See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262151649

Ebooks vs. print books: Readers' choices and preferences across contexts

Article  in  Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · January 2013
DOI: 10.1002/meet.14505001106

CITATIONS READS

7 866

2 authors:

Yin Zhang Sonali Kudva

Kent State University Kent State University
79 PUBLICATIONS   633 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Information retrieval of non-textual information View project

ebook acquisition and use View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yin Zhang on 16 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

E-books Versus Print Books: Readers’ Choices and
Preferences Across Contexts
Yin Zhang
School of Library and Information Science, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH, 44242.
E-mail: yzhang4@kent.edu
Sonali Kudva
College of Communication and Information, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH, 44242.
E-mail: skudva@kent.edu
With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership
rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books?
This study examines the preference for e-books and print
books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situa-
tion, and contextual variables such as age, gender, edu-
cation level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and
Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify
factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants
were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people
in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey,
conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared
-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading
-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the
notion that e-books have firmly established a place in
people’s lives, due to their convenience of access,
e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books.
Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and
serve irreplaceable functions to meet people’s reading
needs, which may vary by individual demographic, con-
textual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading
significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number
of books read, the individual’s income, the occurrence
and frequency of reading for research topics of interest,
and the individual’s Internet use, followed by other vari-
ables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school,
age, and education.
Introduction
In 2011, Amazon reported that purchases of electronic
books (e-books) had surpassed those of print books. For infor-
mation professionals, this signaled an important change in the
way people consume information (Gibson & Gibb, 2011;
Hamblen, 2011). A recent survey conducted by the Pew Center
for Internet Research in December 2011 showed that 43% of
Received May 3, 2013; revised June 24, 2013; accepted July 11, 2013
© 2014 ASIS&T • Published online 26 February 2014 in Wiley Online
Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23076
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 65(8):1695–1706, 2014
Americans aged 16 and older had read some form of digital
content (be it a book or an online article on an e-Reader, tablet,
computer, or cellular phone) within the previous year. In addi-
tion, 17% of all readers reported reading at least one e-book in
2011, a figure that increased to 23% in 2012 (Rainie, Zickuhr,
Purcell, Madden, & Brenner, 2012). At the same time, Rainie
et al. (2012) reported that there had been a corresponding
decrease in the percentage of Americans reading print books
(from 78% in 2011 to 75% in 2012).
The increase in e-book sales and popularity, coupled with
the decline of print books, raises various points of concern
for libraries, publishers, and library and information profes-
sionals: Will e-books replace print books? Have people
abandoned print for e-books? Who is likely to adopt e-books
and why? The aim of this study is to address these questions
by examining the readership and preference for e-books and
print books across contexts, including reading purposes,
reading situations, and individual contextual factors such as
age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, com-
munity type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to
identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. By yield-
ing a better understanding of reader choice and preference
for e-books and print books across contexts, this study will
help libraries and information institutions make important
decisions on collection acquisition and management. The
results will also help libraries, publishers, information
system developers, and information providers in general as
they adapt to another generation of readers.
Theoretical Framework
Media Displacement
One of the main questions about the future of print books
and e-books is whether e-books will replace print books. The
idea of media displacement or replacement has been studied
by media researchers for decades. After Lazarsfeld (1940)
first studied the effects of radio on communication, other
researchers have continued to examine the displacement
effects of new technologies in the following decades (Kaplan,
1978; Stempel, Hargrove, & Bernt, 2000). Some researchers
have concluded that new media simply complement old
media, citing the effects of television on radio and the VCR on
movie theaters as examples (Coffey & Stipp, 1997). In both
cases, the incoming media did not replace the established
media but rather changed the situational context in which
audiences interacted with the different media types, dividing
usage between both instead of replacing one with the other.
The idea of media displacement is based on one basic
assumption: the notion of equivalence. Equivalence can take
many forms such as similarity in appearance, method of use,
and function. Because functional equivalence is based on the
assumption that a new medium provides the same gratifica-
tions or benefits as does the old one, it is imperative that
studies using this framework very carefully specify the func-
tions of both media (Robinson & Martin, 2009). Robinson,
Kestnbaum, Neustadtl, and Alvarez (2002) also discussed the
notion of functional equivalence, explaining that a new activ-
ity is likely to replace an older one if the two activities are
similar in function. This is why they believe that the Internet
would and could replace other forms of mass media because
it could fulfill all the functions of the older media.
While most people love the way books feel in their hands
(Gomez, 2008), some researchers have asserted that the
future lies in all things digital and that traditional print media
will inevitably become obsolete in the future (Gomez, 2008;
Negroponte, 1995; Nunberg, 1996). While Gomez (2008)
added that most people continue to hold onto print books due
to a sense of nostalgia, Wilson (1997) argued that print books
would survive the e-book takeover mainly because people
would not want to pay the high costs associated with digital
content or face difficulties in accessing digital reading mate-
rial. More importantly, Wilson also specified that this would
depend on the person’s functional need.
Reasons/Preferences for Media Adoption
To understand why people prefer one medium over
another, it is necessary to investigate their motivations.
Everett Rogers, author of the well-known theory of diffusion
of innovations (DOI), suggested that users would choose
one medium over another based on the attributes of the new
medium—namely, five factors: relative advantage (the
degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the
idea it supersedes), compatibility (the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing
values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters),
complexity (the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as being difficult to understand and use), trialibility (the
degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on
a limited basis), and observability (the degree to which the
results of an innovation are visible to others) (Rogers, 2003).
Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) suggested a model
that, similar to Rogers’s DOI, defines product attributes that
1696 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
contribute to the adoption of certain innovations over others.
These attributes are functional value (the product’s utilitar-
ian attributes), social value (how a product provides group
membership), emotional value (a product’s ability to arouse
emotions), epistemic value (a product’s ability to satisfy a
desire for knowledge), and conditional value (the product
value based on specific circumstances).
Other researchers, such as McCombs (1972), believe
that media adoption boils down to simple economics.
McCombs’s theory, the principle of relative constancy,
asserts that media adoption may be measured on the basis of
how much money a person spends on a new medium. Pos-
tulating that people have limited budgets for media expen-
diture, McCombs noted that when people spend more
money on the new medium, they may be said to have
adopted that new medium, displacing the old one. Using
television as the example in his study, he examined whether
people spent more money on media than before they
included the television in their lives, and concluded that
users spent the same amount of money on media as before.
However, merely considering economics or the attributes
of the medium is insufficient to fully understand why anyone
would pick an e-book over a print book. It therefore may be
necessary to connect the ecological model of human infor-
mation behavior to Rogers’s (2003) theory of innovation
diffusion in examining the way e-books are being adopted.
The ecological model for human information behavior
states that a person’s “context” influences every stage of the
information-interaction behavioral process. C.A. Lee (2011)
defined this context as a set of factors and attributes that are
related to—and may influence—the information user, but
that are not part of the medium or the individual. For
instance, Rogers suggested that media adopters differ based
on a range of variables such as socioeconomic status, per-
sonality variables such as flexibility and willingness to
adapt, and overall communication behavior. These factors
and others may be considered “contextual variables.”
In addition, media are chosen based on the function that they
fulfill in a person’s life and how efficiently they fulfill that
function. Function can also be considered a contextual variable,
as people may use the same medium differently. Thus, an
examination is needed to understand the functions of each
medium, which could be particularly challenging because iden-
tifying the particular uses of a medium is difficult (McQuail,
2010). For instance, the Internet was originally a tool for medi-
ated, quick interpersonal communication, but this primary
function evolved as people began to use it for mass communi-
cation, entertainment, and information gathering. Particular
attention therefore may be needed to identify functions even as
a medium is adapted by users to serve their own purposes.
Previous Research
Studies in Media Adoption
Hischier and Reichart (2003) conducted a study to
examine the differences between reading and watching the
news on television or online or in a newspaper versus online
format. When examining media in light of the functional
equivalence hypothesis, it is necessary to ascertain the func-
tions for which the medium is used and to compare media
with equivalent functions on equivalent aspects. Such
examination can be carried out to compare e-books and print
books because the content is the same.
The idea of functional equivalence assumes that the func-
tions of a medium can be easily recognized and validated;
however, new communication technology does not auto-
matically arrive with all of its functions labeled. Thus, it is
essential for researchers not only to identify these functions
but also to follow functions that may develop over time,
influenced by other contextual factors as users interact with
the device (Kayany & Yelsma, 2000). In a study that exam-
ined 85 households’ family interactions and the use of other
media as well as the impact that Internet use had on these
variables, Kayany and Yelsma (2000) observed that medium
functions are defined and influenced by contextual factors
such as gender and age. The results also showed that Internet
use influences family interaction and the use of other media,
and that these differences could be qualified by contextual
factors.
Based on a qualitative study, Chen and Granitz (2012)
reported that people are quicker to adopt changes in tech-
nology when they are compatible with their existing values
and are easy to use. Overall, people do not accept changes
concerning the digitization of information that conflict with
their value system, are expensive, or do not add to their
quality of life. Chen and Granitz (2012) included a variety of
variables from the DOI model to determine whether people
adopt specific technological innovations based on experien-
tial factors such as ease of use or based on utilitarian factors
such as cost and status. Their results have indicated that
there are no significant differences between experiential and
utilitarian elements in contributions to technological adop-
tion, but that a combination of the two is needed to under-
stand the adoption in general.
In a recent study, Vakkari (2012) noted that while there
have been studies in media to examine whether use of the
Internet has displaced use of traditional media, there has
been virtually no empirical evidence showing whether use of
the Internet displaces use of the public library. Vakkari’s
study was carried out in Finland to examine how use of the
Internet correlates to use of the public library in different
areas of everyday life such as studying, work, and business.
Vakkari also studied which factors in addition to Internet use
predict the use of public libraries for these purposes. To
ensure that the functions being compared were the same,
Vakkari first ascertained the extent to which the Internet and
the public library were used for studying, work or business,
or for leisure or everyday activities. The results of the study
showed that use of the Internet was positively correlated
with use of public libraries. Thus, Internet users also tended
to use the library more, implying that Internet use had not
replaced public library use. Instead, use of the Internet
complemented public library use.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
Overall, when comparing two types of media to deter-
mine whether one will either replace or complement the
other, they should be assumed to be equivalent, and this idea
of equivalence is especially significant in the present study.
E-books and print books are identical in content, but there is
a need to understand whether they differ in function. If they
fulfill the same functions in the same situational context, one
may replace the other. However, if they do not, they may
simply serve as complements to each other.
Individual Contextual Factors and Their Impact on
Media Adoption
This idea of the new medium complementing the estab-
lished one has been explored by some researchers. Nguyen
and Western (2006) took a user-centric approach to exam-
ining the correlation between old and new media usage.
Since each medium has its own unique features, they argued
that different media cannot be compared functionally and
that each medium also differs based on the context of an
individual. User information needs also change with the
introduction of the new medium, and hence, users do not
completely abandon the old medium. Using “time spent” on
the new medium as the determining factor, the researchers
found that the new medium serves to complement individu-
als’ new modified needs; they may devote less time to the
old medium, but this does not indicate an abandonment of
the old medium (Nguyen & Western, 2006). Abandoning the
old medium depended on whether the new medium fulfilled
all the functions that users needed. Thus, the more people
use the Internet for information purposes, the more they use
other media for the same, depending on their individual
contextual factors.
In a study on user information needs, Flanagin and
Metzger (2001) observed that information needs have not
changed; rather, what has changed is the way that people
satisfy these needs. The researchers noted that as the Internet
has evolved, people have discovered that it could be used for
a variety of ways to satisfy different needs: The Internet has
been used as a telephone, a television, a radio, and a library.
Importantly, this study shows that one medium may have
several functions, but what may determine whether it will
replace an established medium is its situational context.
The contextual nature of information needs as noted by
Savolainen (2012) also adds to the complexity of indi-
vidual contextual factors on media adoption. After review-
ing and analyzing about 50 articles and books on
information needs in diverse contexts, Savolainen observed
that information needs can be formed differently by
context. The three major contexts that affect information-
need formation and satisfaction are (a) situation of action,
such as the temporal and spatial factors forming a set of
circumstances; (b) task performance, which refers to the
process of task performance and problem solving, task or
problem at hand; and (c) dialogue, such as question nego-
tiation in a reference interview, level of specificity in
articulating questions.
1697
DOI: 10.1002/asi
E-book Reader Research
There has been some scattered research conducted about
e-books, e-book reader devices (e-readers), and digital
content. Research on e-book adoption has shown that people
enjoy the ability to easily search for their reading material
and the convenience of carrying their reading material with
them to any place at any times. However, users also have
reservations about the restrictions that they face while trying
to borrow the books, compatibility issues, and annotation
abilities (Foasberg, 2011; McKay et al., 2012).
Foasburg (2011) conducted a survey with a sample from
Queens College. While the sample was too small to be
generalizable, the goal of the survey was to determine
whether students owned and used e-readers and to examine
how and why they used them. Students were asked about their
ownership of the device, intention to acquire such a device,
use of e-books in general, and to identify what they thought
were the advantages and disadvantages of the devices.
Results of the survey showed that while very few students
actually owned the devices at the time, close to 40% of the
sample said they intended to buy one at some point in the
future. Surprisingly, those who did not actually own or use an
e-Reader were more inclined to use the library for e-books
than were those who actually owned a device. Users and
nonusers were in agreement on the advantages (portability,
storage, convenience, special functions, and text-to-speech)
and the disadvantages (cost of e-Reader, and selection and
cost of e-books) associated with e-books. Both owners and
nonowners were interested in checking out devices that were
preloaded with books, indicating that convenience was a big
factor in opting for electronic reading material.
Other researchers such as S. Lee (2013) have not only
investigated how people react to and adopt e-books and
digital information through the lens of the technology accep-
tance model and DOI but have also incorporated factors
such as resistance to innovation (e.g., clinging to old tech-
nologies for the sake of comfort). From a survey of a small
sample of e-book users, S. Lee (2013) found that individual
innovativeness had a significant influence on perceived use-
fulness and perceived ease of use. He also found that per-
ceived usefulness and ease of use affect intention to use as
well as resistance to innovation. Resistance to innovation
negatively affected the intention to adopt e-books; that is,
people who were personally leery of innovation adoption for
any reason were less likely to adopt e-books.
Christianson and Aucoin (2005) reported results of a
study conducted at Louisiana State University that reviewed
the use of e-book and print book versions of 2,852 books for
a period of 1 year, with information collected every month.
They found that people in different disciplines used e-books
and print books differently. This difference in format
preference was found based on subject and classification,
indicating that e-books and print books fulfilled different
functions. This is similar to an earlier study by Littman and
Connaway (2004) that looked at usage statistics of 7,880
titles at Duke University. Littman and Connaway found that
1698 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
e-books received 11% more use than did comparable print
books. This suggested a very rapid growth in e-book adop-
tion, especially considering that e-books had only been
introduced in the year prior to the study. These researchers
also found that the titles that were utilized as e-books were
the same as those that circulated most as print books.
Another study by van der Velde and Ernst (2009) exam-
ined e-book usage in terms of journals and publications by
Springer Publishing to ascertain whether e-books and jour-
nals were replacing their print counterparts. The study took
into account the perspectives of both end users and librar-
ians, using interviews and statistics provided by Springer.
The researchers found that while e-book usage already
accounted for 50% of Springer’s journal usage, the amount
of content consumed digitally was only 15% of the total
content. The researchers found through their analysis that
both print and e-books could coexist in the market, as people
consumed material for different functions in various ways—
doing short-form reading online while still preferring to read
entire books in print versions.
Research Gaps
After a review of the theoretical framework and previous
related research, it is clear that at this time print books and
e-books are essentially the same in terms of content, but may
differ in function. While most existing reader studies have
speculated about the demise of print, what many of the
studies have failed to examine more closely are the readers
who opt to use both formats. These are the users who could
offer comparative insight into reader preference. An exami-
nation of studies concerning comparisons between e-books
and print books has revealed a paucity of research directly
pertaining to reader preferences and factors contributing to
the choices. A cross-comparison of different reader groups
will be more likely to give a complete picture regarding
reasons for adoption versus reasons for nonadoption, and
predictors of continued use. Finally, most previous studies
have been based on small research samples, resulting in a
deficit of research based on large-scale and representative
samples necessary for generalization to the larger population.
This study intends to address these gaps by investigating
reader preference for e-books and print books across con-
texts to understand preference and adoption-related factors,
based on a large, national, representative sample for more
generalizable results. It will also examine the differences in
functions fulfilled by e-books and print books based on
readers’ individual contextual factors such as age, gender,
education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type,
and Internet use.
Methods
Sample and Data
This study uses data from the national Reading Habits
Survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project via telephone interviews in December
2011 (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/
December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). This data set is the
latest large-scale survey data available and includes a nation-
ally representative sample of 2,986 people ages 16 and older
living in the United States. The sample contains diverse social
and economic backgrounds from distributed geographical
locations and community types in the United States.
In addition, the survey collected data on people’s reading
habits in terms of reading frequency and quantity for various
purposes such as (a) for work or school, (b) for pleasure, (c)
to keep up with current events, and (d) to research specific
topics of interest. For those who have read both e-books and
print books, the survey asked them to indicate their prefer-
ences for e-books or print books in the following situations:
• Sharing books with other people
• Reading with a child
• Reading books while traveling or commuting
• Reading books in bed
• Having a wide selection of books to choose from
• Being able to get a book quickly
Research Questions
The original Pew report (Rainie et al., 2012), based on the
national Reading Habits Survey, provided a descriptive
summary of the survey data aimed at finding the current status
of the American people’s general reading habits, readership
of books in various formats, ownership of e-book reading
devices, state of e-book reading, availability of e-contents,
and ways for acquiring e-books. The report did not examine
e-book and print book readership in terms of the contextual
variables that could influence readership preferences, nor did
it identify which variables are important factors for e-book
adoption—both of which are major research gaps in related
studies, as discussed in the literature review. The individual
contextual variables included in this study cover age, gender,
education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and
Internet use. Using the survey data, this study addresses the
following six research questions:
RQ1: What is the distribution of e-book/print book reader
groups?
RQ2: Are there any differences in individual contextual vari-
ables among e-book/print book reader groups?
RQ3: Do e-book/print book reader groups differ in reading
frequency for different purposes/in various contexts?
RQ4: Do e-book/print book reader groups differ in reading
quantity?
RQ5: What are the situational factors influencing preference for
e-books or print books?
RQ6: Who is likely to read e-books?
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
TABLE 1. Print and e-book readership.
% in sample % in readers of print/
Reader group (n = 2,986) e-books (n = 2,202)
Print books only 57.3 77.7
E-books only 1.9 2.6
Both print books and 14.5 19.6
e-books
Total 73.7 100.0
Data Processing and Analysis
The source survey data file in SPSS format was down-
loaded from the Pew Internet website. A weight variable, as
provided in the data set, was applied for all data analysis to
ensure a balanced and representative sample of the national
population parameters for gender, age, education, race and
ethnicity, U.S. Census region, population density, and tele-
phone usage. Variables were recorded as needed for the
statistical analyses for the research questions. SPSS was
used for descriptive analyses to address RQ1 and RQ5 as
well as for inferential statistical analyses in RQ2, RQ3,
RQ4, and RQ6.
Results
RQ1: What Is the Distribution of E-book/Print Book
Reader Groups?
Table 1 summarizes the distribution of print book and
e-book readership for those surveyed regarding books that
they have read in the past 12 months. It shows that 73.7% of
those in the sample specifically reported that they had read
print books and/or e-books while the remaining 26.3% did
not read any books in either of the two formats. At present,
most people still read only print books; this group of readers
counted 57.3% of the total sample and 77.7% of readers of
e-books and/or print books. Individuals who only read
e-books were still a minority, comprising only 1.9% of those
in the sample and 2.6% of readers of e-books and/or print
books. Interestingly, there was a large portion of individuals
who read both print books and e-books: 14.5% of the sample
and 19.6% of readers of print books/e-books. This group of
readers has adopted e-books however, while also holding on
to print books.
RQ2: Are There Any Differences in Individual Contextual
Variables Among E-book/Print Book Reader Groups?
This study looks into how individual contextual factors
contribute to book-format preference and e-book adoption.
As the initial step, variables such as age, gender, education
level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet
use were examined individually for their effect on the differ-
ences among the e-book/print book reader groups. They were
1699
DOI: 10.1002/asi
further examined in a binary logistic regression analysis for
their effect with all variables considered together (see RQ6).
Table 2 summarizes the distribution of print/e-book read-
ership by various contextual variables and whether each
variable has a significant impact on print/e-book readership
among the three reader groups. It also shows where the
differences lie among the three reader groups by each vari-
able:
Internet use: A chi-square test showed that Internet use
has a significant impact on print/e-book readership. The null
hypothesis that there is no difference in readership by Inter-
net use was rejected, χ2(2) = 254.47, p ≤ .000. This indicates
that there is a statistically significant difference in print/e-
book readership associated with Internet use. A Z test
showed that for both Internet users and non-Internet users,
the proportion of each reader group varies significantly.
Among non-Internet users, there was a significantly larger
proportion of people who only read print books compared to
those who only read e-books and those who read both.
Among Internet users, a significantly larger proportion of
people read both e-books and print books, as compared to
those who read only e-books or only print books.
Community type: A chi-square test showed that commu-
nity type has a significant impact on print/e-book readership.
The null hypothesis that there is no difference in readership
by community type was rejected, χ2(4) = 26.99, p ≤ .000. A
Z test showed that while there is no statistically significant
difference in proportions of various reader groups in urban
communities, there were significant differences in the pro-
portions of reader groups in suburban and rural communi-
ties. In suburban communities, the proportion of those who
read both print and e-books was significantly larger than for
those reading only print books and only e-books. In rural
communities, the proportion of people who read only print
books was significantly larger than for those reading both.
Gender: A chi-square test showed that gender has a sig-
nificant impact on print/e-book readership. The null hypoth-
esis that there is no difference in readership by gender was
rejected, χ2(4) = 21.77, p ≤ .000. A Z test showed that while
males had a significantly larger percentage of e-book-only
readers than did those in the other two reader groups,
females had a significantly smaller percentage of e-book-
only readers than do those in the other reader groups. While
the smallest reader group for males was print books only, the
e-books-only group was the smallest for females.
Age: A chi-square test showed that age has a significant
impact on print/e-book readership. The null hypothesis that
there is no difference in readership by age was rejected,
χ2(6) = 145.89, p ≤ .000. A Z test showed that readership
distribution varies significantly among different age groups.
While the e-books-only group had the largest proportion for
both 18- to 29- and 30- to 49-year-olds, it had the smallest
proportion for people older than 50, who had the largest
proportion in reading print books only.

TABLE 2. Reader groups by individual contextual variables.

Print/e-book readership distribution with z-test group category * Significance of

reader group
Variables Print books only E-books only Both print/e-books Chi-square test difference

Internet use No 13.9%a 7.7%b 1.4%c χ2 = 254.47, df=2 .000

(n = 2,201) Yes 86.1%a 92.3%b 98.6%c
Community type Urban 33.9%a 39.3%a 32.9%a χ2 = 26.99, df=4 .000
(n = 2,105) Suburban 50.8%a 44.9%a 55.5%b
Rural 15.4%a 15.8%a,b 11.6%b
Gender Male 44.8%a 57.9%b 47.5%a χ2 = 21.77, df=2 .000
(n = 2,202) Female 55.2%a 42.1%b 52.5%a
Age 18-29 17.3%a 28.3%b 20.9%c χ2 = 145.89, df=6 .000
(n = 2,091) 30-49 34.7%a 45.7%b 41.6%b
50-64 30.4%a 18.6%b 28.1%a
65+ 17.6%a 7.4%b 9.4%b
Education Less than High School 12.4%a 13.7%a 5.0%b χ2 = 302.02, df=8 .000
(n = 2,195) High School 31.7%a 24.4%b 21.5%b
Some College 25.8%a 18.5%b 27.0%a
College 17.3%a 20.0%a,b 24.0%b
Post-graduate 12.7%a 23.3%b 22.5%b
Race/ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 71.0%a 53.7%b 70.3%a χ2 = 143.40, df=6 .000
(n = 2,335) Black, non-Hispanic 12.3%a 11.9%a,b 10.1%b
Hispanic 11.5%a 25.6%b 9.2%c
Other 5.2%a 8.9%b 10.4%b
Income Less than $20K 19.4%a 30.2%b 10.6%c χ2 = 389.42, df=8 .000
(n = 1,972) $20K-$40K 28.2%a 4.8%b 16.5%c
$40K-$75K 25.5%a 22.6%a 26.2%a
$75K-$100K 10.5%a 19.0%b 16.5%b
Above $100K 16.4%a 23.4%b 30.2%b

Note. *Each subscript letter denotes a subset of print/e-book readership categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other
at the .05 level.

1700 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 Education level: A chi-square test showed that education
has a significant impact on print/e-book readership. The null
hypothesis that there is no difference in readership by edu-
cation level was rejected, χ2(8) = 302.02, p ≤ .000. The
readership distribution varies at different education levels.
Note that the e-books-only reader group was largest among
people with the highest education and also among those with
less than a high school education, which may be due to the
fact that the sample of this study included people aged 16 to
18 years. The reader group of both print and e-books was the
largest among people with some college education. The
print books only group was the largest among those with a
high school education.
Race/ethnicity: A chi-square test rejected the null hypoth-
esis that there is no difference in readership by race/
ethnicity, χ2(6) = 143.40, p ≤ .000. While the print books-
only reader group was the largest among all reader groups
among non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, the
e-books-only reader group was the largest proportion among
Hispanics.
Income level: A chi-square test rejected the null hypoth-
esis that there is no difference in readership by income level,
χ2(8) = 389.42, p ≤ .000. A Z test showed that readership
distribution varies significantly among different income
groups. Among those earning less than $20,000 per year,
there was a significantly larger proportion of people who
only read e-books over those who only read print books and
those who read both. However, within the income-level
range of $20,000 to $40,000, people who only read print
books constituted the largest portion, as compared to the two
other reader groups. Interestingly, for the income level of
$40,000 to $75,000, there was not a significant difference in
distribution of print/e-book readership. For the two highest
income levels, there tended to be a significantly larger pro-
portion of people who read only e-books and people who
read both e-books and print books.
RQ3: Do E-book/Print Book Reader Groups Differ
in Reading Frequency for Different Purposes/
in Various Contexts?
Participants in the Pew survey were asked to think about
the different kinds of reading they have done for various
purposes and reading frequency. As summarized in Table 3,
TABLE 3. Reading purpose and frequency.
For work/school For pleasure
Reading frequency (n = 2,886) (n = 2,968)
1. Yes, every day or almost 36.9%
every day
2. Yes, a few times a week 12.8%
3. Yes, a few times a month 5.2%
4. Yes, less often 2.8%
5. No, never do this 42.3%
Total 100.0%
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
the majority of participants engaged in reading for various
purposes, with reading for pleasure as the most reported
purpose (>80%). About half of the respondents read daily or
almost daily to keep up with current events, and slightly over
one-third reported that they read daily or almost daily for
work or school and for pleasure.
Table 4 summarizes reading frequency for various pur-
poses and indicates whether there is a difference in reading
frequency among various reader groups for each reading
purpose, along with where the differences are among the
reader groups, if applicable.
Regarding reading for work or school, reading frequency
varied among reader groups. A chi-square test rejected the
null hypothesis that there is no difference in reading fre-
quency among various reader groups, χ2(8) = 314.82, p ≤
.000. A Z test showed that frequent reading (e.g., daily or
almost daily, or a few times a week) occurs significantly
more frequently among those who read only e-books or both
e-books and print books than it does for those who read only
print books. On the other hand, less frequent reading (e.g., a
few times a month, less often) occurs indifferently among
reader groups. In addition, not reading for work or school
occurs significantly more frequently among those who only
read print books than it does for the other two reader groups.
Reading for pleasure occurs most frequently on a daily or
almost daily basis for all reader groups. A chi-square test
rejected the null hypothesis that there is no difference in
reading frequency among various reader groups, χ2 (8) =
153.20, p ≤ .000. A Z test showed that among the most
frequent readers, those who read both e-books and print
books do so significantly more frequently than do those who
only read print books or e-books. For less frequent readers
(e.g., a few times a week, a few times a month, less often),
those who read only print books read significantly more
frequently than do those who read both e-books and print
books. Interestingly, not reading for pleasure occurs signifi-
cantly more frequently among those who only read e-books
than it does among the other two reader groups.
Over half of the people in the survey responded that they
read to keep current on a daily or almost daily basis. A chi-
square test rejected the null hypothesis that there is no dif-
ference in reading frequency among various reader groups,
χ2(8) = 87.82, p ≤ .000. A Z test showed that among the
readers who read to keep current on a daily or almost daily
To keep current To research specific topics
(n = 2,968) of interest (n = 2,962)
36.2% 49.9% 24.0%
23.4% 20.9% 25.4%
14.5% 5.6% 18.1%
6.1% 1.5% 7.6%
19.7% 22.0% 24.9%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1701
DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 4. Reader groups and reading frequency for various purposes.

Print/e-book readership distribution with z-test group category * Significance of

Reading reader group
purpose Reading frequency Print books only E-books only Both print/e-books Chi-square test difference

For work/ 1. Yes, every day or almost 38.8%a 51.3%b 56.0%b χ2 = 314.82, df=8 .000
school every day
(n = 2,886) 2. Yes, a few times a week 13.4%a 13.9%a,b 15.9%b
3. Yes, a few times a month 5.7%a 3.4%a 6.3%a
4. Yes, less often 2.4%a 4.5%a 2.3%a
5. No, never do this 39.7%a 27.0%b 19.6%c
For pleasure 1. Yes, every day or almost 40.3%a 43.7%a 53.7%b χ2 = 153.20, df=8 .000
(n = 2,968) every day
2. Yes, a few times a week 27.9%a 21.5%a,b 23.0%b
3. Yes, a few times a month 16.5%a 10.0%b 12.6%b
4. Yes, less often 5.9%a 7.0%a,b 4.2%b
5. No, never do this 9.5%a 17.8%b 6.5%c
To keep current 1. Yes, every day or almost 54.8%a 53.5%a 63.8%b χ2 = 87.82, df=8 .000
(n = 2,968) every day
2. Yes, a few times a week 21.2%a 20.3%a 20.2%a
3. Yes, a few times a month 6.3%a 2.2%b 4.0%b
4. Yes, less often 1.3%a 1.8%a 0.5%b
5. No, never do this 16.5%a 22.1%b 11.5%c
To research 1. Yes, every day or almost 24.6%a 24.7%a 39.2%b χ2 = 351.17, df=8 .000
specific topics every day
of interest 2. Yes, a few times a week 28.2%a 40.6%b 31.5%c
(n = 2,962) 3. Yes, a few times a month 19.6%a 13.7%b 18.3%a, b
4. Yes, less often 7.8%a 10.3%a 4.1%b
5. No, never do this 19.9%a 10.7%b 6.8%b

Note. * Each subscript letter denotes a subset of print/e-book readership categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other
at the .05 level.

basis, those who read both e-books and print books do so
significantly more frequently than do those who only read
print books or only e-books. In addition, the proportion of
people who read only print books tends to be larger among
less frequent readers and it appears that those who only read
e-books are less likely to do this type of reading.
Regarding reading to research specific topics of interest,
a chi-square test rejected the null hypothesis that there is no
difference in reading frequency among various reader
groups, χ2(8) = 351.17, p ≤ .000. A follow-up Z test showed
that among the most frequent readers, those who read both
print and e-books are significantly more likely to do this type
of reading than are the other two reader groups. In addition,
reading to research topics is significantly less likely for
those who read only print books, as compared to the other
two reader groups.
RQ4: Do E-book/Print Book Reader Groups Differ in
Reading Quantity?
Besides reading frequency, reading quantity as measured
by number of books was also compared among the three
reader groups. In the survey, participants were asked about
books in all formats that they read during the past 12
months. A one-way analysis of variance showed that there is
a significant difference in reading quantity among the three
reader groups, F = 162.30, p = .000. As shown in Table 5,
overall, the average number of books read by people who
read both print and e-books is 25.75 books, as compared to
15.75 and 10.94 for those who only read print books and
e-books, respectively. A post hoc test showed that the differ-
ences in reading quantity between any two groups are sta-
tistically significant.
RQ5: What Are the Situational Factors influencing
Preference for E-books or Print Books?
In the Pew survey, those who have read both print and
e-books (n = 433) were asked to indicate their preference for
print and e-books in various situations (see Table 6). While
people overwhelmingly prefer print books when they read
with a child (85.9%) and share books with other people
(70.3%), they also overwhelmingly choose e-books when
they need to get a book quickly (85.2%) and read books
while traveling or commuting (76.6%). E-books also have
an edge over print books because of the wide selection of
books from which to choose (54.4 vs. 35.6%, respectively).
People were divided in their preference when it comes to
reading in bed; 44.7% prefered print books while 46.2%
prefered e-books. Clearly, at this point, e-books and
print books perform unique functions in different reading
situations.

1702 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 5. Reading quantity by reader groups.

Mean difference Significance of mean

(I) Print/e-book readership Mean Std. Deviation (J) Print/e-book readership (I-J) difference

Both print and e-books 25.75 26.866 Print books only 10.001* 0.000
E-books only 14.811* 0.000
Print books only 15.75 22.29 E-books only 4.810* 0.002
Both -10.001* 0.000
E-books only 10.94 15.436 Print books only -4.810* 0.002
Both -14.811* 0.000

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level.

TABLE 6. Preference by reading situation.

Situation Print book E-book No preference Total

Reading with a child (n = 407) 85.9 9.4 4.7 100.0

Sharing books with other people (n = 424) 70.3 26.0 3.7 100.0
Reading books in bed (n = 418) 44.7 46.2 9.1 100.0
Having a wide selection of books to choose from (n = 422) 35.6 54.4 10.1 100.0
Reading books while traveling or commuting (n = 413) 19.9 76.6 3.5 100.0
Being able to get a book quickly (n = 423) 12.8 85.2 2.0 100.0

Note. Bold numbers indicate the majority.

RQ6: Who is Likely to Read E-books?
To examine the effect of various factors on e-book adop-
tion and identify which factors contribute to adoption, the
significant variables in RQ2 and the two important reading-
habit variables—reading purposes and reading quantity—in
RQ3 and RQ4 were included in a binary logistic regression
analysis. The result of the regression reflects the effect of
each variable with other variables being controlled.
In the initial round of modeling, community type,
gender, and reading for keeping current were not statisti-
cally significant predictor variables. Thus, these variables
were dropped in the next round of modeling to maximize
the test results while keeping the models economical
(Agresti, 2007). In the subsequent round of modeling,
all variables contributed significantly to e-book adoption
prediction except reading for pleasure, which was dropped
for the subsequent round of modeling. Table 7 summa-
rizes the variables in the final equation and their effect in
predicting e-book adoption in descending order of their
power:
• Number of books read was the strongest predictor, Wald =
195.785, p = .000, in e-book adoption. Basically, the more
books a person reads, the more likely the person will adopt
e-books.
• Income was the second strongest predictor, Wald = 115.885,
p = .000, showing the economics of e-book adoption. Com-
pared to the lowest income group (<$20,000), e-book adop-
tion was significantly positively associated with income level,
except for the income level $20,000 to $40,000, which might
be due to the fact that most students fall in the lowest income
group. Without this exception, the higher a person’s income,
the more likely the person will adopt e-books.
• Reading to research topics of interest, Wald = 115.885, p =
.000, also strongly predicted e-book adoption. The more fre-
quently a person reads to research topics of interest, the more
likely that the person will adopt e-books.
• Internet use, Wald = 50.467, p = .000; being an Internet user
was a significantly positive predictor of a person reading
e-books as compared to non-Internet users.
• Race/ethnicity, Wald = 47.892, p = .000, also showed its
predictive significance. Compared to the reference group non-
Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks are more likely to read
e-books, but not statistically significantly. However, Hispan-
ics are statistically significantly more likely to read e-books.
• Reading for work/school, Wald = 34.347, p = .000, was a
significant predictor of e-book adoption. However, the differ-
ence in reading frequency does not have a significant impact
in e-book adoption.
• Age, Wald = 33.506, p = .000, had a negative impact on
e-book adoption. Specifically, compared to the youngest
group (18- to 29-year-olds) in the sample, as age increased, it
was less likely for a person to adopt e-books.
• Education, Wald = 21.474, p = .000, had a positive impact
overall on e-book adoption. The higher a person’s education
level, the more likely the person is to adopt e-books. Com-
pared to the reference group with less than a high school
education, people with postgraduate education were signifi-
cantly more likely to adopt e-books, p = .002.
Discussion
This study aimed to answer an overarching question
about whether print media will be displaced by digital
media—in this case, whether e-books will take over print
books. This was examined using the assumption that the two
media formats in question are equivalent in content, and
hence are similar enough to be compared when considering

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014 1703
DOI: 10.1002/asi
TABLE 7. Variables in the model for predicting e-book adoption.

B S.E. Wald df Significance Exp(B)

Number of books read .016 .001 195.785 1 .000 1.016

Income 115.885 4 .000
Less than $20K (0, reference)
$20K-$40K (1) -.284 .104 7.449 1 .006 .753
$40K-$75K (2) .239 .101 5.568 1 .018 1.270
$75K-$100K (3) .567 .115 24.190 1 .000 1.763
Above $100K (4) .649 .109 35.261 1 .000 1.913
Reading to research topic of interest 61.610 4 .000
Daily or almost daily (0, reference)
A few times a week (1) -.239 .070 11.797 1 .001 .788
A few times a month (2) -.412 .083 24.861 1 .000 .663
Less often (3) -.414 .132 9.898 1 .002 .661
Never do this (4) -.818 .113 52.143 1 .000 .441
Internet use
Not an Internet user (0, reference)
Internet user (1) 1.215 .171 50.467 1 .000 3.370
Race/ethnicity 47.892 3 .000
Non-Hispanic White (0, reference)
Non-Hispanic Black (1) .026 .097 .075 1 .785 1.027
Hispanic (2) .457 .096 22.482 1 .000 1.579
Other (3) .614 .110 31.437 1 .000 1.848
Reading for work/school 34.347 4 .000
Daily or almost daily (0, reference)
A few times a week (1) -.136 .085 2.597 1 .107 .873
A few times a month (2) .070 .118 .356 1 .550 1.073
Less often (3) .182 .183 .985 1 .321 1.200
Never do this (4) -.406 .078 26.742 1 .000 .667
Age 33.506 3 .000
18-29 (0) (reference)
30-49 (1) -.089 .079 1.273 1 .259 .915
50-64 (2) -.400 .089 20.176 1 .000 .670
65+ (3) -.521 .130 15.962 1 .000 .594
Education 21.474 4 .000
Less than High School (0, reference)
High School (1) .162 .151 1.145 1 .285 1.175
Some College (2) .156 .153 1.043 1 .307 1.169
College (3) .296 .157 3.529 1 .060 1.344
Post-graduate (4) .512 .162 9.982 1 .002 1.668
Constant -2.597 .224 134.491 1 .000 .075

them under different situations and for fulfilling various
functions.
As shown by the results of RQ1, it is clear that there is no
imminent likelihood of an e-book takeover. According to
Rogers’s (2003) diffusion theory, the adoption process goes
slowly at first, speeds up, and slows again to form an
s-shaped curve. The results of RQ1 suggest that while
e-books are becoming popular—read by 16.4% of all
respondents and 22.2% of respondents who read print books
and/or e-books—the process of diffusion or adoption of
e-books is still on the rise and has not yet peaked. The largest
percentage of Americans continues to read print books
only—57.3% of all respondents and 77.7% of respondents
who read print books and/or e-books. This is further evi-
denced by the percentage of those who only read e-books
(1.9% in the total sample, 2.6% for print/e-book readers),
which also is a preliminary indication that e-books have not
replaced print books just yet and are still in the nascent
stages of adoption.
A study of the individual variables significant to print/e-
book readership contributes more to our understanding of
the notion of e-books displacing print books. It was found
from RQ2 that Internet use, community type, gender, age,
education, race/ethnicity, and income level all have a signifi-
cant impact on print/e-book readership. People who read
e-books at this time may be typified based on a collection of
individual contextual factors. The results suggest that Inter-
net users are more likely to read e-books. These e-book
adopters are most likely younger and highly educated.
Similar to Chen and Granitz’s (2012) findings, it may be
inferred that most people who have adopted e-books come
from a specific section of the community because the inno-
vation itself is compatible with their lifestyle, in terms of
cost and improved quality of life. Wilson’s (1997) assertion
that people who adopt e-books do so based on specific needs
and contextual factors was also confirmed.
Most participants in the study reported that they read
mainly for pleasure (over 80%), and about half said they

1704 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
read every day. The results showed that infrequent readers
were more prevalent among all kinds of book readers, indi-
cating the possibility that book reading on the whole may be
decreasing even though e-books are increasing in popularity.
The most frequent readers are those who read both print
books and e-books, signifying that those who like to read
will read books in any medium. This was further confirmed
by the results of RQ4, which showed that those who read
print and e-books read more than do their peers. Another
important finding is that people indicated reading e-books
more for work or school, suggesting that there is a functional
element to the choice of medium. This confirms to some
extent the notion of functional equivalence (Robinson et al.,
2002; Wilson, 1997), stressing the key role that situational
context plays in determining the use and adoption of a new
medium.
As stated previously, the idea of functional equivalence is
based on the premise that the two media being compared are
comparable and fulfill the same functions. Rainie et al.
(2012) reported that there had been a decrease in the number
of people reading print books between 2011 and 2012. It
would be fallacious to assume that this decrease in print
books has been caused by people reading e-books; rather,
the results of RQ3 and RQ4 suggest that this decrease may
be linked to lower levels of reading overall, in terms of
reading frequency and quantity.
Ultimately, for those who read, content matters more than
medium. Although functional equivalence assumes that the
functions of a medium are comparable and may be identified
easily, the functions and uses of a new medium are influ-
enced by the individual user’s contextual factors (Kayany
&Yelsma, 2000). The results of this study indicate that
demographic and lifestyle factors contribute significantly to
the choice between e-books and print books. In addition,
situational context also plays a very important role in
making this choice, as indicated by the results of RQ5. This
study chose the group who read both print books and
e-books to analyze whether situational context was as
important as function in the choice between the two media.
It was confirmed that people overwhelmingly prefer print
books over e-books in certain situations such as reading to a
child (85.9%) and sharing books with other people (70.3%).
At the same time, people prefer e-books in other situations
such as needing to get a book quickly (85.2%) and reading
books while on the move (76.6%). Ease of access and the
increasing selection of e-books are other reasons why many
people tend to prefer e-books (54.4%), indicating that
support for medium attributes as somewhat important. It
would be interesting to study whether the preference for
e-books would be dictated by situational context and infor-
mation needs.
At this point, e-books and print books clearly provide
unique functions in different reading situations. This could
change depending on how e-books evolve, or how e-readers
advance. For example, currently, children’s e-books, which
sometimes lack the pictures or interactive ability of tradi-
tional print books, are still harder to find for e-readers. But
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
multimedia interactive children’s e-books could have a great
potential. Similarly, the size and bulk of e-readers may make
it more convenient for some to read in bed with the rapidly
evolving technology.
The findings of this study contradict the suggestion that
most users cling to print books only out of a sense of nos-
talgia or familiarity (Gomez, 2008; Lee, 2013). Flanagin and
Metzger’s (2001) study indicated that people change in
terms of the way they define and satisfy their informational
needs. This study’s findings suggest that a change in reading
patterns and habits overall is not merely an indication of a
preference for print books over e-books, or vice versa. Func-
tion plays a larger role than do the attributes of a medium in
defining the way a medium is used and adopted. However,
function is nearly impossible to predict, given that function
and need are determined by individual contextual variables
(Christianson & Aucoin, 2005; Kayany & Yelsma, 2000).
More investigation into the many functions of e-books and
print books will present a clearer overall picture of the future
relationship between e-books and print books.
Conclusion and Future Research
Despite rising e-book sales and readership in recent years,
e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both
print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve
distinct functions to meet people’s reading needs, which may
vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational
factors. The results of this study support the notion that
e-books have firmly established a place in people’s lives due
to the fact that they allow people to access their favorite
content in any place, at any time. As they stand, e-books and
print books complement each other, providing the same
content in two different media.
At this point, the leading predictors of e-book adoption
are the number of books read, an individual’s income, the
occurrence and frequency of reading to research topics of
interest, and an individual’s Internet use, followed by other
variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school,
age, and education. Only a small portion of e-book adopters
(11.7%) have abandoned print books to read only e-books;
the majority of e-book adopters (88.3%) also are reading
print books. The latter group consists of people who read
most frequently for all purposes and who read much more
than other groups.
The results of this study illustrate that there are a variety
of factors that contribute to print/e-book readership and
preferences. As technologies evolve, so may the functions of
e-books. Future research should take into consideration the
context and situation of the individual, the characteristics of
the medium, and the functions that print/e-books can fulfill
to better understand the choices and preferences of the
readers. As pointed out, there have been insufficient empiri-
cal studies that have examined readers of both e-books and
print books. While this study is unique in this aspect, it also
is limited because it provides only a snapshot of e-books and
print books. A longitudinal study with more emphasis on
1705
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 function could provide a more comprehensive picture and a
more accurate prediction of whether e-books could ever
fully replace print books and why.
This study has implications for libraries, other informa-
tion institutions, and related stakeholders such as publishers
that seek to understand and accommodate user preferences
in an increasingly digital, Internet-based information envi-
ronment. It provides unique insight on user choices and
preferences when reading books. In addition, e-books and
e-readers are a rapidly evolving and popular technology that
is of great interest to media and publishing companies. Find-
ings from this study help us understand who is adopting such
technology and how it is being implemented.
References
Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Chen, S., & Granitz, N. (2012). Adoption, rejection, or convergence: Con-
sumer attitudes toward book digitization. Journal of Business Research,
65(8), 1219–1225.
Christianson, M., & Aucoin, M. (2005). Electronic or print books: Which
are used? Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services,
29(1), 71–81.
Coffey, S., & Stipp, H. (1997). The interactions between computer and
television usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(2), 61–67.
Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary
media environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153–181.
Foasberg, N.M. (2011). Adoption of e-book readers among college stu-
dents: A survey. Information Technology and Libraries, 30(3), 108–128.
Gibson, C., & Gibb, F. (2011). An evaluation of second-generation ebook
readers. The Electronic Library, 29(3), 303–319.
Gomez, J. (2008). Print is dead: Books in our digital age. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Hamblen, M. (2011). Amazon: E-books now outsell print books. Comput-
erworld. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/
9216869/Amazon_E_books_now_outsell_print_books2011
Hischier, R., & Reichart, I. (2003). Multifunctional electronic media-
traditional media. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(4),
201–208.
Kaplan, S.J. (1978). The impact of cable television services on the use of
competing media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 22(2),
155–165.
Kayany, J.M., & Yelsma, P. (2000). Displacement effects of online media in
the socio-technical contexts of households. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44(2), 215–229.
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1940). Radio and the printed page: An introduction to the
study of radio and its role in the communication of ideas. New York, NY:
Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
1706 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
View publication stats
Lee, C.A. (2011). A framework for contextual information in digital col-
lections. Journal of Documentation, 67(1), 96–143.
Lee, S. (2013). An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile
environment: Evidence from South Korea. Telematics and Informatics,
30(2), 165–176.
Littman, J., & Connaway, L.S. (2004). A circulation analysis of print books
and e-books in an academic research library. Library Resources and
Technical Services, 48(4), 256–262.
McCombs, M. (1972). Mass media in the marketplace. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McKay, D., Hinze, A., Heese, R., Vanderschantz, N., Timpany, C., &
Cunningham, S. (2012). An exploration of ebook selection behavior in
academic library collections. In P. Zaphiris, G. Buchanan, E. Rasmussen,
& F. Loizides (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Confer-
ence on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL’12) (pp. 13–24).
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory. New York,
NY: Sage.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Nguyen, A., & Western, M. (2006). The complementary relationship
between the Internet and traditional mass media: The case of online news
and information. Information Research, 11(3). Retrieved from http://
InformationR.net/ir/11-3/paper259.html
Nunberg, G. (1996). The future of the book. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The
rise of e-reading. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/files/legacy-pdf/
The%20rise%20of%20e-reading%204.5.12.pdf
Robinson, J.P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2002). Infor-
mation technology and functional time displacement. IT & Society, 1(2),
21–36.
Robinson, J.P., & Martin, S. (2009). IT and activity displacement: Behav-
ioral evidence from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS). Social Indi-
cators Research, 91(2), 115–139.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Free Press.
Savolainen, R. (2012). Conceptualizing information need in context. Infor-
mation Research, 17(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/17-4/
paper534.html
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., & Gross, B.L. (1991). Why we buy what we
buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research,
22(2), 159–170.
Stempel, G.H., Hargrove, T., & Bernt, J.P. (2000). Relation of growth of use
of the Internet to changes in media use from 1995 to 1999. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 71–79.
Vakkari, P. (2012). Internet use increases the odds of using the public
library. Journal of Documentation, 68(5), 618–638.
van der Velde, W., & Ernst, O. (2009). The future of eBooks? Will print
disappear? An end-user perspective. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 570–583.
Wilson, T.D. (1997). Electronic publishing and the future of the book.
Information Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/3
-2/paper39.html