Gender Differences in the Use of the Internet by English Secondary School Children

Social Psychology of Education 7: 229–251, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

229

Gender differences in the use of the Internetby English secondary school children

DOMINIC MADELL∗ and STEVEN MUNCERPsychology Department, University of Durham Queen’s Campus, Stockton, University Boulevard,Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK

Abstract. Access to the Internet is an important issue in terms of equity and the UK governmenthas stated ‘Our goal is to ensure that everyone who wants it has access to the Internet by 2005.’(UK Online Annual Report, 2002). This survey of Internet use by 1340 secondary school studentsfrom four schools in the Teesside area of England was carried out in order to assess whether thegovernment is realising its ambition of Internet access amongst 11–16 year-olds, and also to de-termine whether or not gender differences exist in Internet use. Furthermore, the data supplied areintended to inform later studies of more specific aspects of children’s Internet use. Generally, it wasfound that most children used the Internet, were quite comfortable with it, and used it for a variety ofapplications. However, a considerable minority of respondents also considered themselves non-usersof the Internet. There were also some gender differences found in the data which in general suggestedsomething of a male bias towards Internet use. It was concluded that these are issues that need to beaddressed for the purposes of equity and if the government is to achieve its goal of Internet accessfor all by 2005. A number of suggestions for further research into Internet use by children are alsosuggested in this paper.

1. Background to study

Access to the Internet is an important issue in terms of equity. For example, asKatz and Aspden (1997) have discussed, governmental functions are increasinglyaccessible, employment opportunities are advertised and business opportunitiesare available online. In addition, the Internet may provide commercial advantagesto those that use it as it allows easy comparison of prices for various goods andservices. Furthermore, and especially relevant to children who are the focus of thisstudy, is the fact that the Internet can be used for entertainment and educationalpurposes and may also provide social benefits via communication mediums suchas e-mail and chat rooms. Thus it can be seen that the Internet is an importanttechnology whose use by children should be studied as it may both enrich their livesin the present and also offer them a number of advantages for the future. In addition,children are a particularly important group to research with regard to Internet use,as Lenhart (2000) has noted that a disproportionate number of non-users tend to be

∗Author for correspondence: Tel.: +44-191-334-0006; Fax: +44-1642-385945; E-mail:[email protected]

230 DOMINIC MADELL AND STEVEN MUNCER

senior citizens and the young are most likely to go online eventually. Furthermore,a body as significant as the UK government acknowledges the fact that the Internetis an important technology: in their UK Online Annual Report (2002) they statethat ‘Our goal is to ensure that everyone who wants it has access to the Internet by2005’ (p. 70). Germane to the issue of equity and the Internet are gender differencesamongst children who use this technology and this is the main focus of this paper.

Some studies concerning gender differences in Internet use have been conduct-ed. However, research by those investigating this field such as that byJackson, Ervin, Gardner, and Schmitt (2001), Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, andDelucchi (2000), Nachmias, Mioduser, and Shelma (2000) Schumacher andMorahan-Martin (2001) and Durndell and Haag (2002) does not provide consis-tent evidence for the presence or otherwise of a gender gap in Internet use acrossdifferent groups of males and females. Results vary depending on the demograph-ics of the sample on which the research was performed. For example, Nachmias,Mioduser, and Shelma (2000) indicated a bias towards male use of the Internetamongst Israeli school children as did Durndell and Haag (2002) amongstRomanian university students. Furthermore, Schumacher and Morahan-Martin(2001) made similar findings with a sample of American undergraduate college stu-dents. However, Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, and Delucchi (2000) found that therewas virtually no gender gap in Internet use in their sample of American undergradu-ates as did Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, and Schmitt (2001) with their sample of AngloAmerican undergraduates. Furthermore, a search of the psychological literature un-dertaken for this paper did not reveal any evidence regarding gender differences inInternet use amongst English children. The conflicting findings from internationalresearch and the lack of research focussed on English children indicates that thereis a need to provide reliable non-commercial data that can provide informationabout gender differences in Internet use amongst this specific group. Commercialdata are not an acceptable substitute for academic research where Internet use isconcerned, as Jordan (2001) has noted that this sometimes overestimates the sizeand growth of this technology for its own purposes.

Whilst the findings concerning gender differences in overall Internet use areequivocal, a number of studies have nevertheless replicated data that indicate theremay be some consistent differences in the purposes for which males and femalesuse the Internet between a number of nations and age groups. For example, onefinding which a number of studies have made is that females may be more likelythan males to use the Internet for e-mail (e.g., Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, &Delucchi, 2000; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000; Sherman et al.,2000; Weiser, 2000; Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, & Schmitt, 2001). Boneva, Kraut,and Frohlich (2001) have suggested that women have appropriated the use of theInternet for this purpose as they have traditionally been responsible for maintainingrelationships. Furthermore, both Boneva, Kraut, and Frohlich (2001) and Weiser(2000) state that e-mail may suit the emotionally expressive style of communica-tion that women tend to favour in maintaining their relationships, and Allen (1995)

INTERNET USE BY ENGLISH SCHOOL CHILDREN 231

has discussed how women may like to use e-mail for certain purposes as it allowsthem to communicate without the gender dynamics that influence other methods ofcommunication. To a lesser degree, some studies have also indicated that femalesmight be more likely to use the Internet for education and research than males(Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, & Delucchi, 2000; Weiser, 2000; Durndell & Haag,2002), although Wesier (2000) has stated that this difference may only exist inyounger age groups.

A number of studies have also indicated that males are more likely than femalesto use the Internet for other purposes. For example, the majority of researchers havestated that males are more likely to use the Internet to research purchases and/orto shop (LaFerle, Edwards, & Lee, 2000; Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, & Delucchi,2000; Weiser, 2000) although there are exceptions to this: Teo and Lim (2000) didnot find that this was the case in their study of Internet usage by undergraduatesin Singapore. Other authors have indicated that males may be more likely playor download games (La Ferle, Edwards, & Lee, 2000; Nachmias, Mioduser, &Shelma, 2000; Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, & Delucchi, 2000; Wesier, 2000), listento or copy music (Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, & Delucchi, 2000) and also use theInternet to find out about this subject (LaFerle, Edwards, & Lee, 2000).

As well as examining gender differences in Internet use amongst English schoolchildren, this report attempts to describe children’s general activities using the In-ternet. The reason for this is that whilst data concerning Internet-related activitiesby adults in the UK have been gathered (i.e., by the Office for National Statistics,2002a,b,c) a literature search did not reveal any non-commercial data concern-ing English children’s general use of the Internet. Even in the ‘People’ chapter(Chapter 4) of the Government’s UK Online Annual Report (2002) which discussesthe public’s use of the Internet, adult use is focussed on to a much greater extentthan that of children. Although it is stated that ‘99% of all schools now have accessto the Internet, compared to 28% in 1998’ (P. 85), descriptions of actual Internetactivity by children are not reported. The rationale for the specific questions askedin the questionnaire associated with this paper is discussed in the following section.

To conclude, therefore, the following descriptive survey of Internet use byEnglish secondary school students was performed, first, in order to determinewhether or not gender differences exist in this activity. Second, the data providea general description of children’s Internet use which are intended to inform laterstudies of more specific aspects of this activity.

2. Design and measure

This was a descriptive survey. A questionnaire was created, of which many of thedimensions measured were the same as those found in surveys of adult Internetuse on the Office for National Statistics webpage, the UK’s official statistics site.The Internet surveys conducted by the Office for National Statistics are ‘developedin consultation with international organisations’ and are also informed by ‘other

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238764610_Gender_dierences_in_internet_usage_and_task_preferences?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-8786b6b8-d92c-4a9a-bce9-9ebfb51960a8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNjE5NDMzMTtBUzoxMDQwMzk0MDQ1Mzk5MDVAMTQwMTgxNjMzNTM5OA==


National Statistics Institutes including Canada and Australia’ (P. 2) (Bowman,2002). The Internet was also searched for examples of other questionnaires thatfocussed on Internet use in order to inform the creation of this one.

Once a draft of the questionnaire had been completed, it was circulated amongstlocal members of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Virtual So-ciety Program for their suggestions which were then incorporated into the design.The resulting questionnaire contained 16 questions about Internet use with ‘tick-box’ responses (although space was also included for participants to write answersnot found on the tick-box list). The questionnaire addressed a number of issuesabout children’s Internet use.

As well as asking whether or not children used the Internet, the questionnaireasked some children why they did not use the Internet, as the reasons for thisrelate to encouraging them to engage in the beneficial aspects of this activity inthe future. It was also felt necessary to examine how children used the Internet,including whether they had a good level of understanding of it and used it sensiblyand effectively. A number of questions relating to these factors were incorporatedinto the questionnaire. These regarded the amount of time spent using the Internet,length of individual Internet sessions, how often children felt confusion when try-ing to use the Internet to find information, problems associated with the Internet,the importance of the Internet to children’s lives, the level of satisfaction they feltwith it generally, and whether they were able to find good or helpful websites.

It was also felt that questioning children about the locations at which theyaccessed the Internet would be useful because if, for example, it was found thatchildren were unaware that the Internet was available at certain places then gov-ernment and other organisations might more effectively disseminate informationabout this.

Furthermore, the purposes of Internet use by school children was also con-sidered an important issue for investigation as this would indicate whether theyutilised it as a powerful tool in many aspects of their lives, or whether their useof it was restricted to a minimum of functions. A number of questions on thesurvey related to this, the most obvious being one which asked for what purposeschildren used the Internet, but other questions were also relevant including onewhich examined the frequency of use of the Internet for e-mail and the world wideweb and another two questions which asked children whether they had a personale-mail address and/or webpage.

The issue of from where children found out about new websites and webpageswas also considered worthy of investigation. This would indicate whether childrencould use a number of sources to obtain information on the Internet effectively.

3. Sample information

One-thousand-three-hundred-and-forty students from secondary schools inTeesside, an area in the north-east of England, were surveyed. According to the

INT

ER

NE

TU

SEB

YE

NG

LISH

SCH

OO

LC

HIL

DR

EN

233

Table I. Information about schools used in survey

School Name of ward Type of school (age Position of ward Mean GCSE point Percentage of

in which school of pupils in years) on indices of score for school sample which came

was located Deprivation (2000)a in year 2000b from school (n)

A Wolviston Mixed 6723 40.5 64.1 (n= 859)

comprehensive (11–16)

B Fairfield Mixed 4403 40.2 28.8 (n= 386)


C Marsh House Mixed 2965 35.2 3.7 (n= 49)


D Yarm Mixed 6896 51.0 3.4 (n= 46)


a This is from a total of 8414 English wards where 1 is the most deprived and 8414 is the least.b The points system is calculated by the following number of points being given for each grade received in a GCSE exam: A∗ = 8, A = 7, B = 6, C = 5,D = 4, E = 3, F = 2, G =1. The national average GCSE point score for 15-year-old children in England in the year 2000 was 40.6 (Department forEducation and Skills, 2000).


Family Expenditure Survey (Expenditure and Food Survey from 01/04/01) (citedby Bowman, 2002: 3) 26% of households in the north-east had access to the Inter-net, compared to a national UK average of nearly 40%, between October 2000 andSeptember 2001.

The students were from four secondary schools based in four different wardsof Stockton-on-Tees, which is located in Teesside. (The term ‘ward’ describes theelectoral divisions within the local authority.) According to the National Statistics‘Neighbourhood Statistics’ website, which quotes figures from the Department ofTransport, Local Government and the Regions, Indices of Deprivation 2000, in theyear 2000 Stockton-on-Tees was the 111th most deprived district in the UK outof 354 districts (where 1 was the most deprived and 354 the least). Table I givesinformation about the schools.

50.5% of the participants (n = 677) were male and 49.1% (n = 658) were fe-male (the remaining participants did not give their gender). Students were agedbetween 11 and 16-years-old: the mean age of males was 13.2 years and the meanage of females was also 13.2 years. The participants from the schools used inthe survey can be considered reasonably representative of UK (if not necessarilyEnglish) secondary school students in many respects. For example, none of theschools were located in areas of extreme deprivation or extreme affluence and themean GCSE point score for all the schools was quite close to the national average.Also, in terms of ethnicity the sample can be considered fairly representative of therest of the UK, with the possible exception that people of Asian origin are under-represented. To illustrate, the National Statistics Web-site estimates that in April2001, 92.1% of the UK population could be described as ‘White’ compared with91.6% in this sample, 2.0% could be described as ‘Black Caribbean/Black African’or ‘Black Other’ compared with 1.0% described as ‘African/Afro-Caribbean’ inthis sample, 4.0% could be described as ‘Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi’ or ‘OtherAsian’ compared with 0.3% described as ‘Asian’ in this sample, and 0.4% weredescribed as ‘Chinese’ compared with 0.3% described as ‘Oriental’ in this sample.Finally, 0.1% of participants from this sample could be described as ‘Arabic’ butthere is no comparative figure from the Office for National Statistics for this group.The remainder of the participants used in this survey (6.7%) did not state theirethnic background.

In two cases (Schools A and B), questionnaires were delivered to the school forteachers to administer and collect. In the other two cases (Schools C and D) oneof the authors administered and collected the questionnaires. Participation in thesurvey was voluntary.

4. Results

The questions asked to the participants are shown in small capitals throughoutthis section. Significant (two-tailed p < 0.05) gender differences in the data areindicated in Figures 1, 4–6 and 9 with an asterisk by the relevant x-axis label.


4.1. DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

The first question asked participants whether or not they used the Internet. Of theparticipants that answered this question, 83% stated that they did.

With regard to gender differences in the children surveyed, it was found that85.7% of males stated that they used the Internet as opposed to 80.2% of females.This difference was significant (χ2 = 7.091, df = 1, p < 0.01).

4.2. WHAT ARE YOUR REASONS FOR NOT USING THE INTERNET?

The remainder of the survey was carried out on participants who claimed that theydid use the Internet, apart from one question which asked participants who did notuse the Internet why this was the case. Figure 1 shows the responses that childrengave to this question. More than one answer could be selected.

As can be seen from Figure 1, some of the most common reasons given bychildren for not using the Internet were associated with a lack of access to facil-ities, for example: ‘do not have computer at home’ (35.7%), ‘do not have accessto equipment’ (27.6%) and ‘do not have equipment at home’ (20.3%) (Although‘need to upgrade computer/software’ comes somewhat further down the list withonly 11.3% of respondents giving this reply).

Another important factor amongst non-users seemed to be a basic lack of in-terest or motivation: fairly high up the list of reasons for not using the Internetwere such reasons as ‘lack of interest’ (22.2%), ‘no need’ (21.3%), ‘have not gotround to it yet’ (20.8%) and ‘do not have time’ (16.3%). Cost considerations came

Figure 1. What are your reasons for not using the Internet?


lower down for most of the sample with the reasons ‘cost of accessing the Internettoo high’ (13.5%) and ‘cost of computer/software too high’ (7.7%) both being ofless importance.

Lack of knowledge about how to use the Internet did not seem to be a concernfor most children. The reasons ‘no one in household knows how to use it’ (10.8%)and ‘lack of confidence/skills’ (8.6%) were only given by a few participants. Also,only a small percentage did not use the Internet because they had a poor opinion ofit (7.7%). Finally, ‘health problems make it difficult’ was a reason given by only aminor proportion (2.3%) of the participants.

There was only one significant gender difference in relation to reasons for notusing the Internet: girls were more likely to give the reason: ‘no one in householdknows how to use it’ than boys (χ2 = 8.103, df = 1, p <0.005).

There were no significant gender differences in the remaining reasons for notusing the Internet, including: ‘lack of interest’, ‘no need’, ‘no computer at home’,‘lack of confidence/skills’, ‘no access to equipment’, ‘cost of accessing Internet toohigh’, ‘cost of computer/software too high’, ‘do not have equipment at home’, ‘donot have time’, ‘poor opinion of the Internet’, ‘need to upgrade computer/software’,‘have not got round to it’, ‘health problems make it difficult’ and ‘other reasons’.

4.3. HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FOR E-MAIL? HOW OFTEN

DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FOR THE WORLD WIDE WEB?

Figure 2 shows the frequency with which participants stated that they used theInternet for e-mail and the world wide web.

Figure 2 shows that the modal category for participants’ use of the Internet fore-mail and the world wide web was ‘a few times a week’, although a considerable

Figure 2. How often do you use the Internet for e-mail/the world wide web?


proportion of respondents used the Internet more or less often for these purposes aswell. Overall, there was not a significant difference between the genders in use ofthe Internet for e-mail (U = 148270, p > 0.05). However, males were significantlymore likely than females to use the Internet for the world wide web (U = 110386,p < 0.0005).

4.4. DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL E-MAIL ADDRESS?DO YOU HAVE A WEBPAGE?

It was found that 73.9% of participants who used the Internet had a personal e-mailaddress. Furthermore, 16.6% of respondents in this survey stated that they had apersonal webpage.

In terms of gender, it was found that 77.6% of males had an e-mail address, asopposed to 70.1% of females. This was a significant difference (χ2 = 7.691, df = 1,p < 0.01). 22.3% of males had a webpage as opposed to 10.4% of females and thisdifference was also significant (χ2 = 27.077, df = 1, p < 0.0005).

4.5. FOR HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

Figure 3 shows how much time children stated that they spent using the Internet.The modal response, given by 27.5% of participants was 2–4 h a week. Gener-

ally, the responses to this question fitted a positively-skewed normal-shaped dis-tribution although there was also a ‘kick’ in the tail of the results: a sub-group of4.8% claimed to spend more than 40 h a week using the Internet.

With regard to gender differences, it was revealed that the number of hours perweek that males used the Internet was significantly higher than the number thatfemales used it (U = 122823.5, p < 0.0005).

Figure 3. For how many hours a week do you use the Internet?


Figure 4. For what purposes do you use the Internet?

4.6. FOR WHAT PURPOSES DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

Figure 4 shows the functions for which participants stated they used the Internet.Participants could tick as many answers to this question as were appropriate.

There was no difference in the mean number of purposes for which boys andgirls used the Internet. This was 3.1 for both genders.

Figure 4 shows that the most common use of the Internet was for playing ordownloading music (67.3%), followed by general browsing or surfing (56.0%) andthen using e-mail (54.8%). There was then a big drop to the next most commonusage, which was for finding information related to education (28.2%).

There were significant associations between gender and many of the purposesof Internet use. Male and female secondary school students seemed to use theInternet for different functions. Boys were more likely than girls to use the Internetfor the following purposes: playing or downloading music (χ2 = 14.972, df = 1,p < 0.0005), general browsing or surfing (χ2 = 12.579, df = 1, p < 0.0005), find-ing out information about goods and services (χ2 = 16.868, df = 1, p < 0.0005),buying or ordering goods, tickets or services (χ2 = 14.186, df = 1, p < 0.0005),downloading software, including games (χ2 = 26.795, df = 1, p < 0.0005) andusing the Internet for using or accessing government or official services(χ2 = 10.823, df = 1, p < 0.005). However, girls used the Internet more than boysfor: using e-mail (χ2 = 17.658, df = 1, p < 0.0005), finding information related to


Figure 5. From where do you find out about new websites/webpages?

education (χ2 = 22.103, df = 1, p < 0.0005) and using chat rooms or sites(χ2 = 44.219, df = 1, p < 0.0005).

Unsurprisingly, given the participants’ age, there were no significant associ-ations between gender and use of the Internet for the following purposes: personalbanking/investment/financial activities, looking for work and other purposes.

4.7. HOW DO YOU FIND OUT ABOUT NEW WEBSITES/WEBPAGES?

Again, more than one response to this question could be given and Figure 5 in-dicates those offered. The mean number of ways in which boys found out aboutnew websites and webpages was 2.7 and for girls was 2.5. This difference was notsignificant (t = 1.806, d.f. = 1094, p > 0.05).

By far the most common method of finding out about new websites and web-pages was from ‘from friends’ with 87.3% of the sample giving this answer. Thenext most common response, which was ‘from magazines/newspapers’ was con-siderably less popular with 47.0% of the sample stating that they used this source.

There were significant gender differences in finding out about new websites/webpages via hyperlinks from other webpages (χ2 = 12.602, df = 1, p < 0.0005),from Internet search engines (χ2 = 52.745, df = 1, p < 0.0005) and from Inter-net directories (χ2 = 4.451, df = 1, p < 0.05). Boys were more likely to use thesemethods than girls. However, there were gender differences in the opposite dir-ection for finding out about new websites/webpages from magazines/newspapers(χ2 = 25.947, df = 1, p < 0.0005).

There were no significant differences between the genders for the followingmethods of finding out about new websites/webpages: from friends, from books,


Figure 6. At which of the following locations have you accessed the Internet?

from Usenet groups, from signatures at the end of e-mail messages, from TV adsand from other sources.

4.8. AT WHICH LOCATIONS HAVE YOU ACCESSED THE INTERNET?

Again more than one answer to this question could be given and Figure 6 showsthose that were received. The mean number of locations from which boys accessedthe Internet was 2.6 and for girls was 2.4. This difference was significant (t = 2.852,d.f. = 1091, p < 0.05).

Most participants (88.9%) stated that they used the Internet at home, althoughit was also accessed by many at a variety of other settings as well.

There were significant associations between gender and location of Internetuse for the following locations: own workplace (χ2 = 9.866, df = 1, p < 0.005),school/college/university (χ2 = 6.591, df = 1, p < 0.05), Internet café or shop(χ2 = 14.3, df = 1, p < 0.0005) and other location (χ2 = 5.876, df = 1, p < 0.05).Boys were more likely to use the Internet at all of these locations than girls. Therewere no significant differences between the genders for the remaining locationsof Internet use: own home, another person’s home, public library, community orvoluntary organisation, government office and post office.

4.9. HOW LONG DOES YOUR TYPICAL INTERNET SESSION LAST?

Figure 7 shows the duration of respondents’ typical Internet sessions. The modalresponse here was 46–90 min, with 34.5% of the sample using the Internet for


Figure 7. How long does your typical Internet session last?

Figure 8. How often do you find good or helpful websites?/How often do you feel confusedwhen you use the Internet to find information?

this length of time. It should be noted, however, that a considerable proportion ofthe participants (12.4%) stated that their typical Internet session lasted more than180 min.

There was a significant difference in the duration of males and females typicalInternet sessions (U = 130407.5, p < 0.05). The length of males’ typical Internetsessions was longer than that of females.

4.10. HOW OFTEN DO YOU FIND GOOD OR HELPFUL WEBSITES?

Figure 8 shows the frequency with which participants stated that they found goodor helpful websites and how often they felt confused by the Internet. The most


common response to the question of how often good or helpful websites could bediscovered was ‘sometimes’ (40.3%). Overall, the participants seemed to think thatdecent websites did exist: in total 87.7% of the sample said that they found goodor helpful websites either ‘frequently’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘occasionally’. This leaves12.3% who stated that they found good or helpful websites ‘rarely’ or ‘almostnever’. There was no difference between the genders for this variable(U = 142319.5, p > 0.05).

4.11. HOW OFTEN DO YOU FEEL CONFUSED WHEN YOU USE

THE INTERNET TO FIND INFORMATION?

Most (32.8%) stated that they ‘rarely’ felt confused when using the Internet tofind information. Only 9.0% claimed that they ‘frequently’ felt confused. However,gender differences were found in the answers to this question. Females stated thatthey felt confused more often than males when using the Internet (U = 113192.00,p < 0.0005).

4.12. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER ARE THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS

WITH THE INTERNET?

Figure 9 indicates what children considered to be some of the faults of theInternet.

There was no difference between males and females in the number of problemsthat they reported associated with Internet use. This was 1.5 for both genders.

‘Pages taking too long to load’ seemed to be a problem for most participantswith 65.8% of the sample stating that this concerned them. ‘Irrelevant pop-up

Figure 9. What do you consider are the biggest problems with the Internet?


information’ was next with 53.4% of participants considering this a problem. Onlya minority of the sample reported that the remaining issues, which all related to thetype of information available on the Internet, were important.

There were gender differences between the participants for ‘Pages tak-ing too long to load’ (χ2 = 8.873, df = 1, p < 0.005) and ‘Irrelevant pop-upinformation’ (χ2 = 8.672, df = 1, p < 0.005). Girls thought that the first issuewas more of a problem than boys, but the opposite was true for the secondissue. There were no gender differences in the other responses: poor qualityinformation, too much information, objectionable information and otherproblems.

4.13. HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU CONSIDER THE INTERNET

TO BE IN YOUR LIFE?

Figure 10 shows that most participants (31.5%) thought the Internet was ‘some-what’ important, although notable numbers also considered the Internet more orless important than this. Males did not perceive the Internet to be any more impor-tant in their lives than females (U = 139147.5, p > 0.05).

4.14. HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE INTERNET?

Figure 11 shows that 89.7% of participants were ‘totally’, ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’satisfied with the Internet, with the most common response being ‘very’ satisfied(44.6%). Only 10.3% were either ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’ satisfied. There was no sig-nificant difference between male and female responses for this measure(U = 137562, p > 0.05).

Figure 10. How important do you feel the Internet is in your life?


Figure 11. How satisfied are you with the Internet?

5. Discussion

The major finding of the survey was that the majority of children (83.0%) betweenthe ages of 11 and 16 consider themselves Internet users, although this leaves asizeable minority who did not categorise themselves as such. Other results will bediscussed later in this section; however, this finding in itself indicates that whilstthe government may be on its way to achieving its aim of allowing everyone whowants it access to the Internet by 2005, not yet all 11–16-year-old school childrenregard themselves as ‘Internet Users’ by any means.

Also, the results seem to highlight something of a gender gap in Internet usebetween males and females. Despite the fact that both sexes considered the Internetto be equally important in their lives, were equally satisfied with it, found good orhelpful websites equally often and reported equal numbers of problems associatedwith Internet use, boys (85.7%) were nevertheless significantly more likely to clas-sify themselves as Internet users than girls (80.2%). Furthermore, although boysand girls used the Internet equally frequently for e-mail purposes, males tended touse it more for the world wide web and males were also more likely than femalesto have their own e-mail address and webpage. In addition, the number of hours perweek that males spent using the Internet was significantly higher than the numberthat females used it and females were more often confused when using the Internetto find information than males. Taken together these findings indicate that theremay be a bias towards male use of and competence with the Internet amongstEnglish secondary school children. This has implications for equity in society andso the reasons for this apparent gender bias need to be considered.

Cone (2001) has discussed a number of reasons why a gender gap in the useof computer technology may exist and these issues may also relate to Internetuse. For example, Cone suggests that schools and society encourage boys to gain


experience with computers more than girls, contributing to the latter group’s lackof confidence and lower usage of this technology. Furthermore, Cone discusseshow many children’s first encounter with computers is via video games. Theseoften involve themes of competition, power and violence which might appeal tomales more than females. Therefore, girls might become disinterested by com-puters at an early age contributing to a gender gap in later use of this technology.Turkle (1988) expands on the reasons why computing may have become seen asa ‘male’ activity in society, stating that women may have observed that the mostsuccessful male computer users are those that anthropomorphise their machines.Because of the value women place on real, human relationships, Turkle arguesthat: ‘The computer is rejected [by women] as a partner in a “close encounter.” . . .

they define themselves as relational women in terms of what the ‘serious’ com-puter users are not.’ (p. 44). In another study, Herring, Johnson, and DiBenedetho(1995) found evidence of online subjugation of women’s voices by men so it isalso possible that females are discouraged from using the Internet because theyfind the virtual world a hostile place to be. Furthermore, Heichler (1997) sug-gested that there might be a lack of female-oriented content on the world wideweb.

It is also possible that some of the supposed gender difference in Internet usefound in this survey actually reflects a reporting bias for this activity. Boys mayhave a tendency to exaggerate their competence and use of the Internet, or girlsmay under-report their use of this technology. Unfortunately, a literature search didnot reveal any evidence regarding this subject so more research needs to be carriedout in this area. It could also be true that even if there is an actual difference inInternet use by males and females of school age that this is not actually detrimentalto girls – it could be the case that while their male counterparts are surfing thenet, girls are engaged in other, perhaps more constructive activities. In fact, it ispossible that if boys use the Internet more than girls this might potentially have anegative effect on their development.

So, to summarise, one of the achievements of this survey is that it has high-lighted a possible gender gap in Internet use amongst 11–16-year-old Englishschool children and therefore indicates that further research into gender differencesfor this group is warranted. Further research should also examine possible reportingbiases when children complete surveys of Internet use such as the one employed inthis study. At this point, if it is discovered that gender differences in Internet use dodefinitely exist, then the degree to which this has negative effects on either gendershould be determined.

Researchers have already made a number of suggestions for reducing gendergaps in computer use which might contribute to the closing of a gender gap inInternet use. For example, Cone (2001) has suggested that the production of videoand computer games that emphasise ‘choices, social interaction, good narration andchallenges’ rather than ‘intense competition and repetitive action’ (p. 185) mightprovide girls with positive first experiences regarding computer use. The same


study also suggests that employment of single-gender computer classes at schoolsmight encourage girls to take up computing at a young age. Chen (1986) has statedthat computer experiences should be structured to provide interaction with othersas some girls may be put off computer work because they see it as devoid of socialcontact, a point which relates to Turkle’s argument (1998) described previously.This could be a particularly suitable method to employ with regard to encouragingInternet use as many aspects of this activity such as e-mail, newsgroups and chatrooms are inherently sociable.

Some of the other results found by this survey are also interesting. For example,with regard to non-users of the Internet, the most common reason given by childrenfor their lack of usage was associated with restricted access to facilities. This isalso an important issue which needs addressing given the government’s goal ofensuring that everyone who wants it has access to the Internet by 2005. Clearly itseems that some non-Internet using children feel that they do not have access to thistechnology. This may be because the facilities are genuinely not available to them,or this may be a problem with perception: perhaps children do not know where theycan access the Internet, and so it is actually their awareness of this that needs thatto be raised. Furthermore, a basic lack of interest or motivation amongst non-usersalso seemed to be another noteworthy reason for them not using the Internet. Thisis also an area that needs addressing: do the positive applications of the Internetneed to be promoted amongst children?

Encouragingly, a lack of knowledge about how to use the Internet did not seemto be a concern for most non-users so it would seem that children are quite wellinformed of this technology. It was also encouraging to see that reasons associatedwith cost were not given as a cause for concern by non-users, although this couldreflect the fact that it would be likely that children’s parents would be responsiblefor paying for the expenses associated with the Internet rather than the childrenthemselves.

There were no gender differences in all but one of the reasons given for notusing the Internet, which was ‘no one in household knows how to use it’. Femaleswere more likely to give this as a reason than males. This might reflect the fact thatthe male respondents themselves were the ones in the household who knew how touse the Internet which would mean that they would be less likely to give this as areason for non-Internet use.

It is also true that, for the main part, children seemed to be sensible about theiruse of the Internet, keeping it to a reasonable amount. Most used it to access theweb or check e-mail ‘a few times a week’ and the modal response to the question,‘For how many hours a week do you use the Internet?’ was ‘2–4 h’. It was statedthat Internet sessions typically lasted for between 46 and 90 min and most children(31.5%) considered the Internet ‘somewhat’ important in their lives (only 11.0%considered it very important). Nevertheless, there was a small sub-group (4.8%)of participants who used the Internet for more than 40 h per week and 12.4%stated that their typical Internet session lasted more than 180 min. So, a minority of


children may use the Internet excessively. Groups such as these should be studiedfurther to see if they differ from other young people their age in terms of sociability,educational achievement, or indeed any other aspect of personal development. Itmay even be possible that some of the participants who use the Internet excessivelymeet the criteria for a compulsive Internet use pattern as described by Greenfield(1999). Interestingly, Greenfield himself found that approximately 6% of the Inter-net users he surveyed could be described as compulsive users, a proportion whichis not dissimilar to that which used the Internet for more than 40 h per week in thissample.

The survey data indicated that participants used the Internet for a mean of 3.1purposes: to an adult this might seem relatively few but on further consideration, itis unlikely that children would need to use the Internet for as many functions as anadult and it is encouraging that children are using the Internet for a small variety offunctions at least. Furthermore, it is probably the case that many of the functionsof Internet use described in the survey such as ‘general browsing or surfing’ or‘looking for information related to education’ could incorporate many Internet-related activities.

Also of interest was the fact that girls and boys used the Internet for differ-ent purposes as some of the literature concerning gender differences in Internetuse had suggested. For example, females were more likely to use the Internet foreducational purposes which supports findings by Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, andDelucchi (2000), Weiser (2000) and Durndell and Haag (2002) and e-mail whichis congruent with findings by a host of researchers (Odell, Korgen, Schumacher,& Delucchi, 2000; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000; Sherman et al.,2000; Weiser, 2000; Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, & Schmitt, 2001). This latter findingis interesting as males were found to be more likely to have an e-mail address thanfemales in this survey. Therefore, it might be the case that some males have ane-mail address that they do not actually use.

Results from this study also supported findings made by other researchers thatsuggested that males were more likely to use the Internet to research purchasesand/or to shop (LaFerle, Edwards, & Lee, 2000; Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, &Delucchi, 2000; Weiser, 2000), use the Internet for playing or downloading games(LaFerle, Edwards, & Lee, 2000; Odell, Korgen, Schumacher, & Delucchi, 2000;Weiser, 2000) and use the Internet to copy music (Odell, Korgen, Schumacher,& Delucchi, 2000). Like e-mail use by females, differences in Internet use bymales might also relate to traditional gender stereotypes or to differences in tech-nical knowledge between girls and boys encouraged by society as discussed byCone (2001) or female reactions to computers as discussed by Turkle (1988).These gender differences in purposes of use are certainly worthy of continuedinvestigation not least because research in this field may indicate ways of clos-ing the gender gap in overall Internet use. For example, Cone (2001) has sug-gested that classes which focus on e-mail use are particularly appealing to girls.This may certainly be the case if, as Turkle (1988) has suggested, females like


to define themselves as relational beings. Therefore, classes involving e-mail usecould be used to encourage girls to develop an initial interest in Internet techno-logy.

Children stated that they used a small variety of methods for finding out aboutnew websites and webpages, the mean number for boys being 2.7 and for girls 2.6.By far the most common way that they did this, as might be expected, was fromfriends. However, the results indicated that there were differences between boysand girls in some of the methods that they used to find out about new webpages/websites. Again, this is an area that could be investigated further: to what extentdo males and females use different methods for searching the web? Why do theyemploy these different methods and which are most effective?

With regard to location of Internet use, the survey indicated that the mean num-ber of locations at which children accessed the Internet was 2.6 for boys and 2.4for girls. Again, as with numbers regarding purposes of Internet use this may atfirst seem like only a small number. However, given that the most common placefor young Internet users to access the Internet was at their own home (88.9%) itis probably just the case that most children do not find it necessary to access theInternet at other locations. Another interesting result that arose from examinationof gender differences with regard to location of Internet use was that males weremore likely to access the Internet at school than females. This finding might reflectthat amongst English children males may have more access to computer facilitiesthan females at school or perhaps that they are more inclined to make use of thefacilities that are available. Also, females may not be encouraged as much as malesto use the resources that are available to them. This is another important potentialavenue for future research.

In general, users seemed to be comfortable with the Internet and found it auseful technology. The majority of both male and female users were able to findgood or helpful websites at least ‘occasionally’ and only 9.0% were ‘frequently’confused when using the Internet to find information. Furthermore, the vast major-ity of Internet users were at least ‘somewhat’ satisfied with it. However, as statedpreviously, it should be noted that females indicated that the Internet significantlymore often confused them when they were trying to find information than males. Itis quite possible that this result is tied in with other findings: for example, if malesuse the Internet more often than females, they would have more practice with itand hence be less confused by it. It is also possible that males are more likely toreceive education about the Internet or are encouraged to use it more by society ingeneral. Another possibility, however, is that males were less prepared than femalesto admit on the questionnaire that the Internet confused them. Again, a reportingbias could be in evidence here.

With regard to problems associated with the Internet, there was no difference inthe number of these that males and females reported, and ‘pages taking too long toload’ and ‘irrelevant pop-up information’ were by far the biggest concerns amongstchildren. Interestingly however, females were more likely than males to consider


the first issue a problem, but males were more likely to consider the second issue aproblem.

To conclude, although the possibility of a reporting bias needs to be invest-igated further, the results of this survey nevertheless seem to indicate that mostEnglish secondary school children are aware of and use the Internet regularly andare comfortable with and enthusiastic about it. However, a considerable minor-ity of children still consider themselves ‘non-users’ of the Internet and this issueneeds to be addressed by researchers in general and the government if they areto achieve their aim of allowing everyone who wants it access to the Internet by2005. Furthermore, of concern is that some gender differences in Internet use seemto exist – specifically, there seems to be something of a bias towards male use.These differences, however, need to be investigated in more detail before they canbe unequivocally acknowledged. If future research also indicates that a gender gapin Internet use exists on a large scale amongst children in England, the reasonsfor this and whether it has a significant detrimental effect on either sex should beinvestigated further.

Acknowledgements

The University of Durham funded this study. The assistance of the schools in theTeesside area that participated in this research is gratefully acknowledged, as is theassistance of the ESRC Virtual Society Program in the design of the questionnaire.

References

Allen, B.J. (1995) Gender and computer-mediated communication. Sex Roles, 32(7/8), 557–563.Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001) Using email for personal relationships: the difference

gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 530–549.Bowman, J. (2002) The Impact of the Internet and Other ICTs on Society. Office for National

Statistics. On-line. Available http://www.statistics.gov.uk/events/new_economy_measurement/downloads/NEMW(08)_JB_e-society.pdf

Chen, M. (1986) Gender and computers: the beneficial effects of experience on attitudes. Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 2(3), 265–281

Cone, C. (2001) Technically speaking: girls and computers. In P. O’ Reilly, E.M. Penn, & K. deMarrais (Eds.), Educating young adolescent girls. Mahwah, Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates; pp. 171–187.

Department for Education and Skills. (2000). Public examinations GCSE/GNVQ and GCE/AGNVQin England 2000. On-line. Available http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/VOL/v0279/170-t31.htm

Durndell, A. & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Inter-net and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computersin Human Behaviour, 18, 521–535.

Greenfield, D. (1999). Psychological characteristics of compulsive Internet use: a preliminaryanalysis. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 2(5), 403–412.

Heichler, E. (1997). Internet lacks content for women. On-line. Available http:www.computerworld.com/printthis/1997/0,4814,4759,00.html


Herring, S., Johnson, D.A., & DiBenedetto, T. (1995). “This discussion is going too far!"Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.),Gender articulated: language and the socially constructed self. New York: Routledge;pp. 67–96.

Jackson, L.A., Ervin, K.S., Gardner, P.D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the Internet: womencommunicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44(5/6), 363–379.

Jordan, T. (2001). Measuring the Internet: host counts versus business plans. Information, Commu-nication and Society, 4(1), 34–53.

Katz, J.E. and Aspden, P. (!997) Barriers to and Motivations for Using the Internet: Results of aNational Opinion Survey In G.L. Rosston and Waterman, D. (Eds.), Selected Papers from the24th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC). Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 79–94.

LaFerle, C., Edwards, S., & Lee, W. (2000) Teens’ use of traditional media and the Internet. Journalof Advertising Research, 4(3), 55–64.

Lenhart. (2000). Who’s not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan tolog on. Pew Internet and American Life Project. On-line. Available http:www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/Pew_Those_Not_Online_Report.pdf

Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Shelma, A. (2000). Internet usage by students in an Israeli highschool. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), 55–73.

Odell, P.M., Korgen, K.O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female andmale college students. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 3(5), 855–862.

Office for National Statistics. (2002a). Figures concerning adult Internet use. On-line. Availablehttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/SearchRes.asp?term=Internet

Office for National Statistics. (2002b). Neighbourhood statistics. On-line. Availablehttp://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/home.asp

Office for National Statistics. (2002c). Populations size: 7.9% from a minority ethnic group. On-line.Available http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2000a, May 10). Tracking online life: how womenuse the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends [Online]. Availablehttp://www.pewinternet.org/reports/

Schumacher, P. & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experi-ences. Computers in Human Behaviour, 17, 95–110.

Sherman, R.C., End, C., Kraan, E., Cole, A., Campbell, J., Birchmeier, Z., & Klausner, J. (2000).The Internet gender gap among college students: forgotten but not gone? Cyberpsychology andBehaviour, 3(5), 885–894.

Teo, T.S.H. & Lim, V.K.G. (2000). Gender differences in Internet usage and task preferences.Behaviour and Information Technology, 19(4), 283–295.

Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: why women fear the intimate machine. In C. Kramarae(Ed.), Technology and women’s voices. New York and London: Routledge; pp. 41–61.

UK Online Annual Report. (2002). On-line. Available http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/esummit-ukoannrep-word/$file/UKO%20Annual%20Report%202002.doc

Weiser, E.B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and internet application preferences:a two-sample comparison. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 3(2), 167–177.

Biographical notes

Dominic Madell is a PhD student in the Applied Psychology section of the Uni-versity of Durham Psychology Department. His research focuses on the use of theInternet by secondary school children in the UK.


Steven Muncer is a Senior Lecturer in the Applied Psychology section of the Uni-versity of Durham Psychology Department. His recent research has been concernedwith the impact of the Internet on lay people and lay understanding of everydayphenomena. Previously he has published widely in the area of gender differencesin aggression.

Gender Differences in the Use of the Internet by English Secondary School Children

Documents