Computers in

Human Behavior
Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The relationship between Internet identification,

Internet anxiety and Internet use
Richard Joiner a,*, Mark Brosnan a, Jill Duffield b,
Jeff Gavin a, Pam Maras c
a
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
b
School of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
c
Department of Psychology and Counselling, University of Greenwich, London, UK

Available online 20 April 2005

Abstract

This paper reports a study investigating the relationship between Internet identification,
Internet anxiety and Internet use. The participants were 446 students (319 females and 127
males) from two universities in the UK and one university in Australia. Measures of Internet
identification and Internet anxiety were developed. The majority of participants were NOT
anxious about using the Internet, although there were approximately 8% who showed evidence
of Internet anxiety. There was a significant and negative relationship between Internet anxiety
and Internet use. Those who were more anxious about using the Internet used the Internet less,
although the magnitude of effect was small. There was a positive and significant relationship
between Internet use and Internet identification. Those who scored high on the measure of
Internet identification used the Internet more than those who did not. There was also a signif-
icant and negative relationship between Internet anxiety and Internet identification. Finally,
males had a significantly higher Internet identification score than females. Implications of
these findings are discussed.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Internet anxiety; Internet identification; Internet use

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1225 384373; fax: +44 1225 386752.
E-mail address: r.joiner@bath.ac.uk (R. Joiner).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.03.002
 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420 1409

1. Introduction

The Internet has become part of everyday life (Jackson, 1999; Jackson, Ervin,
Gardner, & Schmitt, 2001a; US Department of Commerce, NTIA, 1995, 1997,
1999, 2002). Changes in education are likely to mean that information communica-
tion technology (ICT) skills will become indispensable for modern life and a tool
for lifelong learning (Russell & Stafford, 2002). However, research has shown cer-
tain social groups are under-represented on the Internet (Hoffman & Novak, 1998;
Jackson, 1999; Sax, Ceja, & Teranishi, 2001; Schofield, 1997), not simply due to a
lack of access, but more because of cognitive, motivational and affective factors
(Jackson et al., 2001a). Therefore, as Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, and Schmitt
(2001b) argued, ÔPsychology has an important role in advancing understanding of
why people choose to use or not use the InternetÕ (p. 15). Cooper and Weaver
(2003) have developed a model of computer use, which provides a useful heuristic
Ôroad mapÕ to study this question. The main focus of Cooper and WeaverÕs model is
the individual, and there are four inter-related factors that influence an individualÕs
uses of, and attitudes towards, computers. These factors are computer identifica-
tion, computer anxiety, performance attributions, and expectations. While these
factors are related to each other in several ways, Cooper and Weaver recommend
thinking of the processes operating within the individual as somewhat distinct, with
each contributing to attitudes towards and uses of computers and technology in
direct and distinct ways.
The crux of this model is that anything that increases a personÕs computer anxiety
leads them to doubt their ability or causes them to disidentify with computers will
lead the individual to form negative attitudes about computers and technology. Neg-
ative attitudes, in turn, will mean that the individual is more likely to avoid activities,
contexts and careers involving computers.
The current study extends this model of computer use to explore attitudes towards
and uses of the Internet. We focus specifically on Internet anxiety and Internet iden-
tification, and the relationships between them.

1.1. Computer and Internet anxiety

An important factor in Cooper and WeaverÕs (2003) model is computer anxiety.

Computer anxiety has been defined as Ôan irrational anticipation of fear evoked by
the thought of using (or actually using) computers, the effects of which result in
avoiding, or minimising, computer usageÕ (Brosnan, 1998a, p. 17). Cooper and
Weaver predict that computer anxiety is inversely related to computer experience.
This prediction is based on research conducted over the last 20 years. Chua, Chen,
and Wong (1999), for example, conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies published
between 1990 and 1996. These studies reported that computer anxiety was inversely
related to computer experience. Recently, the UCLA Internet Project (2003) sur-
veyed 2000 households across the United States and compiled the responses of
Internet users and non-users. They reported that, in 2002, 30.3% of new Internet
1410 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420

users and 10.8% of experienced Internet users (users with more than six years of
experience) were moderately to highly technophobic. Thus, whilst computer anxi-
ety consistently has been found to be inversely related to computer experience
for the majority of individuals, this is confounded by a small proportion that re-
main highly anxious (Rosen & Maguire, 1990).
There have been a number of studies using a broad range of samples that have
explored the relationship between computer anxiety and Internet use. Jackson
et al. (2001a, 2001b) conducted a study on a group of Anglo-American undergrad-
uates. She found that computer anxiety was negatively related to studentsÕ use of
the Internet. Durndell and Haag (2002) surveyed a group of Romanian university
students and reported that computer anxiety was inversely proportional to the stu-
dentsÕ self-reported use of the Internet. Barbiete and Weiss (2004), using an online
sample, found that the number of years spent using the Internet was lower for stu-
dents who scored high on computer anxiety than for students who scored low on
the same measure. Cody, Dunn, Hoppin, and Wendt (1999) surveyed a group of
older adults (average age 80) and found that computer anxiety predicted time
on-line.
There have also been a small number of studies that have investigated the
relationship between Internet anxiety and Internet use. Chou (2003) developed
a new scale of Internet anxiety and found that it was related to self-reported
use of the Internet. This raises the question of whether Internet anxiety is the
same as computer anxiety. Chou (2003) and Presno (1998) argue that
although Internet anxiety shares some of the same concepts as computer anx-
iety, it has a number of constructs that are unique to it. Presno (1998) out-
lines four anxieties people have with the Internet: Internet terminology
anxiety; Internet search anxiety; Internet time delay anxiety; and general fear
of Internet failure.
The current study similarly focuses on Internet-related anxiety, conceptualised in
more generic terms as measured by Brosnan and Thorpe (2001; Thorpe and Bros-
nan, 2001).

1.2. Internet identification

Identity is an important factor in computer use and experience (Cooper & Wea-
ver, 2003; Facer, Furlong, Furlong, & Sutherland, 2003; Holloway & Valentine,
2003). Research in this area, however, conceptualises identity in a number of ways.
Facer et al. (2003), for example, conceptualised it in terms of consumption (Gid-
dens, 1991), while Holloway and Valentine focused on social identity. Following
Cooper and WeaverÕs (2003) model of computer use, we do not focus on identity
per se, but instead focus on domain identification. Derived from the research of
Claude Steele and colleagues (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele, 1997; Steele
& Aronson, 1995), this approach provides a link between social identity and the
performance of some skill or ability. It is therefore highly suited to the study of
Internet use.
 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420 1411

A domain is defined as a performance context (Aronson et al., 1999). It is a con-

text in which one can put a skill or a set of skills into practice. To identify with a
domain is to have oneÕs self-esteem bound up with oneÕs ability to perform success-
fully in that domain (Aronson et al., 1999; Cooper & Weaver, 2003). Examples of
domains include mathematics (Aronson et al., 1999; Spencer et al., 1999; Steele,
1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995), sports (Stone, Perry, & Darley, 1997; Stone, Lynch,
Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999), and computers and technology (Cooper & Weaver,
2003). We use the term ÔInternet identificationÕ to refer to the extent to which an indi-
vidualÕs self-concept is bound up with his or her perceived ability to use the Internet.
One of the aims of the current study is to examine the relationship between Internet
identification and actual Internet use.
Identification with a domain such as the Internet serves a variety of functions
(Cooper & Weaver, 2003). First, it provides a means of self-definition or self-es-
teem, making the person feel better about him- or herself. Second, it is a means
of identifying with others who share the same values and goals, providing a refer-
ence group orientation and shared activities. Third, it serves as a means of defining
oneself in contrast to others who identify with other domains. Finally, domain
identification has implications for behaviour. The higher oneÕs identification with
a particular domain, the more likely one is to participate within this domain. Re-
cent research has shown that identification has a strong influence on behaviour in a
variety of domains (Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Ethier, 1995; Reicher, 1986); the stron-
ger the identification, the stronger the influence. Conversely, as Cooper and Wea-
ver suggest, those who disidentify with a particular domain are less likely to
participate in that domain.
If we apply this to the Internet, an individual with a high degree of Internet
identification would need to be able to use the Internet effectively to maintain their
sense of self-worth. Consequently, he or she would be likely to have a high degree
of experience using the Internet; would have positive attitudes towards the Inter-
net; would be motivated to spend time learning how to use it; and might take
courses on using the Internet. If he or she performs badly using the Internet this
would be likely to make him or her feel anxious because it would threatens a sense
of self-worth.
Finally, Cooper and Weaver (2003) speculated that identification with the com-
puter would be inversely related to computer anxiety. If computers are not rele-
vant to a personÕs self-worth, then that personÕs actual or expected experiences in
this domain should relate to lower levels of anxiety than a person whose self-
worth is relevant to performance in this domain. Applied to the Internet, the
model would predict that Internet identification is inversely related to Internet
anxiety.
The aim of this paper is to apply Cooper and WeaverÕs (2003) model of com-
puter use to Internet use. Focusing on two of the factors in this model, this
study has three hypotheses. First, Internet anxiety will be inversely related to
Internet use. Second, identification with the Internet will be positively related
to Internet use. Finally, Internet identification will be inversely related to Internet
anxiety.
1412 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participants were 446 undergraduate students from the University of Bath
and University of Greenwich in the UK, and Macquarie University in Australia.
There were 319 females and 127 males and the average age was 22 years (age range
was 18–48 years).

2.2. Procedure

The questionnaires were handed out at the end of a lecture and the students were
asked to complete them before they left. The questionnaire contained a section on
the studentsÕ ownership of a computer; how old they were when they first used the
Internet; who showed them how to use it and four purposely designed scales: two
scales that measured Internet use, an Internet anxiety scale and an Internet identifi-
cation scale. The students were also asked how many hours they spend on the Inter-
net in a week and how many hours they spent on the Internet per week for studying.

2.3. Measures

To assess the studentsÕ Internet use we used three measures. The students were
first asked how many hours a week they spent on the Internet. They answered using
a eight-point scale (0 = 0 h, 1 = 1–5 h, 2 = 6–10 h, 3 = 11–15 h, 4 = 16–20 h, 5 = 21–
25 h, 6 = 26–30 h and 7 = over 30 h). Two scales were developed to measure stu-
dentsÕ use of the Internet. The first was a measure of studentsÕ use of the Internet gen-
erally, in which seven items identified use of e-mail, chat, newsgroups, online games,
sex sites, shopping and downloading/listening to music. They answered using a five-
point scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often and 4 = very often). Reli-
ability was adequate (Cronbach a = 0.77). The final question was an open-ended
question that asked students to specify any other uses they made of the Internet.
The second measure of use was designed to measure how often students used the
Internet for university coursework. The students answered six items concerning how
often they searched the library website for references, contacted university staff via
e-mail for information, contacted external experts via e-mail for information, down-
loaded relevant material from course web pages, used WWW for searching for rele-
vant material and posted questions to newsgroups and message boards. They
answered using the same five-point scale used in the general Internet use scale
(0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often and 4 = very often). Reliability was
adequate (Cronbach a = 0.77).
A scale was developed to measure Internet anxiety and was based on a scale de-
signed to measure computer anxiety (Brosnan & Thorpe, 2001; Thorpe & Brosnan,
2001). The students were asked six questions (shown below) and answered using a
five-point Likert Scale (Cronbach a = 0.77).
 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420 1413

1. I always feel anxious when using the Internet.

2. I go out of my way to avoid using the Internet.
3. It is easy for me to use the Internet.
4. It is important for me to be able to use the Internet.
5. My anxiety about using the Internet bothers me.
6. I am more anxious about using the Internet than I should be.

An Internet identification scale was developed from an identity scale used for
measuring school, peer and family identity in relation to studentsÕ motivation, learn-
ing and behaviour in school (Maras, 2002).The students responded to 10 statements
(shown below) using a five-point Likert type scale (Cronbach a = 0.76). These items
were based on previous work (Maras, 2002) and used items typically found in iden-
tity scales, such as similarity and affect relative to the target identification (Tajfel,
1979).

1. I would describe myself as an Internet user.

2. I am very similar to other Internet users.
3. Other Internet users are very like me.
4. I am very different from Internet users.
5. I feel very emotionally attached to other Internet users in general.
6. I feel a part of an Internet users community.
7. When there is an opportunity I always get involved in using the Internet.
8. Whenever I can, I tell people I am an Internet user.
9. I like people who use the Internet frequently.
10. Using the Internet is a very important aspect of being a student.

3. Results

Descriptive analysis of the data revealed that the measures were all highly and
positively skewed. Therefore, we employed non-parametric statistics throughout
the statistical analysis. Most students (42%) used the Internet between 1 and
5 h a week and 18% used it between 6 and 10 h a week. Two students did not
use the Internet and 31 students used it for over 30 h a week. The descriptive sta-
tistics for the studentsÕ general use of the Internet are shown in Table 1. Interest-
ingly the activities that most students used regularly were e-mail and shopping.
Most students did not use the Internet for any other purposes. These findings
were indicated by the fact that for all questions, except email use, the modal re-
sponse was 0 (i.e., never), whilst e-mail use has a modal score of 4 (i.e., very
often).
Table 2 shows the studentsÕ use of the Internet for coursework. The most frequent
use of the Internet for coursework was to download course material, searching the
library website and searching the Internet for course materials. Most students did
not report contacting external experts via e-mail or contacting newsgroups.
1414 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420

Table 1
General Internet use
Mean Mode (%N) SD
E-mail use 3.4 4.0 60 0.9
Chatroom use 1.3 0.0 46 1.5
Newsgroup use 0.8 0.0 55 1.1
Online game use 0.7 0.0 62 1.8
Pornography use 0.6 0.0 74 1.2
Shopping on the WWW 1.2 0.0 36 1.1
Download music 1.6 0.0 31 1.3

Table 2
Experience using the Internet for coursework
Mean Mode %N SD
Searching library website 2.7 4.0 32 1.3
Contact staff via e-mail 1.8 2.0 38 1.1
Contact external expert via e-mail 0.7 0.0 54 0.9
Downloading material 3.3 4.0 47 0.9
Searching WWW for material 3.0 3.0 38 1.0
Contacting news group 0.6 0.0 62 1.0

The mean score for Internet anxiety was 13.2 and SD = 3.3. Using a one sample
Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test with a predicted mean = 18, the obtained mean was sig-
nificantly lower than the predicted mean (Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test, z = 16.7,
p < 0.05). Therefore, the students were not anxious about using the Internet.
Thirty-four students had scores of above 18. The anxiety scores ranged from 8 to
27 with 92% scoring 18 or less and 8% scoring more than 18. The mean score for
Internet identification was 29.3 and SD = 5.1. Using a one sample Wilcoxan Signed
Rank Test with a predicted mean = 30, the obtained mean was significantly lower
than the predicted mean (Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test, z = 3.0, p < 0.01). The Inter-
net identification scores ranged from 13 to 45 with 60% scoring 30 or lower and 40%
scoring above 30.
Table 3 shows the correlations between Internet identification, Internet anxiety
and the various measures of Internet use. Non-significant correlations are not
Table 3
Correlation matrix for Internet identification, Internet anxiety, and Internet use
1 2 3 4 5
1 Hours per week 0.73** 0.48** 0.13**
2 General Internet use 0.47** 0.17**
3 Internet use for coursework 0.24**
4 Identification
5 Anxiety 0.14**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420 1415

shown. We found that Internet identification was positively related to hours per
week using the Internet (q = 0.52, p < 0.01), general Internet use (q = 0.49,
p < 0.01) and using the Internet for coursework (q = 0.20, p < 0.01). There was a sig-
nificant and negative relationship between Internet identification and Internet anxi-
ety (q = 0.14, p < 0.01), Internet anxiety was negatively related to general Internet
use (q = 0.17, p < 0.05) and Internet anxiety was negatively related to hours per
week using the Internet (q = 0.13, p < 0.01).
Factor analysis (principal components analysis, varimax rotation with Kaiser nor-
malisation) was used to examine the relationships between the items in the Internet
identification scale. The rotated component matrix for the three factors is presented
in Table 4. Coefficients less than 0.5 are not shown. A three-factor solution emerged
after five iterations and explained 64% of the variance. The first factor explained
34% of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.4) and loaded with the studentsÕ awareness of being
part of an Internet community. The second factor explained 20% of the variance (eigen-
value = 2.0) and loaded on the questions concerned with similarity to other Internet
users. The final factor explained 10% of the variance (eigenvalue 1.0) and was one ques-
tion concerned with the importance of using the Internet in being a student.
Table 5 shows the correlations between the three different factors of Internet iden-
tification, Internet anxiety, and the three measures of Internet use. Non-significant

Table 4
Internet identification factor matrix
Components
1 2 3
I would describe myself as an Internet user
I am very similar to other Internet users 0.89
Other Internet users are very like me 0.89
I am very different from Internet users 0.73
I feel very emotionally attached to other Internet users in general 0.78
I feel a part of an Internet users community 0.84
When there is an opportunity I always get involved in using the Internet 0.73
Whenever I can, I tell people I am an Internet user 0.72
I like people who use the Internet frequently 0.56
Using the Internet is a very important aspect of being a student 0.93

Table 5
Correlation matrix for Internet identification factors, Internet anxiety, and Internet use
Identification components
1 2 3
Hours per week 0.48** 0.19**
General Internet use 0.50** 0.16**
Internet use for coursework 0.19** 0.18**
Internet anxiety 0.15**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
1416 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420

Table 6
Gender differences and Internet identification
Male Female
M SD M SD
Factor 1 12.7 3.8 11.4 3.5*
Factor 2 9.4 2.3 9.4 1.8
Factor 3 3.8 0.9 3.9 0.9
Identity total 30.3 5.2 28.8 5.1*
Anxiety 12.4 3.0 13.6 3.3*
* p < 0.01.

statistical correlations are not shown. Factor 1 was significantly correlated with
hours per week using the Internet (q = 0.48, p < 0.01), general Internet use
(q = 0.50, p < 0.01) and using the Internet for coursework (q = 0.19, p < 0.01). Fac-
tor 2 was significantly correlated with hours per week using the Internet (q = 0.19,
p < 0.01) and general Internet use (q = 0.16, p < 0.01). Factor 3 was significantly cor-
related with using the Internet for coursework (q = 0.18, p < 0.01). Factor 3 was sig-
nificantly and negatively related to Internet anxiety (q = 0.15, p < 0.01). It is
important to note that principal components analysis was used to prevent the need
for unnecessarily repetitive statistical analysis, and it is not believed that either factor
represents a ÔstableÕ underlying dimension.
Comparison of males and females in terms of Internet identification revealed a
number of significant gender differences (see Table 6). MalesÕ identification with
the Internet was significantly higher than females (Mann–Whitney, z = 2.3,
p < 0.01). In particular, males were significantly more likely to feel part of an Inter-
net community than females (Mann–Whitney, z = 3.1, p < 0.01). Furthermore, males
were significantly less anxious about the Internet than females (Mann–Whitney,
z = 3.6, p < 0.01).

4. Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to apply two of the factors in Cooper and Wea-
verÕs (2003) model of computer use to Internet use. All three hypotheses based on
this model were supported. We found a positive relationship between Internet iden-
tification and Internet use, a negative relationship between Internet identification
and Internet anxiety and a negative relationship between Internet anxiety and Inter-
net use.
On the whole, students were not anxious about using the Internet, although
approximately 9% did show evidence of Internet anxiety. This result is consistent
with the findings reported by the UCLA Internet Project (2003). We also found that
there was a significant and negative relationship between Internet anxiety and Inter-
net use. Those who were more anxious about using the Internet used the Internet
 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420 1417

less. This finding is consistent with Cooper and WeaverÕs (2003) model and previous
research (Barbiete & Weiss, 2004; Chou, 2003; Cody et al., 1999; Durndell & Haag,
2002; Jackson et al., 2001a).
In terms of Internet identification, participants in this study did not identify with
the Internet. However, there was a positive and significant relationship between all
three measures of Internet use and Internet identification. Those who scored high
on Internet identification used the Internet more than those who did not. This find-
ing supports Cooper and WeaverÕs (2003) model and is consistent with research con-
cerning the strength of identification and behaviour. (Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Ethier,
1995). We extended this research by looking at some of the relationships between
Internet use and the three aspects of identification with the Internet: awareness of
group membership, similarity with other Internet users and the importance of using
the Internet for being a student. Awareness of group membership was significantly
and positively related to all three measures of Internet use, that is, hours per week
spent using the Internet, general use of the Internet and use of the Internet for
coursework. Similarity to other Internet users was positively and significantly related
to hours per week spent using the Internet, and general use of the Internet, but not to
the use of the Internet for coursework. Finally, the sole question of the identity ques-
tionnaire relating to the importance of the Internet for being a student was as pre-
dicted correlated with use of the Internet for coursework. Consistent with Cooper
and WeaverÕs (2003) model, we found a small but significant negative relationship
between Internet anxiety and identification with the Internet. Those with high Inter-
net identification experience less anxiety in using the Internet than those with low
Internet identification.
Overall, most participants in this study did not identify with the Internet, and
this raises a number of interesting questions. For example, what do people think
identifies Internet users? What characteristics do they possess and why did the par-
ticipants in this study not identify with them? We could make a number of specu-
lations in answer to these questions. It is probable that the participants see Internet
users as male, white and ÔgeekyÕ (see Duffield, Gavin, & Joiner, 2003). Holloway
and Valentine (2003) identified groups of boys they labelled Ôtechno boysÕ. These
boys were highly technologically literate, but were labelled by their other classmates
as ÔboffinsÕ, Ôcomputer freaksÕ and ÔnerdsÕ. They were seen as socially inadequate,
unmasculine and were generally marginalised. Thus, it is no surprise that our sam-
ple did not identify with Internet users. That males reported higher levels of Inter-
net identification than females, and that in particular males identify more than
females with an Internet community, is consistent with research and theory suggest-
ing that the Internet is a masculinised domain (Bimber, 2000; Morehan-Martin,
1998), and the generally low levels of Internet identification by both males and fe-
males may reflect the varied and competing images of Internet users of both sexes
(Duffield et al., 2003).
One problem with this study is its correlational nature and the inherent difficulty
of drawing causal links between Internet identification, Internet anxiety and Inter-
net-related behaviour. It is possible that a personÕs strong identification with the
Internet caused them to use the Internet more. However, it is equally likely that
1418 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420

the students may have identified more with the Internet because of their experiences
with the Internet. Similarly, it is difficult to know whether Internet anxiety deter-
mines the pattern of Internet use or vice versa. Research on computer anxiety shows
that it is a strong predictor of computer achievement (Marcoulides, 1988) and gen-
eralising this finding to the Internet would suggest that Internet anxiety is predictive
of Internet use. Also Jackson et al. (2003) carried out a study which found that a per-
sonÕs attitudes towards the Internet at time one was predictive of their actual use at
time two. This indicates that self-reported measures of Internet attitudes can be pre-
dictive of future and actual behaviour. Further longitudinal research is needed to
investigate whether Internet identification and Internet anxiety are predictive of
Internet use.
In Section 1, we reported that, ÔPsychology has an important role in advancing
understanding of why people choose to use or not use the InternetÕ (Jackson
et al., 2001b, argued p. 15). This research has shown that two psychological factors,
namely Internet Identification and Internet anxiety, are both related to use of the
Internet.

References

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men
canÕt do math. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.
Barbiete, F. G., & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample:
testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 20, 1–15.
Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 868–876.
Brosnan, M. (1998a). Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology. London:
Routledge.
Brosnan, M., & Thorpe, S. (2001). Does Technophobia conform to DSM-IV criteria for a specific phobia
(300.29)? Paper presented at the 22nd international conference of STAR, the International Society for
Stress and Anxiety Research, Palma de Mallorca, 12–14, July.
Chou, C. (2003). Incidence and correlates of Internet anxiety among high school teachers in Taiwan.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 731–749.
Cody, M. J., Dunn, D., Hoppin, S., & Wendt, P. (1999). Silver surfers: training and evaluating Internet use
among older adult learners. Communication Education, 48(4), 269–286.
Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chua, S. L., Chen, D., & Wong, A. F. L. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: a meta-analysis.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 15, 609–623.
Duffield, J., Gavin, J., & Joiner, R. (2003). Drawing the Net. Paper presented at the annual conference of
The British Psychological Society, 10th–14th March.
Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet
and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in
Human Behaviours, 18(4), 521–535.
Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity in a changing context: maintaining
identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 83–87.
Ethier, K. A. (1995). Becoming a mother: identity acquisition during the transition to motherhood.
Unpublished Doctorial Thesis, City University of New York.
Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). ScreenPlay: children and computing in the
home. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420 1419

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280, 390–391.
Holloway, W., & Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: Children in the information age. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Jackson, L. A. (1999). Social psychology and the digital divide. Paper presented at the symposium entitled
ÔThe Internet: a place for social psychologyÕ The 1999 conference of the Society for Experimental Social
Psychology, St Louis.
Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001a). Gender and the Internet: women
communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44(5/6), 363–379.
Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001b). The racial digital divide:
motivational, affective and cognitive correlates of Internet use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
31, 2019–2046.
Jackson, L. A., von Eye, A., Barbatsis, G., Biocca, F., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2003). Internet
attitudes and Internet use: some surprising findings from the HomeNet Too Project. International
Journal of Human Computer Studies, 59(3), 355–382.
Maras, P. (2002). Identity, social perception and motivation: interdependent or autonomous factors? In
British journal of educational psychology cutting edge conference, The Lake District, UK.
Marcoulides, G. A. (1988). The relationship between computer anxiety and computer achievement.
Journal of Educational Computer Research, 4(2), 151–158.
Morehan-Martin, J. (1998). Males, females and the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the
Internet (pp. 169–197). San Diego: Academic Press.
Presno, C. (1998). Taking the byte out of Internet anxiety: instructional techniques that reduce computer/
Internet anxiety in the classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(2), 147–161.
Reicher, S. (1986). Social influence in the crowd: attitudinal and behavioural effects of deindividuation in
conditions of high and low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341–350.
Rosen, L., & Maguire, P. (1990). Myths and Realities of computer phobia: a meta-analysis. Anxiety
Research, 3, 175–179.
Russell, N., & Stafford, N. (2002). Trends in ICT access and use. Department for Education and Skills,
Research Report RR358.
Sax, L. J., Ceja, M., & Teranishi, R. T. (2001). Technological preparedness among entering freshmen: the
role of race, class and gender. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(4), 363–383.
Schofield, J. W. (1997). Psychology. Computers and classroom social processes: a review of the literature.
Social Science Computer Review, 15, 27–39.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and womenÕs math performance.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
Stone, J., Perry, Z. W., & Darley, J. M. (1997). ‘‘White men canÕt jump’’: evidence for the perceptual
confirmation of racial stereotypes following a basketball game. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
19(3), 291–306.
Stone, J., Lynch, C., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White
athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213–1227.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance
of women and African Americans. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and social groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 18, 139–190.
Thorpe, S., & Brosnan, M. (2001). A single treatment for technophobia. Paper presented at the 22nd
international conference of STAR, the International Society for Stress and Anxiety Research, Palma de
Mallorca, 12–14 July.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen. London: Penguin.
UCLA Internet Project (2000, 2001, 2003). Surveying the digital future. UCLA Centre for communication
Policy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Available from www.ccp.ucla.edu.
1420 R. Joiner et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1408–1420

US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA).

(1995). Falling through the Net: A survey of the ‘‘Have Nots’’ in Rural and Urban America. Washington,
DC: Available from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html.
US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA).
(1997). Racial divide continues to grow. Washington, DC. Available from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/net2/.
US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA).
(1999). Falling through the Net: defining the digital divide. Washington, DC. Available from http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html.
US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA).
(2002). A nation online: Internet use in America. Washington, DC. Available from http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/opadhome/digitalnation/index.html.