This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of Singapore]

On: 22 June 2013, At: 14:15

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbem20

A Social Cognitive Theory of Internet Uses and

Gratifications: Toward a New Model of Media
Attendance
Robert LaRose & Matthew S. Eastin
Published online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Robert LaRose & Matthew S. Eastin (2004): A Social Cognitive Theory of Internet Uses and Gratifications:
Toward a New Model of Media Attendance, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48:3, 358-377

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4803_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 A Social Cognitive Theory of Internet Uses
and Gratifications: Toward a New Model
of Media Attendance
Robert LaRose and Matthew S. Eastin
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

Recent research explaining Internet usage has both extended and chal-
lenged the uses and gratifications approach to understanding media
attendance by discovering “new” gratifications and introducing powerful
new explanatory variables. The present research integrates these develop-
ments into a theory of media attendance within the framework of Ban-
dura’s (1 986) Social Cognitive Theory. Respondents from 2 Midwestern
states were recruited by mail to complete an online questionnaire. Struc-
tural equation modeling techniques were used to test a.new model of
media attendance in which active consideration of Internet uses and
gratifications, moderated by Internet self-efficacy, joins habitual behavior
and deficient self-regulation as determinants of media behavior. The
model explained 42% of the variance in Internet usage. ,

The addition of the Internet to the electronic media environment has renewed
interest in the question of media attendance: the factors that explain and predict
individual exposure to the media. Much of the research has been carried out by
followers of the uses and gratifications tradition, who anticipated the medium as an
exemplar of active media selection that could further validate the core tenets of that
paradigm (Morris & Ogan, 1996; Newhagen & Rafaeli, 1996; Ruggerio, 2000).
Instead, Internet research has introduced new conceptual and operational ap-
proaches and new variables that now challenge some of the basic assumptions,
procedures;and findings of uses and gratifications. However, these findings have yet
to be integrated into a comprehensive model of media attendance. Moreover, these
relationships have been explored among college student samples and must now be
extended to the general online population. The present research proposes and tests

Robert LaRose (Ph.D., Universify of Southern California) is a Professor in the Department of Telecommuni-
cation, Information Studies and Media at Michigan State University. His research interest is the uses and
effects of fhe Internet.
Matthew S. Fastin (Ph.D., Michigan Sfafe Universify) is an Assisfanf Professor in the School of Communi-
cation af Ohio Sfate Universify. His research focuses on the, social and psychological mechanisms that
influence the uses and effecfs of new media.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following sfudenfs in collecfing the dafa for fhis
projecf: Mike Mackerf, Sri Sukotjo,, Yu-Chieh Lin, linhee Hong, Songyi Park, Wen-Ya Wu, Li-An Liu,
Charinfip Tungkitfisuwan, Kuang-Chiu Huang.

0 2004 Broadcast Education Association journal ol Broadcasfing 8, Elecrronic Media 48(3/, 2004, pp. 358-377

358
 LaRose and EastinlSOClAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 359

a model of media attendance inspired by Bandura‘s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory

(SCT) that builds upon the conventional uses and grarifications approach by clari-
fying important explanatory constructs and identifying new ones.

Uses and Gratifications Meet the Internet

Numerous studies (e.g. Charney & Greenberg, 2001; Chou & Hsiao, 2000;
Dimmick, Kline & Stafford, 2000; Eighmey & McCord, 1998; Ferguson & Perse,
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

2000; Flanagin & Metzger, 2001; Kaye, 1998; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; LaRose,
Mastro & Eastin, 2001; Lin, 1999; Papacharissi& Rubin, 2000; Parker & Plank, 2000;
Perse & Greenberg-Dunn, 1998; Song, LaRose, Eastin & Lin, 2004; Stafford &
Stafford, 2001) have applied uses and gratifications to the Internet. Collectively,
these studies upheld one of the model’s basic propositions (Palmgreen, Wenner &
Rosengren, 1985), that gratifications sought explain individual media exposure.
However, many Internet-related studies have also reconfirmed a basic weakness of
uses and gratifications: They did not explain media exposure very well. Consistent
with uses and gratifications studies of other media (cf. Palmgreen, Wenner, &
Rosengren, 1985), the Internet studies that hewed most closely to the uses and
gratifications tradition have explained less than 10% of the variance in Internet usage
from gratifications (e.g., Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye, 1998; Papacharissi & Rubin,
2000; Parker & Plank, 2000).
That the Internet is in many ways a unique medium has not escaped the attention
of researchers. The time-honored list of gratifications derived from early television
studies (notably, Greenberg, 1974; Rubin, 1983) has been expanded to explore
unique facets of the Internet medium. For example, Papacharissi and Rubin (2000)
proposed interpersonal communication gratifications, recognizing that communica-
tion functions like e-mail and chatrooms are common modes of Internet usage.
Korgaonkar and Wolin (1999) found dimensions of information, interactive, and
economic control. Other new gratification dimensions have included: problem
solving, persuading others, relationship maintenance, status seeking, and personal
insight (Flanagin & Metzger, 2001); Song et al.’s (2004) virtual community gratifi-
cation; Charney and Creenberg’s (2001) coolness, sights and sounds, career, and
peer identity factors; and Stafford and Stafford’s (2001) search and cognitive factors.
Stafford and Stafford (2001) achieved a modest increase (to 21%) in the variance
explained in Internet usage, mostly from the addition of a search factor (i.e., that
accessing search engines was an important motivation for using the Internet) to more
conventional information seeking and entertainment gratifications.
Others innovated with conceptual and operational definitions, creating what
might be called prospective, or expected, gratifications. These ask respondents what
they expect from the Internet in the future as opposed to those that they seek in the
present or have obtained in the past. This i s a departure from the gratifications
soughtlgratifications obtained (GS/GO) formulation that has long guided uses and
gratifications (Palmgreen et al., 1985). Studies that have employed prospective
 360 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic MedidSeptember 2004

measures (e.& Charney & Greenberg, 2001; LaRose, Mastro, & Eastin, 2001; Lin,
1999) have consistently doubled, tripled, or quadrupled the amount of variance
explained in Internet attendance behavior compared to conventional approaches.

A Social Cognitive Perspective of Uses and Gratifications

Prospective gratification measures were initially an innovative means of under-

standing the medium before it was widely distributed in the population (e.g., Lin,
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

1999). However, they are also consistent with a view of media attendance derived
from Bandura's (1986, 1989) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), which offers a theoret-
ical explanation for the often-observed (for example, Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000)
empirical relationship between media gratifications and media usage. SCT is familiar
to media scholars in its earlier incarnation as Social Learning Theory (Bandura,
1977), as a theory of media effects. However, SCT i s a broad theory of human
behavior that may be applied to media attendance as well. SCT posits reciprocal
causation among individuals, their behavior, and their environment. Within SCT,
behavior i s an observable act and the performance of behavior i s determined, in
large part, by the expected outcomes of behavior, expectations formed by our own
direct experience or mediated by vicarious reinforcement observed through others.
Thus, media usage i s overt media consumption behavior (usage of the internet in the
present case), and it is determined by the expected outcomes that follow from
consumption. Since expected gratification outcomes may be formulated from vicar-
ious observation of others' behavior (Eastin, 2002) they can explain consumption
both among prospective future users of the Internet (as in Lin, 1999) and current
users.
Uses and gratifications can be understood in socio-cognitive terms. Where uses
and gratification researchers have explored gratifications, SCT proposes expected
outcomes and where uses and gratifications researchers posit needs, SCT proposes
behavioral incentives. Expectedpositive outcomes of internet exposure should cause
further exposure. What people have gotten in the past from the internet is an
important part of the basis for their current expectations about it. However, expec-
tations are also shaped by vicarious learning, based on observations of the experi-
ences of others, and also self-efficacy (see below). However, it is the current
expectation about outcomes of behavior that best determines behavior.
The expected outcomes are organized around six basic types of incentives for
human behavior: novel sensory, social, status, monetary, enjoyable activity, and
self-reactive incentives (Bandura, 1986, pp. 232-240) and these are theoretically
constructed rather than statistically derived from exploratory factor analysis as in the
uses and gratifications tradition. An analysis of these categories against Internet
gratifications (LaRose et al., 2001 ) revealed that conventional uses and gratifications
research underemphasized status and monetary incentives that had significant
positive correlations with internet usage (see also Charney & Greenberg, 2001;
Flanagin & Metzger, 2001; SKrgaonkar & Wolin, 1999). When expected outcome
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 361

measures reflecting the full range of these incentive categories were subjected to
exploratory factor analysis, a "new" virtual communi!y dimension was uncovered
that drew heavily on the status incentives lacking in conventional uses and gratifi-
cations research (Song et al., 2004). Despite few differences (notably the inclusion of
measures of habit strength in gratification dimensions), other SCT incentive catego-
ries parallel conventional uses and gratifications dimensions. Activity incentives,
predicated on the desire to take part in enjoyable activities, correspond to the
entertainment gratifications. Self-evaluative incentives, which involve attempts to
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

regulate dysphoric moods, parallel "pass time" or "boredom" gratifications. Novel

sensory incentives include the search for novel information, and they are similar to
information seeking gratifications. Social incentives stemming from rewarding inter-
actions with others correspond to social gratifications.
However, the gratifications sought-gratificationsobtained formulation (Palmgreen,
et al, 1985) does not precisely match the concept of outcome expectations, or the
subjective probability that a particular outcome will be obtained for future behavior.
GTatifications sought reflect wished-for outcomes (e.g., I hope to find an e-mail from
home) but not necessarily expectations of achieving the outcome through our
present behavior (but the folks e-mailed yesterday, so I don't expect one today).
Comparing gratifications sought with those obtained reflects the outcomes achieved
in the past but not necessarily the likelihood that they will be repeated in the present
by engaging in further media consumption. Rather, SCT assumes that outcome
expectations are continually updated as a result of self-observation of our own
experience and (vicarious) observation of the behavioral consequences that occur to
others.
The socio-cognitive mechanism can be perceived in "A General Media Gratifica-
tions Model" (found in Palmgreen et al. 1985, p. 17) in which media consumption
affects perceptions of gratifications obtained, which feed back to beliefs and expec-
tations about media alternatives, which determine gratifications sought, which
determine media consumption behavior. From the SCT perspective, the expectations
about media alternatives-specifically the outcomes that our media consumption
behavior produces, organized according to the incentives that motivate human
behavior-are what determine further media consumption. GS and GO are thus
imprecise, and perhaps superfluous, ways of describing the construct of outcome
expectations. The SCT formulation differs in that these expected consequences are
themselves the psychological origins of media behavior. The expected outcomes
thus produce the "need" for media attendance.
This imprecise match between outcome expectations, GS, and GS-GO formula-
tions might explain the pattern of weak relationships observed between gratifications
and media consumption (e.g., Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000). Unsuccessful attempts
by researchers (Babrow & Swanson, 1988) to distinguish outcome expectations
(derived from a related theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) from
gratifications perhaps indicated that the two are related constructs. However, the
distinction between outcome expectations and gratifications is potentially conse-
 362 Journal of Broadcasting& Electronic MedialSeptember 2004

quential. Some gratifications sought could be negative predictors of media behavior

(if we don't expect to achieve them), others positive ones, but in the aggregate are
just possibly confounded ones. Comparing gratifications obtained with those sought
compounds the problem (e.g., with gratifications that are obtained but not sought,
those that are sought but never realistically expected) that may have no reliable
relationship to media behavior. Outcome expectations cut through the ambiguity
because they "reflect current beliefs about the outcomes of prospective future
behavior but are predicated upon comparisons between incentives expected and
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

incentives attained in the past" (LaRose et al., 2001, p. 399).

Extending Uses and Gratifications

SCT also suggests new concepts that may extend our understanding of uses and
gratifications and their impact on media behavior. Two additional mechanisms of
SCT, self-efficacy and self-regulation, are particularly heuristic.
Self-efficacy is belief in one's capability to organize and execute a particular
course of action (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy i s particularly relevant for novice
users who have not yet acquired the requisite skills to obtain useful information and
deal with the discontents of life online, from viruses to balky home Internet
connections. It was directly related to internet usage (Eastin & LaRose, 2000; LaRose
et al., 2001), and also acted on usage indirectly, through expected outcomes. In
other words, as Internet users become more self-efficacious, their expectations that
they will obtain specific outcomes (e.g., finding useful information) also increase,
and that encourages more usage. Prior experience with the Internet in turn causally
preceded Internet self-efficacy (Eastin & LaRose, 2000), probably through the process
of enactive mastery (Bandura, 1986), in which users gradually master complex tasks.
The SCT construct of self-regulation (Bandura, 1991) describes how individuals
monitor their own behavior (self-monitoring), judge it in relation to personal and
social standards (judgmental process), and apply self-reactive incentives to moderate
their behavior (self reaction). Self-regulation is an important point of distinction
between SCT and stimulus-response theories of human behavior in that self-gener-
ated influences free the individual from blindly following the dictates of external
reinforcement. However, when self-regulation fails, increased media consumption
may be expected. This issue has been conceptualized in terms of habit and deficient
self-regulation (LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003).
In simplest terms, a habit i s a recurring behavior pattern. Habit is a well-
established predictor of behavior (Oulette & Wood, 1998; Triandis, 1980). Although
long overlooked in communication research (cf. Rosenstein & Grant, 1997; Stone &
Stone, 1990), recent qualitative research suggests that a great deal of media behavior
i s habitual (Adams, 2000). Uses and gratifications researchers have associated habit
with "ritualistic gratifications," such as passing time (Rubin, 1984), that are concep-
tually still part of an active selection process. However, recent research (e.g., Aarts,
Verplanken, & van Knippenberg, 1998; Bargh & Collwitzer, 1994) suggests that
 LaRose and EasWSOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 363

habit is a form of automaticity, a pattern of behavior ( e g , checking one's e-mail) that

follows a fixed cognitive schema, triggered by an environmental stimulus (e.g.,
seeing one's computer desktop in the morning) or by recalling a goal (e.g., keeping
up with one's associates), and performed without further self-instruction. This i s
outside the realm of active media selection presumed in uses and gratifications
research At best, automatic media consumption behaviors were initially framed by
active considerations that were eventually forgotten (cf. Stone & Stone, 1990): We
carefully evaluated our options the first time we used e-mail but by the hundredth
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

time we did not. Within SCT habit i s a failure of the self-monitoring subfunction of
self-regulation. Through repetition we become inattentive to the reasoning behind
our media behavior, our mind no longer devotes attention resources to evaluating it,
freeing itself for more important decisions.
Habit strength i s not a catch-all for uses and gratifications but rather represents
patterns of behavior established by past thinking about outcome expectations/
gratifications that i s no longer repeated in the present. Habit strength i s expected to
influence ongoing behavior, independent of current active thinking about expected
(gratification) outcomes. Habit should be causally determined by outcome expecta-
tions, which precede habit in time. Habit strength should be preceded by self-
efficacy, since users are unlikely to be inattentive to a behavior they are still
mastering. These relationships were confirmed in LaRose et al., 2003).
Deficient Self Regulation is defined as a state in which conscious self-control i s
diminished. It has been proposed as an explanatory mechanism for so-called
"Internet addictions," more properly called "problematic Internet use" (LaRose et al.,
2003). In that research, deficient self-regulation was directly related to Internet usage
and also contributed to usage indirectly, through habit strength. As deficient self-
regulation comes into effect, media behavior tends to become an end unto itself and
no longer subject to active consideration of its expected outcomes. One important
exception are self-reactive outcomes, through which users counteract the negative
affect that results from personal problems that intensify with excessive media usage,
part of a self-reinforcing "downward spiral" into problematic or addictive usage.
Still, habit and deficient self-regulation have not been clearly distinguished.
Addictions, including behavioral addictions, are a form of habitual behavior (Marlatt,
Baer, & Kivlahan, 1988) so the two constructs overlap. At the operational level,
measures of habit lacked sufficient reliability and exhibited some degree of multi-
collinearity with deficient self-regulation so LaRose et al. concluded that they had
not clearly distinguished the two. They proposed a possible theoretical distinction:
Habit could represent the failure of self-monitoring, while deficient self-regulation
might represent a failure of the judgmental and self-reactive subfunctions. Both the
conceptual definition of deficient self-regulation and its operationalization (based on
symptoms of pathological gambling and substance dependence, e.g., "I feel tense,
moody, or irritable if I can't get on the Web when I want") betray an intense, even
painful, self-awareness of media consumption. Thus, deficient self-regulation reflects
a distinct state of mind from one in which media consumers are inattentive,
 364 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

explaining how both might have independent effects on media attendance. Yet, the
two should be related in that persons with deficient self-control may also be
expected to engage in habitual behavior.

Are College Students Typical Internet Users?

Research on Internet usage has focused on college students, often with the
reassurance that scholars are interested in the lawful relationships among variables
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

that should be observable among many groups, including purposive samples of

college students. But there are also some important ways that college students differ
from the general population and these are particularly salient from the SCT perspec-
tive.
College students, and particularly the freshmen who populate large introductory
classes, have relatively high levels of depression (Rich & Scovel, 1987) and depres-
sion is known to inhibit effective self-regulation (Bandura, 1991), possibly exagger-
ating the effect of that variable. One reason that freshmen are depressed is separation
from their family and friends, perhaps heightening the importance of social and
mood-elevating self-reactive outcomes. Indeed, college students demonstrate an
especially heavy reliance on the Internet for social interaction and fun activities (Pew
Research Center, 2002). Will the same motives found among college students affect
Internet attendance in broader populations?
Relationships among deficient self-regulation, Internet self-efficacy, habit strength,
and Internet usage were explored previously in research on so-called "Internet
addictions" among college students (LaRose et al., 2003) and can be summarized as
follows:

H1: Internet self-efficacy will be directly related to Internet usage.

H2: Internet habit strength will be directly related to Internet usage.
H3: Deficient Internet self-regulation will be directly related to Internet usage.
H4: Deficient Internet self-regulation will be directly related to Internet habit strength.
H5: Internet self-efficacy will be directly related to Internet habit strength.

The causal relationship of prior Internet experience to Internet self-efficacy has

also been verified in college student populations (Eastin & LaRose, 2000). Self-
efficacy i s conceived as the product of progressive mastery of behavior that increases
with experience. If habit i s simply a recurring behavior pattern, then the amount of
prior experience with the Internet should be directly related to habit strength.
Theoretically, repetition fosters a growing inattentiveness to behavior, undermining
self-monitoring. Triandis (1980) pointed out that the best predictor of behavior is past
behavior. Indeed, this truism may be largely responsible for the scant attention paid
to habits in media research, since it has the ring of a tautology: One measure of
behavior predicts another mlasure of behavior (and so what?). However, we propose
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 365

that the impact of prior experience on current behavior is explainable entirely

through the causal paths among socio-cognitive constructs.

H6: Prior Internet experience will be directly related to Internet self-efficacy.

H7: Prior Internet experience will be directly related to Internet habit strength.

To complete the model of Internet usage, the role of outcome expectations (a.k.a
uses and gratifications) also must be specified. LaRose et al. (2003) examined a single
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

type of outcome expectation, self-reactive outcomes, which uses and gratifications

researchers would perhaps recognize as “pass time” gratifications. They found that
self-reactive outcome expectations were causally related to Internet usage and also
acted on Internet usage through deficient self-regulation. Self-reactive outcome
expectations were themselves preceded by Internet self-efficacy and followed by
habit strength.
However, other types of outcome expectations should also explain Internet usage.
LaRose et al. (2001) found that the gratifications of the Internet, reconceptualized as
outcome expectations reflecting other incentive categories recognized by SCT, were
positively related to Internet usage. However, these relationships were not arrayed in
an overall causal model and self-reactive and activity outcomes were combined to
attain satisfactory reliability. Thus, the self-reactive and activity constructs will be
separated to match the conceptual distinction between these two incentive catego-
ries.
Self-efficacy should precede each of the the various types of outcomes and habit
strength should follow them. Users need to learn how to successfully obtain social,
status, activity, novelty, and monetary gratifications as much as self-reactive ones.
But once they achieve satisfactory means for attaining those outcomes, they should
become increasingly inattentive to specific behaviors that support them.
Past research expended a great deal of effort distinguishing gratification dimen-
sions, but from the SCT perspective expected outcomes are a unitary construct,
representing the mechanism of learning through experience. Thus, we represent
gratifications, now understood to be different types of expected outcomes grouped
into six incentive categories, as first-order concepts that are part of a second-order
construct, outcome expectations.

H8: Expected a) activity, b) social, c) status, d) novel, e) self-reactive, and 0 monetary

Internet outcomes will be directly related to Internet usage.
H9: Internet self-efficacy will be directly related to expected Internet outcomes.
H10: Expected Internet outcomes will be directly related to Internet habit strength.

An important exception is noted for the relationship between self-reactive out-

comes and deficient self-regulation. Self-reactive outcomes bear a unique relation-
ship to deficient self-regulation. The use of the media to adjust internal states should
 366 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

be the main type of incentive susceptible to triggering the spiral of excessive usage
and dysphoria thought to lead to problematic media usage. Thus,

H11: Self-reactive outcomes of Internet usage will be positively related to deficient

Internet self-regulation.

These hypothesized relationships are represented in the path diagram shown in

Figure 1. The final path analysis (see Results, below) was identical except for one
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

path that was proposed but not statistically significant, another that narrowly missed
significance (both indicated by light dotted lines) and another that was not initially
proposed but uncovered during analysis (indicated by a heavy dotted line). In the
interest of space only the final path diagram is shown. For the sake of clarity the word
"Internet" has been omitted from the labels in figures and tables.

Figure 1
Path Analysis Model

Experience

Note: x2 = 62.3, d f = 34, CFI = ,994,RMSEA = ,071. All path coefficients shown are
significant, p < .05. I
 LaRose and EastidSOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 367

Research Methods

Procedure

To obtain a diverse sample of the general population of adult Internet users,

respondents were recruited by mail from two Midwestern communities to complete
an online survey in April and May of 2002. Both communities included a major
university and surrounding counties. A commercial mailing list vendor provided a
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

random sample of household addresses in the designated communities. The initial

mailing included a letter advising respondents of the purpose of the study and their
rights as human subjects. Half the letters requested that the survey be filled out by a
male head of household and the other half by a female head of household, if such
a person were available. Also included in the envelope was a nominal cash incentive
and a postcard with the URL and a respondent ID for the survey. Internet users were
instructed to use the card and ID number the next time they went on the Internet.
Non-users were instructed to indicate their gender and year of birth and return the
card by mail so that response rates could be calculated and the results compared to
US. Census data.

Respondents

Of the 1100 solicitations sent, 170 (15%) bad addresses were returned; leaving a
total usable sample of 930. A total of 331 responded to the solicitation. One hundred
and seventy-two Internet users completed the survey and 159 returned the non-
Internet user postcard (36% total response rate). Recent research assessing response
rates (Yun & Trumbo, 2000) indicates that the present rates were consistent with
methods employing Web surveys. A rule of thumb for structural equation modeling,
and also for regression analysis, is that there be 10 respondents for each linW
relationship.in the model. The proposed model has 16 links so the sample size was
deemed adequate. There were no response difference by city and thus data were
collapsed. As a total sample ( N = 331) participants were 55% male and 45% female.
The general population in the counties surveyed was 50% female (U.S. Census,
2002). Six percent of the participants were between the ages of 18-24 (census
population = 17%), 48% were between the ages of 25-44 (census population =
30%) 34% were between 45-65 years old (census population = 40%), and finally,
13% were over the age of 65 (census population = 14%). The respondentswere thus
a somewhat biased sample of the respective populations from which they were
drawn. However, a diverse sample of adult respondents was obtained and therefore
this sample was deemed suitable for the purpose of this study which was to examine
relationships between variables.
The non-Internet users ( N = 159) were 48% male and 52% female and their mean
age was 52 years old. Given current estimates of Internet penetration (54%, NTIA,
 368 Journalof Broadcasting & Electronic MedialSeptember 2004

2002) we estimated that respondents at 504 (out of 938) of the valid addresses had
access to the Internet, and thus, could have completed the online survey. Therefore,
we estimate that the 172 people who completed the survey represent an Internet user
response rate of 34%. Of those, 41 % were female and 58% were male (with 1% not
indicating their gender) with an average age of 42 years old. Eighty-nine percent
were Caucasian, 5% were African American, 2% were Latino and the remaining 4%
were Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, or other. Forty-two percent of the
sample had average household incomes under $50,000; the remaining 58% had
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

incomes greater than $50,000. Educationally, participants ranged between 9-22

years beyond kindergarten (Mean = 16, S.D. = 2.61). Six respondents were removed
from the sample for incomplete data, yielding a final sample of 167. A common rule
of thumb in structural equation modeling is to have 10 cases for each link in the
model. The proposed model had 16 links and so the size of the sample was deemed
adequate.
Compared to an NTlA (2002) study completed in fall of 2001, the present sample
tended to be older, better educated (including more with advanced degrees and
fewer with high school diplomas), and disproportionately male. There were no
income differences. There were few significant relationships betkeen demographic
variables and the main explanatory variables (females had lower self-efficacy, r =
.26, and less deficient self regulation, r = -.20, than males, and age was negatively,
r = -.I 5, related to self-efficacy), and no significant correlations with the dependent
variable so sample bias was not deemed an important issue. Within Social Cognitive
Theory, demographic differences are attributed to explanatory variables (e.g., fe-
males have lower Internet self-efficacy due to the nature of their past experiences
with the Internet).

Operational Measures

The questionnaire was introduced with the following description of Internet use:
“Internet use includes sending or receiving electronic mail, visiting chatrooms,
participating in discussion groups and visiting locations on the World-Wide Web.”
No distinction was made between work and leisure activity.
The usual procedure for analyzing gratifications in the uses and gratifications
tradition is to conduct an exploratory factor analysis of the gratification items.
However, in the present research a priori theoretical assumptions about the nature of
the expected outcomes were available, in the form of the incentive categories
recognized in SCT. Items were collected from prior uses and gratifications studies,
rephrased as outcome expectations (i.e., “using the Internet how likely are you
t o . . .” on a scale of 1-7, where 1 was very unlikely and 7 very likely, cf. Ajzen,
1985). These statements of outcome expectations were classified into SCT incentive
categories by consulting the conceptual definitions found in Bandura (1 986, pp. 233)
and supplemented with items reflecting status and monetary incentives that were
underrepresented in uses and gratifications research (cf. LaRose et al., 2001). Six
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 369

categories of expected outcomes, one representing each incentive category, were

subjected to confirmatory factor analyis. The means qnd standard deviations of the
scales and their component items, along with confirmatory factor analysis results and
their alpha coefficients, are found in Table 1.
Previous research (LaRose et al., 2003) left the distinction between habit strength
and deficient self-regulation unclear. Accordingly, new items were developed by
drawing upon theoretical works describing habitual behavior (Aarts et al, 1998;
Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994; Oulette & Wood, 1998) and LaRose et al.’s previous
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

description of deficient self-regulation. The pool of items was subjected to an

exploratory principal components factor analysis using varimax rotation. Two inter-
pretable factors emerged, also shown in Table 1. These factors seemed to reflect the
distinction between the self-observation subfunction of self-regulation on the one
hand and the judgmental process and self-reactive subfunctions on the other hand.
The Internet Self-Efficacy Scale (Eastin & LaRose, 2000) was replicated (Table 1).
Also from that study, a measure of Internet experience was computed by asking the
number of years and months it had been since the respondent first started using the
Internet.
The dependent Internet usage variable was the sum of the total number of minutes
‘
spent on the Internet in the typical weekday, the typical weekend day, and the day
prior to the survey. An inspection of the distributions of responses to these items
revealed that outliers were present and so a loglO(1+value) transform was applied
to each one before summing the three items. The resulting composite index had a
Cronbach alpha of .66 (M = 5.17, S.D. = 1.59).

Data Analysis

Pearson product;moment correlation coefficients and exploratory factor analyses

were calculated using SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS, Inc., 2002). Structural equation
analysis was completed with Amos version 4.0 (Arbuckle, 1999).

Results

Pearson product-moment correlations among the independent and dependent

variables are shown in Table 2 and the results of structural equation modeling are
shown in Figure 1. The model shown was a good fit to the data (2 = 62.3, df = 34,
RMSEA = .994, CFI = .071). As hypothesized, Internet usage was directly predicted
by expected Internet outcomes (p = .29), Internet habit strength ( p = .26), and
deficient Internet self-regulation ( p = .15). The individual activity ( r = .40), monetary
( r = .27), novel ( r = .36), social ( r = .44), self-reactive ( r = .46), and status ( r = .53)
expected outcome categories all had significant ( p < .001) zero-order correlations
with usage. Expected Internet outcomes were a second-order factor consisting of
status, activity, self-reactive, social, novel sensory, and monetary incentives, pre-
 Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Scale Results
Scale/ltem Mean 5.D. beta
Expected Outcomes:
Activity Outcomes 2 = 7.9, df = 2, a = .79 4.55 1.40
Cheer myself up 4.10 1.70 1.00
Play a game I like 4.30 2.09 .98
Feel entertained 5.12 1.48 .77
Hear music I like 4.67 1.82 .75
Monetary Outcomes ,$ = .1, df = 1, a = .73 4.53 1.28
Find bargains on products and services 4.88 1.64 1.00
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

Save time shopping 4.51 1.96 .73

Get free information that would otherwise cost me money 5.17 1.52 .47
Get products for free 3.55 1.71 .41
Novel Outcomes ,$ = .5, df = 2, a = .73 5.54 1.00
Get immediate knowledge of big news events 5.78 1.49 1.00
Find a wealth of information 5.98 1.1 1 .99
Find new interactive features 4.51 1.60 .84
Obtain information that I can't find elsewhere 5.89 1.14 .62
Social Outcomes 2 = 2.9, df = 2, a = .89 3.75 1.60
Get support from others 3.69 1.79 1.00
Find something to talk about 3.93 1.86 .96
Feel like I belong to a group 3.36 1.75 .95
Maintain a relationship I value 4.01 1.92 .72
Find others who respect my views 3.67 1.68 .76
Find people like me 3.96 1.57 .61
Provide help to others 4.57 1.69 .64
Self-Reactive Outcomes 2 = 3.9, df = 4, a = .79 4.34 1.21
Relieve boredom 4.64 1.87 1.00
Find a way to pass the time 5.22 1.58 .83
Feel less lonely 3.39 1.68 .52
Forget my problems 3.50 1.68 .50
Feel relaxed 4.98 1.29 .34
Status Outcomes ,$ = 5.3, df = 4, a = .77 4.32 1.17
Find others who respect my views 3.67 1.68 1.00
Find people like me 3.96 1.57 .84
Improve my future prospects in life 4.48 1.51 .67
Get up to date with new technology 4.90 1.65 $4
Provide help to others 4.57 1.69 .64
Habit Strength ,$ = 2.7, df = 2, a = .75 4.19 1.49
I find myself going online about the same time each day. 4.03 2.12 1.00
The Internet is part of my usual routine. 5.02 1.82 .91
I would miss the Internet if I could no longer go online. 4.94 1.93 .74
Deficient Self-Regulation,$ = 15.3, df = 13, a = .93 1.83 1.12
I have a hard time keeping my Internet use under control. 2.07 1.45 1.00
I have to keep using the Internet more and more to get my thrill. 1.78 1.30 .97
I get tense, moody, or irritable if I can't get on the Web when I want. 1.90 1.45 .97
I have tried unsuccessfully to cut down on the amount of time I spend online. 1.90 1.37 .93
I sometimes try to conceal how much time I spend online from my family or
friends. 1.82 1.46 .89
I would go out of my way to satisfy my Internet urges. 1.77 1.24 .83
I feel my Internet use is out of control. 1.56 1.00 .70
Online Experience (months) 68.9 36.5
Internet Self-Efficacy, a = .93 4.82 1.34
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 371

Table 2
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
1. Activity 1.oo
2. Monetary .39" 1.00
3. Novel .44** .61" 1.oo
4. Social .48*' .31** .39" 1 .oo
5. Self-reactive .73** .40** .45** .62** 1.00
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

6. Status .64** .46** .55** .74" .67** 1.00

7. Self-efficacy .3 1 ** .41** .56** .35** .39** .53** 1.00
8. Habit Strength .37** .35** .42" .49*" .51" .45" .38** 1.00
9. Def. Self-reg .32** .07 .19* .38'* .43** .37** .20* .52" 1.00
10. Experience .09 .24** .28** .25** .08 .24'* .36** .30** .16** 1 .OO
1 1 . Usage .40** .27** .36*' .44** .46'* .53** .43** .S4** .43** .35**

Note: * p < .OS. **p < ,001.

ceded by Internet self-efficacy (p = .55). Internet habit strength was predicted by

expected Internet outcomes (p = .26). Deficient self-regulation predicted Internet
habit strength (p = 3 9 ) and was itself causally determined by self-reactive outcomes
(p = .43). Finally, Internet self-efficacy was also predicted by prior Internet experi-
ence (p = .38). However, the hypothesized relationships between prior experience
and Internet habit strength was not significant (p = .03, p = .63). The relationship
between Internet self-efficacy and habit strength (p = .14, p = .069) narrowly missed
significance.
An inspection of the modification indices suggested a causal link from self-efficacy
to novel expected outcomes. Since this outcome category represents information
seeking on the Internet and the task of seeking useful information i s likely to require
a high degree of confidence in one's ability, this was accepted as a logical extension
to the model. Correlated error terms between self-reactive outcomes and both
activity ( r = .44) and social outcomes ( r = .18), and between novel and monetary
outcomes ( r = .37), not shown, were added to improve fit. The model explained
42.2% of the variance in the dependent variable, Internet usage.

Discussion

The present results both affirm the uses and gratifications paradigm and extend it
to a theory of media attendance grounded in Social Cognitive Theory. A basic
implication of uses and gratifications, that media exposure may be predicted from
media gratifications, was upheld. Indeed, by instituting new operational measures of
expected gratifications, it was possible to predict media consumption to an unprec-
edented degree. However, new variables from SCT improved the explanatory power
of gratifications, here reconstrued as outcome expectations.
 372 Journalof Broadcasting ti Electronic Mediaheptember 2004

Expected activity outcomes, which closely parallel entertainment gratifications in

uses and gratifications research, and social outcomes/gratifications were significantly
related to usage, as they had been in prior uses and gratifications research involving
college students (e.g., Kaye, 1998; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000), but with more
variance explained by the current expected outcomes formulation. Unlike the
previous studies, novel outcomes (paralleling information gratifications), self-reac-
tive outcomes (parallel to “pass time” gratifications) were also significantly related to
usage, when conceived as expected outcomes of Internet usage. Monetary out-
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

comes, somewhat overlooked in previous research, were also significantly related to

usage. Status outcomes, a gratification/outcome dimension identified by SCT but
underrepresented in prior uses and gratifications research, had the highest zero-
correlations with Internet usage of all. The perceived ability of the Internet to
improve one’s lot in life thus emerges as a powerful motivating factor for the use of
the medium.
Uses and gratifications research, including Internet studies, have tended to sub-
sume habit in other gratifications dimensions, usually under either an entertainment
or “pass time” factor. Here, it emerged as a powerful and independent predictor of
media exposure even after the effects of gratifications soughtlexpected outcomes had
been accounted for. This finding supports the conceptualization of habit strength as
a distinct construct from gratifications/expected outcomes. The correlation between
habit strength and expected outcomes perhaps indicated the availability of memories
of past active media selection processes, in the form anticipated by uses and
gratifications research, that had become dormant with repetition. In this vein, among
newer Internet users (those who had been online less than three years) the correla-
tions between expected outcomes and usage were higher than among those with
more experience. For example, the correlation between activity outcomes and usage
was .54 for new users, compared to .34 for the more experienced ones. This could
well indicate that the newer users were making active media selection decisions on
the basis of expected outcomes while veteran users had lapsed into more habitual
modes of Internet consumption.
The relationship of habit and deficient self-regulation was further clarified. Habit
perhaps indicates a failure of the first of the three subfunctions of self-regulation
proposed by SCT, self-observation. As such, this aspect of unregulated media
behavior i s closely related to notions of automaticity (Bargh & Collwitzer, 1994).
Deficient self-regulation derives from the failure of the judgmental and self-reactive
subprocesses of self-regulation. It reflects a conscious failure of self-control wherein
individuals struggle with themselves to judge their own behavior against appropriate
standards and to apply incentives to moderate their consumption. The findings
supported the proposed theoretical relationship between the two constructs wherein
deficient self-regulation adds to habit strength.
internet self-efficacy causally preceded Internet usage and was in turn determined
by prior Internet experience as it was in previous college student samples (Eastin &
LaRose, 2000). The hypothPsized relationship between self-efficacy and habit
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 373

strength was not observed, falling just short of statistical significance. It appears that
self-efficacy acts on habit strength through expected outcomes. The inattentiveness
to one's own behavior that signals habit formation thus could be more determined by
a gradual cessation of active thinking about outcomes/gratifications rather than
inattentiveness accompanying task mastery.
The lack of a causal connection between experience and habit strength,
despite a significant zeio-order correlation ( r = .30, p < .OOl), belies the rival
"tautology hypothesis" about the role of habit i n human behavior; namely, that
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

habit is "just'' prior behavior and that relationships between two measures of
behavior are not theoretically meaningful. An alternative causal model in which
a direct link from experience (prior behavior) to usage (current behavior) was
hypothesize also failed to produce a significant relationship, and did not diminish
the causal link between habit and usage, again despite a highly significant
zero-order correlation ( r = .35, p < .001) between experience and usage. These
findings suggest that habit strength indeed has an impact on behavior that can be
described in social cognitive terms.
The Internet emerges from the present study as something of a distinctive
medium, but perhaps not in ways previously described. It i s not primarily a social
medium (e.g., Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000), but also a medium through which
enjoyable activity, self-reactive, monetary, novel (i.e., informational), and, above
all, status incentives can be obtained. That the Internet i s a medium of social
interaction i s indisputable, but a question now arises as to the purpose of the
social interaction. Prior research surrounding the Internet Paradox (Kraut, Patter-
son, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998) focused on social
interaction as a means of securing social support and thereby improving psycho-
logical well-being. Now it appears that social status, not social support, might be
the prime mover in Internet usage. Perhaps by finding like-minded individuals on
the Internet and expressing ourselves i n those venues we enhance our social
status. Or, recalling Turkle's (1 995) Life on the Screen ethnography, perhaps the
Internet i s a means of constantly exploring and trying out new, improved versions
of our selves. From this we should begin to empirically explore online personal
development (as self or with virtual others) as well as social maintenance (a
support mechanism).

Limitations

The generalizability of the present research is limited by the geographic scope of

the sample. The sample contained disproportionately small representations of young
people and males. As a one-shot survey study, the direction of causation cannot be
established. Indeed, within SCT reciprocal causation is recognized. For example,
self-efficacy is a precondition for successful Performance of a behavior, but success-
ful performance also increases self-efficacy.
 374 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Mediaheptember 2004

Implications for Further Research

Internet usage was broadly defined. Future research might distinguish Internet
applications (eg, e-mail vs online chat), functions (e.g., entertainment vs news Web
sites), or settings ( e g , work vs leisure). However, in keeping with the operational
procedures recommended in SCT, it will be important to match the explanatory
constructs (e.g., expected e-mail outcomes. e-mail self-efficacy, e-mail habits, etc.)
to achieve satisfactory results.
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

Habit strength, deficient self-regulation, and self-efficacy might extend to other

forms of media attendance. Many media consumption behaviors (e.g., tuning in
the evening news) would seem to be habit-prone. While few mass media require
skills as complex as the Internet, there are perhaps parallel media self-efficacy
constraints. Anyone who has ever given up recording a favorite show because
programming the recorder was ”too much hassle” may be said to suffer from a
self-efficacy deficit. Television addiction has been described (by Kubey & Csik-
szentmihalyi, 2002) in the same terms of behavioral addiction that underlie
deficient self-regulation. Here, we found the construct useful i n explaining media
attendance i n a normal population of media consumers; perhaps that would
extend to other media as well.
The present research suggests new departures from uses and gratifications tradi-
tions. Redefining gratifications as expected outcomes may have merit on both
conceptual and operational levels. Secondly, gratification dimensions from previous
research may have neglected some potentially important variables, particularly the
status that media attendance may confer. Third, habit strength appears to be a
distinct construct from gratifications, as early conceptualizations (e.g., Palmgreen et
al., 1985, p. 17) observed, but later research neglected.
More fundamentally, the present findings suggest that active selection of media
that best meet personal needs is not the sole mechanism explaining media
attendance. Active selection dominates when new media alternatives appear
or when personal routines are disrupted. Self-efficacy beliefs about one’s ability
to utilize alternative media channels may also contribute to media selection.
Thereafter, repeated consumption i s increasingly habitual and automatic as
we turn our attention elsewhere. Once habits are established, users no longer
think through whether one alternative or another is a better way of obtaining
a particular outcome. Users s t i l l monitor their overall level of Internet usage
and apply self-reactive incentives to adjust the amount to appropriate levels, as
defined by personal or social norms. But some users may lose the power to
self-regulate, perhaps through a process of operant conditioning (cf. LaRose
et al., 2003) to self-reactive outcomes, and in extreme cases they might develop
a media dependency. SCT provides a framework for integrating uses and grati-
fications mechanisms with these competing influences on individual media
attendance.
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 375

References

Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in
the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal o f Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 1355-1374.
Adams, W. (2000). How people watch television as investigated using focus group techniques.
Journal o f Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 78-94.
Ajzen, 1. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckman (Eds), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 1 1-39). Heidelberg:
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

Springer.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos 4.10.Chicago: Smallwaters Corp.
Babrow, A. S., & Swanson, D. L. (1988). Disentangling antecedents of audience exposure
levels: Extending expectancy-value analyses of gratifications sought from television news.
Communication Monographs, 55, 1-2 1.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1991 ). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bargh, J. A,, & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal directed action:
Automatic and strategic contingencies between situation and behavior. In W. D. Spaulding
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol47 (pp. 71-124). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Charney, T.,& Greenberg, B. (2001). Uses and gratifications of the Internet. In C. Lin & D.Atkin
(Eds.), Communication, technology and society: New media adoption and uses (pp.
379-407). Hampton Press.
Chou, C., & Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure
experience: The Taiwan college students' case. Computers and Education, 35, 65-80.
Dimmick, I.,Kline, S., & Stafford, L. (2000). The gratification niches of personal e-mail and the
telephone. Communication Research, 21, 22 7-248.
Eastin, M. S. (2002). From Internet use to the unique Internet user: Assessing information,
entertainment and social cognitive models of internet use. Paper presented to the National
Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. L. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital
divide. lournal o f Computer Mediated Communication. 6(1). Retrieved November 29,
2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmdvol6/issuel/eastin.html
Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications
of sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research, 41, 187-194.
Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a functional alternative to
television. Journal o f Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 155-174.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment.
Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181.
Greenberg, B. S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British
children. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses o f mass communication: Current
perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 71 -92). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the w o r l d Wide Web: From couch potato to Web
potato. New Jersey /ournal of Communication, 6, 2 1-40.
Korgaonkar, P., & Wolin, L. (1999). A multivariate analysis of Web usage. JournalofAdvertising
Research, 39, 53-68.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
 376 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002).Television addiction. Scientific American, 286(2),
74-81.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003).Unregulated internet usage: Addiction, habit, or
deficient self-regulation! Media Psychology, 5, 225-253.
LaRose, R., Mastro, D. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2001).Understanding Internet usage: A social
cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19,
395-413.
Lin, C. A. (1999).Online-service adoption likelihood. Journal of Advertising Research, 39,
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013

79-89.
Marlatt, G. A,, Baer, J. S., Donovan, D. M., & Kivlahan, D. R. (1988).Addictive behaviors:
Etiology and treatment. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 223-252.
Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996).The Internet as a mass medium. Journal o f Communication, 46,
39-50.
Newhagen, J. E., & Rafaeli, S. (1996).Why communication researchers should study the
Internet: A dialogue. Journal o f Communication, 46, 4-13.
NTlA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2002).A nation online:
H o w Americans are expanding their use of the lnternet Retrieved October 23,2002 from
World Wide Web: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/htmI/anationonline2. htm.
Ouellette, J. A,, & Wood, W. (1998).Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple
processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
54-74.
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L., & Rosengren, K. (1 985).Uses and gratifications research: The past
ten years. In K. Rosengren, L. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research
(pp. 1 1 -37).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000).Predictors of Internet usage. Journal o f Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.
Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000).
A uses and gratifications perspective on the Internet as a new
information source. American Business Review, 18, 43-49.
Perse, E., & Greenberg Dunn, D. (1998).The utility of home computers and media use:
Implications of multimedia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
42, 435-456.
Pew Research Center (2002).The internet goes to college: H o w students are living in the
future with today's technology. Retrieved October 20, 2002 from the Web: http://
www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71.
Rich, A. R., & Scovel, M. (1987).Causes of depression in college students: A cross-laggedpanel
correlational analysis. Psychological Reports. 60, 27-30.
Rosenstein, A. W., & Grant, A. E. (1 997).Reconceptualizing the role of habit: A new model of
television audience activity. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 4 1, 324-344.
Rubin, A. M. (1983)Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and
motivations. Journal o f Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.
Rubin, A. M. (1 984).Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communica-
tion, 34, 67-77.
Ruggerio, T. (2000).Uses and gratifications theory in the 21" century. Mass Communication
and Society, 3(1),3-38.
Song, I.,LaRose, R., Eastin, M.S., & Lin, C. (2004).Internet gratification and internet addiction:
O n the uses and abuses of new media. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7,385-395.
SPSS, Inc. (2002).SPSS for Windows, Version 1 1.5.Chicago, IL: Author.
Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (2001).Identifying motivations for the use of commercial Web
sites. Information Resources Management Journal, 74,22-30.
Stone, C., & Stone, D. (1990).Lurking in the literature: Another look at media use habits. Mass
Communications Review, 17, 25-33.
Triandis, H.C. (1980).Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe & M. M.
 LaRose and Eastin/SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF INTERNET USES 377

Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. VoI. 37 (pp. 195-259). Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of ;he Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
U.S. Census Bureau (2002). State & county quickfacts. Retrieved from the Web on October 25,
2002: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
Yun G . & Trumbo, C. (2000). Comparative response to survey executed by post, e-mail & web
form. journal o f Computer Mediated Communication, 6, Available [Online]: http://ww-
w.ascusc.orgljcmc/vol6/issuel
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 14:15 22 June 2013