internet use in the contemporary media environment

Flanagin Metzger CONTEMPORARY INTERNET USE 153

ecent developments in computer hardware and software dataexchange protocols compression technologies and the physi-cal communication infrastructure have quickly made the

Internet-World Wide Web (WWW) a viable communication technologyused by an estimated 147 million people (Computer Industry Almanac1999) in 171 countries (Zakon 1999) Researchers have examined Internetcontent (McLaughlin 1996) policy (Kahin 1997 McChesney 1996) com-munity and culture (Baym 1995 Jones 1995 1997 McLaughlin Osborneamp Ellison 1997 Rheingold 1993 Watson 1997 Wise 1997) commercial

Andrew J Flanagin (PhD Annenberg School for Communication University of SouthernCalifornia 1996) and Miriam J Metzger (PhD Annenberg School for Communication Uni-versity of Southern California 1997) are both assistant professors in the Department of Com-munication University of California Santa Barbara This research was supported by a Re-gentsrsquo Junior Faculty Fellowship (partially funded by the UCSB Foundation) from the Uni-versity of California Santa Barbara granted to the first author The authors would like tothank Emma Lulie and Patrick OrsquoSullivan for their helpful suggestions This study wassubmitted to Human Communication Research in June 1998 Correspondence concerning thisarticle should be addressed to Andrew Flanagin Department of Communication EllisonHall University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93106-4020 or toflanaginsscfucsbedu

Human Communication Research Vol 27 No 1 January 2001 153ndash181copy 2001 International Communication Association

Internet Use in the ContemporaryMedia Environment

ANDREW J FLANAGINMIRIAM J METZGERUniversity of California Santa Barbara

Although a significant amount of research has focused on traditional media choice and useand even on some ldquonewrdquo media these studies have either neglected the Internet and WorldWide Web or were conducted prior to their recent popularity This study offers a novel explo-ration of individualsrsquo use of three Internet functions (information retrieval information giv-ing and conversation capabilities) in the context of the use of other communication mediaData from 684 individuals demonstrate that the Internet is a multidimensional technologyused in a manner similar to other more traditional media Specifically conversation featuresof the Internet align with mediated interpersonal technologies (the telephone and electronicmail) whereas the Internetrsquos information-retrieval and information-giving features are usedin ways similar to mass media channels (newspapers television and books and magazines)In addition needs fulfilled by these channels cluster in ways consistent with past researchregardless of the technologies employed to meet them

R

154 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH January 2001

development (Donnelly 1996 Ho 1997 Hoffman Novak amp Chatterjee1996 Spar amp Bussgang 1996) communication structure (Jackson 1997)and user interaction patterns and norms (Garton Haythornthwaite ampWellman 1997 McLaughlin Osborne amp Smith 1995) Although theseaccounts provide a detailed view of the Internetrsquos form and functionsthey rely largely on qualitative or anecdotal descriptions of Internet useLittle empirical research has systematically examined usersrsquo behaviors ortheir views on why they have adopted the Internet and how they use it(for an exception see Parks amp Floyd 1996) To a degree this is not surpris-ing given the fast pace of technological development This rate of changehowever only underscores the importance of a rigorous examination ofnew communication technologiesrsquo development use and social effects

A related gap in our knowledge is individualsrsquo reasons for choosing touse the Internet in conjunction with other communication technologies Al-though people have many options when selecting communications me-dia only a small portion of media choice explanations considers the rangeof media options users have available to them at any particular time Theuses and gratifications approach to the study of media use offers someinsight into the reasons that people choose a specific medium over alter-native channels of communication However this insight is limited bythe fact that studies comparing gratifications across a variety of commu-nications media are somewhat rare Elliot and Quattlebaumrsquos (1979) claimthat ldquomost gratifications research has focused on specific media contentor on the more general uses of a specific mediumrdquo is still true today (p 61)

Studies that have considered peoplersquos uses of communications mediawithin a multiple-medium environment find that different media may beused to fulfill different needs (Adoni 1979 Cutler amp Danowski 1980Danowski amp Cutler 1978 Dobos 1992 Elliot amp Quattlebaum 1979 KatzGurevitch amp Haas 1973 Kippax amp Murray 1980 Lichtenstein ampRosenfeld 1983 1984 Lometti Reeves amp Bybee 1977 Perse amp Courtright1993 Weaver Wilhoit amp deBock 1980)1 Despite these studies howeverwe do not yet have a thorough understanding of individualsrsquo motiva-tions for media use in view of their many options in todayrsquos complexmedia environment This observation coupled with the rapid develop-ment of and sparse research on the Internet as a communication and in-formation tool suggests that many questions about individualsrsquo mediachoice and use remain unanswered

A central concern is the ways in which communication technologiesare actually used and the individual needs they fulfill in view of the manyfunctions that communication media perform In this regard the net-worked computer is especially interesting (see Postmes Spears amp Lea1998) Whereas most ldquotraditionalrdquo communication technologies were de-veloped with a single function in mind (eg the telephone originally was


designed to transmit audio signals person-to-person) the networked com-puter is capable of many different functions person-to-person communi-cation (eg electronic mail) group communication (eg ldquochatrdquo groups)or mass communication (eg online newspapers) to name only a fewThe many capabilities of computer communication via the Internet sug-gest shifts in the technologies that separately or in combination mightsatisfy individualsrsquo needs In addition the nature of the needs that peoplefulfill through media use may evolve as a consequence of the changingfunctions of communications media

This research examines issues raised by the introduction of new com-munications technologies By exploring individualsrsquo Internet use in thecontext of their use of other communications media and by consideringthe myriad of potential needs that might be satisfied by media use thisstudy seeks to paint a more complete portrait of the contemporary mediaenvironment In order to accomplish this we first explore how individu-als perceive and use the various functions of the Internet in conjunctionwith other media Second we examine the dimensions of individual needsthat are fulfilled by various communication technologies We then dis-cuss the implications of the findings in terms of the contemporary mediaenvironment

Internet and World Wide Web Use

In spite of the appropriateness and timeliness of the Internet as a topicof study we know remarkably little about its selection and use Althougha great deal of empirical research has been done on the selection and useof ldquonewrdquo technologies these studies preceded or did not include theInternet (Cohen Levy amp Golden 1988 Danowski 1988 Dobos 1992 Fulk1993 Levy 1980 1987 Perse amp Courtright 1993 Rice 1992 1993 Rice ampDanowski 1993 Rubin amp Bantz 1987 1988 Rubin amp Rubin 1989Salvaggio amp Bryant 1988 Schmitz amp Fulk 1991 Walther 1994 WilliamsPhillips amp Lum 1985 Williams amp Rice 1983) Thus whereas there is agrowing body of research on computer-mediated communication andelectronic mail (see Garton amp Wellman 1995) and some literature on theuses and gratifications of several channels considered together research-ers have yet to empirically examine Internet communication simulta-neously with other technologies

In studies that have compared computer communication in conjunc-tion with other media Rice (1993) included desktop videoconferencingelectronic mail and voice mail in his list of new technologies Perse andDunn (1998) examined computer ownership and connectivity and Perseand Courtright (1993) examined peoplersquos uses of the ldquocomputerrdquo generi-cally without isolating any of its specific functions2 Perse and Dunn (1998)


found that only 33 of their sample had accessed the Internet in the pastyear from home (in 1994) whereas Perse and Courtright found that thecomputer was rated low in social presence (see below) and not strong ataccommodating socioemotional communication In part Perse andCourtright (1993) attributed their findings to the low diffusion of com-puters and the low adoption of electronic mail and bulletin boards notingthat ldquothe computerrsquos low rating for communication need satisfaction mayreflect unfamiliarity and low use of computers for communicationrdquo (p 499)

Although accurate at the time (their data were collected in 1988) thisis certainly not the case today With email and Web access becoming nearlyubiquitous among personal computer users and networked personal com-puter penetration steadily gaining on other media (Morgan Stanley 1996)lack of exposure and access are no longer such limiting factors Similarlyusage data indicate that the number of Internet users is increasing dra-matically each year (CommerceNet Research Center 1998 Pew ResearchCenter 1999) Thus it is time to take to action Perse and Courtrightrsquos callthat ldquofuture research should consider whether the almost certain increasein use of [computer] technology for communication will influence thefunctional image of this mediumrdquo (p 499)

Functional Images of Communications Media

New communication technologies such as electronic mail and theInternet present novel issues in models of media use in light of rapidtechnological advancements (Straubhaar amp LaRose 1996) and somewhatcontradictory findings concerning their perception and use Empirical andanecdotal evidence illustrates sometimes contrasting views on why newtechnologies are selected the tasks for which they are best suited andpeoplersquos perceptions of these media Theories of media selection and usecan help to explain both the purposes for which new media are beingused as well as how they are used in ways similar to other technologies

Media Attributes and Media Selection

One of the earliest models of media choice proposed that people selectcommunication technologies based on a mediumrsquos attributes The socialpresence model (Short Williams amp Christie 1976) claims that communi-cation media vary in the degree to which they can convey the physicalpresence of communicators The model arranges media along a continuumfrom low (eg numeric data) to high social presence (eg face-to-face)and contends that individuals will select the medium that they perceiveto have the highest social presence


Like the social presence model media richness theory (Daft amp Lengel1984) proposes that people select communication technologies basedlargely on the attributes of the medium The theory posits that media canbe arranged on a continuum from ldquoleanrdquo to ldquorichrdquo based on their speedof feedback variety of channels personalness of source and richness oflanguage used Media richness theory also considers the context of useby proposing that individuals will seek to match the richness of a com-munication medium with the complexity of the task for which it is used

Rice (1993) reported that newer media were rated by users as moreappropriate for information exchange tasks requiring low social presenceSimilarly Perse and Courtright (1993) found new media to be better fortask performance and the computer to be rated low in social presenceHowever recent accounts suggest that newer media such as electronicmail and other forms of computer-mediated communication are used ef-fectively for socioemotional tasks (Danowski 1988 1993 Markus 1994Parks amp Floyd 1996 Rheingold 1993 Rice amp Love 1987 Walther 19921996) The use of ldquoleanrdquo media for ldquorichrdquo tasks calls into question mediachoice models based primarily on usersrsquo rational assessments of mediaattributes

Current evidence suggests that this discrepancy may be due to shift-ing norms and understandings of new media Danowski (1988 1993) pro-posed that media such as electronic mail are actually rich media not leanbecause they stimulate discussion and interpretation of meanings morethan do other media Fulk and Boyd (1991) note that research on mediarichness is more supportive of the media continuum as applied to tradi-tional rather than new media Markus (1994) echoes this position in herfinding that media richness theory is fairly well able to predict percep-tions and use of older communication technologies but that newer mediabehave less reliably She attributes this to the ldquoshared cultural normsrdquosurrounding these well-established traditional technologies that are ab-sent in the use of newer ones (p 523)

These views suggest that examination of media characteristics inde-pendent of the broader communication contexts in which they are usedmay not be an effective strategy Thus although social presence and me-dia richness models emphasize usersrsquo consideration of media attributesrecent evidence suggests that shared perceptions and collective experi-ences with technologies are important in the assessment and selection ofmedia as well

Individual and Social Needs and Media Selection

Recent models of media selection and use suggest that it is not prima-rily the attributes of media that determine use but rather such factors asassessments of needs fulfillment appropriateness social norms and peer


evaluations of media Both the social influence (Fulk Schmitz amp Steinfield1990) and the uses and gratifications models of media choice and use(Blumler amp McQuail 1969 Katz Blumler amp Gurevitch 1974 Katz et al1973) illustrate this The social influence model recognizes that mediaperceptions are subjective and socially constructed Influences can comefrom others through vicarious learning and from situational factors suchas individual differences or those factors that facilitate (eg training sup-port) or constrain media use (eg geographic barriers and time con-straints)

In tests of the social influence model Schmitz and Fulk (1991) foundthat technology use was influenced by close co-workers and by onersquosimmediate supervisor Fulk (1993) found that the social influence of onersquosgroup predicted individual attitudes toward and use of technologies morestrongly when group attraction is high than when it is low Rice and Aydin(1991) found that above the traditional influences of system use and mem-bership in occupational categories social information processing influ-enced individual attitudes concerning technologies Thus contrary tomodels of media selection that propose that individuals choose mediabased largely on the features or attributes of the technologies the socialinfluence model portrays users as active processors of subjective and con-textual information

Consistent with social influence models the uses and gratifications(UampG) perspective views individuals as purposive and active specifyingthat people select media based on needs Although a vast inventory ofneeds has been examined people seem to use various media for suchcore motivations as getting information being entertained interactingwith others socially and gaining insight into onersquos personal identity (Ang1995) Using value-expectancy theory the UampG perspective proposes thatindividuals choose to use media based on their beliefs and feelings abouthow well doing so will satisfy their needs (Palmgreen 1984)

Morris and Ogan (1996) argue that the UampG perspective may be usefulto begin the scholarly inquiry into Internet communication SimilarlyRafaeli (1986) discusses how UampG is important for exploring electroniccommunication because of its ldquocomprehensivenessrdquo or its ability to ex-amine the multiple uses to which various technologies might simulta-neously be put Surprisingly relatively little UampG research has addressedthe issue of new communication technologies yet ldquoit is a crucial one if weare to gain a better insight into the uses people have for new commu-nication systemsrdquo (Palmgreen 1984 p 49)

Functional Images

Following Lichtenstein and Rosenfeld (1983 1984) Perse and Courtright(1993) claim that ldquonormative imagesrdquo of communication media or the


ldquowidely shared perceptions about a mediumrsquos typical usagerdquo affect indi-vidualsrsquo uses of those media (p 486) Because new technologies are espe-cially prone to appropriation and redefinition by users (Feenberg 19921995 Poole amp DeSanctis 1990) the normative images of relatively newwidely used and rapidly changing technologies are evolving quicklyresulting in ambiguity surrounding the choice and use of new technologies

Combining the various explanations of media choice and use it is pro-posed that functional images of media distinguish communication tech-nologies according to their most salient features and uses (ie functions)The functional image of a medium is based on collectively held notionsof how the medium is used that are formed through its long-term use Amediumrsquos functional image is composed of both its ldquofunctional alterna-tivesrdquo (media that satisfy similar needs) and its ldquonormative imagerdquo (widelyshared perceptions of a mediumrsquos usage) (see Lichtenstein amp Rosenfeld1983 1984 Perse amp Courtright 1993 Rubin amp Rubin 1985) Consequentlyfunctional images can be understood through an examination of (a) whichtechnologies users associate closely with one another and (b) the pur-poses for which a medium is used (the needs it fulfills) Given recent andwidespread changes to the communication technology landscape coupledwith the complex interdependence of communication technologies on eachother reevaluation of the functional images of media is a timely pursuitThus the following research questions are proposed

RQ1 Which communication technologies are being used similarly (ie whatgroups of technologies exist)

RQ2 Which groups of technologies are most useful for satisfying specific in-dividual needs

Motivations for Communication Technology Use

As the media used to address individual needs change so too dopeoplersquos perceptions of those needs Evidence for this comes from researchwhich finds that the introduction of new communication technologiesleads to a functional reorganization of media gratifications (Elliot ampQuattlebaum 1979 Morris amp Ogan 1996 Williams et al 1985) With theshift toward networked computers capable of point-to-point communi-cation and information transfer in the 1990s individualsrsquo access to otherswith whom they can communicate has undergone a fundamental shift(Malone amp Rockart 1991) The evolution of computers from machinesused predominantly for the execution of work tasks to machines oftenused to play games communicate with loved ones read a newspaper orplan a vacation for example may mark shifts in perceptions of need sat-isfaction In such instances information seeking and entertainment needs


may become blurred at least as achieved through the computer With theconvergence in media technologies may come a convergence in the needsthat they fulfill

Past research in mass and organizational communication has tendedto separate needs or tasks along relatively social and instrumental di-mensions generally speaking Uses and gratifications studies thoughquite comprehensive in their conceptualization of individualsrsquo needs thatare satisfied via various channels tend to de-emphasize task-oriented orinstrumental needs3 Organizational communication research alterna-tively focuses on the ability of communication technologies to addressrelatively instrumental needs or ends that occur in the execution of orga-nizational tasks Given the convergence of work and non-work technolo-gies and the attendant blurring of home and work roles a reexaminationof social and instrumental needs simultaneously is warranted (Morris ampOgan 1996) Such an examination serves to assess empirically which needsusers perceive to be met by which technologies

As proposed in research questions 1 and 2 communication technolo-gies may form distinct functional images or groups that may in turn varyin the extent to which they are used to fulfill individualsrsquo needs Con-versely at issue here is the extent to which individual needs might formdistinct motivations for media use and the ways in which different com-munication technologies may be used to fulfill these needs

RQ3 Which individual needs are perceived to be similar to one another (iewhat groups of needs exist)

RQ4 Which groups of needs do different communication technologies fulfillbest

METHOD

Participants

Data for this study were collected in late 1997 and early 1998 In orderto assess Internet-use behavior in conjunction with other media a targetsample possessing the requisite Internet skills was required Internet us-ers are typically young (over half are under 36) and well educated (ap-proximately half have completed college) with the greatest proportion ofexpert users in their early- to mid-twenties (GVU Center 1997) Thus themajority of participants were drawn from undergraduate communica-tion classes taught at two universities in the United States one in theMidwest and the other on the West Coast (N = 504) In addition to these


respondents and in order to round out the sample convenience samplesof respondents who were not in college provided additional data for thestudy (N = 180 or 26 of the sample)

A total of 684 surveys were completed The range of respondent ageswas 15 to 76 years with a mean age of 2440 years (SD = 1054) Duelargely to the oversampling of college-age students sample members hada mean of 1466 years of education (SD = 176 years) There were 276 (404)male respondents and 396 (579) female respondents (12 failed to pro-vide their gender) and home zip codes indicated that they represented arelatively large geographic area 305 unique zip codes were given origi-nating from 8 different states Overall respondents in the sample werereasonably experienced in Internet use rating how often they use theInternet-WWW as 388 (SD = 175) on a 7-point scale (where 1 = ldquoI neveruse the InternetWWWrdquo to 7 = ldquoI constantly use the InternetWWWrdquo)In addition respondents indicated that their level of expertise on Internetuse as 405 (SD = 179) on a 7-point scale (where 1 = ldquoI am not at all ex-pertrdquo and 7 = ldquoI am completely expertrdquo) and their level of access to theInternet-WWW as 555 (SD = 175) on a 7-point scale (where 1 = ldquoIt isextremely difficult for me to access the InternetWWWrdquo to 7 = ldquoIt is ex-tremely easy for me to access the InternetWWWrdquo)

Procedure

The survey was introduced as a study of how individuals ldquouse differ-ent communications mediardquo Respondents were asked to complete a ques-tionnaire designed to assess their usage of 9 different communicationstechnologies for satisfying 21 needs4 To guard against respondent fatiguein what was a rather lengthy questionnaire three versions of the surveywere created that presented the various communications media in differ-ent order The three forms were administered randomly In addition dueto the fact that some of the technologies (eg Internet ldquochatrdquo functions)on the survey are still not widely used as compared to others (eg thetelephone) respondents were given the option to skip sections that dealtwith these more advanced technologies if they ldquonever usedrdquo them

Measures

Communication technologies or media represent both traditional and con-temporary channels Nine channels were selected for this study face-to-face telephone newspapers television books and magazines electronicmail and three separate functions of the Internet Due to the versatility of


the Internet and the many uses to which it is being put by users the Internetwas broken down into various communication and information functionsinformation retrieval (typically performed via web ldquosearch enginesrdquo in-formation giving (through such means as personal web sites or by ldquopost-ingrdquo information to othersrsquo sites) and conversation (eg ldquousenetrdquo groupsand ldquochat roomsrdquo that enable users to talk with others on topics of mu-tual interest asynchronously or in real time respectively) These threefeatures of the Internet-WWW are proposed to represent the major func-tions for which the technology is currently being used and to be suffi-ciently different from one another to warrant individual consideration

Individual needs were derived from extant research on uses and gratifi-cations of media as well as from studies of technology use in organiza-tions Doing so addresses the aforementioned blurring of technology usefor work and social purposes In addition a diverse set of needs is crucialfor the reevaluation of needs dimensions in view of the multitude ofchoices available in the contemporary media environment

Uses and gratifications research has consistently focused on the socialintegration personal identity entertainment and information uses ofmedia (Ang 1995) Social integration needs involve establishing andmaintaining contact with others and include such things as to get to knowothers to have something to do with others to stay in touch and to feel lesslonely Personal identity needs involve such self-discovery items as to learnabout myself and others and to gain insight into myself Entertainment needstypically include items such as to be entertained to play to relax and to passthe time away when bored5

Several studies have examined information needs fulfilled by technol-ogy use The capabilities of advanced communication and informationtechnologies suggest that both getting and providing information areimportant needs fulfilled by modern communication media (FulkFlanagin Kalman Monge amp Ryan 1996) Consequently to get informa-tion to learn how to do things to provide others with information and to con-tribute what I know to a pool of information were all included in this research

Finally instrumental needs are derived from organizational commu-nication technology research and involve persuasion or negotiation inattaining some desired end Instrumental items from Short et al (1976)and Rice (1993) that were used in this research included to generate ideasto negotiate or bargain to get someone to do something for me to solve problemsand to make decisions Additionally it has been suggested that beyond anyinstrumental uses media can be chosen due to their symbolic value (SitkinSutcliffe amp Barrios-Choplin 1992 Trevino Daft amp Lengel 1990) Accord-ingly status enhancement was viewed as a potential motivation for me-dia use and the needs to feel important and to impress people were includedas well Thus a total of 21 need statements were used in this research (seeTable 1)


TA

BL

E 1

Mea

n R

atin

gs f

or U

tili

ty o

f C

han

nel

s fo

r S

atis

fyin

g C

omm

un

icat

ion

Nee

ds

( N =

684

)

Nee

dB

amp M

E-m

ail

FtF

Int ndash

Rtr

vlIn

t ndash C

nvIn

t ndash G

vgN

PP

hone

TV

to g

et in

form

atio

n4

484

274

494

633

773

814

494

254

10to

gen

erat

e id

eas

412

365

441

381

363

385

350

358

334

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

248

327

435

236

272

291

253

368

221

to le

arn

abou

t mys

elf a

nd o

ther

s3

733

624

343

193

633

273

443

713

32to

be

ente

rtai

ned

436

392

421

386

422

354

379

386

464

to g

et to

kno

w o

ther

s3

073

874

552

823

883

182

984

102

81to

lear

n ho

w to

do

thin

gs3

923

224

263

823

283

323

083

323

43to

impr

ess

peop

le2

392

323

282

212

422

692

312

321

94to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs2

533

704

242

523

582

892

333

843

22to

pro

vid

e ot

hers

wit

h in

form

atio

n3

234

194

343

123

584

003

224

162

90to

get

som

eone

to d

o so

met

hing

for

me

211

355

415

222

272

281

204

389

195

to s

olve

pro

blem

s3

403

494

283

673

063

332

743

852

48to

pla

y3

203

504

063

493

853

282

423

373

43to

sta

y in

touc

h2

784

404

342

853

763

243

294

532

99to

rel

ax4

093

493

923

193

623

203

463

664

43to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

323

331

419

326

292

313

305

373

254

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

a p

ool o

f inf

orm

atio

n2

903

504

062

763

213

742

943

342

54to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

f3

362

713

852

522

932

772

632

882

55to

pas

s th

e ti

me

away

whe

n bo

red

409

366

384

354

399

311

348

370

435

to fe

el le

ss lo

nely

275

314

398

230

319

239

223

371

305

to fe

el im

port

ant

228

254

331

211

253

253

224

268

193

NO

TE B

amp M

= b

ooks

and

mag

azin

es E

-mai

l = e

lect

roni

c m

ail

FtF

= fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce I

nt-R

trvl

= in

form

atio

n re

trie

val v

ia t

he I

nter

net-

WW

W I

nt-C

nv =

conv

ersa

tion

via

the

Inte

rnet

-WW

W I

nt-G

vg =

info

rmat

ion

givi

ng v

ia th

e In

tern

et-W

WW

NP

= n

ewsp

aper

s P

hone

= te

leph

one

TV

= te

levi

sion

1

= lo

w u

se 5

= h

igh

use


Analysis

Research Questions 1 and 3 were assessed by cluster analysis6 Thedata were analyzed by a hierarchical cluster procedure which begins withsquared Euclidean distances as the similarity measure and uses the aver-age-linkage between-groups method of cluster identification Three cri-teria were used to determine the appropriate number of clusters Firstthe number of clusters was plotted against the distance coefficients form-ing a graph that is analogous to the scree test commonly used in factoranalysis to determine the number of factors (see Aldenderfer amp Blashfield1984) As in factor analysis the point at which the curve flattens out is anindication of where to stop combining clusters Second between-clusterdistance coefficients (ldquodissimilarityrdquo) ratios were calculated between thedistance coefficients at contiguous stages and compared for their magni-tude Larger ratios indicate greater separation between clusters suggest-ing the optimal number of cluster solutions Finally after the number ofclusters was tentatively determined using these criteria each of the clus-ters was examined for its theoretical relevance

Research Questions 2 and 4 were investigated using repeated-measuresMANOVA with the clusters derived from Research Questions 1 and 3respectively as the independent variables and mean use ratings as thedependent variables

RESULTS

Descriptive Analyses

Almost all respondents indicated that they use the ldquotraditionalrdquo me-dia including telephone (100) face-to-face (99) books and magazines(99) newspapers (99) and television (98)7 Ninety percent of the

TABLE 2Agglomeration Schedule for Cluster Analysis of Technologies

Stage of clusters Combination Distance coefficient

1 8 2 and 8 11532 7 1 and 6 30363 6 1 and 7 38694 5 2 and 4 42435 4 1 and 5 52736 3 1 and 9 72907 2 1 and 2 105358 1 1 and 3 22346


respondents said that they use electronic mail and 82 indicated thatthey use the Internet for retrieving information Although smaller per-centages indicated that they use the Internet for conversing with others(32) or for giving information (23) these are still notable given thefact that widespread use of the Internet is a fairly recent phenomenonTable 1 shows the mean ratings for how well each of the 9 communica-tion technologies satisfies each of the 21 needs

Functional Images

The first research question concerned similarities in media use Simi-larities were assessed by a cluster analysis of the communication tech-nologies according to how useful they were in satisfying the 21 needsDiscounting the extreme 8-cluster solution the agglomeration schedule(see Table 2) shows that the dissimilarity ratios are greatest between Clus-ters 2 and 1 (ratio = 212) with the second highest dissimilarity ratio oc-curring between Clusters 3 and 2 (ratio = 145) Similarly Figure 1 showsthat the scree plot leveled off after 2 or 3 clusters Applying the criteriadescribed earlier a 3-cluster solution best described the data8 Cluster 1was composed of a single medium face-to-face communication This clus-ter was labeled unmediated interpersonal communication Cluster 2 includedInternet-conversation telephone and electronic mail This cluster waslabeled mediated interpersonal communication Cluster 3 contained televi-sion Internet-information retrieval Internet-information giving booksand magazines and newspapers This cluster was labeled mass commu-nication

Figure 1 Scree Plot for Technologies Clusters


Research Question 2 (which asked which groups of technologies aremost useful for satisfying specific individual needs) was tested by a re-peated-measures MANOVA with the technology clusters as the indepen-dent variable and the 21 mean need ratings as the dependent measuresThe omnibus F was significant F (2 2004) = 13184 p lt 00019 Table 3shows the results of the follow-up tests used to determine how the threetechnology clusters differed in terms of fulfilling each of the 21 needs

Unmediated interpersonal communication (face-to-face) was signifi-cantly better at fulfilling all needs except entertainment (rated same asmass) staying in touch (rated same as mediated interpersonal) and pass-ing time when bored (rated same as mass) Mediated interpersonal com-munication was significantly better than mass communication for all needs

TABLE 3Mean Ratings by Technology Clusters (N = 684)

Unmediated MediatedNeed interpersonal interpersonal Mass

to get information 449 419 438to generate ideas 441 360

a369

ato negotiate or bargain 435 339 242to learn about myself and others 434 367 341to be entertained 421

a389 415

ato get to know others 455 396 293to learn how to do things 426 327 353to impress people 328 231

a223

ato have something to do with others 424 372 266to provide others with information 434 410 315to get someone to do something for me 415 361 210to solve problems 428 361 304to play 406 344 311to stay in touch 434

a437

a300

to relax 392 355 380to make decisions 419 346 301to contribute to a pool of information 406 339 283to gain insight into myself 385 279

a278

ato pass the time away when Irsquom bored 384

a368 385

ato feel less lonely 398 340 259to feel important 331 259 216

NOTE Unmediated interpersonal cluster = face-to-face Mediated interpersonal cluster = con-versation via the Internet-WWW telephone and electronic mail Mass cluster = booksand magazines information retrieval via the Internet-WWW information giving via theInternet-WWW newspapers and televisionMeans with matching subscripts within the same row are not significantly different fromone another Significant differences are at p lt 011 = low use 5 = high use


except for get information generate ideas entertainment learn how todo things impress people relax gain insight into self and pass the timeaway when bored

Motivations for Technology Use

Research Question 3 sought to discover which individual needs areperceived to be similar to one another Using the same criteria as beforefor selecting the number of clusters a 10-cluster solution fit the data bestAs seen in Figure 2 the curve of the scree plot begins to level off after 10clusters Table 4 indicates that the largest dissimilarity ratios (after Stage3) 10 are found between Clusters 10 and 9 (ratio = 148) and between Clus-ters 4 and 3 (ratio = 136)

Cluster 1 was labeled information and consisted of a single item (to getinformation) Cluster 2 learn included three items (to generate ideas tolearn about myself and others to learn how to do things) Cluster 3 playwas another single-item cluster (to play) Cluster 4 consisted of three items(to be entertained to relax to pass time away when Irsquom bored) and waslabeled leisure Cluster 5 was composed of items that were concerned withpersuasion (to negotiate or bargain to get someone to do something forme) Clusters 6 and 7 both had social aspects Cluster 6 consisted of twoitems (to have something to do with others to feel less lonely) and waslabeled social bonding Cluster 7 included items that were concerned withrelationship maintenance (to get to know others to provide others with

Figure 2 Scree Plot for Needs Clusters


information to stay in touch) Cluster 8 problem solving was task-oriented(to solve problems to make decisions to contribute to a pool of informa-tion) and Cluster 9 consisted of items concerned with personal status (toimpress people to feel important) Finally Cluster 10 was composed of onlyone item (to gain insight into myself) and was therefore labeled insight

Research Question 4 asked which groups of individual needs are bestfulfilled by different communication technologies In this analysis the 10needs clusters served as the independent grouping variable and the meanneed ratings by technology served as the dependent measures The om-nibus F was significant F (9 907) = 1839 p lt 0001 Table 5 reports theresults of the follow-up tests

A number of interesting findings emerge from an inspection of the needscluster ratings The vast majority of the technologies were used heavily tofulfill information seeking needs Six of the 9 technologies were assessedas most useful for getting information books and magazines electronicmail face-to-face the information-retrieval capabilities of the Internetthe information-giving capabilities of the Internet and newspapers In-formation seeking was the second most highly used function of the tele-phone and the television whereas the conversation capacity of the Internetwas used slightly more heavily for play and leisure purposes than forinformation seeking Together this indicates that information seeking is a

TABLE 4Agglomeration Schedule for Cluster Analysis of Needs


1 20 8 and 21 2442 19 15 and 19 3113 18 12 and 16 4114 17 3 and 11 6375 16 6 and 14 7416 15 2 and 4 9007 14 9 and 20 9368 13 2 and 7 9619 12 6 and 10 1087

10 11 5 and 15 114111 10 12 and 17 132712 9 2 and 13 195913 8 3 and 9 215014 7 6 and 12 241015 6 8 and 18 250916 5 2 and 5 275417 4 3 and 6 369818 3 1 and 2 502619 2 3 and 8 660620 1 1 and 3 8717


TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e


common function of nearly all communication technologies emergingclearly from among all of the needs

Fulfilling leisure needs was also a common function to which tech-nologies often were put Books and magazines the Internetrsquos informa-tion retrieval and information giving features and television were all usedheavily to fulfill this need over others Similarly relationship maintenancewas a need that was commonly fulfilled by multiple technologies electronicmail face-to-face and the telephone were all used heavily in this regard

Relative to other needs learning was strongly fulfilled by two of thethree Internet technologies (information retrieval via the Internet and in-formation giving through the Internet) indicating that they were usedmore for this purpose than in the fulfillment of other needs By contrastother media were used mostly for other purposes when compared acrossthe needs met by each technology Collectively this indicates that Internettechnologies unlike other media are used strongly for learning as op-posed to other needs

Among other findings were that electronic mail face-to-face and thetelephone tend to be used highly to fulfill a number of needs Specificallyall three media are used heavily as compared to other technologies tofulfill persuasion social bonding and relationship maintenance needsTo a slightly lesser extent these technologies are also used for play andstatus fulfillment

Face-to-face communication ranks highly across all needs Notablyhowever it is used less for the fulfillment of leisure needs as comparedto its strong showing across all other needs dimensions As mentionedearlier Internet-conversation capabilities are used primarily to fulfill playand leisure needs distinguishing it from similar technologies of the tele-phone and electronic mail and suggesting that it is used less to communi-cate with specific others and more for the entertainment value derivedfrom such features as for example chat and usenet functions

DISCUSSION

Functional Images

Three clusters of technologies labeled unmediated interpersonal me-diated interpersonal and mass communication were identified in thisstudy Similar to prior studies comparing a variety of media (Elliott ampQuattlebaum 1979 Rosenfeld amp Lichtenstein 1983 Perse amp Courtright1993 Rice 1993) face-to-face communication was distinct in its usage asillustrated by the fact that it clustered with no other communications chan-nel In contrast to prior research (Perse amp Courtright 1993) however com-


puter-based technologies did not cluster alone Instead computer com-munication aligned with either traditional mass or traditional interper-sonal channels Internet information-retrieval and information-givingcapabilities clustered with television newspapers and books and maga-zines (mass communication cluster) whereas Internet-conversation ca-pabilities and email clustered with the telephone (mediated interpersonalcommunication cluster)

Further unlike recent research (Rice 1993) where ldquonewrdquo media clus-tered together with each other (yet largely apart from more traditionalones) new communication technologies were found to be functionallyequivalent with more traditional media pointing to a convergence amongmedia in terms of their functional images One explanation for this is Ricersquos(1993 Rice amp Associates 1984) observation that technologies with highldquosubstitutabilityrdquo (those whose functions can be met by other media) showa tendency to shift over time in terms of usersrsquo appropriateness or useratings of them This would suggest that newer media are transitioningtoward the roles of more traditional ones due to their capacity to improveor augment the capabilities of existing technologies

For instance in a relatively short period computer-based technologieshave evolved from being viewed as largely unrelated to other media interms of their need fulfillment (Perse amp Courtright 1993) to fundamen-tally interwoven with them People seem to be integrating computer com-munication into their daily repertoire of communication tools and usingcomputer-based technologies to fulfill a variety of needs just as they usemore traditional media The functional image of email for example isnow becoming like that of the telephone a good way keep in contactwith friends and family Similarly the functional image of surfing the Webhas become similar to the newspaper or television a good place to gleaninformation and to be entertained This indicates that the uses of newmedia evolve as users become more familiar with them (Hiltz amp Turoff1978 1981) and as Rice (1993) predicted more stable or positive assess-ments of new media ldquomight await greater diffusion and familiarityrdquo (p479) This also suggests that a theoretical convergence of diffusion of in-novations and uses and gratifications research may be a fruitful avenuefor further research That is uses of communication technologies maychange over the various phases of adoption and should therefore be ex-amined at each stage of the diffusion process

The current level of content convergence among Internet-based andmore traditional technologies has important implications for theoreticalapproaches that explain or describe individualsrsquo media choice and usebehavior For example traditional print media delivered via an interac-tive web site can be extremely rich as assessed by media richness criteriawhen combined with hypertext or hypermedia links to additional text


photographs audio or video Possibly as a result we found convergencein the usage of video- and print-based technologies resulting in a singlemass media cluster whereas Perse and Courtright (1993) found videotechnologies (cable movies television and VCR) and print media (maga-zines books and newspapers) to constitute separate clusters This sug-gests that in the contemporary media environment it is important to gobeyond media attributes such as print (text) or video and consider us-ersrsquo conceptions of a mediumrsquos functional image in assessing media choiceand usage The implication is that with increasing content convergenceacross media theoretical perspectives relying on assessments of mediaattributes (ie social presence and media richness theories) may becomeincreasingly problematic as media become less distinct

The general issue of content convergence among Internet-based andmore traditional technologies also suggests a rival explanation for thefinding that old and new media were assessed as similar by our respon-dents Because for example radio and television stations stream theircontent across the Internet and newspapers and magazines post their con-tent online respondents might have confounded the media of this studythat were initially assumed to be distinct An alternative explanation forsome of our findings then is that people see Internet-based technologiesas not distinct from more traditional ones simply because they delivercontent in common However it is unlikely that either the level of contentconvergence is sufficiently great at this point in time or that individualshave sufficiently abandoned their notions of new and traditional mediafunctionality to have a significant impact in this regard Nonetheless thispossibility is intriguing and becomes a more plausible explanation for aconvergence in individualsrsquo media usage over time as more and morecontent is migrated across delivery platforms Consequently future re-search should account for this type of convergence

In terms of the utility of the technology clusters for satisfying commu-nication needs unmediated interpersonal (face-to-face) communicationwas by far the most useful and most versatile channel for need satisfac-tion rated highest for fulfilling 18 of the 21 needs Consistent with pastresearch and despite a growing number of increasingly complex and pow-erful media choices nothing quite compares to face-to-face communica-tion in terms of satisfying individualsrsquo needs Studies of face-to-face com-munication typically find that it is extremely useful for satisfying awide variety of needs (Elliott amp Quattlebaum 1979 Perse amp Courtright1993 Rice 1993) and no other channel of communication seems to be ableto compete with the rich involvement that face-to-face interaction pro-vides Face-to-face communication was only surpassed by mediated in-terpersonal communication in fulfilling the need to stay in touch a find-ing that attests to the distance-bridging ability that those media afford


Similarly face-to-face communication was not significantly better thanmass communication in satisfying the needs to be entertained and to passtime This too makes sense considering the minimum effort required andthe maximum variety in content offered by mass communication (Cohenamp Metzger 1998)

The results also illustrate that clusters of technologies classified asmediated interpersonal and mass communication are being used to sat-isfy significantly different needs Mass media were clearly used for infor-mational (eg to get information) and leisure purposes (eg to be enter-tained) Mediated interpersonal technologies were used mainly for socialbonding (eg to feel less lonely) relationship maintenance (eg to stayin touch) problem solving (eg to solve problems) and persuasion pur-poses (eg to negotiate or bargain) Whereas Rice (1993) found that newmedia were rated as more appropriate for fulfilling lean information ex-change tasks (as opposed to socioemotional relation tasks) this studyfound that new media are used for relatively rich tasks as well as leanones This finding supports the notion that newer media may transcendstrict media richness predictions (Fulk amp Boyd 1991 Markus 1994) andbe used for socioemotional or complex tasks (Danowski 1988 1993Walther 1994 1996 Walther Anderson amp Park 1994)


According to Williams et al (1985) ldquoone reason for studying the newtechnologies is to examine how or if gratifications change with mediacharacteristicsrdquo (p 244) Such an examination is particularly timely dueto the convergence of media forms and uses and increased technologicalconnectivity communality and interactivity (Fulk amp DeSanctis 1995 Fulket al 1996 Rogers 1986) Thus we examined whether the gratificationsderived from using communications media have been reconfigured ascommunication technologies have changed

The results show that communications needs havenrsquot changed signifi-cantly even if the means of communicating have Ten needs clustersemerged from the analysis information learn play leisure persuasionsocial bonding relationship maintenance problem solving status andinsight Consistent with earlier findings (as detailed in the Measures sec-tion) but contrary to recent trends in the convergence of technologicalfunctions (for work and play uses for example) these needs clustersroughly parallel general areas of needs found in past research Thereforetraditional needs clusters endured regardless of the technologies employedto address them So although Williams et alrsquos (1985) suggestion is theo-retically intriguing our results show that basic gratifications have notchanged during the Internetrsquos diffusion to date This supports studies of


new technologies that have found that ldquocommunication needs appear totranscend communication channels or contextsrdquo (Rubin amp Rubin 1989 p107) Thus it appears that technologies meet needs and not that needsmeet technologies

The fact that getting information was an important need across chan-nels suggests that a primary goal of communication regardless of themedium used is to get information Somewhat unexpected in this regardis the extent to which the Internet was used to get information particu-larly in relation to other technologies Of all channels the Internet wasthe most highly used for getting information over other technologies suchas newspapers television books and magazines This suggests somepotentially problematic issues of information verity and credibility in thenew media environment

Whereas newspapers books magazines and television all undergocertain levels of factual verification analysis of content and editorial re-view for the most part Internet information is not subject to the samelevel of scrutiny Although Internet sites that parallel their print counter-parts such as major newspapers and periodicals do invoke the sameeditorial processes as their print forms they constitute a relatively smallportion of the information found on the Internet More common at leastat this time is less formal information generated by special interest groupsindividuals and organizations the level of editorial review for which isnot explicit One consequence is that editorial functions that were for-merly the responsibility of the information producer or publisher nowfall upon the shoulders of the media consumer (Gilster 1997 Scheuermannamp Langford 1997) However existing research on the perceived credibil-ity of traditional versus Internet-based information sources has not pro-duced consistent findings (Johnson amp Kaye 1998 Mashek 1997 PewResearch Center 1999) Thus it is not clear how users interpret the cred-ibility of Internet information the level of scrutiny they apply to it orwhat verification measures they may be invoking

It should be noted that it is unclear from this study precisely whatkinds of information users are retrieving over the Internet or the differ-ences they perceive among various information types The fact that usesand gratifications studies comparing media do not consider the contentof media sources under study is a criticism of the perspective that is trueof the current study as well Thus future research should explore the typesof information retrieved via the Internet the uses to which such informa-tion is put the distinctions that users make in regard to seemingly con-flicting needs that they use the Internet to fulfill and the skepticism withwhich users approach information It would be interesting for exampleto see if people make a distinction between news and entertainment in-formation on the Internet or to locate the various levels of skepticism scru-tiny or verification applied to Internet information by source or purpose


There are a number of other limitations of the current research Forexample the US-centric convenience sample used comes at the usualprice of generalizability and the percentages of respondents using thetechnologies in this study are not indicative of user skills more generallyIn addition the list of technologies and needs was not comprehensiveAlthough efforts were made to follow past research and remain true tothe current media environment the inclusion of other technologies andneeds might have altered the findings

Conclusion

Our data a decade after Perse and Courtrightrsquos reveal that a numberof important changes have occurred in the use of computer-based com-munication technologies Media once considered to be low in social pres-ence and need gratification now appear to be considered rich multi-func-tion channels capable of most tasks once provided only by more tradi-tional media This study thus provides empirical confirmation that theInternet is a multidimensional communication technology used to fulfillwell-understood needs in novel ways

In addition the findings of this research suggest that new communica-tion technologies although extending usersrsquo capabilities in importantways eventually become folded in with more traditional media Our datashow that even fairly new technologies are employed in much the sameway as more traditional channels in the fulfillment of a relatively endur-ing set of needs Thus although perspectives that focus on media attributesin order to explain individualsrsquo reasons for media use (eg social pres-ence or media richness) remain important an examination of the func-tional images of communication technologies adds a great deal to ourunderstanding of the current media environment By considering both atechnologyrsquos functional alternatives (which other technologies are usedsimilarly) as well as its normative image (the widely shared perceptionsof the technology) such an examination stands to capture the sociallyderived nature of communications media and to suggest important heu-ristics for thinking about new technologies as they evolve

NOTES

1 Cross-media studies have also found that different media fulfill similar (or overlap-ping) needs that is several communications media are both distinct and overlapping inneed satisfaction

2 Dobos (1992) also examines ldquonew technologiesrdquo but it is not stated in the article whichspecific technologies she considers

3 This is not to be confused with the uses and gratifications literature that defines ldquoin-


strumentalrdquo use of the media as using media for information-seeking purposes rather thanfor ritualistic or diversionary purposes (see Rubin 1984) As we use the term here instru-mental needs refer to specific task-related or strategic needs (eg decision making or prob-lem solving) rather than general information-seeking needs

4 Technically speaking there were only seven different communications technologiesbut various uses of the Internet-WWW were separated into three functions informationretrieval information giving and conversation as detailed in the Measures section

5 A criticism of the UampG approach as applied to new technologies is that it is somewhattautological because presenting respondents with gratification typologies created from stud-ies of ldquooldrdquo media may not capture new and unforeseen gratifications that may be associ-ated with new communications media (Palmgreen 1984) Because the purpose of this studyis to see how new technologies serve communication needs in comparison to old communi-cation media gratifications derived from studies of both ldquooldrdquo and ldquonewrdquo media are in-cluded here

6 Because the aim of this study was to identify similarities among communication tech-nologies along functional dimensions and not to identify a smaller number of underlyingdimensions in the data cluster analysis was the preferred analytic strategy (see Cattell1978 Lorr 1983 Perse amp Courtright 1993 Poole amp McPhee 1995) However because Barnettand Danowski (1992) have found that the combination of multiple data reduction methodsadds to the validity of results a factor analysis was also performed on the data Findingsfrom the factor analysis were largely consistent with the results of the cluster analysis offer-ing further validity to the results In addition multidimensional scaling techniques werenot used because the focus of the research was to identify for example clusters of commu-nication technologies used in similar ways to fulfill needs not to distinguish how the clus-ters differed from one another However exploring the relations among technology clustersusing multidimensional scaling techniques is both an interesting and important avenue forfuture research

7 Among these channels face-to-face and books and magazines use were less than 100due to missing data whereas some people reported that they ldquonever userdquo television or thenewspaper resulting in its reported rates of use less than 100

8 Although more distinct separation may occur at a greater or lesser number of clusterscluster solutions can profitably be constrained by an evaluation of interpretability That istoo many or few clusters defeat the purpose of cluster analysismdashto determine based on theseparation among Euclidean distances the number and nature of groups that are meaning-fully distinct from one another With the current analysis there are 1 to 8 possible clusters(all 9 variables grouped together or 7 variables grouped independently plus one group of 2variables) However such extreme solutions do little to help evaluate the nature of groupsformed by variablesrsquo values Thus a heuristic that constrains the extremes of the possiblerange of clusters is a reasonable exercise when done with caution That is although the ex-treme numbers of cluster solutions might be disregarded in view of the lack of informationthey provide this should only be done where there exist strong alternative cluster solu-tions based on the agglomeration and ratio data In the absence of such support the heuris-tic stands to be too strongly biased by researcher subjectivity rather than based on the em-pirical evidence

In this specific analysis the agglomeration and ratio data reveal that an 8-cluster solu-tion was the strongest followed by a 2-cluster solution and a 3-cluster solution The 8-clus-ter solution was discarded due to the lack of discriminatory information it provides Inexamining the 2-cluster solution it is seen that face-to-face clusters alone with all othertechnologies clustered together Given that such a solution fails to discriminate technolo-gies sufficiently and considering the fact that the 3-cluster solution was empirically strongas well (while providing a more rigorous solution) the 3-cluster solution was selected


9 Levenersquos test revealed that the population variances differ for the data violating theassumption of homoscedasticity However this violation is not considered to be seriouswhen group sample sizes are about equal as they were in this study (Glass Peckham ampSanders 1972 Hinkle Wiersma amp Jurs 1988)

10 (Please refer to note 8) Although the single best cluster solution (based on the ag-glomeration and ratio data) was an 18-cluster solution the alternative (and second stron-gest) 10-cluster solution was selected This 10-cluster solution aids in evaluating the natureof groups formed by the Euclidean distances

REFERENCES

Adoni H (1979) The functions of mass media in the political socialization of adolescentsCommunication Research 6 84ndash106

Aldenderfer M S amp Blashfield R K (1984) Cluster analysis Newbury Park CA SageAng I (1995) The nature of the audience In J Downing A Mohammadi amp A Sreberny-

Mohammadi (Eds) Questioning the media A critical introduction (2nd ed pp 207ndash220)Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Barnett G amp Danowski J (1992) The structure of communication A network analysis of theInternational Communication Association Human Communication Research 19 264ndash285

Baym N K (1995) The emergence of community in computer-mediated communicationIn S G Jones (Ed) Cybersociety Computer-mediated communication and community (pp138ndash163) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Blumler J G amp McQuail D (1969) Television and politics Its uses and influence ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press

Cattell R B (1978) The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences New YorkPlenum

Cohen A A Levy M R amp Golden K (1988) Childrenrsquos uses and gratifications of homeVCRsmdashevolution or revolution Communication Research 15 772ndash780

Cohen J amp Metzger M (1998) Social affiliation and the achievement of ontological secu-rity through interpersonal and mass communication Critical Studies in Mass Communi-cation 15 41ndash60

CommerceNet Research Center (1998) Internet Population [Online] Available httpwwwcommercenetstatswwwpophtml [June 1998]

Computer Industry Almanac (1999) [Online] Available httpwwwc-i-acom199902iuhtm[March 1999]

Cutler N E amp Danowski J A (1980) Process gratification of mass communication foraging cohorts Journalism Quarterly 57 269ndash276

Daft R L amp Lengel R H (1984) Information richness A new approach to managerialbehavior and organization design In B M Staw amp L L Cummings (Eds) Research inorganizational behavior (Vol 6 pp 191ndash233) Greenwich CT JAI Press

Danowski J A (1988 May) Media richness Decontextualizing media and changing semantics oforganizational symbols Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Com-munication Association New Orleans LA

Danowski J A (1993) An emerging macrolevel theory of organizational communicationOrganizations as virtual reality management systems In L Thayer amp G Barnett (Eds)Emerging perspectives in organizational communication (pp 141ndash174) Norwood NJ Ablex

Danowski J A amp Cutler N E (1978) Political information mass media use in early adult-hood and political socialization Seeking clarity through cohort curves In PV Miller PM Hirsch amp F G Kline (Eds) Strategies for communication research Sage Annual Reviewsof Communication (Vol VI pp 205ndash229) Beverly Hills CA Sage


Dobos J (1992) Gratification models of satisfaction and choice of communication channelsin organizations Communication Research 19 29ndash51

Donnelly D F (1996) Selling on not out the internet Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-cation [Online] 2(1) Available httpjcmchujiacilvol2issue1adsnewhtml [June 1998]

Elliot W R amp Quattlebaum C P (1979) Similarities in patterns of media use A clusteranalysis of media gratifications Western Journal of Speech Communication 43 61ndash72

Feenberg A (1992) From information to communication The French experience with video-text In M Lea (Ed) Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp 168ndash187) LondonHarvester Wheatsheaf

Feenberg A (1995) Subversive rationalization Technology power and democracy In AFeenberg amp A Hannay (Eds) Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp 3ndash22)Bloomington Indiana University Press

Fulk J (1993) Social construction of communication technology Academy of ManagementJournal 36 921ndash950

Fulk J amp Boyd B (1991) Emerging theories of communication in organizations Journal ofManagement 17 407ndash466

Fulk J amp DeSanctis G (1995) Electronic communication and changing organizational formsOrganization Science 6 337ndash349

Fulk J Flanagin A J Kalman M Monge P R amp Ryan T (1996) Connective and commu-nal public goods in interactive communication systems Communication Theory 6 60ndash87

Fulk J Schmitz J amp Steinfield C W (1990) A social influence model of technology use InJ Fulk amp C W Steinfield (Eds) Organizations and communication technology (pp 117ndash140) Newbury Park CA Sage

Garton L Haythornthwaite C amp Wellman B (1997) Studying online social networksJournal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online] 3(1) Available httpjcmchujiacilvol3issue1gartonhtml [June 1998]

Garton L amp Wellman B (1995) Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations A re-view of the research literature In B Burleson (Ed) Communication Yearbook 18 (pp 434ndash453) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Gilster P (1997) Digital literacy New York WileyGlass GV Peckham P D amp Sanders J R (1972) Consequences of failure to meet the

assumptions underlying the use of analysis of variance and covariance Review of Educa-tional Research 42 237ndash288

GVU Center (1997) GVUrsquos www user surveys Age [Online] Available httpwwgvugatecheduuser_surveyssurvey-1997-10graphsgeneralAgehtml [June 1998]

Hiltz S R amp Turoff M (1978) The network nation Menlo Park CA Addison-WesleyHiltz S R amp Turoff M (1981) The evolution of user behavior in a computerized conferencing

system Communications of the ACM 24 739ndash751Hinkle D E Wiersma W amp Jurs S G (1988) Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences

Boston Houghton MifflinHo J (1997) Evaluating the world wide web A global study of commercial sites Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication [Online] 3(1) Available httpjcmchujiacilvol3issue1hohtml [June 1998]

Hoffman D L Novak T P amp Chatterjee P (1995) Commercial scenarios for the WebOpportunities and challenges Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online] 1(3)Available httpwwwascuscorgjcmcvol1issue3hoffmanhtml [June 1998]

Jackson M (1997) Assessing the structure of communication on the world wide web Jour-nal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online] 3(1) Available httpjcmchujiacilvol3issue1jacksonhtml [June 1998]

Johnson T J amp Kaye B K (1998) Cruising is believing Comparing Internet and tradi-tional sources on media credibility measures Journalism and Mass Communication Quar-terly 75 325ndash340


Jones S G (Ed) (1995) Cybersociety Computer-mediated communication and community Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage

Jones S G (Ed) (1997) Virtual culture Identity and communication in cybersociety ThousandOaks CA Sage

Kahin B (1997) The internet business and policy landscape In Institute for InformationStudies (Ed) The internet as paradigm Nashville TN Institute for Information Studies

Katz E Blumler J G amp Gurevitch M (1974) Utilization of mass communication by theindividual In J G Blumler amp E Katz (Eds) The uses of mass communications Currentperspectives on gratifications research (pp 19ndash32) Beverly Hills CA Sage

Katz E Gurevitch M amp Haas H (1973) On the use of the mass media for importantthings American Sociological Review 38 164ndash181

Kippax S amp Murray J P (1980) Using the mass media Need gratification and perceivedutility Communication Research 7 335ndash360

Levy M R (1980) Home video recorders A user survey Journal of Communication 30 23ndash27Levy M R (1987) VCR use and the concept of audience activity Communication Quarterly

35 267ndash275Lichtenstein A amp Rosenfeld L B (1983) Uses and misuses of gratifications research An

explication of media functions Communication Research 10 97ndash109Lichtenstein A amp Rosenfeld L B (1984) Normative expectations and individual deci-

sions concerning media gratifications choices Communication Research 11 393ndash413Lometti G E Reeves B amp Bybee C R (1977) Investigating the assumptions of uses and

gratifications research Communication Research 4 321ndash338Lorr M (1983) Cluster analysis for social scientists Techniques for analyzing and simplifying

complex blocks of data San Francisco Jossey-BassMalone T W amp Rockart J F (1991 September) Computers networks and the corpora-

tion Scientific American 128ndash136Markus M L (1994) Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice Organization

Science 5 502ndash527Mashek J W (1997) Lethargy rsquo96 How the media covered a listless campaign Arlington VA

Freedom ForumMcChesney R W (1996) The Internet and US communication policy-making in historical

and critical perspective Journal of Communication 46 98ndash124McLaughlin M L (1996) The art site on the world wide web Journal of Communication 46

51ndash79McLaughlin M L Osborne K K amp Ellison N B (1997) Virtual community in a telepresence

environment In S G Jones (Ed) Virtual culture Identity and communication in cybersociety(pp 146ndash168) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

McLaughlin M L Osborne K K amp Smith C B (1995) Standards of conduct on usenet InS G Jones (Ed) Cybersociety Computer-mediated communication and community (pp 90ndash111) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Morgan Stanley (1996) The internet report [Online] Available httpwwwmscommiscinetmorganxhtml [June 1998]

Morris M amp Ogan C (1996) The Internet as mass medium Journal of Communication 46 39ndash50Palmgreen P (1984) Uses and gratifications A theoretical perspective In R Bostrom (Ed)

Communication Yearbook 8 (pp 20ndash55) Beverly Hills CA SageParks M R amp Floyd K (1996) Making friends in cyberspace Journal of Communication 46 80ndash97Perse E M amp Courtright J A (1993) Normative images of communication media Mass

and interpersonal channels in the new media environment Human Communication Re-search 19 485ndash503

Perse E amp Dunn D (1998) The utility of home computers and media use Implications ofmultimedia and connectivity Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 42 435ndash456

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (1999) The Internet news audience goes


ordinary [Online] URL httpwwwpeople-pressorgtech98sumhtm [January 1999]Poole M S amp DeSanctis G (1990) Understanding the use of group decision support sys-

tems The theory of adaptive structuration In J Fulk amp C W Steinfield (Eds) Organiza-tions and communication technology (pp 173ndash193) Newbury Park CA Sage

Poole M S amp McPhee R D (1995) Methodology in interpersonal communication researchIn M L Knapp amp G R Miller (Eds) Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd edpp 42ndash100) Newbury Park CA Sage

Postmes T Spears R amp Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication Communication Research 25 689ndash715

Rafaeli S (1986) The electronic bulletin board A computer-driven mass medium Comput-ers and the Social Sciences 2 123ndash136

Rheingold H (1993) The virtual community Homesteading on the electronic frontier New YorkAddison Wesley

Rice R E (1992) Task analyzability use of new media and effectiveness A multi-site ex-ploration of media richness Organization Science 3 475ndash500

Rice R E (1993) Media appropriateness Using social presence theory to compare tradi-tional and new organizational media Human Communication Research 19 451ndash484

Rice R E amp Associates (1984) The new media Communication research and technology BeverlyHills CA Sage

Rice R E amp Aydin C (1991) Attitudes toward new organizational technology Networkproximity as a mechanism for social information processing Administrative Science Quar-terly 36 219ndash244

Rice R E amp Danowski J A (1993) Is it really like a fancy answering machine Comparingsemantic networks of different types of voice mail users Journal of Business Communica-tion 30 369ndash397

Rice R E amp Love G (1987) Electronic emotion Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network Communication Research 14 85ndash108

Rogers E M (1986) Communication technology The new media in society New York Free PressRubin A M (1984) Ritualized and instrumental television viewing Journal of Communica-

tion 34(3) 67ndash77Rubin A M amp Bantz C R (1987) Utility of videocassette recorders American Behavioral

Scientist 30 471ndash485Rubin A M amp Bantz C R (1988) Uses and gratifications of videocassette recorders In J

Salvaggio amp J Bryant (Eds) Media use in the information age (pp 181ndash195) Hillsdale NJErlbaum

Rubin A M amp Rubin R C (1985) Interface of personal and mediated communication Aresearch agenda Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2 36ndash53

Rubin A M amp Rubin R C (1989) Social and psychological antecedents of VCR use In MR Levy (Ed) The VCR age Home video and mass communication (pp 92ndash111) NewburyPark CA Sage

Salvaggio J amp Bryant J (1988) Media use in the information age Hillsdale NJ ErlbaumScheuermann L E amp Langford H P (1997) Perceptions of Internet abuse liability and

fair use Perceptual and Motor Skills 85 847ndash850Schmitz J amp Fulk J (1991) Organizational colleagues media richness and electronic mail A

test of the social influence model of technology use Communication Research 18 487ndash523Short J Williams E amp Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications Lon-

don WileySitkin S B Sutcliffe K M amp Barrios-Choplin J R (1992) A dual-capacity model of com-

munication media choice in organizations Human Communication Research 18 563ndash598Spar D amp Bussgang J (1996) Ruling commerce in the networld Journal of Computer-Medi-

ated Communication [Online] 3(1) Available httpwwwascuscorganizationjcmcvol2issue1commercehtml [June 1998]


Straubhaar J amp LaRose R (1996) Communications media in the information society BelmontCA Wadsworth

Trevino L K Daft R L amp Lengel R H (1990) Understanding managersrsquo media choicesA symbolic interactionist perspective In J Fulk amp C W Steinfield (Eds) Organizationsand communication technology (pp 71ndash94) Newbury Park CA Sage

Walther J B (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction A relationalperspective Communication Research 19 52ndash90

Walther J B (1994) Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relationalcommunication in computer-mediated interaction Human Communication Research 20473ndash501

Walther J B (1996) Computer-mediated communication Impersonal interpersonal andhyperpersonal interaction Communication Research 23 3ndash43

Walther J B Anderson J F amp Park D W (1994) Interpersonal effects in computer-medi-ated interaction A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication Communica-tion Research 21 460ndash487

Watson N (1997) Why we argue about virtual community A case study of the phishnetfan community In S G Jones (Ed) Virtual culture Identity and communication in cybersociety(pp 102ndash132) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Weaver D Wilhoit G C amp DeBock H (1980) Personal needs and media use in the Neth-erlands and the United States Gazette 26 171ndash194

Williams F Phillips A amp Lum P (1985) Gratifications associated with new communica-tion technologies In K Rosengren L Wenner amp P Palmgreen (Eds) Media gratificationsresearch Current perspectives (pp 241-254) Beverly Hills CA Sage

Williams F amp Rice R (1983) Communication research and new media technologies In RN Bostrom (Ed) Communication Yearbook 7 (pp 200ndash224) Beverly Hills CA Sage

Wise J M (1997) Exploring technology and social space Thousand Oaks CA SageZakon R H (1999) Hobbesrsquo Internet timeline v 40 [Online] Available httpinfoisocorg

guestzakonInternetHistoryHIThtml [March 1999]


development (Donnelly 1996 Ho 1997 Hoffman Novak amp Chatterjee1996 Spar amp Bussgang 1996) communication structure (Jackson 1997)and user interaction patterns and norms (Garton Haythornthwaite ampWellman 1997 McLaughlin Osborne amp Smith 1995) Although theseaccounts provide a detailed view of the Internetrsquos form and functionsthey rely largely on qualitative or anecdotal descriptions of Internet useLittle empirical research has systematically examined usersrsquo behaviors ortheir views on why they have adopted the Internet and how they use it(for an exception see Parks amp Floyd 1996) To a degree this is not surpris-ing given the fast pace of technological development This rate of changehowever only underscores the importance of a rigorous examination ofnew communication technologiesrsquo development use and social effects

A related gap in our knowledge is individualsrsquo reasons for choosing touse the Internet in conjunction with other communication technologies Al-though people have many options when selecting communications me-dia only a small portion of media choice explanations considers the rangeof media options users have available to them at any particular time Theuses and gratifications approach to the study of media use offers someinsight into the reasons that people choose a specific medium over alter-native channels of communication However this insight is limited bythe fact that studies comparing gratifications across a variety of commu-nications media are somewhat rare Elliot and Quattlebaumrsquos (1979) claimthat ldquomost gratifications research has focused on specific media contentor on the more general uses of a specific mediumrdquo is still true today (p 61)

Studies that have considered peoplersquos uses of communications mediawithin a multiple-medium environment find that different media may beused to fulfill different needs (Adoni 1979 Cutler amp Danowski 1980Danowski amp Cutler 1978 Dobos 1992 Elliot amp Quattlebaum 1979 KatzGurevitch amp Haas 1973 Kippax amp Murray 1980 Lichtenstein ampRosenfeld 1983 1984 Lometti Reeves amp Bybee 1977 Perse amp Courtright1993 Weaver Wilhoit amp deBock 1980)1 Despite these studies howeverwe do not yet have a thorough understanding of individualsrsquo motiva-tions for media use in view of their many options in todayrsquos complexmedia environment This observation coupled with the rapid develop-ment of and sparse research on the Internet as a communication and in-formation tool suggests that many questions about individualsrsquo mediachoice and use remain unanswered

A central concern is the ways in which communication technologiesare actually used and the individual needs they fulfill in view of the manyfunctions that communication media perform In this regard the net-worked computer is especially interesting (see Postmes Spears amp Lea1998) Whereas most ldquotraditionalrdquo communication technologies were de-veloped with a single function in mind (eg the telephone originally was


























Functional Images















METHOD

Participants





Procedure


Measures









TA

BL

E 1

Mea

n R

atin

gs f

or U

tili

ty o

f C

han

nel

s fo

r S

atis

fyin

g C

omm

un

icat

ion

Nee

ds

( N =

684

)

Nee

dB

amp M

E-m

ail

FtF

Int ndash

Rtr

vlIn

t ndash C

nvIn

t ndash G

vgN

PP

hone

TV

to g

et in

form

atio

n4

484

274

494

633

773

814

494

254

10to

gen

erat

e id

eas

412

365

441

381

363

385

350

358

334

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

248

327

435

236

272

291

253

368

221

to le

arn

abou

t mys

elf a

nd o

ther

s3

733

624

343

193

633

273

443

713

32to

be

ente

rtai

ned

436

392

421

386

422

354

379

386

464

to g

et to

kno

w o

ther

s3

073

874

552

823

883

182

984

102

81to

lear

n ho

w to

do

thin

gs3

923

224

263

823

283

323

083

323

43to

impr

ess

peop

le2

392

323

282

212

422

692

312

321

94to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs2

533

704

242

523

582

892

333

843

22to

pro

vid

e ot

hers

wit

h in

form

atio

n3

234

194

343

123

584

003

224

162

90to

get

som

eone

to d

o so

met

hing

for

me

211

355

415

222

272

281

204

389

195

to s

olve

pro

blem

s3

403

494

283

673

063

332

743

852

48to

pla

y3

203

504

063

493

853

282

423

373

43to

sta

y in

touc

h2

784

404

342

853

763

243

294

532

99to

rel

ax4

093

493

923

193

623

203

463

664

43to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

323

331

419

326

292

313

305

373

254

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

a p

ool o

f inf

orm

atio

n2

903

504

062

763

213

742

943

342

54to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

f3

362

713

852

522

932

772

632

882

55to

pas

s th

e ti

me

away

whe

n bo

red

409

366

384

354

399

311

348

370

435

to fe

el le

ss lo

nely

275

314

398

230

319

239

223

371

305

to fe

el im

port

ant

228

254

331

211

253

253

224

268

193

NO

TE B

amp M

= b

ooks

and

mag

azin

es E

-mai

l = e

lect

roni

c m

ail

FtF

= fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce I

nt-R

trvl

= in

form

atio

n re

trie

val v

ia t

he I

nter

net-

WW

W I

nt-C

nv =

conv

ersa

tion

via

the

Inte

rnet

-WW

W I

nt-G

vg =

info

rmat

ion

givi

ng v

ia th

e In

tern

et-W

WW

NP

= n

ewsp

aper

s P

hone

= te

leph

one

TV

= te

levi

sion

1

= lo

w u

se 5

= h

igh

use


Analysis



RESULTS








Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES

































































































































Functional Images















METHOD

Participants





Procedure


Measures









TA

BL

E 1

Mea

n R

atin

gs f

or U

tili

ty o

f C

han

nel

s fo

r S

atis

fyin

g C

omm

un

icat

ion

Nee

ds

( N =

684

)

Nee

dB

amp M

E-m

ail

FtF

Int ndash

Rtr

vlIn

t ndash C

nvIn

t ndash G

vgN

PP

hone

TV

to g

et in

form

atio

n4

484

274

494

633

773

814

494

254

10to

gen

erat

e id

eas

412

365

441

381

363

385

350

358

334

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

248

327

435

236

272

291

253

368

221

to le

arn

abou

t mys

elf a

nd o

ther

s3

733

624

343

193

633

273

443

713

32to

be

ente

rtai

ned

436

392

421

386

422

354

379

386

464

to g

et to

kno

w o

ther

s3

073

874

552

823

883

182

984

102

81to

lear

n ho

w to

do

thin

gs3

923

224

263

823

283

323

083

323

43to

impr

ess

peop

le2

392

323

282

212

422

692

312

321

94to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs2

533

704

242

523

582

892

333

843

22to

pro

vid

e ot

hers

wit

h in

form

atio

n3

234

194

343

123

584

003

224

162

90to

get

som

eone

to d

o so

met

hing

for

me

211

355

415

222

272

281

204

389

195

to s

olve

pro

blem

s3

403

494

283

673

063

332

743

852

48to

pla

y3

203

504

063

493

853

282

423

373

43to

sta

y in

touc

h2

784

404

342

853

763

243

294

532

99to

rel

ax4

093

493

923

193

623

203

463

664

43to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

323

331

419

326

292

313

305

373

254

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

a p

ool o

f inf

orm

atio

n2

903

504

062

763

213

742

943

342

54to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

f3

362

713

852

522

932

772

632

882

55to

pas

s th

e ti

me

away

whe

n bo

red

409

366

384

354

399

311

348

370

435

to fe

el le

ss lo

nely

275

314

398

230

319

239

223

371

305

to fe

el im

port

ant

228

254

331

211

253

253

224

268

193

NO

TE B

amp M

= b

ooks

and

mag

azin

es E

-mai

l = e

lect

roni

c m

ail

FtF

= fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce I

nt-R

trvl

= in

form

atio

n re

trie

val v

ia t

he I

nter

net-

WW

W I

nt-C

nv =

conv

ersa

tion

via

the

Inte

rnet

-WW

W I

nt-G

vg =

info

rmat

ion

givi

ng v

ia th

e In

tern

et-W

WW

NP

= n

ewsp

aper

s P

hone

= te

leph

one

TV

= te

levi

sion

1

= lo

w u

se 5

= h

igh

use


Analysis



RESULTS








Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES





















































































































METHOD

Participants





Procedure


Measures









TA

BL

E 1

Mea

n R

atin

gs f

or U

tili

ty o

f C

han

nel

s fo

r S

atis

fyin

g C

omm

un

icat

ion

Nee

ds

( N =

684

)

Nee

dB

amp M

E-m

ail

FtF

Int ndash

Rtr

vlIn

t ndash C

nvIn

t ndash G

vgN

PP

hone

TV

to g

et in

form

atio

n4

484

274

494

633

773

814

494

254

10to

gen

erat

e id

eas

412

365

441

381

363

385

350

358

334

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

248

327

435

236

272

291

253

368

221

to le

arn

abou

t mys

elf a

nd o

ther

s3

733

624

343

193

633

273

443

713

32to

be

ente

rtai

ned

436

392

421

386

422

354

379

386

464

to g

et to

kno

w o

ther

s3

073

874

552

823

883

182

984

102

81to

lear

n ho

w to

do

thin

gs3

923

224

263

823

283

323

083

323

43to

impr

ess

peop

le2

392

323

282

212

422

692

312

321

94to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs2

533

704

242

523

582

892

333

843

22to

pro

vid

e ot

hers

wit

h in

form

atio

n3

234

194

343

123

584

003

224

162

90to

get

som

eone

to d

o so

met

hing

for

me

211

355

415

222

272

281

204

389

195

to s

olve

pro

blem

s3

403

494

283

673

063

332

743

852

48to

pla

y3

203

504

063

493

853

282

423

373

43to

sta

y in

touc

h2

784

404

342

853

763

243

294

532

99to

rel

ax4

093

493

923

193

623

203

463

664

43to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

323

331

419

326

292

313

305

373

254

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

a p

ool o

f inf

orm

atio

n2

903

504

062

763

213

742

943

342

54to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

f3

362

713

852

522

932

772

632

882

55to

pas

s th

e ti

me

away

whe

n bo

red

409

366

384

354

399

311

348

370

435

to fe

el le

ss lo

nely

275

314

398

230

319

239

223

371

305

to fe

el im

port

ant

228

254

331

211

253

253

224

268

193

NO

TE B

amp M

= b

ooks

and

mag

azin

es E

-mai

l = e

lect

roni

c m

ail

FtF

= fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce I

nt-R

trvl

= in

form

atio

n re

trie

val v

ia t

he I

nter

net-

WW

W I

nt-C

nv =

conv

ersa

tion

via

the

Inte

rnet

-WW

W I

nt-G

vg =

info

rmat

ion

givi

ng v

ia th

e In

tern

et-W

WW

NP

= n

ewsp

aper

s P

hone

= te

leph

one

TV

= te

levi

sion

1

= lo

w u

se 5

= h

igh

use


Analysis



RESULTS








Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES











































































































Procedure


Measures









TA

BL

E 1

Mea

n R

atin

gs f

or U

tili

ty o

f C

han

nel

s fo

r S

atis

fyin

g C

omm

un

icat

ion

Nee

ds

( N =

684

)

Nee

dB

amp M

E-m

ail

FtF

Int ndash

Rtr

vlIn

t ndash C

nvIn

t ndash G

vgN

PP

hone

TV

to g

et in

form

atio

n4

484

274

494

633

773

814

494

254

10to

gen

erat

e id

eas

412

365

441

381

363

385

350

358

334

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

248

327

435

236

272

291

253

368

221

to le

arn

abou

t mys

elf a

nd o

ther

s3

733

624

343

193

633

273

443

713

32to

be

ente

rtai

ned

436

392

421

386

422

354

379

386

464

to g

et to

kno

w o

ther

s3

073

874

552

823

883

182

984

102

81to

lear

n ho

w to

do

thin

gs3

923

224

263

823

283

323

083

323

43to

impr

ess

peop

le2

392

323

282

212

422

692

312

321

94to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs2

533

704

242

523

582

892

333

843

22to

pro

vid

e ot

hers

wit

h in

form

atio

n3

234

194

343

123

584

003

224

162

90to

get

som

eone

to d

o so

met

hing

for

me

211

355

415

222

272

281

204

389

195

to s

olve

pro

blem

s3

403

494

283

673

063

332

743

852

48to

pla

y3

203

504

063

493

853

282

423

373

43to

sta

y in

touc

h2

784

404

342

853

763

243

294

532

99to

rel

ax4

093

493

923

193

623

203

463

664

43to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

323

331

419

326

292

313

305

373

254

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

a p

ool o

f inf

orm

atio

n2

903

504

062

763

213

742

943

342

54to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

f3

362

713

852

522

932

772

632

882

55to

pas

s th

e ti

me

away

whe

n bo

red

409

366

384

354

399

311

348

370

435

to fe

el le

ss lo

nely

275

314

398

230

319

239

223

371

305

to fe

el im

port

ant

228

254

331

211

253

253

224

268

193

NO

TE B

amp M

= b

ooks

and

mag

azin

es E

-mai

l = e

lect

roni

c m

ail

FtF

= fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce I

nt-R

trvl

= in

form

atio

n re

trie

val v

ia t

he I

nter

net-

WW

W I

nt-C

nv =

conv

ersa

tion

via

the

Inte

rnet

-WW

W I

nt-G

vg =

info

rmat

ion

givi

ng v

ia th

e In

tern

et-W

WW

NP

= n

ewsp

aper

s P

hone

= te

leph

one

TV

= te

levi

sion

1

= lo

w u

se 5

= h

igh

use


Analysis



RESULTS








Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES















































































































TA

BL

E 1

Mea

n R

atin

gs f

or U

tili

ty o

f C

han

nel

s fo

r S

atis

fyin

g C

omm

un

icat

ion

Nee

ds

( N =

684

)

Nee

dB

amp M

E-m

ail

FtF

Int ndash

Rtr

vlIn

t ndash C

nvIn

t ndash G

vgN

PP

hone

TV

to g

et in

form

atio

n4

484

274

494

633

773

814

494

254

10to

gen

erat

e id

eas

412

365

441

381

363

385

350

358

334

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

248

327

435

236

272

291

253

368

221

to le

arn

abou

t mys

elf a

nd o

ther

s3

733

624

343

193

633

273

443

713

32to

be

ente

rtai

ned

436

392

421

386

422

354

379

386

464

to g

et to

kno

w o

ther

s3

073

874

552

823

883

182

984

102

81to

lear

n ho

w to

do

thin

gs3

923

224

263

823

283

323

083

323

43to

impr

ess

peop

le2

392

323

282

212

422

692

312

321

94to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs2

533

704

242

523

582

892

333

843

22to

pro

vid

e ot

hers

wit

h in

form

atio

n3

234

194

343

123

584

003

224

162

90to

get

som

eone

to d

o so

met

hing

for

me

211

355

415

222

272

281

204

389

195

to s

olve

pro

blem

s3

403

494

283

673

063

332

743

852

48to

pla

y3

203

504

063

493

853

282

423

373

43to

sta

y in

touc

h2

784

404

342

853

763

243

294

532

99to

rel

ax4

093

493

923

193

623

203

463

664

43to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

323

331

419

326

292

313

305

373

254

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

a p

ool o

f inf

orm

atio

n2

903

504

062

763

213

742

943

342

54to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

f3

362

713

852

522

932

772

632

882

55to

pas

s th

e ti

me

away

whe

n bo

red

409

366

384

354

399

311

348

370

435

to fe

el le

ss lo

nely

275

314

398

230

319

239

223

371

305

to fe

el im

port

ant

228

254

331

211

253

253

224

268

193

NO

TE B

amp M

= b

ooks

and

mag

azin

es E

-mai

l = e

lect

roni

c m

ail

FtF

= fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce I

nt-R

trvl

= in

form

atio

n re

trie

val v

ia t

he I

nter

net-

WW

W I

nt-C

nv =

conv

ersa

tion

via

the

Inte

rnet

-WW

W I

nt-G

vg =

info

rmat

ion

givi

ng v

ia th

e In

tern

et-W

WW

NP

= n

ewsp

aper

s P

hone

= te

leph

one

TV

= te

levi

sion

1

= lo

w u

se 5

= h

igh

use


Analysis



RESULTS








Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES









































































































Analysis



RESULTS








Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES










































































































Functional Images









a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES














































































































a369


a389 415


a223


a437

a300


a278


a368 385


















TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES























































































































TA

BL

E 5

Mea

n R

atin

gs b

y N

eed

s C

lust

ers

(N =

684

) Soci

alR

elat

ions

hip

Pro

blem

Tech

nolo

gyIn

form

atio

nLe

arn

Pla

yLe

isur

eP

ersu

asio

nbo

ndin

gm

aint

enan

ceso

lvin

g S

tatu

sIn

sigh

t

Boo

ks a

nd m

agaz

ines

448

392

320

abc

418

229

d2

643

03ae

318

bef

234

d3

36cf

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

l4

27a

350

bcd

ef3

50bg

hij

369

cg3

41d

hkl

342

eikm

415

a3

43fjl

m2

432

71

Face

-to-

face

449

ab4

33ac

de

406

fgh

399

fij

425

cklm

411

gikn

441

bdl

417

ehm

n3

293

85j

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n re

trie

val

462

361

ab3

49ac

353

bc2

29d

ef2

41d

g2

933

232

16e

252

fg

Inte

rnet

ndash c

onve

rsat

ion

377

abcd

351

aefg

385

behi

395

chj

272

klm

338

fno

373

dgi

jn3

06ko

p2

48l

293

mp

Inte

rnet

ndash in

form

atio

n gi

ving

382

abc

348

adef

g3

28d

hijk

328

ehlm

n2

86ilo

pq2

64or

s3

45bf

jmt

340

cgkn

t2

61pr

u2

77qs

u

New

spap

ers

449

338

a2

42bc

d3

582

29be

f2

28ce

g3

16a

291

227

dfg

263

Tele

phon

e4

25a

354

bcd

337

b3

74ce

fg3

79eh

i3

77fh

j4

26a

364

dgi

j2

502

88

Tele

visi

on4

103

36a

343

a4

472

08b

314

290

252

c1

94b

255

c

NO

TE

Inf

orm

atio

n cl

uste

r =

to

get

info

rmat

ion

Lea

rn c

lust

er =

to

gene

rate

idea

s t

o le

arn

abou

t m

ysel

f an

d o

ther

s t

o le

arn

how

to

do

thin

gs P

lay

clus

ter

= to

pla

y L

eisu

re c

lust

er =

to b

e en

tert

aine

d t

o re

lax

to p

ass

the

tim

e aw

ay w

hen

Irsquom

bor

ed P

ersu

asio

n cl

uste

r =

to n

egot

iate

or

barg

ain

to g

etso

meo

ne to

do

som

ethi

ng fo

r m

e S

ocia

l Bon

ding

clu

ster

= to

hav

e so

met

hing

to d

o w

ith

othe

rs t

o fe

el le

ss lo

nely

Rel

atio

nshi

p M

aint

enan

ce c

lust

er =

toge

t to

know

oth

ers

to p

rovi

de

othe

rs w

ith

info

rmat

ion

to s

tay

in to

uch

Pro

blem

solv

ing

clus

ter =

to s

olve

pro

blem

s to

mak

e d

ecis

ions

to

cont

ribu

te to

a po

ol o

f inf

orm

atio

n S

tatu

s cl

uste

r =

to im

pres

s pe

ople

to

feel

impo

rtan

t In

sigh

t clu

ster

= to

gai

n in

sigh

t int

o m

ysel

fM

eans

with

the

sam

e le

tter

in th

e su

bscr

ipt w

ithin

the

sam

e ro

w a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent f

rom

one

ano

ther

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ar

e at

p lt

01

1 =

low

use

5 =

hig

h us

e







DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES














































































































DISCUSSION

Functional Images
























Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES






























































































































Conclusion



NOTES















REFERENCES



















































































































REFERENCES








































































































internet use in the contemporary media environment

Documents