The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Internet and Web use in the U.S.
Open accessAbstract
North America U.S. only1 To correct for respondent inconsistency, items asked subsequently in the survey were used to eliminate respondents who later indicated they did not have access to or use the Internet or the Web.Thus, the corrected estimate is more conservative and is based only on those respondents consistently stating in two or more questions that they actually used the Internet or the Web. 2 Source: CommerceNet/Nielsen [2]. 3 We multiplied the original Nielsen weights by a constant so that the sum of weights equaled the estimated number of U.S. respondents ages 16+ in 1995 .This was done to ensue comparability of population estimates obtained using the Nielsen and Project 2000 weightings.4 No items were available to correct this estimate for inconsistency.5 This estimate is a composite variable constructed from a positive response to one of four questions related to Web access.6 The number reported in the CNIDS Executive Summary [2, 3] is incorrect.The correct number for the North American sample, using the original Nielsen weights, is 2.08 million.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148690 · Cited by 1,545
Atmospheric qualities of online retailing
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(99)00087-9 · Cited by 1,587
Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts
Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/s0308-5961(03)00068-5 · Cited by 593
Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities
Teo, T. S. H. (2001) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240110695089 · Cited by 515
Browsers or Buyers in Cyberspace? An Investigation of Factors Influencing Electronic Exchange
Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E., & Rao, B. P. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00335.x · Cited by 508
Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.280.5362.390 · Cited by 450
Self-citationProfiling people searching for and purchasing travel products on the World Wide Web
Weber, K., & Roehl, W. S. (1999) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/004728759903700311 · Cited by 322
A longitudinal look at rural consumer adoption of online shopping
Lennon, S. J., Kim, M., Johnson, K. K. P., Jolly, L. D., Damhorst, M. L., & Jasper, C. R. (2007) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20165 · Cited by 67
Internet users versus non-users: drivers in internet uptake
Hammond, K., Turner, P., & Bain, M. (2000) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2000.11104829 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoffman, D. L., Kalsbeek, W. D., & Novak, T. P.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 36-46
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2045488250
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 62.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.
