Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 75–101 | Cite as

Multinational web uses and gratifications: Measuring the social impact of online community participation across national boundaries

  • Patricia Grace-Farfaglia
  • Ad Dekkers
  • Binod Sundararajan
  • Lois Peters
  • Sung-Hee Park


This paper describes the rationale and findings from a multinational study of online uses and gratifications conducted in the United States, Korea, and the Netherlands in spring 2003. Survey questions developed in three languages by native speaking researchers was presented to approximately 400 respondents in each country via the Web. Web uses and gratifications were analyzed cross-nationally in a comparative fashion focusing on involvement in different types of on-line communities. Findings indicate that demographic characteristics, cultural values, and Internet connection type emerged as critical factors that explain why the same technology is adopted differently.


Uses and gratifications Online communities Multinational Cross-cultural 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Lin, J.C.-C., & Lu, H. (2000). Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a website. International Journal of Information Management, 20, 197–208.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Lin, C.A. (2002). Perceived gratifications of online media service use among potential users. Telematics and Informatics, 19, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Stafford, T.F. (2003). Differentiating between adopter categories in the uses and gratifications for internet services. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50, 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R., & Schkade, L.L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences, 35, 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Tewksbury, D., & Althaus, S.L. (2000). An examination of motivation for using the world wide web. Communication Research Reports, 17, 127–138.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Park, H.W. (2002). The digital divide in south korea: Closing and widening divides in the 1990s. Electronic Journal of Communication, 12, [np].Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Matei, S. (2004). The impact of state-level social capital on the emergence of virtual communities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 23–40.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227–252.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Rheingold, H. (2001). The virtual community: Homesteading on the virtual frontier. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Horrigan, J.B., & Rainie, L. (2002). Getting serious online. Pew Research Center, Internet & American Life. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org, www.pewinternet.org.
  12. [12]
    Madden, M. (2003). America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Washington, D.C: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Blumler, J.G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communication. London: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Charney, T.R., & Greenberg, B.S. (2002). Uses and gratifications of the internet. In C.A.L. & D.J. Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. Communication Yearbook, 8, 20–55.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Rubin, R., Pearce E., & Barbato, C. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T.P. (2002). Effects of training on internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Anandarajan, M., Simmers, C., & Igbaria, M. (2000). An exploratory investigation of the antecedents and impact of internet usage: An individual perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 69–85.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    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 Behavior, 18, 521–535.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Ferguson, D.A., & Perse, E.M. (2000). The world wide web as a functional alternative to television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 155–174.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lin, C.A. (2001). Audience attributes, media supplementation, and likely online service adoption. Mass Communication & Society, 4, 19–38.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Lin, C.A. (1999). Predicting online service adoption likelihood among potential subscribers: A modifications approach. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 79–89.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Flaherty, L.M., Pearce, K.J., & Rubin, R.B. (1998). Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46, 250–268.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A.M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175–196.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Cummings, J.N., & Kraut, R. (2002). Domesticating computers and the internet. Information Society, 18, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Wright, K.B., & Bell, S.B. (2003). Health-related support groups on the internet: Linking empirical findings to social support and computer-mediated communication theory. Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Yang, C.-C. (2000). The Use of the internet among academic Gay Communities in Taiwan: An exploratory study. Information, Communication & Society, 3, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Weiser, E.B. (2001). The functions of internet use and their social and psychological consequences. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4, 723–743.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Kiesler, S. et al. (2002). Internet evolution and social impact. In P.B. Lowry, J.O. Charrington, & R.J. Watson (Eds.), The E-Business Handbook. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Lin, C.A. (2002). A paradigm for communication and information technology adoption research. In C. A. L., & D. J. Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses. Creswell, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Leung, L. (2003). Impacts of net-generation attributes, seductive properties of the internet, and gratifications-obtained on internet use. Telematics and Informatics, 20, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Dutton, W. et al. (2003). Broadband internet: The power to reconfigure access (Forum Discussion):Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Camp, L.J. (2000). Trust and risk in internet commerce. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Mutz, D.C. (2001). The future of political communication research: Reflections on the occasion of steve chaffee's retirement from stanford university. Political Communication, 18, 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Watt, J., Choi, J.H., & Lynch, M. (2003). Credibility of the internet and alternative media as sources of information about the Iraqi war. Rensselaer polytechnic institute, April 18, 2003, Troy, New York.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Shah, D. et al. (2001). Connecting and Disconnecting with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M., & Katz, E. (1985). Reaching out: A future for gratifications research. In K.E. Rosengren, L.A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Bhattacharjee, Y. (2002). A swarm of little notes: Is instant messaging creating a works style that's breezily efficient or one that's more oppressive?: Time, 120 A4–A8.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: International differences in values. IJCS, XXXIX, 16–31.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Hofstede, G., & Bond, M.H. (1988). The confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Kersten, G.E., Koszegi, S.T., & Vetschera, R. (2002). The effects of culture in anonymous negotiations: Experiment in four countries. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Waikoloa, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb., 139–145.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Available at http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro_WRD.doc.
  46. [46]
    World-Value-Study-Group. (1994). World value survey, 1981–1984 & 1990–1993. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Danowski, J., & Choi, J.H. (2001). A global perspective on internet sexual content: Nations' values as predictors of internet web sex pages. In Y. K. (Ed.), Media, sex, violence, and drugs in the global village. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Zhu, J., & He, Z. (2002). Information accessibility, user sophistication, and source credibility: The impact of the internet on value orientations in mainland china. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7, Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/vol7/issue2/china.html.
  50. [50]
    Reece, D., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Coming to america: Need for acculturation and media use motives among indian sojourners in the US. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 807–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Zhang, J., & Shavitt, S. (2003). Cultural values in advertisements to the Chinese x-generation—Promoting modernity and individualism. Journal of Advertising, 32, 23–33.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Hagel, J.I., & Armstrong, A.G. (1997). Netgain: Expanding markets through virtual communities. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Nambisan, P., & Watt, J.H. (2003). Participation in online product communities: Impact on consumer attitudes & Perceptions. International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    LaRose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M.S. (2001). Understanding internet usage—A social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Science Computer Review, 19, 395–413.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    Lin, C.A., & Atkin, D.J. (2002). Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Stafford, T.F., & Stafford, M.R. (2001). Identifying motivations for the use of commercial web sites. Informational Resources Management Journal, 14, 22–30.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    Plant, R. (2004). Online communities. Technology in Society, 26, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2001). Development and validation of an internet self-efficacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20, 275–280.Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    Abramson, P., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture's consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    SPSS. (2002). Spss for Windows.Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    Arbuckle, J.L. (2003). Amos.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Deresky, H. (2002). International management: Managing across borders and cultures. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    Gudykunst, W.B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y.Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    Savada, A.M., & Shaw, W. (1993). South Korea: A country study. Federal research Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    KRNIC. (2003). Statistics on domestic internet use (as of August, 2003). IT Korea Journal, 2004, 56–59.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 185–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    Walther, J.B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In C.A. Lin & D.J. Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Jones, S. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1994). Mechanistic and organic systems. The Management of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Jackson, L. A. et al. (2001). Gender and the internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44, 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    de Haan, J., & Rijken, S. (2002). The digital divide in the Netherlands: The influence of material, cognitive and social resources on the possession and use of icts. Electronic Journal of Communication, 12, [np].Google Scholar
  75. [75]
    Bouwman, H., & Van De Wijngaert, L. (2002). Content and context: An exploration of the basic characteristics of information needs. New Media & Society, 4, 329–353.Google Scholar
  76. [76]
    van der Wurff, R., & van Cuilenburg, J. (2001). Impact of moderate and ruinous competition on diversity: The dutch television market. Journal of Media Economics, 14, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Grace-Farfaglia
    • 1
  • Ad Dekkers
    • 2
  • Binod Sundararajan
    • 3
  • Lois Peters
    • 4
  • Sung-Hee Park
    • 5
  1. 1.Lally School of Management and TechnologyRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy
  2. 2.Quality Management, Department of CommunicationFontys UniversityThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Language, Literature, and CommunicationRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteUSA
  4. 4.Management and Entrepreneurship, Lally School of Management and TechnologyRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteUSA
  5. 5.Ewha Womans UniversitySouth Korea

Personalised recommendations