College of Business Administration

University of Rhode Island

2004/2005 No. 6

This working paper series is intended tofacilitate discussion and encourage the

exchange of ideas. Inclusion here does notpreclude publication elsewhere.

It is the original work of the author(s) andsubject to copyright regulations.

WORKING PAPER SERIESencouraging creative research

Office of the DeanCollege of Business AdministrationBallentine Hall7 Lippitt RoadKingston, RI 02881401-874-2337www.cba.uri.edu

William A. Orme

Ruby Roy Dholakia

Gender and Internet Use: Peeking Under the Covers

Gender and Internet Use: Peeking Under the Covers

Ruby Roy Dholakia, Ph.D. Professor of Marketing and Electronic Commerce

College of Business Administration The University of Rhode Island

203 Ballentine Hall Kingston, RI 02881-0802

Ph: 401-874-4390; Fax: 401-874-4312 Email: ruby@uri.edu

Gender and Internet Use: Peeking Under the Covers

ABSTRACT

As in other media, gender is likely to be a major differentiating characteristic of the Internet user

as well. In the early years, there was a distinct bias with men outnumbering women Internet

users. Recent statistics suggest women now outnumber men. In this study, the author examines

the nature of gender bias by examining Internet use in greater detail. Using the concepts of

adoption width and depth that incorporate variety and intensity of use, the statistical analysis

reveals that men continue to outpace women in terms of several of these measures. Even in the

use of email, which women report using more than men, deeper analysis suggests differences in

the number of messages, number of email accounts and the use of filters by men and women.

Advertisers using the Internet have to incorporate these differences since the two genders are

likely to differ in their exposure and responsiveness to Internet advertising.

1

Introduction

The mass adoption of the Internet is reflected in its increased use as an advertising

medium. In 2003, consumer advertisers increased their dominance of Internet advertising with

retail and automobile companies representing the two highest spenders (Interactive Advertising

Bureau 2004). A variety of tools - display ads, sponsorships, email and interstitial ads – is being

used and central to the effectiveness of these tools is the size and nature of the Internet users.

While the growing size of the Internet audience is well known and appear to justify the

increased ad expenditures, several attempts are being made to look beyond the overall numbers.

As in other media, gender is likely to be a major differentiating characteristic of the Internet user

as well. Some researchers predict that the gender gap will narrow, even disappear, as the

Internet is accepted by new people who are likely to be more and more females. Rainie (2002),

for instance, indicates that the gender bias in Internet adoption in the U.S. may have disappeared

in 2000, and may have even started to show a reverse trend after that – with more women online

than men.

In this context, does it make any sense to examine gender differences any further? It

would seem to be only a matter of time before Internet usage reflects the population composition.

In a review article on gender and Internet usage, Dholakia, Dholakia and Kshetri (2003)

recognized that the bias is much smaller in countries with high per capita income or in countries

with a longer history of Internet access. They also suggested, however, that the bias continues to

persist even in countries where the gender gap has seemingly disappeared.

The concepts of width and the depth of adoption allow us to examine the nature of

Internet usage at several levels and can contribute to a greater understanding of the gender bias in

Internet adoption. Until recently, there has been a lack of available data to examine these

2

concepts within the context of a single study. Rainie (2002), for instance, examined only the top

numbers and looked at overall access to the Internet. Researchers looking beyond or below the

overall numbers have either relied on small studies using student or convenience samples

(Dholakia and Chiang 2003; Rodgers and Harris 2004; Sheehan 1999) or attempted to draw

conclusions using data from several different and unrelated studies (Dholakia, Dholakia and

Kshetri 2003). In this article we use a single data source – a telephone survey of a large

nationally representative sample of adult consumers - to peek under the covers of seeming

gender parity among Internet adopters in the U.S.

Internet Adoption

After the Internet was opened to the public in the early 1990s, statistics reveal a rapid rate

of Internet adoption around the world. Between 2000 and 2004, Internet users appeared to have

grown over 120 percent (Internet World Stats 2004) with penetration varying from a low of less

than 2 percent in Africa to a high of 69 percent in North America (Internet World Stats 2004).

Experiences of specific countries and regions of the world differ greatly within this pattern of

overall growth.

Beyond Adoption: Width and Depth of Internet Adoption

In the innovation and diffusion literature, there have been several attempts to go beyond

purchase innovation to usage innovation (Golder and Tellis, 1998; Price and Ridgeway 1983;

Ram and Jung 1990). Ram and Jung (1994) used the concepts of usage variety and usage

frequency to examine differences in usage behaviors between two groups of VCR and PC

adopters. Using similar concepts - variety and rate of use - Shih and Venkatesh (2004) examined

computer usage in the home.

3

The concepts of width and depth of adoption are useful to go beyond purchase adoption

to look at usage behaviors. Gatignon and Robertson (1991) define the width of adoption as the

“number of people within the adoption unit who use the product, or the number of different uses

of the product” and the depth as “the amount of usage or the purchase of related products” (p.

468). Thus, higher width of Internet usage is associated with greater number of individuals

within a household using the Internet, as well as greater number of different uses of Internet by a

specific member of that household. For instance, a possible measure of the width of Internet

adoption may be the number of different activities or applications (e.g., education,

communication, information search, entertainment, etc.) for which Internet is used. When

examined within an individual, “width of adoption” is similar to “variety of usage” favored by

Ram and Jung (1994) and by Shih and Venkatesh (2004).

For a multifunctional technology such as the Internet, “depth” can have at least two

different measures: one related to the usage of the technology for performing a particular

function (functional depth) and the other related to the total usage of the technology (overall

depth). In case of Internet, for instance, a possible measure of functional depth of “Internet

adoption for communication” could be the number of times per month an individual uses the

Internet for email. Total or overall depth of adoption of the Internet, on the other hand, could be

measured by the total time spent using the Internet per month.

Gender and Internet Use

With the rapid adoption and diffusion of the Internet, questions arise regarding both the

characteristic profile of the users as well as patterns of usage. Detailed statistics on gender and

Internet usage are limited and those available tend to utilize gender interchangeably with sex

even though sex is a biological characteristic while gender is “socially constructed roles ascribed

4

to males and females”. Despite this limitation, there are several studies that appear to suggest

there are systematic differences in the ways men and women respond to technology in general,

and Internet in particular.

During the early years of Internet adoption, there was a bias in favor of men. For

instance, the user survey conducted by Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center (GVU) in

1998 found that 66.4% of the Internet users in the world were men and 33.6 % were women

(GVU Center 1998). This is similar to early research on computer adoption and use, which had

found strong associations of computers with the male domain, particularly by males (Shashaani,

1993). Venkatesh and Morri (2000) reported gender differences in importance assigned to

various factors for the adoption of information technology.

Many different reasons are offered for the apparent gender bias. Turkle (1988) argues

that it is the social construction of computer culture, including gendered design (Abernathy,

1999; Cockburn & Dilic, 1994). Other reasons include gender differences in attitude toward

technology in general (Brunner & Bennett, 1998), and differences in role specializations and

preferences (Buss and Schaninger 1987; Firat & Dholakia, 1998; Fischer and Arnold 1997).

Dholakia, Dholakia and Kshetri (2003) review the many existing reasons for a significant gender

bias toward men in the adoption of modern information and communications technologies,

including the Internet.

In 1997, a study conducted in Quebec, Canada, indicated that men were heavier users of

the Internet - men spent 16 percent more time online than women, viewed more pages, and went

online more often. Similarly, a December 2000 study in the U.S. indicated that men went online

more times, spent more minutes and viewed more pages per month (Pastore 2001). While the

overall gap has narrowed in most countries, it is not surprising to find that men still outpace

5

women on the Internet in terms of various usage measures (CyberAtlas 2002). These statistics

suggest that that greater attention on the gender gap in Internet usage is warranted even in

countries where the overall gap may have disappeared.

Looking Beyond Overall Numbers

To examine the width and depth of Internet adoption and their relationship to the user’s

gender, we were able to access data from a nationally representative survey. The Pew Internet

and American Life Project collects detailed data on several aspects of the American consumer’s

life and the datasets are publicly available (http://www.pewinternet.org). This offers researchers

an opportunity to examine specific questions.

We examine gender differences in terms of depth and width of adoption utilizing the

2003 data collected between November 18 and December 14, 2003. Telephone interviews of

2,013 adults, 18 and over, were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Weights

applied to the sampled respondents are used for the data analysis to reflect a more statistically

representative composition of the U.S. population. The research questions of interest are:

Does gender explain use of the Internet?

And specifically, do men use the Internet more than women?

The analysis concentrated on the following variables included in 2003 survey questionnaire –

overall adoption, width and depth of overall and functional adoption (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1 About Here

Results

In response to the question “Do you ever go online to access the Internet or WWW or to

send and receive email”, respondents were coded as Internet User or Non-User. In addition,

respondents were asked how frequently they go online, the number of minutes they spent online,

6

location of Internet use and whether specific applications were used “yesterday” (recency of

use). Based on the responses to these questions, we report below the results from our analysis of

width and depth of Internet adoption.

A. Overall Measures

Overall adoption. In terms of overall adoption of the Internet, it would seem there are no gender

differences since men and women are about equally represented among Internet users. However,

as we can see from table 1, there are more females than males among non-users. As new

members are increasingly drawn from this non-users category, it is likely that women will

actually outpace men as Internet users in the U.S. in the future.

Table 1 About Here

Overall depth, or “the total time spent” is captured by the number of minutes spent online by

Internet users and there appears to be no statistically significant gender difference even though

men seem to report more time spent online than women. Overall depth measured in terms of

frequency of use indicates that men go online more frequently during the week than women. It is

not surprising, therefore, that in terms of recency of use, men are more likely to report accessing

the Internet “yesterday” than women. Finally, location of use suggests that men access the

Internet from both work and home while women tend to be more single location users only.

Overall depth measured by the last three dimensions – frequency of use, recency of use and

location of use – suggest that the gender differences are statistically significant and men are more

frequent and locationally-diverse users than women.

Overall width measured by “the number of different uses” suggests there are systematic gender

differences as well. An index (range of values 0 – 13) created by summing all the applications

used (not used =0; used = 1) was analyzed via a simple One Way Analysis of Variance. The

7

results suggest that gender has a significant influence on overall width, with men reporting use of

a greater number of functional applications (5.86) than women (5.41).

B. Functional Measures

Functional Adoption. In addition to overall Internet use, respondents were queried regarding

use of specific Internet applications. Thirteen possible applications were listed such as email,

online banking, information search, etc and respondents indicated whether they used it and

whether they used it “yesterday”. Use of specific applications varies widely (see Figure 1).

Email and use of search engines are widely adopted while use of the Internet for phone calls or

for visiting online dating sites are very limited.

Figure 1 About Here

Functional depth, assessed for each of the applications, reveals some interesting patterns. For

applications that are relatively widespread (overall adoption exceeding 50%), there are

systematic gender differences. In general, men are greater user of the specific application

particularly in terms of recency of use (used yesterday). The only exception is email, with more

females reporting being a user as well as being a recent user. There are no gender differences in

use of online information search. Gender differences persist even in those applications with

moderate level of adoption (between 25 – 49%) with men reporting greater use of the

applications than women. Gender differences do not appear to exist for applications with very

limited adoption (i.e. overall adoption less than 10 %)

Table 2 About Here Digging Yet Deeper

Since the home offers the maximum flexibility in the use of various Internet applications

and the workplace offers economical and possibly faster access, location may have an impact on

Internet adoption and use. To determine whether gender differences persist when location of

8

Internet access is considered, we conducted two additional analyses. The analysis is limited to

those who reported they had accessed the Internet “yesterday” from “home only” or “work

only”.

Table 3 About Here

The overall depth of adoption differs between access at work and access at home. While

the time spent online is not significantly different for men and women accessing the Internet at

home, it is different at work with women reporting less time spent online than men. However,

frequency of access is not different at work but it is significantly different at home with men

reporting more frequent access at home than women. In terms of number of applications used, or

width of adoption, men report using more applications both at home and at work than women.

The difference persists even among the sub-set of applications for which high adoption is

reported.

The second set of analysis looks at functional depth in greater detail for email use, an

application associated with highest usage among both men and women; also an application

which women report using more frequently than men. (Table 4)

Table 4 About Here

There are gender differences in the use of email. Men report higher volume of email (the

difference is marginally significant), report having a greater number of personal email accounts

and report greater use of filters to control spam. Men are also likely to use email at home and

work while women tend to use a single location more.

Advertising and Communications Implications

With men using the Internet more frequently and in multiple locations, using more and

varied types of Internet applications, suggests a higher probability of men being exposed to

9

Internet advertising. Looking at men’s use of email - varied in terms of receiving/sending more

messages and also setting up filters – also implies a more active way of screening advertising

exposure. Therefore, while men are likely to be exposed to more Internet advertising, they are

also likely to screen out more of these ads.

Women, on the other hand, appear to keep their use of the Internet confined to specific

locations – work or home – which suggests that they are also more likely to keep their multiple

roles (worker, consumer) separated. They also tend to use the Internet less frequently. While

exposure to number of advertisements is likely to be lower than men (lower frequency of use,

specialized locations, lower use of filters), advertising’s effect on women is likely to differ.

Various surveys report on women’s responses to banner advertising (see for example Saunders

2001). It is possible when the ads are viewed at home, ads may be received more favorably if the

woman is in a “consumer” role and less effectively at work when they are in the “worker” role.

Because of lower use of filters, women may feel more annoyed and frustrated if they find the ads

to be intrusive. It is not clear whether it is lack of expertise or greater interest in ads that

influence the use of filters. These differences need to be explored further.

Conclusion

Our examination of Internet adoption suggests that we have reached gender parity in the

U.S. with men and women represented about equally in terms of overall adoption and use.

However, as we look beyond the overall numbers, we find systematic gender differences. Even

in the application which women report using more than men (email), we find gender differences

with men reporting a larger volume of email messages, greater number of email accounts and

greater use of filters to control spam. This is in line with all other applications with some degree

of market acceptance –men report greater use.

10

This particular data set does not allow us to examine the reasons for the observed gender

differences. Other studies have offered reasons for such differences to persist or disappear. For

instance, Hoxmeier, Nie and Purvis (2000) found the gender difference to disappear in email

systems among computer science students suggesting that skill and expertise, once developed,

overcomes the gender bias. Rodgers and Harris (2004) offered differences in emotional

gratification, trust and perceived convenience as explanation for gender differences in online

shopping. It is likely, therefore, that gender differences will persist for some time specially when

we look at Internet usage behavior beyond overall adoption and access.

11

REFERENCES

ABERNATHY, D. J. “Second and fourth rocks from the sun.” Training and Development, December (1999): 18. BRUNNER, C. and D. BENNETT. “Technology perceptions by gender.” The Education Digest, February (1998): 56-58. BUSS, W. C. and C. M. SCHANINGER. “An Overview of Dyadic Family Behavior and Sex Roles Research: A Summary of Findings and an Agenda for Future Research.” In Review of Marketing, Michael Houston (ed.) Chicago: American Marketing Association. (1987): 293-324. COCKBURN, C. and F. D.RUZA. Bringing Technology Home: Gender and Technology in a Changing Europe, Open University Press, Buckingham. (1994).

CYBERATLAS, “Demographics: European Women Surf to a Different Drum,” March 25, (2002). Available at: http://cyberatlas.Internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,,5901_997491,00.html (Accessed on March 30, 2002).

DHOLAKIA, R.R., N. DHOLAKIA and N. KSHETRI. "Gender and Internet Usage”. In The Internet Encyclopeda H. Bidgoli ed., New York: Wiley. (2004): 12-22.

DHOLAKIA, R.R and K.P. CHIANG. “Shoppers in cyberspace: are they from venus or mars and does it matter?” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Special Issue on Consumers in Cyberspace, 13, 1 & 2 (2003): 171-176.

FIRAT, A. F. and N. DHOLAKIA. “The making of the consumer.” In Consuming People: From political economy to theaters of consumption A. F. Firat and N. Dholakia eds., London, UK: Routledge, (1998): 13-20.

FISCHER, E. and ARNOLD, S. J. “More than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Gift Shopping,” Journal of Consumer Research. 17, (1990): 333-345.

GATIGNON, H. and T. S. ROBERTSON. “A propositional inventory for new diffusion research”. In Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson eds. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, NJ. (1991): 461-487.

GOLDER, P. N. and G. J TELLIS. “Beyond Diffusion: An Affordability Model of the Growth of New Consumer Durables,” Journal of Forecasting, 17, 3-4 (1998): 259-280.

GVU Center. “GVU's 10th WWW User Survey”. Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center. 1998.

HOXMEIER, J. A, W. NIE, and G. T. PURVIS. “The Impact of Gender and Experience on User Confidence in Electronic Mail.” Journal of End User Computing, 12, 4 (2000):11-20.

12

INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING BUREAU. IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report. Available at: http://www.iab.net/resources/adrevenue/pdf/IAB_PwC_2003.pdf (accessed on September 30, 2004).

INTERNET WORLD STATS. “ Internet usage statistics – The big picture.” Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/ (2004). (Accessed on September 22, 2004).

PASTORE, M. “Global Digital Divide Still Very Much in Existence”. Available at: http://www.clickz.com/stats/big_picture/geographics/article.php/569351. January 24 (2001). (Accessed on: March 12, 2001).

PASTORE, M. “Women maintain lead in Internet use.” Available at: http://www.clickz.com/stats/big_picture/demographics/article.php/786791. June 18 (2001). (Accessed on September 23, 2001). PRICE, L. L. and , N. M. RIDGEWAY. “Development of a Scale to Measure Use Innovativeness.” In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, R. P. Bagozzi and A.Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, (1983): 679-684.

RAINIE, L. “Women surpass men as e-shoppers during the holidays.” Available at: http://www/pewinternet.org/ January 1, (2002). Accessed on January 24, 2001.

RAM, S. and H.S. JUNG. “The Conceptualization and Measurement of Product Usage.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 1, (1990):67-76.

RAM, S. and H.S. JUNG. “Innovativeness in Product Usage: A Comparison of Early Adopters and Early Majority.” Psychology and Marketing. 11, 1, (1994):57-67.

RODGERS, S. and HARRIS, M. A. “Gender and E-Commerce: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Advertising Research. September (2004): 322-329.

SAUNDERS, C. “MSN Survey: 60% of Women click on banners.” Available at: http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/738081 April 9, 2001. (Accessed on May 23, 2001).

SHASHAANI, L. “Gender-based differences in attitudes toward computers.” Computers and Education, 20, (1993):169-181.

SHEEHAN, K. B. “An Investigation of Gender Differences in On-line Privacy Concerns and Resultant Behaviors.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13, 4, (1999): 24 –38.

SHIH, C.F. and A. VENKATESH. “Beyond Adoption: Development and Application of a Use-Diffusion Model.” Journal of Marketing 68, 1, (2004): 59- 72.

TURKLE, S. “Computational Reticence: Why Women Fear the Intimate Machine.” In Technology and Women’s Voices, C. Kramarae ed. New York: Routledge, Kegan Paul. (1988): 41-61.

13

VENKATESH, V. and M. G. MORRI. “Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior.” MIS Quarterly, 24, 1, (2000): 115-139.

14

Exhibit 1: Questionnaire Items and Variable Definitions

Variable Questionnaire Items Overall Adoption Internet use (yes/no) Overall Width Number of uses of Internet

Total number of applications used as well as recency of use (13 applications listed)

Overall Depth Amount of usage (Total number of minutes spent online; recency of use; frequency of use; location of use).

Functional Depth Email, Online news, Weather reports, Online banking, Information search, Online phone calls, Dating website, Download music files, Download other files, Online classes for credit, Other Online classes, Share Files, Online Search Engine (yes/no as well as recency of use)

Table 1: Overall Internet Adoption and Gender Differences

Male Female Significance Overall Adoption

Internet User Internet Non User

30.8%16.5%

31.4%21.2%

χ²==12.24, df =1, p<.00

Overall Depth of Adoption Time Spent Online

3 or more hours 1-2 hours

30-60 minutes 30 minutes or less

10.2%10.7%19.5%11.3%

9.2%8.5%

17.7%12.8%

χ²== 5.01, df =3, ns

Recency of Internet Access Yes, yesterday

No, not yesterday DK/Refused

28.6%20.8%0.1%

26.7%23.7%0.1%

χ²== 6.56, df =3, p < .04

Frequency of Use Several times/day

3-5 days/week 1-2 days/week

less often

33.4%7.3%5.0%3.4%

30.4%8.9%8.0%3.5%

χ²== 22.25, df =3, p<.00

Location of Internet Access Home only Work only

Both Other

28.5%8.3%

13.5%1.4%

29.1%10.5%7.8%0.9%

χ²== 24.69, df =3, p < .00

Overall Width (Ave. No. Applications Used)

5.86 (2.22) 1209

5.41 (2.15)1238

(F=25.48, 1/2444, p<.00)

15

Figure 1: Overall Adoption of Internet-based Functions

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00% Email Search Engine

Weather News

Information Download Files

Banking Download Music

Share Own Files Credit Class

Other Classes Dating Sites

Online Phone

16

Table 2: Functional Adoption and Gender Differences

Adoption Rate

Functional Adoption Male Female Significance

High Functional Adoption (over 50% ) 91.5% Email

Non UserUser/but not yesterday

User/used yesterday

5.3%19.4%24.8%

3.2%

23.1% 24.2%

χ²== 20.34, df =2, p<.00

89.8% Search Engines Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

4.9%26.8%18.0%

5.3%

31.7% 13.3%

χ²== 27.19, df =2, p<.00

75.2% Online Weather Information Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

11.2%26.5%11.7%

13.6% 28.5% 8.5%

χ²== 19.42, df =2, p<.00

69.5% Online News Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

13.2%20.4%15.9%

17.3% 23.3% 9.9%

χ²== 53.85, df =2, p<.00

69.1% Information Search Online Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

14.7%30.7%4.1%

16.3% 29.7% 4.5%

χ²== 2.93, df =2, ns

Moderate Functional Adoption (25% – 50% ) 42.4% Downloading Other Files

Non UserUser/but not yesterday

User/used yesterday

26.4%19.1%4.0%

31.2% 16.8% 2.4%

χ²== 22.13, df =2, p<.00

33.8% Online Banking Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

31.4%12.6%5.4%

34.8% 12.5% 3.3%

χ²== 15.45, df =2, p<.00

29.7% Downloading Music Files Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

32.2%15.4%1.8%

38.1% 11.0% 1.4%

χ²== 31.63, df =2, p<.00

27.6% Online File Sharing Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

34.7%12.3%2.4%

37.6% 10.7% 2.1%

χ²== 5.99, df =2, p<.05

Low Functional Adoption (Less than 25% )

17

9.5% Online Classes Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

45.3%3.9%0.2%

45.2% 5.1% 0.2%

χ²== 3.76, df =2, ns

8.3% Online Education Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

45.1%4.3%0.1%

46.6% 3.9% 0.1%

χ²== 1.04, df =2, ns

7.7% Online Dating Sites Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

45.4%3.4%0.6%

46.9% 3.1% 0.5%

χ²== 1.18, df =2, ns

7.4% Online Phone Calls Non User

User/but not yesterdayUser/used yesterday

44.7%4.5%0.2%

47.9% 2.4% 0.3%

χ²== 17.66, df =2, p<.00

18

Table 3: Depth and Width of Adoption by Internet Access Locations

Access from home only Access from work only Overall Depth of Adoption Male Female Male Female Time Spent Online

3 or more hours 1-2 hours

30-60 minutes 30 minutes or less

11.9%11.5%19.8%10.3%

8.3%9.4%

17.8%11.0%

13.2% 11.2% 19.9% 9.8%

13.2%6.5%

14.5%11.6%

χ²== 5.53, df =3, ns χ²== 8.71, df =3, p <.03 Frequency of Use

Several times/day 3-5 days/week 1-2 days/week

less often

45.4%5.4%2.1%0.4%

30.4%8.9%8.0%3.5%

48.6% 4.7% 0.9%

-

39.7%4.2%1.6%0.4%

χ²== 10.83, df =3, p<.01 χ²== 4.45, df =3, ns Overall Width of Adoption Ave. No. Applications Used

6.58 (2.09) 570

6.03 (2.13) 502

6.57 (1.92) 299

5.82 (2.31) 248

F=18.27, 1/1070, p<.00 F=17.11, 1/544, p<.00 High Adoption Set Ave. No. Applications Used

4.37 (0.93) 576

4.20 (1.03) 503

4.50 (0.77) 300

4.15 (1.08) 249

F=8.46, 1/1077, p<.00 F=19.11, 1/547, p<.00

19

20

Table 4: Functional Depth – Email Use

Use of Email Men Women Total Volume of Email Messages 43.81 (109.85)

1001 36.33 (78.88) 1054

F = 3.16, 1/2053, p<.08 Type of Email User

Work onlyPersonal Only

Both

2.8% 26.3% 19.6%

4.2% 28.2% 18.9%

χ²== 10.68, df =2, p<.00 No. of Personal Email Accounts

OneTwo

More than Two

31.5% 10.9% 7.1%

34.6% 11.1% 4.8%

χ²== 10.68, df =2, p<.00 Use of Filters for Controlling Spam

YesNo

26.4% 22.3%

25.5% 25.8%

χ²== 4.13, df =1, p<.05

Our responsibility is to provide strong academic programs that instill excellence,confidence and strong leadership skills in our graduates. Our aim is to (1)promote critical and independent thinking, (2) foster personal responsibility and(3) develop students whose performance and commitment mark them as leaderscontributing to the business community and society. The College will serve as acenter for business scholarship, creative research and outreach activities to thecitizens and institutions of the State of Rhode Island as well as the regional,national and international communities.

Mission

The creation of this working paper serieshas been funded by an endowmentestablished by William A. Orme, URICollege of Business Administration,Class of 1949 and former head of theGeneral Electric Foundation. This workingpaper series is intended to permit facultymembers to obtain feedback on researchactivities before the research is submitted toacademic and professional journals andprofessional associations for presentations.

An award is presented annually for the mostoutstanding paper submitted.

Founded in 1892, the University of Rhode Island is one of eight land, urban, and sea grantuniversities in the United States. The 1,200-acre rural campus is lessthan ten miles from Narragansett Bay and highlights its traditions ofnatural resource, marine and urban related research. There are over14,000 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in seven degree-granting colleges representing 48 states and the District of Columbia.More than 500 international students represent 59 different countries.Eighteen percent of the freshman class graduated in the top ten percentof their high school classes. The teaching and research faculty numbersover 600 and the University offers 101 undergraduate programs and 86advanced degree programs. URI students have received Rhodes,

Fulbright, Truman, Goldwater, and Udall scholarships. There are over 80,000 active alumnae.

The University of Rhode Island started to offer undergraduate businessadministration courses in 1923. In 1962, the MBA program was introduced and the PhDprogram began in the mid 1980s. The College of Business Administration is accredited byThe AACSB International - The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business in1969. The College of Business enrolls over 1400 undergraduate students and more than 300graduate students.

Ballentine HallQuadrangle

Univ. of Rhode IslandKingston, Rhode Island