1.
Internet Dropouts – an essay
in cultural diversity
The Good, the Bad and the Irrelevant
Helsinki September 3-5, 2003
COST 269 User Aspects of ICTs
Dr. Frank Thomas
FTR
Rosny, France

2.
Dropouts- a (nearly) forgotten
category of Internet users
• The state of the art
• The data
• The analysis
• Conclusions
2

3.
The state of the art: How
to explain dropout?
• Diffusion theory
• Communication research
• History of technology
3

4.
Diffusion theory (Rogers 1995)
= « discontinuance of an innovation »
– Replacement - Being disenchanted
Because
• Innovation inappropriate for user
• Perceived relative advantage over existing
services judged to be inadequate
• Bad use
• Innovation didn’t become routinised into
ongoing practice
• Forced discontinuance (through government or
industry intervention)
• Exists all along the diffusion process, most
typical for late adopters
4

5.
To be successful an
innovation should be
• Perceived to be relatively advantageous
to existing goods, services
• Compatible with existing values, past
experience
• Simple to understand and to use
• Triable, you should have the opportunity to
start on a limited basis
• Observable, it should be visible to
potential users
5

6.
Communication research
Authors/study name and year of survey:
• Katz & Aspden: USA 1995, 1997, 2002
• Lenhart, Pew Internet: USA 2000,2002
• UCLA Internet Report: USA 2000
• A Nation Online: USA 2001
• ARD-ZDF Online & Offline Studies:
Germany 2000 - 2002
• Household Internet Use Survey: Canada
2000
• World Internet Project, Japan: 2000
• Wyatt: types of non-use
6

7.
Katz & Aspden
• 1995: 8% of sample dropped out in the
U.S.
• 2000: 11% dropouts
Main reasons
– 36% Lost institutional access
– 23% No interest
– 18% Use problems (equipment, too
difficult)
– 7% cost
7

8.
Social profile of dropouts
Dropouts are For the 20+
• Younger • No effect of gender
• Less well educated
• No effect of work status
• Poorer
• Short term users • No differrence in marital
• Different learning status
environments
• Ethnic background
Multivariate:
• only education
8

9.
Lenhart, Pew Internet Project
13% dropouts, USA 2000
Reasons Dropout profil
• 21% loss of PC • Younger
• 14% changed job • Less educated
• 11% cost • Poorer
Changes in life -> than users
dropout
9

10.
UCLA Internet Report
21% dropout rate USA 2001
Reasons
• 21% loss of PC
• 17% no interest
• 10% privacy, security concerns
• 5% cost
• 4% not useful
• 4% takes too much time
• 3% change of job
10

11.
ARD/ZDF Online & Offline
Studies (2000 – 2002)
In Germany:
• 2000: 6%
• 2001: 7%
• 2002: 6%
11

12.
Canadian Household Internet
Use Survey 2000
(Crompton, Ellison, Stevenson 2002)
5% dropouts, Canada 2000
Reasons:
• 30% no need
• 17% cost
• 14% lost access to computer
• 4% too difficult
• 5% equipment broken
12

13.
Japan study within the
World Internet Project
• Total dropout rate 2000: 6%
Profile
• 12 – 19 years: 15%
• 30+ years : below 5%
13

14.
History of technology
• Temporary dropout during a
successful diffusion
• Dropout is different from the
retreat of users when a technology
ends its life cycle
14

15.
Temporary drop-out during a
successful diffusion
• De-diffusion of rural telephone by U.S.
farmers in 1930s in favour of car
(Fischer 1987)
• Retreat of German telephone diffusion
after the world economic crisis of 1929
(Thomas 1995)
15

16.
The impact of culture on ICT use
Culture is a system of
commonly shared symbols,
values, beliefs, and their
translation into social
perceptions, behaviour and
artefacts.
16

17.
The analysis
17

18.
The general model
values & attitudes
socio-demographic
resources
Dropout rate
experience with ICTs
everyday life activities ?
Missing: SUPPLY= content & regulation & technology
& tarification & … 18

19.
Social Networks and ICT
The data: the EURESCOM P903 survey
P903 STUDY COUNTRIES
• Representative data about users
and non -users of mobile phone
and Internet
• focus on PRIVATE use
• 9 countries, advanced and
starters
• more than 9,000 respondents
19

20.
Who drops out in Europe?
• 5% of population used the Internet
but does no longer (end of 2000)
• Low: 8% in Norway
• High: 31% in Spain
source: EURESCOM P903
20

21.
Dropout and penetration rates
60
NL DK
50
% Internet penetration
N
40
D
30 UK
CR
20 I
F ES
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
% dropout in % of actual & former user 21
source: EURESCOM P903

22.
Dropout rate by socio-
demographic categories
Female
Male
.
15 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
.
45 to 54
55 +
secondary & less educ.
tertiary educ.
.
--
income
-
+
++
single & child
couple & child
couple, no child
single, no child
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
22
source: EURESCOM P903

23.
Dropout rate & ICT background
high efficacy
low efficacy
.
very innovative
.
not innovative
high ICT budget
low ICT budget
.
inactive: student, voc. training, national service
environment occupation
oriented
ICT poor job
ICT-
inactive: unemployed, retired, ill, housekeeper
ICT rich job
hot line
myself, textbook
learning
family & peers
teacher
at work
5+ yrs
use duration
3-4 yrs
2 yrs
1 yr
below 1 yr
0% 10% 20% 23 30%
source: EURESCOM P903

24.
The structure of Internet attitudes
Factors:
utility,
knowledge
& time is mean to entry
usability
factor scores alternatives money socialising obstacles hazard
not useful to me 
unfamiliar 
not interested in new technologies 
easier ways 
uses too much time 
easy to get lost 
too expensive  
contact people with same interests 
enables to make new friends 
too much effort to subscribe 
people in my household dislike 
Internet friendships are superficial 
fear of credit card fraud 
too much pornography, violence 
Internet is to gather information
easy to use 
% variance explained 14.7% 8.7% 7.9% 6.7% 6.5% 6.3%
rotated factor matrix 24
 factor score > .5  factor score between .25 and .5  factor score < -.25
Data source: EURESCOM P

25.
Influences on the dropout-rate
variable reference effect B ddl Signif. Exp(B)
gender male female 0,17 1 0,22 1,18
socio-demography age 15 to 45 years > 45 years -0,42 1 0,02 0,66
education secondary or less tertiary -0,70 1 0,00 0,50
household income < median > median -0,02 1 0,89 0,98
Single/couple single couple -0,20 1 0,24 0,82
presence of children no children children 0,24 1 0,15 1,28
urban place rural urban -0,49 1 0,00 0,61
residential mobility immobil mobil -0,38 1 0,30 0,69
years of Internet use below 1 year 1 year + -0,18 1 0,31 0,84
ICT environment
Learning environment assisted self-taught -0,74 1 0,00 0,48
ICT-oriented occupation ICT poor ICT rich 0,70 1 0,00 0,49
telephone budget < median > median -0,08 1 0,56 0,92
fixed line phone no fixed line fixed line -0,69 1 0,00 0,50
TV equipment none or low high -0,24 1 0,20 0,79
home office none or low high -0,88 1 0,00 0,41
PC efficacy low high 0,10 1 0,71 1,10
lack of utility, knowledge low high 1,37 1 0,00 3,93
attitudes
time is money low high 0,09 1 0,52 1,10
socialising tool low high -0,07 1 0,68 0,93
entry obstacles low high 0,82 1 0,00 2,27
hazard low high 0,17 1 0,23 1,18
usability low high 0,21 1 0,15 1,23
country Norway reference
Norway Denmark 0,97 1 0,00 2,63
national context
Norway Netherlands -0,24 1 0,42 0,78
Norway Germany -0,47 1 0,10 0,62
Norway UK 0,35 1 0,24 1,41
Norway Italy -0,59 1 0,12 0,55
Norway Czechia 0,79 1 0,00 2,20
Norway France -0,01 1 0,97 0,99
Norway Spain 1,13 1 0,00 3,10 25
Data source: EURESCOM P903

26.
Chances to drop-out
diminish increase with:
• With the elderly • work in ICT-poor jobs
• with better formal • the Internet perceived to
education lack utility for oneself
• When living in urban
places • the family against it,
difficulties to subscribe
• If the Internet is being
self-taught • residence in Denmark,
• If a fixed phone line at Czechia, Spain
home
no effect:
• If a home office
• gender
equipment in the
household • income
• household structure
• length of use
• budget
• PC efficacy 26

27.
Conclusions
• Internet dropout remains an under-researched issue
• Influences of national cultures compete with general
influences in explaining abandoning the Internet? They
complement but cannot replace other explanations.
• Dropout will become socially and economically more
important when reaching national saturation levels
• Actual research omits the supply side and the political
context of the Internet
27

28.
Cited bibliography
ARD/ZDF-AG Multimedia: Nichtnutzer von Online: Einstellungen und Zugangsbarrieren. Media-
Perspektiven 8/1999, pp. 415-422.
Crompton, Susan, Jonathan Ellison and Kathryn Stevenson: Better things to do or dealt out of
the game? Internet dropouts and infrequent users. Canadian Social Trends Summer 2002,
pp. 2-5.
Fischer, Claude S.: Technology’s retreat: The decline of rural telephony in the United States,
1920 – 1940. Social Science History vol.11, 1987, pp.295 – 327.
Gerhards, Maria and Annette Mende: Nichtnutzer von Online: Kern von Internetverweigerern?
Media-Perspektiven 8/2002, pp. 363 – 375.
Grajczyk, Andreas and Annette Mende: Nichtnutzer von Online: Internet für den Alltag noch
nicht wichtig. Media-Perspektiven 8/2001, pp. 398 – 409.
Katz, James E. and Philip Aspden: Internet dropouts in the USA. Telecommunications Policy vol.
22, 1998, no. 4/5, pp. 327 – 329.
Katz, James E. and Ronald Rice: Social consequences of Internet use. Cambridge MA: MIT Press
2002.
Katz, James E. and Philip Aspden: Internet and mobile telephone digital divides.
Telecommunications Policy vol. 27 no. 8/9, pp. 597-623.
Lenhart, Amanda: Who’s not online. Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington D.C., 21
Sep 2000.
Lenhart, Amanda: The evershifting Internet population. Pew Internet & American Life Project
Washington D.C., April 2003.
Mikami, Shunjii: I-mode florishing Internet culture in Japan. World Intenet Project conference
paper Gavle, 21 August 2001.
NTIA: A Nation Online. Washington D.C. Feb.2002.
Rogers Everett M.: Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press 1995.
Thomas, Frank: Telefonieren in Deutschland. MPI for the Study of Societies vol. 21.
Frankfurt/New York: Campus 1995.
UCLA: Surveying the Digital Future. UCLA Internet Report 2001.
Wyatt, Sally, Graham Thomas and Tiziana Terranova (2002) ‘They came, they surfed, they went
back to the beach’ in Steve Woolgar (ed) Virtual Society? Get Real. Oxford: Oxford 28
University Press

29.
Thank you!
If you have any questions:
mailto:
Frank.ThomasFTR@free.fr
29