femenia Mulet
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Sociología y tecnociencia is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional License.