Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,166

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide

Eastin, Matthew S., LaRose, Robert·2006·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
DOI 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Internet self-efficacy, or the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute courses of Internet actions required to produce given attainments, is a potentially important factor in efforts to close the digital divide that separates experienced Internet users from novices. Prior research on Internet self-efficacy has been limited to examining specific task performance and narrow behavioral domains rather than overall attainments in relation to general Internet use, and has not yielded evidence of reliability and construct validity. Survey data were collected to develop a reliable operational measure of Internet self-efficacy and to examine its construct validity. An eight-item Internet self-efficacy scale developed for the present study was found to be reliable and internally consistent. Prior Internet experience, outcome expectancies and Internet use were significantly and positively correlated to Internet self-efficacy judgments. Internet stress and self-disparagement were negatively related to Internet self-efficacy. A path analysis model was tested within the theoretical framework of social cognitive theory (Bandura (1997).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Ajzen, 1980, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior
  2. Anastasi, 1988, Psychological testing
  3. Charney, & Greenberg Uses and gratification of the Internet. Communication, technology and science C. Lin D. Atkin Communication, technology and society: New media adoption and uses Hampton Press
  4. Compeau, 1995, Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test, MIS Quarterly, 19, 189, 10.2307/249688 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Compeau, 1999, Social Cognitive Theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study, MIS Quarterly, 23, 145, 10.2307/249749 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cutrona, 1987, The provisions of social support and adaptations to stress, Advances in Personal Relationships, 1, 37
  7. GVU (Graphic, Visualization and Usability Center), 1999, GVU's Tenth Annual WWW User's Survey
  8. Hancock, 1990, Overcoming technophobia, Educational Leadership, 47, 81
  9. Hoffman, 1998, Bridging the racial divide on the Internet, Science, 10.1126/science.280.5362.390 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hoffman, 2000, The evolution of the digital divide: How gaps in Internet access may impact electronic commerce, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication [Online], 5
  11. Hunter, 1982, Machiavellian beliefs and personality: Construct invalidity of the Machavellianism dimension, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1293, 10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1293 · DOI
  12. Jöreskog, 2000, LISREL 8.30
  13. Kanner, 1981, Comparisons of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1, 10.1007/BF00844845 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Katz , J. E. Aspeden , P. 1996, October Motivations for and barriers to Internet usage: Results of a national public opinion survey th · DOI · Paper page
  15. Katz, 1997, A nation of strangers, Communications of the ACM, 40, 81, 10.1145/265563.265575 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Lee, 1994, Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of 5 measures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 364, 10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.364 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Lewis, 1985, An exploratory study of the influences of self-efficacy on the personal computer learner, Dissertation Abstracts International, 46
  18. Nahl, 1996, Affective monitoring of Internet learners: Perceived self-efficacy and success, Journal of American Society for Information Sciences, 33, 100
  19. Nahl, 1997, User-centered assessment of two Web browsers: Errors, perceived self-efficacy, and success, Journal of American Society for Information Sciences, 34, 89
  20. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 1999, Falling through the Net: Defining the digital divide. [Online]
  21. Oliver, 1993, Self-efficacy and computers, Journal of Computer-Based Interactions, 20, 81
  22. Pedhazur, 1982, Multiple regression in behavioral research
  23. Ren, 1999, Self-efficacy and the search for government information, Reference & User Service Quarterly, 38, 283
  24. Staples, 1998, A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line], 3
  25. Stumpf, 1989, Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related events, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91, 10.1016/0001-8791(87)90037-6 · DOI
  26. Wellman, 1999, Communities in Cyberspace, 167

Cited by

See all 1,166

Metadata

Authors
Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R.
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-06-23
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
0-0
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x
OpenAlex
W2102145433
Cited by
1,166
References
7
FWCI
131.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1 (tdm, 3357 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.