internet dropouts

Internet Dropouts – an essay in cultural diversity

The Good, the Bad and the IrrelevantHelsinki September 3-5, 2003 COST 269 User Aspects of ICTs

Dr. Frank ThomasFTRRosny, France

2

Dropouts- a (nearly) forgotten category of Internet users

• The state of the art• The data• The analysis• Conclusions

3

The state of the art: How to explain dropout?

• Diffusion theory• Communication research• History of technology

4

Diffusion theory (Rogers 1995)= « discontinuance of an innovation »

– Replacement - Being disenchantedBecause• Innovation inappropriate for user• Perceived relative advantage over existing

services judged to be inadequate• Bad use• Innovation didn’t become routinised into

ongoing practice• Forced discontinuance (through government or

industry intervention) • Exists all along the diffusion process, most

typical for late adopters

5

To be successful an innovation should be

• Perceived to be relatively advantageous to existing goods, services

• Compatible with existing values, past experience

• Simple to understand and to use• Triable, you should have the opportunity to

start on a limited basis• Observable, it should be visible to

potential users

6

Communication researchAuthors/study name and year of survey: • Katz & Aspden: USA 1995, 1997, 2002• Lenhart, Pew Internet: USA 2000,2002• UCLA Internet Report: USA 2000• A Nation Online: USA 2001• ARD-ZDF Online & Offline Studies:

Germany 2000 - 2002• Household Internet Use Survey: Canada

2000• World Internet Project, Japan: 2000• Wyatt: types of non-use

7

Katz & Aspden

• 1995: 8% of sample dropped out in the U.S.

• 2000: 11% dropoutsMain reasons

– 36% Lost institutional access– 23% No interest– 18% Use problems (equipment, too

difficult)– 7% cost

8

Social profile of dropoutsDropouts are

• Younger• Less well educated• Poorer• Short term users• Different learning

environments• Ethnic background

Multivariate: • only education

For the 20+

• No effect of gender• No effect of work status• No differrence in marital

status

9

Lenhart, Pew Internet Project

Reasons• 21% loss of PC• 14% changed job• 11% costChanges in life ->

dropout

13% dropouts, USA 2000

Dropout profil• Younger• Less educated• Poorerthan users

10

UCLA Internet Report

Reasons• 21% loss of PC• 17% no interest• 10% privacy, security concerns• 5% cost• 4% not useful• 4% takes too much time• 3% change of job

21% dropout rate USA 2001

11

ARD/ZDF Online & Offline Studies (2000 – 2002)

In Germany:• 2000: 6%• 2001: 7%• 2002: 6%

12

Canadian Household Internet Use Survey 2000

(Crompton, Ellison, Stevenson 2002)

5% dropouts, Canada 2000

Reasons:• 30% no need• 17% cost• 14% lost access to computer• 4% too difficult• 5% equipment broken

13

Japan study within the World Internet Project

• Total dropout rate 2000: 6%

Profile• 12 – 19 years: 15%• 30+ years : below 5%

14

History of technology

• Temporary dropout during a successful diffusion

• Dropout is different from the retreat of users when a technology ends its life cycle

15

Temporary drop-out during a successful diffusion

• De-diffusion of rural telephone by U.S. farmers in 1930s in favour of car (Fischer 1987)

• Retreat of German telephone diffusion after the world economic crisis of 1929 (Thomas 1995)

16

The impact of culture on ICT use

Culture is a system of commonly shared symbols, values, beliefs, and their translation into social perceptions, behaviour and artefacts.

17

The analysis

18

The general model

values & attitudes

socio-demographicresources

experience with ICTs Dropout rateDropout rate

Missing: SUPPLY= content & regulation & technology & tarification & …

?everyday life activities

19

Social Networks and ICT

P903 STUDY COUNTRIES

• Representative data about users and non -users of mobile phone and Internet

• focus on PRIVATE use

• 9 countries, advanced and starters

• more than 9,000 respondents

The data: the EURESCOM P903 survey

20

Who drops out in Europe?

• 5% of population used the Internet but does no longer (end of 2000)

• Low: 8% in Norway• High: 31% in Spain

source: EURESCOM P903

21

Dropout and penetration rates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40

% dropout in % of actual & former user

% In

tern

et p

enet

ratio

n

ES

NL

F

CR

DK

D

UK

I

N


22

Dropout rate by socio-demographic categories


0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

single, no childcouple, no child

couple & childsingle & child

+ ++-

- -tertiary educ.

secondary & less educ.55 +

45 to 5435 to 4425 to 3415 to 24

MaleFemale

incom

e.

..

23

Dropout rate & ICT background

0% 10% 20% 30%

below 1 yr1 yr

2 yrs3-4 yrs5+ yrsat workteacher

family & peersmyself, textbook

hot lineICT rich job

inactive: unemployed, retired, ill, housekeeperICT poor job

inactive: student, voc. training, national servicelow ICT budget

high ICT budgetnot innovative

very innovativelow efficacy

high efficacy

use d

urati

on

learn

ingen

viron

men

t

ICT-

orien

tedoc

cupa

tion

..

.


24

The structure of Internet attitudes Factors:

factor scores

utility, knowledge

& alternatives

time is money

mean to socialising

entry obstacles hazard

usability

not useful to me unfamiliar not interested in new technologies easier ways uses too much time easy to get lost too expensive contact people with same interests enables to make new friends too much effort to subscribe people in my household dislike Internet friendships are superficial fear of credit card fraud too much pornography, violence Internet is to gather information easy to use

% variance explained 14.7% 8.7% 7.9% 6.7% 6.5% 6.3% rotated factor matrix factor score > .5 factor score between .25 and .5 factor score < -.25

Data source: EURESCOM P903

25

Influences on the dropout-ratevariable reference effect B ddl Signif. Exp(B)gender male female 0,17 1 0,22 1,18age 15 to 45 years > 45 years -0,42 1 0,02 0,66education secondary or less tertiary -0,70 1 0,00 0,50household income < median > median -0,02 1 0,89 0,98Single/couple single couple -0,20 1 0,24 0,82presence of children no children children 0,24 1 0,15 1,28urban place rural urban -0,49 1 0,00 0,61residential mobility immobil mobil -0,38 1 0,30 0,69years of Internet use below 1 year 1 year + -0,18 1 0,31 0,84Learning environment assisted self-taught -0,74 1 0,00 0,48ICT-oriented occupation ICT poor ICT rich 0,70 1 0,00 0,49telephone budget < median > median -0,08 1 0,56 0,92fixed line phone no fixed line fixed line -0,69 1 0,00 0,50TV equipment none or low high -0,24 1 0,20 0,79home office none or low high -0,88 1 0,00 0,41PC efficacy low high 0,10 1 0,71 1,10lack of utility, knowledge low high 1,37 1 0,00 3,93time is money low high 0,09 1 0,52 1,10socialising tool low high -0,07 1 0,68 0,93entry obstacles low high 0,82 1 0,00 2,27hazard low high 0,17 1 0,23 1,18usability low high 0,21 1 0,15 1,23country Norway reference

Norway Denmark 0,97 1 0,00 2,63Norway Netherlands -0,24 1 0,42 0,78Norway Germany -0,47 1 0,10 0,62Norway UK 0,35 1 0,24 1,41Norway Italy -0,59 1 0,12 0,55Norway Czechia 0,79 1 0,00 2,20Norway France -0,01 1 0,97 0,99Norway Spain 1,13 1 0,00 3,10

soci

o-de

mog

raph

yIC

T en

viro

nmen

tat

titud

esna

tiona

l con

text

Data source: EURESCOM P903

26

Chances to drop-outdiminish• With the elderly• with better formal

education• When living in urban

places• If the Internet is being

self-taught• If a fixed phone line at

home• If a home office

equipment in the household

no effect:• gender• income• household structure• length of use• budget • PC efficacy

increase with:• work in ICT-poor jobs• the Internet perceived to

lack utility for oneself• the family against it,

difficulties to subscribe• residence in Denmark,

Czechia, Spain

27

Conclusions• Internet dropout remains an under-researched issue

• Influences of national cultures compete with general influences in explaining abandoning the Internet? They complement but cannot replace other explanations.

• Dropout will become socially and economically more important when reaching national saturation levels

• Actual research omits the supply side and the political context of the Internet

28

Cited bibliographyARD/ZDF-AG Multimedia: Nichtnutzer von Online: Einstellungen und Zugangsbarrieren. Media-

Perspektiven 8/1999, pp. 415-422.Crompton, Susan, Jonathan Ellison and Kathryn Stevenson: Better things to do or dealt out of

the game? Internet dropouts and infrequent users. Canadian Social Trends Summer 2002, pp. 2-5.

Fischer, Claude S.: Technology’s retreat: The decline of rural telephony in the United States, 1920 – 1940. Social Science History vol.11, 1987, pp.295 – 327.

Gerhards, Maria and Annette Mende: Nichtnutzer von Online: Kern von Internetverweigerern? Media-Perspektiven 8/2002, pp. 363 – 375.

Grajczyk, Andreas and Annette Mende: Nichtnutzer von Online: Internet für den Alltag noch nicht wichtig. Media-Perspektiven 8/2001, pp. 398 – 409.

Katz, James E. and Philip Aspden: Internet dropouts in the USA. Telecommunications Policy vol. 22, 1998, no. 4/5, pp. 327 – 329.

Katz, James E. and Ronald Rice: Social consequences of Internet use. Cambridge MA: MIT Press 2002.

Katz, James E. and Philip Aspden: Internet and mobile telephone digital divides. Telecommunications Policy vol. 27 no. 8/9, pp. 597-623.

Lenhart, Amanda: Who’s not online. Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington D.C., 21 Sep 2000.

Lenhart, Amanda: The evershifting Internet population. Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington D.C., April 2003.

Mikami, Shunjii: I-mode florishing Internet culture in Japan. World Intenet Project conference paper Gavle, 21 August 2001.

NTIA: A Nation Online. Washington D.C. Feb.2002.Rogers Everett M.: Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press 1995.Thomas, Frank: Telefonieren in Deutschland. MPI for the Study of Societies vol. 21.

Frankfurt/New York: Campus 1995.UCLA: Surveying the Digital Future. UCLA Internet Report 2001.Wyatt, Sally, Graham Thomas and Tiziana Terranova (2002) ‘They came, they surfed, they went

back to the beach’ in Steve Woolgar (ed) Virtual Society? Get Real. Oxford: Oxford University Press

29

Thank you!

If you have any questions:

mailto: [email protected]