Communication Technology Adoption and Ethnicity

Abstract

A national telephone survey was conducted to examine differences in communication technology adoption across Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics and identify adoption predictors based on demographics, media use, and perceptions of new technologies for each ethnic group. Results revealed few ethnic variations in individual communication technologies penetration. Even after controlling for socioeconomic variables, ethnicity remained a significant source of influence on communication technology adoption. Although income was the only common predictor in the adoption regressions within each ethnic group, perceived relative advantage of new technologies and household size were also important determinants for White and Black respondents.

Ethnicity, digital divides and uses of the Internet for health information

“…These disadvantaged groups may be less able to avail themselves to such information due to their lack of access, skills, motivation or knowledge-based media habits (Dupagne & Salwen, 2005;Hargittai, 2008;NTIA, 2004NTIA, , 2010Rice, 2006; van Dijk, 2006;Vigdor & Ladd, 2010;Whitten et al, 2009), even though their need for health information is as great as in privileged communities (Davis, 2002;Detlefsen, 2004;Pingree & Hawkins, 1996;Wyatt, 2005).…”

“…Internet self-efficacy is defined as what a person believes he or she can accomplish online, as opposed to one's actual skill or proficiency in performing specific tasks (e.g., Khorrami-Arani, 2001). Studies on web adoption (Dupagne & Salwen, 2005;Eastin & LaRose, 2000) maintain that the digital divide resulted not only from the lack of access of computer users, but also from a lack of self-efficacy in the use of the Internet (or internet efficacy). Although the concept can reflect dimensions of information search and recognition skills (i.e., skills efficacy), it can also encompass an individual's determination to invest time and effort to take charge of their own health (i.e., action efficacy).…”

“…Dupagne and Salwen (2005) emphasize the critical public policy debate driving this issue, one defined in terms of disparities in internet access among different social groups. Representative concerns might reflect, for instance, uncertainties among novice users about how to get started on the Internet, discomfort with the technology, and hesitancy to adopt due to a belief that computers are too complicated (e.g., Bowen et al, 2003;Dobransky & Hargittai, 2012;Hargittai, 2009;Lee, 2009;Murero & Rice, 2006;Rice, 2006).…”

Acceptance by the Public of the Virtual Delivery of Public Services

“…Also the role ethnicity might have on acceptance of virtual technologies is an interesting direction for future research. Some research suggests that there are small but noticeable effects (Dupagne & Salwen, 2005;Kim, Jung, & Ball-Rokeach, 2007). Longitudinal studies of the acceptance of virtual technologies are another promising area for future research (Venkatesh et al, 2003).…”

Situatedness and Variations in Student Adoption of Technology Practices: Towards a Critical Techno-Pedagogy

“…For example, we have evidence that students' socioeconomic conditions, race/ethnicity, and gender affect their time to adopt, resultant levels of adoption, and their subsequent ability to participate in society (Dupagne & Salwen, 2005;Goode, 2010;Lopez, Gonzalez-Barrera, & Patten, 2013;Sun & Metros, 2011). Acquiring effective adoption and use practices is especially important for students from lower socioeconomic conditions given the social structures affecting adoption and the impact of adoption practices on societal inclusion (Goode, 2010;Warschauer, Knobel & Stone, 2004).…”