Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 574

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide

Wei, Kwok-Kee, Teo, Hock-Hai, Chan, Hock Chuan, Tan, Bernard C. Y.·2011·Information Systems Research

Abstract

The digital divide has loomed as a public policy issue for over a decade. Yet, a theoretical account for the effects of the digital divide is currently lacking. This study examines three levels of the digital divide. The digital access divide (the first-level digital divide) is the inequality of access to information technology (IT) in homes and schools. The digital capability divide (the second-level digital divide) is the inequality of the capability to exploit IT arising from the first-level digital divide and other contextual factors. The digital outcome divide (the third-level digital divide) is the inequality of outcomes (e.g., learning and productivity) of exploiting IT arising from the second-level digital divide and other contextual factors. Drawing on social cognitive theory and computer self-efficacy literature, we developed a model to show how the digital access divide affects the digital capability divide and the digital outcome divide among students. The digital access divide focuses on computer ownership and usage in homes and schools. The digital capability divide and the digital outcome divide focus on computer self-efficacy and learning outcomes, respectively. This model was tested using data collected from over 4,000 students in Singapore. The results generate insights into the relationships among the three levels of the digital divide and provide a theoretical account for the effects of the digital divide. While school computing environments help to increase computer self-efficacy for all students, these factors do not eliminate knowledge the gap between students with and without home computers. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

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 · 10.1287/isre.1090.0273

Cites

11 of 11 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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 574

Metadata

Authors
Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y.
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2011-03
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
170-187
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2025747271
Cited by
574
References
11
FWCI
28.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.1090.0273
The paper
Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273

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.