Alexander J.A.M. Van Deursen, Cedric Courtois and Jan A.G.M. Van Dijk
Alexander J.A.M. Van Deursen, Cedric Courtois and Jan A.G.M. Van Dijk
Alexander J.A.M. Van Deursen, Cedric Courtois and Jan A.G.M. Van Dijk
uk
Provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography
Alexander J.A.M. van Deursen1, Cedric Courtois2 and Jan A.G.M. van Dijk1
Abstract
This study added communication Internet skills to an existing skill framework of operational,
formal, information and strategic skills. We investigated how people deal with inadequate
skill levels by identifying support sources. Furthermore, we investigated which of the Internet
skills actually matter for attaining beneficial Internet outcomes and whether support sources
employed moderate these effects. Results of a large scale survey revealed three support
patterns: independents, social support seekers and formal help seekers. The newly added
communication skills prove to be an important addition since they have an independent effect
on beneficial Internet use. The group of independent Internet users benefited more from
Internet use than formal help seekers and much more than social support seekers. Internet
communication skills hold the potential for achieving a high degree of independence in using
the Internet by compensating for information skills so as to attain beneficial Internet
outcomes.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Table 1. Conceptual definitions for Internet skills (extended from Van Deursen & Van Dijk,
2009, 2010)
Medium-related Internet skills
Operational Operating an Internet browser, meaning:
Internet Skills Opening websites by entering the URL in a browser’s location bar;
Navigating forward and backward between pages using browser
buttons;
Saving files on a hard disk;
Opening various common file formats (e.g., PDFs);
Bookmarking websites;
Changing a browser’s preferences.
Operating Internet-based search engines, meaning:
Entering keywords in the proper field;
Executing a search operation;
Opening search results in the search result lists.
Operating Internet-based form, meanings:
Using the different types of fields and buttons;
Submitting a form.
Formal Internet Navigating the Internet, meaning:
Skills Using hyperlinks (e.g., menu links, textual links and image links) in
different menu and website layouts.
Maintaining a sense of location when on the Internet, meaning:
Not becoming disoriented when navigating within a website;
Not becoming disoriented when navigating between websites;
Not becoming disoriented when opening and browsing through
search results.
Content-related Internet Skills
Informational Locating required information by:
Internet Skills Choosing a website or search system to seek information;
Defining search options or queries;
Selecting information (on Websites or in search results);
Evaluating informational sources.
Communication Communicating when on the Internet by:
Internet Skills Searching, selecting, reaching and evaluating contacts online;
Exchanging messages online and exchanging meaning;
Attracting attention online;
Constructing online profiles and identities;
Adopting alternative online identities for discovery or improvisation;
Pooling knowledge and exchanging meaning with others in peer-to-
peer networking.
Strategic Taking advantage of the Internet by:
Internet Skills Developing an orientation toward a particular goal;
Taking the right actions to reach this goal;
Making the right decisions to reach this goal;
Gaining the benefits that result from this goal.
To our knowledge, the relationship between Internet skills and the way people seek solutions
for Internet skills insufficiencies has not been empirically explored in the domain of digital
inequality research. Recent research with populations at large indicates that information and
strategic skills leave considerable room for improvement (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011).
This research also emphasized that these skills should be learned during formal education
because it is unlikely that a nearby individual will be able to adequately help someone in need
of instruction. Moreover, these skills do not necessarily automatically improve through
increased experience or with intense use (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011; Van Deursen, Van
Dijk & Peters, 2011). In contrast, the more basic operational and formal skills are easier to
learn with practice. Problems with these competences are more common among seniors and
lower-educated individuals (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011; Van Deursen, Van Dijk &
Peters, 2011). Because these skills cover the more basic ‘button knowledge,’ it is more likely
that close social contacts are able to offer simple assistance. To assess the suitability and the
potential effectiveness of the support sources described, we need to gain insight into the skill
levels of the people who tend to consult these support sources. The second research question
is:
RQ 2: How do the levels of Internet skills differ between people who address a specific
pattern of support sources?
We should not consider Internet users as a homogenous mass with a fixed, internally
consistent configuration of skills. On a conceptual basis, we argue that skills are developed
epigenetically, that is, one after the other, with increasing complexity and with strategic skills
at the top. Yet, in the previous sections, we maintained the implicit hypothesis that if skills
develop in such a manner, then Internet users should consult different patterns of support
sources that would be ideally suited to the acquisition of specific skills. When people are not
aware of what source is best for solving their problem, they might start to compensate for a
particularly insufficient skill with another skill. For example, they might ask someone who
knows how to operate a search engine to reduce their number of search hits, which actually
requires substantial knowledge about the search query. Wrong choices can also be made by
individuals who refrain from seeking help because they are comfortable using some kind of
workaround. Although this is less likely for medium-related skills, it is very plausible for
content-related skills. For example, instead of learning how to compose elaborate search
queries, one could ask someone how to find something or how to assess the information
available on a website. This could happen either by consulting a support source or by
employing specific communication Internet skills (e.g., mobilizing a social contact to use
effective messages for support questions). This also works the other way: if one fails to get
responses from people online, one might compensate by employing information skills to find
a source of helpful information. To summarize, two scenarios are possible: either skills are
developed equally such that it does not matter which support sources are looked for, or at
some point, an individual’s skills start to diverge under the influence of particular support
sources or as a consequence of complete self-reliance. In the former scenario, Internet skills
equally explain the diversity in beneficial outcomes for all patterns of support seeking.
However, if the latter scenario occurs, we encounter moderating effects of support seeking on
these relations. Consequently, we added a final research question:
RQ 4: Do patterns of addressing support moderate the effect of Internet skills on the
diversity of beneficial outcomes?
3. METHOD
3.1 Sample
The present study draws on a sample collected in the Netherlands over a period of two weeks
in September 2011 by using an online survey. To obtain a representative sample of the Dutch
population, we made use of the Dutch panel of Panelclix, a professional international
organization for market research, containing over 108,000 people. This panel is believed to be
a largely representative sample of the Dutch population. Members receive a very small
incentive of a few cents for every survey question they answer. In total, a sample of 2,850
people were randomly selected from this panel to reach a sample of about 1,200 persons. The
response rate was 52%, and eventually, a total of 1,482 responses were obtained. During the
data collection, amendments to the sampling frame were made to be sure to represent the
Dutch population in the final sample. As a result, only a very small post hoc correction was
needed to correct for gender, age and education according to census data. The online survey
used specific software that checked for missing responses in which users were prompted to
answer them. Pretesting of the survey was conducted with ten internet users in two rounds.
Amendments were made at the end of every round based on the provided feedback. No major
comments were given by the ten respondents in the second round and the survey was deemed
ready for posting. The time needed to answer the survey questions was reduced to about 15
minutes. Table 2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Table 2. Demographic profile (N=1,482)
Gender (%)
Male 52
Female 48
Age
M 46.08
SD 17.52
Education (%)
Low (e.g., primary school) 36
Middle (e.g., high school) 40
High (e.g., college and university) 24
Occupation (%)
Employee 42
Employer 7
Unemployed 4
Disabled 6
Retired 25
Stay at home parent 7
Student 9
3.2 Measures
The questionnaire inquired about socio-demographics, Internet skills, support sources that
were sought and beneficial Internet outcomes. Internet skills were measured using an
instrument proposed by Van Deursen, Van Dijk and Peters (2012). This instrument proposed
a 21-item inventory for operational, formal, information and strategic Internet skills. Instead
of drawing upon self-assessments, these items ask for actual behaviors that serve as indices
for skills. The questionnaire’s psychometric properties have repeatedly been proven to be
satisfactory in terms of reliability and construct validity (i.e. convergent and discriminant
validity). More specifically, the questionnaire was constructed using extensive ecologically
valid skill performance field tests as benchmarks. This makes the instrument employed here
more favorable when compared to the used self-assessments of skills which have significant
problems of validity (e.g., Bunz, 2004; Hargittai, 2005; Merritt, Smith, & Renzo, 2005; Talja,
2005; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010). We extended the instrument by including items that
measured Internet communication skills. The six-item measure displayed a high degree of
face validity. Moreover, its items loaded onto a single component and demonstrated high
internal consistency. Table 3 lists the employed items.
Table 3. Descriptives and Cronbach alphas for the observed Internet skills (N=1,482)
(five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily)
On the Internet, how often do you... M SD
Operational Internet Skills (α = .78)
save files 3.35 1.32
use the refresh button 2.91 1.64
upload files to another computer 2.10 1.24
download programs 2.19 1.13
watch video files 3.13 1.29
Formal Internet Skills (α = .74)
find websites to be confusing 2.06 1,08
get lost 1.34 0.68
feel disoriented 1.57 0.91
experience difficulties with a website’s layout 2.50 1.13
not know where you are 1.72 1.11
Informational Internet Skills (α = .84)
check information retrieved on another website 3.11 1.26
examine more than the top results 3.83 1.19
find the information you were looking for 4.06 1.02
examine the results on subsequent result pages 1.96 0.95
use more than one search keyword 3.76 1.27
Communication Internet Skills (α = .74)
ask people for advice 2.00 0.92
receive positive feedback on your online profile 2.32 1.37
work together with others on a project 1.79 1.24
make new contacts 2.19 1.05
respond to messages in a panel discussion 2.29 1.34
receive feedback on posted messages 3.17 1.37
Strategic Internet Skills (α = .82)
make a decision based on retrieved information 2.98 1.20
use information about a specific subject from multiple sites 3.17 1.08
benefit from using the Internet 3.39 1.26
use reference Websites 2.57 1.07
gain financial benefits 2.57 1.17
Support sources were assessed using a set of eight dichotomous measures. Each item reflected
a specific source that people might address when experiencing a skill insufficiency. These
sources and their relative frequencies in the sample are shown in Table 4.
Beneficial outcome of Internet use were measured in a similar fashion, drawing upon
ten questions with a dichotomous answering scale. The items are based on beneficial
outcomes of Internet use that are well documented in the literature (see Section 2.3). Overall,
the items together covered a wide range of beneficial outcomes. All items were summed into
a single scale that reflects the diversity (M = 3.95, SD = 2.21). The relative frequencies of
positive responses are enumerated in Table 4.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for support sources and Internet outcomes (N=1,482)
Support sources employed when experiencing Internet skill insufficiencies %
I turn to friends or family 33
I turn to people at the library 0
I turn to people at a helpdesk 6
I turn to a computer expert 7
I turn to colleagues at work or at school 7
I turn to a formal Internet course 21
I do not need help 59
I do not know who to ask for help 3
Beneficial outcomes
I found a job after applying for an online job vacancy 17
I bought a product cheaper than it was in the local store 79
I traded or exchanged goods that I would not have sold otherwise 62
I chose which political party to vote for 34
I found an association, club, union or party that I became a member of 22
I got into contact with new friends who I actually met later 30
I actually met a potential partner who I was online dating 13
I found out what medical condition I was suffering from 27
I booked a cheaper vacation 61
I managed to obtain a discount 40
4. RESULTS
The retained three-class model demonstrates a very sharply delineated profile. The first
cluster, labeled as ‘independents’, has an absolute probability of not needing any help
combined with a very low probability of having had formal education. The second cluster,
which consists of the socially supported, is characterized as an absolute chance of seeking
support from friends and family. Finally, the third cluster of formal help seekers displays
relatively high probabilities of relying on helpdesks, computer experts, colleagues and formal
courses. Figure 1 summarizes indicator variables’ response probabilities per class. The exact
probabilities, Wald statistics and R2 indices are included in the Appendix.
Figure 1. Response probability plot of the retained three-class model
Table 6 shows a descriptive socio-demographic analysis which revealed that both the socially
supported and formal help seekers were, on average, much older than the independents. With
respect to gender, imbalances were noted for the independents, who were predominantly
male, whereas the socially supported were more often female. Lower levels of education were
observed for the socially supported and formal help seekers. Finally, the socially supported
were more likely to be pensioners or stay-at-home parents, whereas employment rates were
much higher for the formal help seekers and independents. Moreover, the latter group
contained more students.
The marginal means histograms in Figure 2 demonstrate that the independents consistently
had the highest skill levels. However, there were no significant differences in formal skills
among the socially supported and in strategic skills when compared to the formal help
seekers. Members of the latter cluster displayed the second highest levels of operational,
strategic and information skills. However, the socially supported had stronger formal skills.
Figure 2. Marginal means histograms of three support sources clusters’ scores on
Internet skills according to a multivariate analysis of variance
4.3 Structural relations between Internet skills and beneficial Internet use
In light of the third and fourth research questions, we investigated the structural relationships
between Internet skills on one hand, and beneficial outcomes of Internet use on the other
hand. With regard to Internet skills, the cluster of independents significantly differed from the
socially supported and the formal help seekers in terms of the level of attained beneficial
outcomes (F(2,1479)=16.34, p<.001, p2=.02); The independents scored a marginal mean of
4.18, the socially supported 3.44, and the formal help seekers 3.59 out of a total of 10 effects.
We are equally interested in the correlational structures between the aforementioned
variables. To investigate this matter, a stepwise regression model was computed that
employed the beneficial Internet outcomes as dependent variables and Internet skills as
independent variables. Because the final model contained interaction terms, the independent
variables were centered first, which involves subtracting the mean from all of the variables’
data points to avoid excessive multicolinearity when computing interaction terms (Aiken,
West & Reno, 1991). In the first block, the centered existing skill variables were entered (i.e.
operational, formal, information and strategic skills). The second block added the centered
measure of communication skills. In the third block, interaction effects with the third cluster
were added. In the fourth and final block, interaction effects with the third cluster were
entered. As such, we were able to assess the moderation effects of cluster membership on the
relation between skills and outcomes of Internet use. The final model showed a good fit
(F(15,1466)=181.79, p<.001), explaining 39% of the variance in beneficial outcomes. See
Table 8.
Table 8. Regression model of positive Internet outcome effects of Internet skills (N=1,482).
The summarized estimates are those of the final step.
Block Independent variables t p R2
1 Operational skills .12 2.92 .004 .36
Formal skills -.02 -.75 .456
Informational skills -.05 -1.18 .240
Strategic skills .38 9.54 .000
2 Communication skills .26 7.79 .000 .38
3 Cluster 2 x Operational skills .05 1.41 .158 .39
Cluster 2 x Formal skills .03 1.02 .308
Cluster 2 x Informational skills .07 1.62 .105
Cluster 2 x Strategic skills -.04 -.97 .332
Cluster 2 x Communication skills -.08 -2.53 .011
4 Cluster 3 x Operational skills .02 .55 .580 .39
Cluster 3 x Formal skills .03 .97 .334
Cluster 3 x Informational skills .01 .32 .753
Cluster 3 x Strategic skills -.01 -.13 .894
Cluster 3 x Communication skills -.03 -1.10 .272
Note: All estimates demonstrate satisfactory collinearity diagnostics: tolerance > .20,
variance-inflation factor < 5 [24].
The final model shows significant effects of operational (=.12, p<.05), strategic (=.38,
p<.001) and communication skills (=.26, p<.001) on beneficial outcomes. Interestingly,
communication skills independently explain variance in beneficial outcomes, unaccounted for
by the other skills. This pattern was remarkably robust for all of the three clusters. We
encountered only one significant interaction effect for communication skills in the second
block (=-.08, p<.05). This estimate, however marginal in size, indicates that, in comparison
with the cluster of independents, the socially supported shared a smaller effect of
communication skills on beneficial outcomes, rendering it a slightly less important
explanatory factor.
5. DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. & Reno, R.R. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. London: Sage.
Austin, E.W., Pinkleton, B.E., Hust, S.J.T. & Cohen, M. (2005). Evaluation of an American
Legacy Foundation. Health Communication, 18(1), 75-95.
Ba, H., Tally, W. & Tsikalas, K. (2002). Investigating children’s emerging digital literacies.
Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1(4), 1-48.
Bakos, C. (1998). The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet.
Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 35-42.
Bhatnagar, A. & Ghose, S. (2004). Segmenting consumers based on the benefits and risks of
Internet shopping. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1352-1360.
Bunz, U. (2004). The computer-Email-Web (CEW) Fluency Scale—Development and
validation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 479-506.
Cahoon, A. (1998). Teaching and learning Internet skills. New directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 78, 5-13.
Diaz, J.A., Griffith, R.A., Ng, J.J., Reinert, S.E., Friedmann, P.D. & Moulton, A.W. (2002).
Patients' Use of the Internet for Medical Information. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 17(3), 180-185.
Facer, L., Furlong, J., Furlong, R. & Sutherland, R. (2001). What’s the point of using
computers? The development of young people’s computer expertise in the home. New
Media and Society, 3(2), 199-219.
Fountain, C. (2005). Finding a Job in the Internet Age. Social Forces, 83(3), 1235-1262.
Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science
Computer Review, 23(3), 371-379.
Hargittai, E. & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality, differences in Young Adults’ Use of
the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members
of the Net Generation. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.
Helsper, E.J. & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European
Journal of Communication. doi: 10.1177/0267323113499113
Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Introduction: the internet in everyday life. American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(3), 363-382.
Hindman, M. (2009). The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Hobbs, R. & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media literacy skills. Reading
Research Quarterly, 38(3), 330-355.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for
the 21st century. The MacArthur Foundation.
Katz, J. & Aspden, P. (1997). Motivations for and barriers to internet usage: results of a
national public opinion survey. Internet Research, 7(3), 170-188.
Lang, T.C. (2000). The effect of the Internet on travel consumer purchasing behaviour and
implications for travel agencies. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 6(4), 368-385.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices.
New York: Peter Lang.
Linvingstone, S. (2008). Internet literacy: Young people’s negotiation of new online
opportunities. Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected. In T. McPherson (ed).
Digital media and learning (pp. 101-122). Cambridge, MA: MacArthur Foundation.
Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2006). Does advertising literacy mediate the effects of
advertising on children? A critical examination of two linked research literatures in
relation to obesity and food choice. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 560-584.
Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: concepts, theories and future
directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1-22.
Merritt, K., Smith, D. & Renzo, J.C.D. (2005). An investigation of self-reported computer
literacy: Is it reliable? Issues in Information Systems, 6(1), 289-295.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J. & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital
Divide. Georgetown University Press.
Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet
Worldwide. Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. Press/Politics,
7(3), 3-13.
Parks, M.R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making Friends in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 1, pp. 0.
Reisdorf, B.C. (2011). Non-adoption of the internet in great britain and Sweden. A cross-
national comparison. Information, Communication & Society, 14(3), 400-420.
Robinson, J., DiMaggio, P. & Hargittai, E. (2003). New social survey perspectives on the
digital divide. IT & Society, 1(5), 1-22.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2006). Adult learning in the digital age: information
technology and the learning society. New York: Routledge.
Solomon, G., Allen, N.J. & Resta, P. (2003) Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in
education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
Stewart, J. (2007). Local experts in the domestication of information and communication
technologies. Information, Communication & Society, 10(4), 547-569.
Talja, S. (2005). The social and discursive construction of computing skills. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 13-22.
Valkenburg, P.M. & Peter, J. (2007). Who Visits Online Dating Sites? Exploring Some
Characteristics of Online Daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849-852.
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2009). Using the Internet: Skill Related
Problems in Users' Online Behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21, 393-402.
Van Deursen A.J.A.M. and Van Dijk J.A.G.M. (2010). Measuring internet skills.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(10), 891-916.
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2011). Internet Skills and the Digital Divide.
New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911.
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. & Peters, O. (2011). Rethinking Internet skills.
The Contribution Of Gender, Age, Education, Internet Experience, And Hours Online
To Medium- And Content-Related Internet Skills. Poetics, 39, 125–144.
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. & Peters, O. (2012). Proposing a survey
instrument for measuring operational, formal, information and strategic Internet skills.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(12), 827-837.
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide. Inequality in the information society. London:
Sage Publications.
Vermunt, J.K. & Magidson, J. (2006). Latent Class Analysis, retrieved from:
http://www.statisticalinnovations.com/articles/Latclass.pdf
Ward, M. (1996). The Effect of the Internet on Political Institutions. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 5(4), 1127-1141.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: the rise of personalized networking.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252.
APPENDIX
Do not know who to ask .01 .00 .29 53.57 .000 .23
Cédric Courtois (MSc, PhD) is a senior researcher at the iMinds research group for Media and
ICT, at Ghent University, Belgium. His research interests concern the social circumstances
and consequences of digital media consumption, online prosuming, and youth and new
media.
Jan A.G.M. van Dijk is Professor of Communication Science and the Sociology of the
Information Society at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. He is chair of the
Department of Media, Communication and Organization and Director of the Center for
eGovernment Studies at the same university.