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
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.
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
Cites
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective
Bandura, A. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 · Cited by 15,510
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · Cited by 3,802
Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Vallerand, R. J. (1997) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60019-2 · Cited by 3,198 · cited 1×
“However, some researchers argue that leisure usage may be a better predictor of CSE than study usage because the former is based on intrinsic motivation , where usage itself bring pleasure and satisfaction , even without external rewards (e.g., Vallerand 1997).”
BackgroundThe productivity paradox of information technology
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/163298.163309 · Cited by 2,604
Cited by
Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007 · Cited by 1,471
van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818797082 · Cited by 1,234
The digital divide: A review and future research agenda
Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A.-N. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359 · Cited by 1,044
Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data
Lutz, C. (2019) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.140 · Cited by 411
Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet
Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817715282 · Cited by 264
Measuring Digital Capital: An empirical investigation
Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., & Addeo, F. (2020) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819869604 · Cited by 226
Internet Use and Subjective Well-Being in China
Nie, P., Sousa-Poza, A., & Nimrod, G. (2017) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1227-8 · Cited by 120
Digital Natives or Digital Immigrants? The Impact of User Characteristics on Online Trust
Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2014) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2014.995538 · Cited by 121
Internet use in the home: Digital inequality from a domestication perspective
Scheerder, A. J., van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819844299 · Cited by 107
Zhao, F., Collier, A., & Deng, H. (2014) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-01-2013-0022 · Cited by 98
A Multivariate Study of Internet Use and the Digital Divide*
Serrano‐Cinca, C., Muñoz‐Soro, J. F., & Brusca, I. (2018) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/ssqu.12504 · Cited by 64
Reinwand, D. A., Schulz, D. N., Crutzen, R., Kremers, S. P., & de Vries, H. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3932 · Cited by 62
Not good days for technophobes: older internet users during the COVID-19 pandemic
Nimrod, G. (2021) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601277.2021.1894530 · Cited by 46
Contemporary gaps in research on digital divide in education: a literature review
Mirazchiyski, P. V. (2025) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-024-01166-3 · Cited by 26
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Zhou, L., Rudin, C., Duke University, Gombolay, M., Georgia Institute of Technology, Spohrer, J., International Society of Service Innovation Professionals, Zhou, M., Juji, et al. (2023) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00085 · Cited by 20
Nanthakorn, B., Ractham, P., & Kaewkitipong, L. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100310 · Cited by 18
Fang, Z., Liu, Y., Jiang, F., & Dong, W. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24747 · Cited by 8
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
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.
