U SERS OF CMC AND THE I NTERNET

U SERS OF CMC AND THE I NTERNET

Until recently, it has been taken for granted that those who started using CMC and the Internet in the early days were the model for later users. However, this ignored how the fi rst waves of users fi t the profi le of early adopters of innova- tion: they were more cosmopolitan, more socially active, and had higher income and education levels (Nie et al., 2002; Rogers, 1995). Early users were also largely young, white, affl uent, and male. This has lead to cautions that social impacts of the Internet may refl ect attributes of the users rather than of the Internet (Nie, 2001; Howard et al., 2002; Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2002). Nie (2001) has observed that connectivity is found for the already well-connected, that is, the affl uent and socially active who can afford computers and Internet access, and who have others in their social circle similarly connected and therefore available for interaction (see also Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2002). Better connectivity is also found for extroverts than introverts (Kraut et al., 2002), and for those in close work or friendship ties (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; Haythornthwaite, 2001, 2002), other char- acteristics that predict individuals and pairs to already be well-connected. What

7 Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication

happens next with CMC and the Internet may be considerably different when late adopters and those from new and different demographics increase their numbers online, but it is probable that it will still be the well-connected who make the most of the opportunities these technologies offer.

Users now increasingly represent people of every color and stripe, and stud- ies are giving attention to distinguishing the pros and cons for each group and what members do online. Studies have mainly concentrated on how traditional measures of demographics affect use, for example, gender, race, and socioeconomic status, with a concern for addressing the now named “digital divide” (NTIA, 2000, 2002). Results in the United States show that those online are now approximately evenly divided among men and women, but what men and women do online differs. Men do more work, searching for sports, political, fi nancial information and news, shopping online, stock trading, online auctions, visiting government websites, and downloading music. Women look more for health and religious information, research new jobs, and play games (Howard, 2002). Women also do more com- municating with family and help set up family members with Internet connections (Boneva & Kraut, 2002; Kazmer & Haythornthwaite, 2001).

While American whites still show more access than minorities, use is increasing among African-Americans and Hispanics. Yet, the latter two groups spend less time online (Howard et al., 2002) and, along with senior citizens, are reported as the least likely to go online (Madden & Rainie, 2003). Howard et al. (2002) fi nd, in the U. S., that while overall numbers of people online were beginning to suggest that differences by gender and race were disappearing, differences were still evident in how much time was spent online, with minorities online less often and for less time than whites. Such differences may be the result of perceived usefulness, as has been noted, but may also

be a continuing expression of general levels of societal interconnection. As noted pre- viously, early awareness of innovations occurs among those with high socioeconomic status who are better connected to hear about new things and affl uent enough to adopt them. Moreover, when these people connect online, they are more likely to fi nd

a critical mass (Markus, 1990) of others like them and resources of interest to them.

Many others studies are being undertaken to examine CMC and the Internet in new ways and with new concerns. Following is a brief list of the focus areas of various studies: English and non-English speakers (e.g., Warshauer, 2000); racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds (Kolko et al., 2000); rural and urban participants (Hagar & Haythornthwaite, 2005); children and teens (Livingstone, 2002; Livingstone & Bober, 2005); working age adults and retirees (Anderson & Tracey, 2002; Nie & Erbring, 2000; UCLA CCP, 2000); time online and activi- ties online by user group (Nie & Erbring, 2000; UCLA CCP, 2000; Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002); years of experience online (Howard et al., 2002; LaRose et al., 2001); age and lifestage (Anderson & Tracey, 2002; Livingstone, 2002; Livingstone & Bober, 2005); and genres and language use (Bregman & Haythornthwaite, 2003; Cherny, 1999; Crystal, 2001; Herring, 1999; Kolko et al., 2000; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994).

174 Caroline Haythornthwaite and Anna L. Nielsen