CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The data reported in this section were collected using a paper survey instrument (see Appendix C), a computer-administered survey instrument (see Appendix D), and content analyses of WWW sites. The analyses applied to these data include: descriptive statistics, t tests, principal components analyses and scale reliability, contingency table analyses, correlational analyses, and multiple regression analyses.

Demographic Variables

Respondents to the paper survey (n = 791) ranged in age from 10-21 years (M = 14.45) and were enrolled in the 6th grade (12%), 7th grade (130, 17%), 8th grade (123, 16%), 9th grade (14%), 10th grade (15%), 11th grade (12%), and the 12th grade (16%). Average self-reported grade point average (GPA) was 3.28, and 51% were male. Ethnicity of respondents is as follows: American Indian (2%), Asian (3%), Black (9%), Hispanic (16%), White (69%), and other (2%). Table 4.1 summarizes the frequencies of respondents to the paper survey instrument.

Table 4.1

Frequencies for the Paper Survey Instrument

Age (Q71) n 10 2 11 57 12 104 13 125 14 114 15 116 16 103 17 117 18 43 19 3 21 1

 

Grade (Q72) n 6th grade 91 7th grade 130 8th grade 123 9th grade 106 10th grade 120 11th grade 93 12th grade 125

 

GPA (Q73) n less than 1.0 1 1.0-1.5 10 1.6-2.0 48 2.1-2.5 27 2.6-3.0 140 3.1-3.5 188 3.6-4.0 219 above 4.0 3

 

	Gender (Q74) n Male 397 Female 381
	Ethnicity (Q75) n American Indian 15 Asian 20 Black 67 Hispanic 123 White 533 other 13

Descriptive statistics for the interval-level demographic variables from the paper survey instrument are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Descriptives for Demographic Variables from the Paper Survey Instrument

Measures Range M SD n Demographic Variables         Age (Q71) 10-21 14.45 2.06 785 Grade (Q72) 6-12 9.03 1.98 788 GPA (Q73) 1-4.14 3.28 0.62 635

 

Respondents to the computer-administered survey (n = 1083) were enrolled in the 6th grade (5%), 7th grade (21%), 8th grade (19%), 9th grade (14%), 10th grade (15%), 11th grade (12%), and the 12th grade (16%). Of these, 59% were male. Table 4.3 summarizes the frequencies of respondents to the computer-administered survey instrument.

Table 4.3

Frequencies for the Computer-Administered Survey Instrument

Demographic Variables n Grade (Q1)   6th grade 50 7th grade 216 8th grade 192 9th grade 142 10th grade 155 11th grade 123 12th grade 162 Gender (Q2)   male 615 female 432 Amount of time spent using the WWW(Q3)   less than 1 hour/week 377 1-2 hours/week 242 3-5 hours/week 187 6-10 hours/week 64 more than 10 hours/week 173

 

Results of the Paper Survey Instrument

The following sections will present the results from the 75-item paper survey (see Appendix C) that was administered to 791 students in 10 public schools located in five public school districts in the state of Colorado. Of those who completed the paper survey instrument, 644 (81%) indicated that they use the WWW at school, while 147 (19%) indicated that they do not.

Table 4.4

Measurement Summary for the Paper Survey Instrument

Measures Range M SD Cronbach alpha WWW affinity (Q1-5) 5-25 12.57 4.12 .83           WWW skill (Q14-17) 4-20 13.86 3.25 .78           WWW use motives (Q21-70)         Research and learning 12-60 41.52 9.25 .89 Easy access to entertainment 8-40 28.77 6.06 .84 Communication and social interaction 6-30 18.12 5.40 .82 Something to do when bored 5-25 17.52 4.28 .81 Access to things otherwise unavailable 4-20 13.61 3.08 .60 Product info and tech support 4-20 12.26 3.42 .65 Games & sexually explicit material 4-20 11.91 3.41 .62 Consumer transactions 2-10 5.68 2.09 .58

 

Attitudes Toward the WWW

The first research question to be addressed focused on students’ attitudes about the WWW and its defining characteristics. Questionnaire items 1 through 5 were statements designed with the goal of determining the students’ affinity for the WWW. This was operationalized by summing five Likert-scale responses with results ranging from 5-25 (M = 12.57, SD = 4.12, Cronbach’s alpha = .83). The statement "Using the WWW is very important to me" received the strongest support (M = 3.05) while the statement "I would feel lost without the WWW" received the least (M = 1.97). The fourth statement, "I could easily do without the WWW for several days" was rotated before statistical analysis was performed.

The next set of items (questions 6, 7, and 8) were designed to explore the students’ beliefs about the WWW—in particular the WWW’s value as a source of information, entertainment, and as a means of communication. As a source of information (M = 1.68, 1 = excellent, 4 = poor), students rated the WWW as "excellent" 44% of the time, "good" 46% of the time, "fair" 9% of the time, and "poor" 2% of the time. As a source of entertainment (M = 1.90), students rated the WWW as "excellent" 36% of the time, "good" 42% of the time, "fair" 18% of the time, and "poor" 4% of the time. And as a means of communication (M = 1.78), students rated the WWW as "excellent" 42% of the time, "good" 42% of the time, "fair" 14% of the time, and "poor" 3% of the time. Based on these responses, students rate the WWW highest for information, followed by communication, and then entertainment (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1

Rating the WWW as a Source of Information and Entertainment, and a Means for Communication

Continuing with this line of inquiry, respondents were asked to associate the WWW with traditional media. Expectancy-value theory as outlined in Chapter 2 and Salomon’s (1984) research comparing children’s perceptions of television and print suggests that students’ perception of the WWW as being more like print or television will likely affect their expectations and use of the WWW. Given a choice between "print-book/magazine," "audio/visual-television," or "other" media, 304 (50%) chose audio/visual-television while 247 (41%) of the respondents chose print-book/magazine. To the same question 23 (4%) students responded by checking both print and audio/visual options or by writing in "both" as a response, while 32 (5%) wrote in a variety of "other" responses (see Appendix E). Figure 4.2 visually presents a comparison of responses to this item.

Figure 4.2

Comparing the WWW to Traditional Media

Because a student’s skill level with computers in general, and with the WWW specifically, was believed to be a determining factor in how the student uses the WWW, questions were posed that required respondents to assess their skill at using computers and the WWW. The most common response to a general question asking overall skill at using computers was "good" (47%), followed by "average" (30%), "excellent" (20%), and "below average" (3%). Additional questions asked students how long they have being using the WWW, how many times per week, and how many hours per week they use the WWW. To the question, "For how long have you been using the World-Wide Web?" the most common response was "1-2 years" (32%), followed by "more than 2 years" (29%), "6 mo.-1 year" (23%) and "less than 6 months" (17%). To the question, "Approximately how many times per week do you use the World-Wide Web?" the most common response was "1-2 times" (35%), followed by "less than 1" (28%), "3-5 times" (23%), and "more than 5 times" (15%). And in response to the question "About how many hours per week do you use the World-Wide Web?" respondents answered "1-2 hours" (34%), "less than 1" (33%), "3-5 hours" (20%), "6-10 hours" (9%), and "10+ hours" (5%).

An additional four items assessed the respondent’s skill at using the WWW. Students’ self-reported skill at using the WWW was operationalized as the sum of responses to four Likert-scales. Statement 16, "I know less about using the World-Wide Web than most users," was rotated before statistical analysis was performed. Skill at using the WWW ranged from 4 to 20 (M = 13.86, SD = 3.25, Cronbach’s alpha = .78).

Reasons for Using the WWW

Questionnaire items 21 through 60 addressed reasons why students might choose to use the WWW. As described in Chapter Three, these items were generated from statements made by middle school and high school students who responded anonymously to an open-ended question asking them to list several things "that the World-Wide Web is good for." Additional use statements were taken from fill-in-the-blank responses to the computer survey questionnaire in the pilot study. Table 4.5 provides a summary of students’ responses to the 40 use statements.

Table 4.5

Measurement Summary for WWW Use Statements

Statement M SD n I use the WWW…       to find things not in the library. 3.53 1.04 630 to chat with other people. 3.18 1.25 631 because it is convenient. 3.56 1.01 629 because it is a good source of news. 3.60 1.03 632 to download software and other free stuff. 2.99 1.23 630 to complete homework assignments. 3.38 1.16 630 to find people. 2.81 1.19 632 to get sports information and statistics. 3.14 1.29 632 for shopping and making purchases. 2.38 1.20 630 to look up music and concert information. 3.30 1.29 633 to get up-to-date facts and information. 3.53 1.09 631 to get sounds, picture, or animations for projects. 3.64 1.11 631 to access sexually explicit sites. 1.97 1.35 631 to learn how to use computers better. 3.12 1.19 631 because it’s so easy. 3.40 1.03 532 because it’s fun. 3.80 0.95 630 to learn new things. 3.72 0.94 632 to play games. 3.56 1.11 630 because it’s exciting. 3.40 1.09 631 so that I can have foreign language friends. 2.50 1.10 626 for entertainment. 3.70 1.06 628 to get product information. 3.14 1.14 626 to e-mail friends. 3.67 1.20 626 to find interesting things. 3.78 1.00 626 because it provides a new outlook on learning. 3.25 1.11 626 to talk with people from around the world. 2.98 1.27 625 because it’s educational. 3.18 1.17 623 to get information about games. 3.25 1.24 625 because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me. 3.52 1.16 624 to find articles and references. 3.63 1.07 627 for browsing. 3.57 1.04 627 to get technical support. 2.89 1.13 626 to meet new people. 2.98 1.26 621 because its is an excellent source of information. 3.81 1.02 625 because it gives me something to do. 3.49 1.17 627 to find out what’s going on in the world. 3.23 1.19 625 when I’m bored. 3.43 1.21 626 because computers are cool. 3.36 1.17 625 so that I can do better in school. 3.26 1.16 626 to conduct research for class. 3.75 1.06 626

 

Because of the paucity of research in uses and gratifications of the relatively new WWW, exploratory factor analysis (SPSS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation) was employed to group these use statements into categories. As described in Chapter Three, a preliminary principal components analysis was performed on an incomplete data set in order to arrive at a list of "use statements" that became part of the computer-administered survey instrument. Those seven use statements were: "for research and learning," "to communicate with other people," "for access to material otherwise unavailable," "to find something fun or exciting," "for something to do when I’m bored," "for sports and game information," and, "for shopping and consumer information." Once the complete data set was collected via the paper survey instrument, another principal components analysis was conducted. This time the result was eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 accounting for a total of 58% of the total variance (see Appendix H). These factors differed slightly from those derived from the earlier analysis.

Factor one was comprised of 12 items, (eigenvalue = 10.57, variance after rotation = 14%, alpha = .89), and suggests the WWW is used for "research and learning" (see Table 4.6). The items that make up "research and learning" and their factor loadings are as follows: "because it is a good source of news" (.49), "to complete homework assignments" (.55), "to get up-to-date facts and information" (.45), "to learn how to use computers better" (.42), "to learn new things" (.50), "because it provides a new outlook on learning" (.73), "because it’s educational" (.75), "to find articles and references" (.68), "because it’s an excellent source of information" (.68), "to find out what’s going on in the world" (.57), "so that I can do better in school" (.76), and, "to conduct research for class" (.77).

Table 4.6

Items Loading on Factor 1

Factor 1: Research and Learning Factor Loading Because it is a good source of news .49 To complete homework assignments .55 To get up-to-date facts and information .45 To learn how to use computers better .42 To learn new things † .50 Because it provides a new outlook on learning .73 Because it’s educational .75 To find articles and references .68 Because it is an excellent source of information .68 To find out what’s going on in the world .57 So that I can do better in school .76 To conduct research for class .77     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .89

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The second factor was comprised of eight items, (eigenvalue = 3.73, variance after rotation = 9%, alpha = .84), and suggests the WWW is used for "easy access to entertainment" (see Table 4.7). The items that make up "easy access to entertainment" and their factor loadings are as follows: "because it’s so easy" (.52), "because it’s fun" (.75), "to learn new things" (.55), "to play games" (.43), "because it’s exciting" (.71), "for entertainment" (.51), "to find interesting things" (.57), and, "because computers are cool" (.45).

Table 4.7

Items Loading on Factor 2

Factor 2: Easy Access to Entertainment Factor Loading Because it’s so easy .52 Because it’s fun .75 To learn new things † .55 To play games † .43 Because it’s exciting .71 For entertainment † .51 To find interesting things .57 Because computers are cool † .45     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .84

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The third factor was comprised of six items, (eigenvalue = 2.19, variance after rotation = 9%, alpha = .82), and suggests the WWW is used for "communication and social interaction" (see Table 4.8). The items that make up "communication and social interaction" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to chat with other people" (.72), "to find people" (.64), "so that I can have foreign language friends" (.59), "to e-mail friends" (.52), "to talk with people from around the world" (.79), and, "to meet new people" (.80).

Table 4.8

Items Loading on Factor 3

Factor 3: Communication and Social Interaction Factor Loading To chat with other people .72 To find people .64 So that I can have foreign language friends .59 To email friends .52 To talk with people from around the world .79 To meet new people .80     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .82

 

The fourth factor, "something to do when bored," was made up of five items, (eigenvalue = 1.68, variance after rotation = 7%, alpha = .81) (see Table 4.9). The items that make up "something to do when I’m bored" and their factor loadings are as follows: "for entertainment" (.47), "for browsing" (.51), "because it gives me something to do" (.76), "when I’m bored" (.80), and, "because computers are cool" (.43).

Table 4.9

Items Loading on Factor 4

Factor 4: Something to Do When Bored Factor Loading For entertainment † .47 For browsing .51 Because it gives me something to do .76 When I’m bored .80 Because computers are cool † .43     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .81

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The fifth factor was comprised of four items, (eigenvalue = 1.53, variance after rotation = 6%, alpha = .60), and suggests the WWW is used for "access to things otherwise unavailable" (see Table 4.10). The items that make up "access to things otherwise unavailable" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to find things not in the library" (.65), "because it is convenient" (.54), "to download software and other free stuff" (.43), and, "because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me" (.62).

Table 4.10

Items Loading on Factor 5

Factor 5: Access to Material Otherwise Unavailable Factor Loading To find things not in the library .65 Because it is convenient .54 To download software and other free stuff † .43 Because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me .62     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .60

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The sixth factor was also made up of four items, (eigenvalue = 1.17, variance after rotation = 5%, alpha = .65), and suggests the WWW is used for "product information and tech support" (see Table 4.11). The items that make up "product information and tech support" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to download software and other free stuff" (.43), "to get product information" (.49), "to get information about games" (.47), and, "to get technical support" (.61).

Table 4.11

Items Loading on Factor 6

Factor 6: Product Info and Tech Support Factor Loading To download software and other free stuff † .44 To get product information .49 To get information about games † .47 To get technical support .61     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .65

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The seventh factor was also comprised of four items (eigenvalue = 1.09, variance after rotation = 5%, alpha = .62) and suggests the WWW is used for "games and sexually explicit material" (see Table 4.12). The items that make up "games and sexually explicit material" and their factor loadings are as follows: "to get sports information and statistics" (.44), "to access sexually explicit sites" (.67), "to play games" (.54), and "to get information about games" (.47).

Table 4.12

Items Loading on Factor 7

Factor 7: Games and Sexually Explicit Sites Factor Loading To get sports information and statistics † .44 To access sexually explicit sites .67 To play games † .54 To get information about games † .51     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .62

† Denotes item that loaded highly on two factors

The eighth and final factor was comprised of two items (eigenvalue = 1.08, variance after rotation = 4%, alpha = .58) and suggests the WWW is used for "consumer transactions" (see Table 4.13). The items that make up "consumer transactions" and their factor loadings are as follows: "for shopping and making purchases" (.70), and, "to look up music and concert information" (.67).

Table 4.13

Items Loading on Factor 8

Factor 8: Consumer Transactions Factor Loading For shopping and making purchases .70 To look up music and concert information .67     Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .58

 

One item, "to get sounds, pictures, or animations for projects," did not meet the criteria for loading on any factor and was eliminated from any further analysis.

Table 4.14

Items Not Meeting Criteria for Factor Loading

Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 To get sounds, pictures, or animations for projects .259 .360 .077 .091 .366 .097 .180 .199

 

In each case, alpha reliability coefficients were computed for each factor to determine if any item had a negative effect on the overall reliability score. Item 28, "to get sports information and statistics," loaded on factor seven, and secondarily, on factor eight. However, its inclusion in factor eight caused the alpha reliability to fall from .58 to .52. For this reason item 28 was removed from factor eight and retained only on factor seven. The inclusion of item 33, "to access sexually explicit sites," in factor seven caused the alpha reliability to fall from .65 to .62. However, the item was retained for two reasons: 1) the item had a strong loading at .67 and no other loading above .08, and, the other three items comprising factor seven had high secondary loadings on other factors. So while these three items may have appeared to gain reliability by the exclusion of item 33, there appears to be some other dimension at work here. One possibility is that the items loading on factor seven are highly correlated with the WWW use and behavior of male students. In support of this hypothesis, an independent-samples t test of gender and the use of the WWW for "games and sexually explicit sites" was significant, t (610) = 139.82, p < .001.

Various approaches have been advocated with regard to criteria to apply when deciding item loading on a particular factor. McCroskey and Young (1979) advocated a conservative approach suggesting that an item be considered significant if it had a primary loading at .60 or higher on one factor, and no secondary loading above a value of .40 on any other factor. This combined with a "scree test" was advocated for determining the number of factor to retain. Stevens (1996, p. 372) took a more liberal approach by citing Guadagnoli and Velicer (1988) and concluding that "sample size" and "component saturation" are the most important issues when determining the reliability of the factors. The size of the sample in this analysis (n = 564) justified the retention of eight components as outlined above.

However, it should also be noted that several items were split on two components. Item 25, "to download software and other free stuff," was split between factors five, "access to material otherwise unavailable," and six, "product info and tech support." Item 28, "to get sports information and statistics," was split between factors seven, "games and sexually explicit sites," and eight, "consumer transactions." Item 37, "to learn new things," was split between factor one, "for research and learning," and factor two, "easy access to entertainment." Item 38, "to play games," loaded on factor two, "easy access to entertainment," and on factor seven, "games and sexually explicit sites." Two items—item 41, "for entertainment," and item 58, "because computers are cool"—were split between factors two, "easy access to entertainment," and four, "something to do when I’m bored." Item 48, "to get information about games," was split between factors six, "product info and tech support," and seven, "games and sexually explicit sites." With the exception of item 28, it was decided to include these items on both factors rather than delete the item from one or both factors. In the case of item 28, "to get sports information and statistics," reliability analysis found that the secondary loading on factor eight reduced the alpha reliability of that factor from .58 to .52, and in this instance the item was retained only on factor seven, "games and sexually explicit sites."

Considering a Simpler Component Structure

Several uses and gratifications studies have suggested that as few as two factors may actually suffice to explain most of the variance (see Cutler & Danowski, 1980; McQuail, 1984; Rubin, 1984; and Finn & Gorr, 1988). Swanson (1992) noted the emergence of "a fundamental distinction" in Cutler and Danowski’s (1980) "content and process," McQuail’s (1984) "cognitive and cultural" and Rubin’s (1984) "instrumental and ritual" gratifications (p. 310). Swanson concluded that these findings taken together reveal a distinction between, "gratifications that result from the pleasurable experience of media content and are realized during consumption (process, cultural, or ritual gratifications) and gratifications that result from learning information from media content and subsequently putting it to use in practical affairs (content, cognitive, or instrumental gratifications)" (p. 310). This dichotomy is very similar to the results of Dobos and Dimmick’s (1988) critical analysis of factor analytic methods. After analyzing the methodology employed by several uses and gratifications studies they concluded that media uses might best be understood by dividing them into two categories: cognitive and affective. Yet another study attempted to align the traditional television viewing motives "along two distinctive axes, which reflect (a) inadequacies in the viewer’s social environment and (b) a generally unconscious psychological need to regulate physiological arousal" (Finn & Gorr, 1988, p. 139) resulting in the motivation categories labeled "social compensation and mood management." With this in mind, a factor analysis was performed with a two-factor solution specified. The results are shown in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15

Rotated Factor Matrix of Gratifications Sought—Two Factor Solution

Items FAC1 FAC2 Factor 1: Education     To find things not in the library .40 .02 Because it is a good source of news .62 .15 To complete homework assignments .50 .14 To get up-to-date facts and information .57 .23 To learn how to use computers better .46 .26 To learn new things .63 .32 Because it provides a new outlook on learning .77 .13 Because it’s educational .76 -.01 To find articles and references .71 -.04 Because it is an excellent source of information .73 .10 To find out what’s going on in the world .58 .35 So that I can do better in school .72 .11 To conduct research for class .73 -.10 Factor 2: Diversion     To chat with other people -.00 .61 To download software and other free stuff .07 .54 To find people .11 .55 For shopping and making purchases .02 .41 To look up music and concert information .08 .47 Because its fun .29 .61 To play games .07 .60 Because its exciting .39 .54 So that I can have foreign language friends .21 .43 For entertainment .11 .69 To e-mail friends .18 .48 To talk with people from around the world .16 .55 To get information about games .06 .57 To meet new people .13 .60 Because it gives me something to do .07 .66 When I’m bored .03 .59 Because computers are cool .31 .50       Because it is convenient * .33 .37 To get sports information and statistics * .18 .28 To get sounds, pictures, or animations for projects * .41 .40 To access sexually explicit sites * -.26 .30 Because it’s so easy * .39 .39 To get product information * .33 .31 To find interesting things * .54 .42 Because I can access things otherwise unavailable to me * .38 .35 For browsing * .37 .44 To get technical support * .42 .43       Cronbach Alpha (for scale) .90 .90

* Denotes items that did not meet the criteria for factor loading

The two factors appear to support Swanson’s (1992) dichotomous orientation of "learning information" and "pleasurable experience." In this case these constructs might be understood using the terms "education" and "diversion." However, because of the exploratory nature of this study and in order to retain the full range of possible uses of the WWW, the eight-factor solution was retained for further data analyses.

Reasons for Avoiding the WWW

In addition to seeking reasons why students choose to use the WWW in a school setting, questions were asked in an attempt to discover possible reasons why students would choose to avoid using the WWW. Ten avoidance statements (Questions 61-70) were presented to students who were asked to respond on the same agree/disagree scale. The results are summarized in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16

Measurement Summary for Avoidance Statements

Statement M SD n I DO NOT use the WWW because…       things are too hard to find 2.11 1.13 689 I’m not very good at using computers 2.29 1.17 735 there is too much pornography out there 2.85 1.41 723 the information is not accurate or reliable 2.13 1.00 716 I don’t have access to a computer with Internet access 2.13 1.27 725 of all the sick people out there 2.64 1.28 720 there is a lot of information about illegal activity 2.70 1.26 721 computer are for nerds 1.82 1.09 728 I’d rather spend time with my friends (in person) 3.51 1.22 728 the WWW is too slow 2.71 1.