Tai-Quan Peng, Jonathan J. H. ZhuDepartment of Media and Communication

City University of Hong Kong

Internet VS. Use of Traditional Media◦ Displacing View (e.g.,

Kaye, 1998; Nie & Erbring, 2000)

◦ Complementary View (e.g., Stempel et al., 2000; Nguyen & Western, 2006)

Internet VS. Sociability◦ Pessimistic View (e.g.,

Kraut et al., 1998; Nie & Erbring, 2000)

◦ Optimistic View (e.g., Kraut et al., 2002; Lee & Zhu, 2002; Cole & Robinson, 2002) Criticisms(Nie & Hillygus, 2002):

Inadequate measurement of Internet use Limitation to bivariate analysis Causal Relationship (Nie, 2001)

Simple, but NOT trivial!◦ Uni-item to Multi-item

Sophistication of Internet Usage (SIU)◦ To quantify but NOT to

evaluate system usage (Burton-Jones and Straub, 2006)

◦ Exploratory to Confirmatory Approach

◦ Dimensionality & Construct Validity (Peng & Zhu, 2008)

Dimensions Examples

Time/Duration/Frequency

Amount of online time, in Zhu & He (2002a)

Frequency and Duration, in Compeau et al. (1999)

Year of experience, in Gravill et al. (2006)

Activities

Activity scope, in Jung et al. (2001)

Diversity of online time, in Zhu and He (2002a)

Actions, in PEW (2007)

Experience, in Gravill et al. (2006)

Skills

Skill of use, in Thompson et al. (1994)

Cognitive experience, in Rogers (2003)

ContextSite Scope, in Jung et al. (2001)

Assets, in PEW (2007)

Attitude/AffectiveEvaluation of Internet Influence, in Jung et al. (2001)

Attitudes, in PEW (2007)Source: Peng & Zhu (2008)

RQ1: Is there any difference between Internet non-user’s sociability and Internet user’s sociability?

RQ2: Is there any difference between Internet non-user’s use of traditional media and Internet user’s use of traditional media?

RQ3: With the new measurement of Internet use, SIU, what is the influence of Internet use on users’ sociability when his/her use of traditional media is controlled?

RQ4: With SIU, what is the influence of Internet use on users’ use of traditional media when his/her sociability is controlled?

Data Source: Hong Kong Internet Project (HKIP) (2003-2005)

Measurement◦ Internet Adoption: User VS.

Nonuser◦ Sophistication of Internet

Usage Online Activities – Composite

Score Online Time – Self-report Online Skill – Composite Score Diversity of Online Method –

Composite Score Diversity of Online Place – H-

Statistics ◦ Demographics: Age, Gender,

Education Degree, Family Income

Internet Adoption, Use of Traditional Media, and Sociability◦ Generalized Linear Modeling (GLM)◦ Measurement Equivalence/Invariance (ME/I) Test within

Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) ME/I: comparison of the various components of

measurement models, and can be extended to structural models and mean structures (Cheung and Rensvold, 1999)

Application: Peng & Zhu (2005) Internet Use, Use of Traditional Media, and

Sociability◦ Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

LISREL 8.0 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996)◦ Maximum Likelihood Estimation

Overall Test (F ratio for Wilks's λ) TV Radio

Newspaper

Chatting with Family Members

Playing/Exercising with FM

Shopping with FM

Internet Adoption(0 = Nonuser)

4.08 19.75** 2.99 6.67* 10.78* -0.20* 0.04

Age 19.32 -0.19 1.05*** 0.65*** -0.13 0.00 0.00* Gender(0 = Male) 5.53 14.29** -8.40 -7.77*** 3.96 0.04 0.07 Family Income 3.21 -2.72** -2.23 -0.06 0.57 0.03 0.03** Education Level 14.07 -14.50*** -7.83** 3.54*** -1.90 -0.10** -0.07** Survey Year 1.78 3.36 -2.58 -0.04 -3.87 0.07 0.07* R2 0.07 0.033 0.065 0.003 0.005 0.009*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Internet Nonuser

Internet User

Δχ2 (Δdf = 1)

Latent Means

Equivalence Test

αSOC 0 -0.07 0.02αUTM 0 -49.77*** 119.5***

Factor-covariance

Equivalence Test

rUTM,SOC -0.02 0.15* 2.89†

Four Measurement Equivalence (ME) Tests: 1. Configural Equivalence: we are not comparing apple with orange2. Metric Equivalence: measurement scale of UTM and SOC are

invariant between user and nonuser3. Latent Means Equivalence: difference of UTM and SOC between

users and nonusers4. Factor-covariance Equivalence: Correlation between UTM and

SOC

On average Internet users significantly spend less time on traditional media than Internet nonusers;

Internet users spend the same amount of time on sociability as Internet nonusers;

Internet adoption moderates the relationship between use of traditional media and sociability.

Explanatory Variables

Sophistication of Internet Usage

Use of Traditional Media

Sociability

Age -0.41*** 0.37*** 0.07

Gender -0.25*** 0.005 0.10**

Education 0.47*** -0.22*** -0.21***

Family Income 0.07*** -0.20*** 0.14***

SIU N.A. -0.13 -0.05

Use of Traditional Media Sociability

Sophistication of Internet Usage

UTM1.00

SOC0.22* 1.00

SIU-0.22** -0.17*** 1.00

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Parameters Short adoption history group

Long adoption history group

Δχ2

(Δdf = 1)

β UTM,SIU 0.09 = -2.41 1.21β SOC,SIU -0.47 = 0.27 0.05α UMT 0 = 1.48 0.38α SOC 0 > -6.50 3.17†

α SIU 0 < 1.01***62.75***

†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Strength-Level

Comparison

Mean-LevelComparison

Internet use will NOT influence users’ sociability and use of traditional media.

‘Strong effects based on bivariate analysis are almost always destined to evaporate after rigorous controls are exercised’ (Zhu & He, 2002a)

Internet users’ overall time budgets for media use may be larger than those of nonusers (Nguyen & Western, 2006), so that, even if they have to reallocate their traditional media budgets to compensate for Internet use, there must be a bottom line in their reduction.

Internet users’ use of traditional media and sociability will not be influenced by the sophistication of Internet usage, regardless of their adoption histories.

Nil-influence of the Internet? No! Zoom-in examination of delicate

mechanisms over long periods of time (Zhu & Wang, 2005)◦Time-based Measurement of UTM and Sociability◦Panel Study VS. Cross-sectional Study◦Zoom-in examination of specific Internet

activities (e.g., Web 2.0 technologies)

enwinson@cityu.edu.hkj.zhu@cityu.edu.hk