The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Digital Inequality: Comparing Continued Use Behavioral Models of the Socio-Economically Advantaged and Disadvantaged1
Open accessAbstract
Digital inequality is one of the most critical issues in the knowledge economy. The private and public sectors have devoted tremendous resources to address such inequality, yet the results are inconclusive. Theoretically grounded empirical research is needed both to expand our understanding of digital inequality and to inform effective policy making and intervention. The context of our investigation is a city government project, known as the LaGrange Internet TV initiative, which allowed all city residents to access the Internet via their cable televisions at no additional cost. We examine the residents’ post-implementation continued use intentions through a decomposed theory of planned behavior perspective, which is elaborated to include personal network exposure. Differences in the behavioral models between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged users who have direct usage experience are theorized and empirically tested. The results reveal distinct behavioral models and isolate the key factors that differentially impact the two groups. The advantaged group has a higher tendency to respond to personal network exposure. Enjoyment and confidence in using information and communication technologies, availability, and perceived behavioral control are more powerful in shaping continued ICT use intention for the disadvantaged. Implications for research 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
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 · Cited by 5,718
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148781 · Cited by 3,921
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209170 · Cited by 3,867
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x · Cited by 1,669
Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model
Szajna, B. (1996) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.1.85 · Cited by 1,656
Cited by
Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/imr-09-2014-0304 · Cited by 2,964
Consistent Partial Least Squares Path Modeling1
Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.2.02 · Cited by 2,898
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20118 · Cited by 574
Assessing Common Method Bias: Problems with the ULMC Technique1
Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703491 · Cited by 505
“Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018 · Cited by 473
Metadata
- Authors
- Po-An Hsieh, J. J., Rai, A., & Keil, M.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2008-03-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 97-126
- ISSN
- 0276-7783
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W7025306870
- Cited by
- 680
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 99.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Understanding Digital Inequality: Comparing Continued Use Behavioral Models of the Socio-Economically Advantaged and Disadvantaged1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/25148830
- The paper
- Po-An Hsieh, J. J., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding Digital Inequality: Comparing Continued Use Behavioral Models of the Socio-Economically Advantaged and Disadvantaged1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148830
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.