An English scale for measuring mobile phone appropriation: Translation and assessment

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 5 (2016), Issue 4
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 5 (2016), Issue 4

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2016
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 5 (2016), Issue 4

An English scale for measuring mobile phone appropriation: Translation and assessment

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

The mobile phone appropriation (MPA) scale, originally developed in German, was translated into and adapted to English and initially validated through a confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) in this study. First, the theoretical background of the MPA model is briefly introduced, followed by explanations regarding the process of translating the original German scale into English (and its back-translation). English data CFA results are discussed in comparison with the CFA results from the most recent German data. The results indicate that the English MPA scale has promising validity. The addition of measurement items for the usage of web applications in the English and German MPA scales is expected to contribute to ongoing research efforts of comparing mobile phone appropriation patterns with and across different social and cultural groups in English-speaking contexts.

Bibliography

  1. Asch, S. E. (1963). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Research in human relations (pp. 177–190). New York, NY: Russel & Russel. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  2. Barge, S., & Gehlbach, H. (2012). Using the theory of satisficing to evaluate the quality of survey data. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 182–200. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9251-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  3. Basil, M. D. (1996). The use of student samples in communication research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 431. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  4. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), 561. doi:10.1001/ archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  5. Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37(3), 245–257. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  6. Bischof, N. (2009). Psychologie: Ein Grundkurs für Anspruchsvolle [Psychology: A basic course for the ambitious] (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  7. Börkan, B. (2010). The mode effect in mixed-mode surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 28(3), 371–380. doi:10.1177/0894439309350698 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  8. Bosnjak, M., Tuten, T. L., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Unit (non)response in Web-based access panel surveys: An extended planned-behavior approach. Psychology & Marketing, 22(6), 489–505. doi:10.1002/mar.20070 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  9. Brüggen, E., & Dholakia, U. M. (2010). Determinants of participation and response effort in Web panel surveys. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(3), 239–250. doi:10.2139/ ssrn.1509763 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  10. Bundesamt für Statistik BFS. (2012a). Provisorische Ergebnisse zur Bevölkerungsentwicklung der Schweiz im Jahr 2011: Bevölkerungswachstum setzt sich fort [Provisional results on changes in the population in the Swiss in 2011]. Neuchâtel. Available online: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/news/04/01.Document.155075.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  11. Bundesamt für Statistik BFS. (2012b). Strukturerhebung der eidgenössischen Volkszählung 2010: Ein Fünftel der Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner ist konfessionslos [Structural description of the confederate population census 2010]. Neuchâtel. Available online: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/news/04/01.Document.159960.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  12. Collani, G. von, & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). Eine revidierte Fassung der deutschsprachigen Skala zum Selbstwertgefühl von Rosenberg [Revised version of the German self-esteem scale by Rosenberg]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 24(1), 3–7. doi:10.1024//0170-1789.24.1.3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  13. Courtright, J. A. (1996). Rationally thinking about nonprobability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 414. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  14. Crippa, J. A. S., Lima Osório, F. de, Del-Ben, C. M., Filho, A. S., Silva Freitas, M. C. da, & Loureiro, S. R. (2008). Comparability between telephone and face-to-face structured clinical interview for DSM-IV in assessing social anxiety disorder. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 44(4), 241–247. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2008.00183.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  15. Dennis, J. M., & Li, R. (2003). Effects of panel attrition on survey estimates. Presentation at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Nashville, TN. Available online: http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/ kn%20panel%20attrition%20paper.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  16. Donker, T., van Straten, A., Marks, I., & Cuijpers, P. (2010). Brief self-rated screening for depression on the Internet. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122(3), 253–259. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2009.07.013 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  17. Dooley, L. M., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 99–110. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1052 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  18. Farrokhi, F., & Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A. (2012). Rethinking convenience sampling: Defining quality criteria. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 784–792. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  19. Ferber, R. (1977). Research by convenience: Editorial. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(June), 57–58. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  20. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  21. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  22. Fowler, F. J. (2006). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  23. Ganser, C., & Riordan, P. (2013). Vergleich von SoSci-Daten (Online) mit einer Zufallsstichprobe (Telefon) [Comparison of data from SoSci (online) and a probability sample (telephone)]. Unpublished Manuscript. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  24. Göritz, A. S. (2004). The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response qual- ity, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online access panels. Interna- tional Journal of Market Research, 46(3), 327–345. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  25. Göritz, A. S. (2007). Using online panels in psychological research. In A. N. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 473–485). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  26. Göritz, A. S. (2008). The long-term effect of material incentives on participation in online panels. Field Methods, 20(3), 211–225. doi:10.1177/1525822X08317069 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  27. Göritz, A. S., & Moser, K. (2000). Repräsentativität im Online Panel [Representativeness in online panels]. Der Markt, 155(4), 156–162. doi:10.1007/BF03033955 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  28. Göritz, A. S., Reinhold, N., & Batinic, B. (2002). Online panels. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, M. Bosnjak, & A. Werner (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 29–51). Seattle, Wash: Hogrefe & Huber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  29. Göritz, A. S., & Wolff, H.-G. (2007). Lotteries as incentives in longitudinal Web studies. Social Science Computer Review, 25(1), 99–110. doi:10.1177/0894439306292268 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  30. Göritz, A. S., Wolff, H.-G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2008). Individual payments as a longer-term incentive in online panels. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1144–1149. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1144 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  31. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2009). Research methods for the behavioral sciences Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  32. (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  33. Hargittai, E. (2015). Is bigger always better? Potential biases of big data derived from social network sites. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 63–76. doi:10.1177/0002716215570866 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  34. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  35. Houde, S. C. (2002). Methodological issues in male caregiver research: an integrative review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(6), 626–640. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02423.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  36. Infratest dimap. (2012). Sonntagsfrage [Voting poll]. Available online: http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/sonntagsfrage/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  37. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. doi:10.1002/ acp.2350050305 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  38. Kwak, N., & Radler, B. (2002). A comparison between mail and Web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 2(18). Available online: http://www.barold.com/www/JOS%20article.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  39. Lang, A. (1996). The logic of using inferential statistics with experimental data from nonprobability samples: Inspired by Cooper, Dupagne, Potter, and Sparks. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 422–430. doi:10.1080/08838159609364363 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  40. Lehnen, R. G., & Koch, G. G. (1974). Analyzing panel data with uncontrolled attrition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38(1), 40–56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  41. Leiner, D. J. (2012). OpenPool. Munich. Available online: https://sourceforge.net/projects/openpool/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  42. Leiner, D. J. (2016). Stabilität öffentlicher Meinung. Wie der Charakter einer Streitfrage den Einfluss der Medien begrenzt [Stability of public opinion. Do issue attributes moderate media effects]. PhD thesis. Wiesbaden, DE: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-12285-0 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  43. Loosveldt, G., & Sonck, N. (2008). An evaluation of the weighting procedures for an online access panel survey. Survey Research Methods, 2(2), 93–105. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  44. Lund, C. M., Jones, V. S., & Spanitz, S. (2009). Effects and influences of motivation on trained panelists. Food Quality and Preference, 20(4), 295–303. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.01.004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  45. Lunsford, T. R., & Lunsford, B. R. (1995). The research sample, part I: Sampling. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 7(3). Available online: http://journals.lww.com/jpojour-nal/Fulltext/1995/00730/The_Research_Sample,_Part_I Sampling.8.aspx Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  46. Macer, T. (2014). Online panel software. In M. Callegaro, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, A. S. Göritz, J. A. Krosnick, & P. J. Lavraskas (Eds.), Online panel research: An interdisciplinary approach. Chichester: Wiley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  47. Marsden, P. V., & Wright, J. D. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of survey research (2nd ed.). Bingley: Emerald. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  48. Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526. doi:10.1093/fampra/13.6.522 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  49. Martinez-Ebers, V. (1997). Using monetary incentives with hard-to-reach populations in panel surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9(1), 77–86. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  50. Maurer, M., & Jandura, O. (2009). Masse statt Klasse? Einige kritische Anmerkungen zu Repräsentativität und Validität von Online-Befragungen [Quantity instead of quality? Critical comments on representativeness and validity on online surveys]. In N. Jackob, H. Schoen, & T. Zerback (Eds.), Sozialforschung im Internet. Methodologie und Praxis der Online-Befragung [Social research in the Internet. Methods and practice of online surveys]. Wiesbaden: VS/GWV. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  51. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176. doi:10.1086/267990 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  52. Meltzer, C. E., Naab, T., & Daschmann, G. (2012). All student samples differ: On participant selection in communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(4), 251–262. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.732625 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  53. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  54. Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  55. Newman, I., & McNeil, K. A. (1998). Conducting survey research in the social sciences. Lanham: Univ. Press of America. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  56. Nock, S. L., & Guterbock, T. M. (2010). Survey experiments. In P. V. Marsden & J. D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 837–864). Bingley: Emerald. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  57. O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  58. Olson, K., & Bilgen, I. (2011). The role of interviewer experience on acquiescence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 99–114. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  59. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Translated by G.V. Anrep. London: Oxford Univ. Press. Available online: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Pavlov/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  60. Phillips, M., Woodward, C., Collins, D., & O’Connor, W. (2002). Encouraging and maintaining participation in the Families and Children Survey: Understanding why people take part. London: Dept. for Work and Pensions. Available online: http://research.dwp. gov.uk/asd/asd5/WP6.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  61. Pöldinger, W. (1968). Die Abschätzung der Suizidalität: Eine medizinisch-psychologische und medizinisch-soziologische Studie [Estimating suicidal tendency. A medial-psychological and medical-sociological study]. Aktuelle Probleme in der Psychiatrie, Neurologie/Neurochirurgie: Vol. 1. Bern, Stuttgart: Huber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  62. Porst, R., & Briel, C. von. (1995). Wären Sie vielleicht bereit, sich gegebenenfalls noch einmal befragen zu lassen?: oder: Gründe für die Teilnahme an Panelbefragungen [Would you perhaps agree another survey? or: Reasons for attending panel surveys] (ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht No. 95/04). Mannheim. Available online: http://nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-70231 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  63. Potter, W. J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. (1993). The three paradigms of mass media research in mainstream communication journals. Communication Theory, 3(4), 317–335. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00077.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  64. Potter, W. J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. (1995). Reply to Sparks’s critique. Communication Theory, 5(3), 280–286. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00110.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  65. Potthoff, P., Heinemann, L. A., & Güther, B. (2004). A household panel as a tool for cost-effective health-related population surveys: validity of the “Healthcare Access Panel”. German Medical Science, (2). Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti-cles/PMC2703211/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  66. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  67. Rookey, B. D., Hanway, S., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). Does a probability-based household panel benefit from assignment to postal response as an alternative to Internet-only? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 962–984. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  68. Rothschild, D. & Wolfers, J. (2012). Forecasting elections: Voter intentions versus expectations. Available online: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/11/01%20voter%20expectations%20wolfers/01%20voter%20expectations%20wolfers.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  69. Ryan, H., Wortley, P. M., Easton, A., Pederson, L., & Greenwood, G. (2001). Smoking among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: a review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(2), 142–149. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00331-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  70. Salganik, M. J., & Heckathorn, D. D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 34, 193–239. doi:10.2307/3649374 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  71. Sandage, C. H. (1956). Do research panels wear out? Journal of Marketing, 20(4), 397–401. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  72. Saumure, K., & Given, Lisa M. (2008). Convenience sample. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  73. Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard E-Mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 378–397. Available online: http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/1998/developmentofastandard.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  74. Scherpenzeel, A. (2008). Online interviews and data quality: A multitrait-multimethod study: Draft paper to be presented at the MESS Workshop, 22-23 August 2008. Zeist. Available online: http://www.centerdata.nl/export/sites/CentERdata/nl/TopMenu/Pro-jecten/MESS/Scherpenzeel-2008-MESS_workshop-paper.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  75. Scherr, S., & Reinemann, C. (2013). Media and mental health. Unpublished manuscript. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  76. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliott, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via E-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Available online: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1480 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  77. Schonlau, M., van Soest, A., Kapteyn, A., & Couper, M. P. (2009). Selection bias in Web surveys and the use of propensity scores. Sociological Methods & Research, 37(3), 291–318. doi:10.1177/0049124108327128 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  78. Sell, R. L., & Petrulio, C. (1996). Sampling homosexuals, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians for public health research. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 31–47. doi:10.1300/J082v30n04_02 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  79. Sherry, B., Jefferds, M. E., & Grummer-Strawn, L. M. (2007). Accuracy of adolescent selfreport of height and weight in assessing overweight status. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(12), 1154. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.12.1154 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  80. Shin, E., Johnson, T. P., & Rao, K. (2012). Survey mode effects on data quality: Comparison of Web and mail modes in a U.S. national panel survey. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 212–228. doi:10.1177/0894439311404508 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  81. Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C., Andres, R., Arenberg, D., Costa, P. T., JR., Lakatta, E. G., & Tobin, J. D. (1984). Normal human aging: The Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  82. Sim, J., & Wright, C. (2000). Research in health care: Concepts, designs and methods. Cheltenham Glos.: Stanley Thornes. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  83. Singer, E., & Kulka, R. A. (2002). Paying respondents for survey participation. In M. ver Ploeg, R. A. Moffitt, & C. F. Citro (Eds.), Studies of welfare populations. Data collection and research issues. Washington, DC: National Academy. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  84. Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. P. (1998). Does the payment of incentives create expectation effects? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(2), 152–164. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  85. Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240. doi:10.1037/a0028931 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  86. Sparbel, K. J., & Anderson, M. A. (2000). A continuity of care integrated literature review, part 2: Methodological issues. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(2), 131–135. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2000.00131.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  87. Sparks, G. G. (1995a). A final reply to Potter, Cooper, and Dupagne. Communication Theory, 5(3), 286–289. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00111.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  88. Sparks, G. G. (1995b). Comments concerning the claim that mass media research is “Prescientific”: A response to Potter, Cooper, and Dupagne. Communication Theory, 5(3), 273–280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00109.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  89. Statistik Austria. (2012). Bevölkerungszahl Österreichs stieg 2011 um rund 36.200 Personen [The Austrian population increased by about 36,200 people in 2011]. Wien. Available online: http://www.statistik.at/web_de/presse/061801 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  90. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2012). Alle politisch selbständigen Gemeinden mit ausgewählten Merkmalen am 30.06.2012. (2. Quartal 2012) [All politically independent communities including selected characteristics on 06/30/2012]. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/LaenderRegionen/Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/Archiv/GVAuszugQ/AuszugGV2QAktuell.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  91. Toepoel, V., Das, M., & van Soest, A. (2009). Effects of design in Web surveys: Comparing trained and fresh respondents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 985–1007. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn060 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  92. Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  93. van Meter, K. M. (1990). Methodological and design issues: Techniques for assessing the representatives of snowball samples. In E. Y. Lambert (Ed.), NIDA Research Monograph: Vol. 98. The Collection and interpretation of data from hidden populations (pp. 31–42). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.152.3744&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=38 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  94. Varedian, M., & Forsman, G. (2003). Comparing propensity score weighting with other weighting methods: A case study. Presentation at the AAPOR 58th Annual Conference. Available online: http://www.websm.org/db/12/870/rec/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  95. Vocino, A., & Polonsky, M. J. (2011). Volunteering for research: A test of the psychometric properties of the volunteer functions inventory with online panellists. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(4), 508–521. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  96. Volkenandt, A. (2012). Worüber man sprechen sollte, worüber man spricht. Das subjektive Gefühl der Informiertheit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung interpersonaler Kommunikation über massenmediale Inhalte. [What one should talk about, what we talk about. The subjective feeling of being informed considering interpersonal communication about mass media contents]. Master thesis. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz. Available online: http://www.avkomm.de/arbeitsproben/magisterarbeit Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  97. Wang, W., Rothschild, D., Goel, S., & Gelman, A. (2015). Forecasting elections with non-representative polls. International Journal of Forecasting, 31(3), 980–991. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2014.06.001 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  98. Weimann, G. (1982). On the importance of marginality: One more step into the two-step flow of communication. American Sociological Review, 47(6), 764–773. doi:10.2307/2095212 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  99. Whitehead, L. C. (2007). Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 65(4), 782–791. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.005 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  100. Winer, R. S. (1983). Attrition bias in econometric models estimated with panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(2), 177–186. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  101. Zagorsky, J. L., & Rhoton, P. (2008). The effects of promised monetary incentives on attrition in a long-term panel survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 502–513. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  102. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367
  103. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,179–211. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  104. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  105. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  106. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  107. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  108. Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  109. Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. J. (2006). Introduction. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. J. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 1–17). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  110. Bold, W., & Davidson, W. (2012). Mobile broadband: Redefining Internet access and empowering individuals. In World Economic Forum (Ed.), The global information technology report 2012 (pp. 67–77). Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ GITR/2012/GITR_Chapter1.5_2012.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  111. Campbell, S. W. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of perceptions and uses of mobile telephony. New Media & Society, 9, 343–363. doi: 10.1177/1461444807075016 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  112. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  113. Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 381–398. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  114. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  115. de Certeau, M. (1980). Arts de faire. Paris, France: Gallimard. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  116. Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  117. Genç, B., & Bada, B. (2010). English as a world language in academic writing. The Reading Matrix, 10, 142–151. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  118. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  119. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  120. Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  121. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson & A. Lowe (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79 (pp. 128–138). London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  122. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future – A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  123. Harkness, J., Pennell, B. E., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2004). Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P., Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 453–473). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  124. Hjorth, L., Burgess, J., & Richardson, I. (2012). Studying mobile media: Cultural technologies, mobile communication, and the iPhone. New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  125. Höflich, J. R., & Rössler, P. (2001). Mobile schriftliche Kommunikation oder: E-mail für das Handy [Mobile written communication or: Email for the cell phone]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 49, 437–461. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  126. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  127. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equation modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003 Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2015). LISREL 9.20 [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  128. IL: Scientific Software International. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  129. Karnowski, V., von Pape, T., & Wirth, W. (2011). Overcoming the binary logic of adoption. In A. Vishwanath & G. Barnett (Eds.), The diffusion of innovations: A communication science perspective (pp. 57–75). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  130. Katz, J. E., Aakhus, M. A., Kim, H. D., & Turner, M. (2003). Cross-cultural comparison of ICTs. In L. Fortunati, J. Katz, & R. Riccini (Eds.), Mediating the human body: Technology, communication and fashion (pp. 75–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  131. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M.(1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives in gratifications research (pp. 249–268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  132. Katz, J. E., & Sugiyama, S. (2006). Mobile phones as fashion statements: Evidence from student surveys in the US and Japan. New Media & Society, 8, 321–337. doi:10.1177/1461444806061950 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  133. Kenny, D. (2014). Measuring model fit. Available online: http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London, UK: Academic Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  134. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  135. Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism and Mass Media Quarterly, 77, 308–320. doi:10.1177/107769900007700206 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  136. Mohebbi, S., Khatibi, V., & Keramati, A. (2012). A household Internet adoption model based on integration of technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, and uses and gratification theory: An empirical study of Iranian households. International Journal of E-Adoption, 4, 51–69. doi: 10.4018/jea.2012010104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  137. Morley, D. (1999). Wo das Globale auf das Lokale trifft. Zur Politik des Alltags [Where global meets local. On the politics of everyday life]. In K. H. Hörning & R. Winter (Eds.), Widerspenstige Kulturen. Cultural Studies als Herausforderung (pp. 442–475). Frankfurt a. M., DE: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  138. Oulette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  139. von Pape, T., Karnowski, V., & Wirth, W. (2008). Die Mobile-Phone-Appropriation-Skala (MPA-Skala): Konstruktion und Evaluation [The Mobile Phone Appropriation Scales (MPA-scales): Construction and evaluation]. In J. Matthes, W. Wirth, G. Daschmann, & A. Fahr (Eds.), Die Brücke zwischen Theorie und Empirie: Operationalisierung, Messung und Validierung in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 96–127). Köln, DE: Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  140. Park, N. (2010). Adoption and use of computer-based voice over Internet protocol phone service: Toward an integrated model. Journal of Communication, 60, 40–72. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01440.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  141. Petrič, G., Petrovčič, A., & Vehovar, V. (2011). Social uses of interpersonal communication technologies in a complex media environment. European Journal of Communication 26, 116–132. doi: 10.1177/0267323111402654 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  142. Ramirez, Jr. A., Dimmick, J., Feaster, J., & Lin, S-F. (2008). Revisiting interpersonal media competition: The gratification niches of instant messaging, e-mail, and the telephone. Communication Research, 35, 529–547. doi: 10.1177/0093650208315979 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  143. Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 499–514. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  144. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  145. Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 305–355. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  146. Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Silverstone & R. Mansell (Eds.), Communication by design. The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44–74). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  147. IBM SPSS Missing Values 22. (2013). Available online: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/pdfs/SPSS_Missing_Values_22.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  148. von Pape, T. (2009). Media adoption and diffusion. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Evolving perspectives on media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 274–282). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  149. Trepte, S., Ranné, N., & Becker, M. (2003). Personal digital assistants – Patterns of user gratifications. Communications, 28(4), 457–473. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  150. Wirth, W., von Pape, T., & Karnowski, V. (2008). An integrative model of mobile phone appropriation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 593–617. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00412.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  151. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. doi:10.1177/ 0013164413495237 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-397
  152. Andreassen, H., Bujnowska-Fedak, M., Chronaki, C., Dumitru, R., Pudule, I., Santana, S., … Wynn, R. (2007). European citizens’ use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 7(1), 53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  153. Bachl, M. (2016). Gesundheitsbezogene Internet-Nutzung in Europa: Second-level Digital Divides? [Health-related internet use in Europe: Second-level digital divides?]. In A.-L. Camerini, R. Ludolph, & F. B. Rothenfluh (Eds.), Gesundheitskommunikation im Spannungsfeld zwischen Theorie und Praxis [Health communication between theory and practice] (pp. 211–223). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  154. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Jung, J.-Y. (2008). Digital divide. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 1304–1308). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  155. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  156. Bickmore, T. W., & Paasche-Orlow, M. K. (2012). The role of information technology in health literacy research. Journal of Health Communication, 17(sup3), 23–29. doi:10.1 080/10810730.2012.712626 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  157. Cline, R. J. W., & Haynes, K. M. (2001). Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: The state of the art. Health Education Research, 16(6), 671–692. doi:10.1093/ her/16.6.671 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  158. Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Bacao, F. (2012). Digital divide across the European Union. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  159. Information & Management, 49(6), 278–291. doi:10.1016/j.im.2012.09.003 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  160. European Commission. (2012). eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020 - Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0736 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  161. European Commission. (2015). Flash Eurobarometer 404: European citizens’ digital health literacy. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA5948 Datafile Version 1.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.12194 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  162. European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. (2014). European citizens’ digital health literacy. Brussels: European Union. doi:10.2759/86596 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  163. Finney Rutten, L. J., Davis, T., Beckjord, E. B., Blake, K., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2012). Picking up the pace: Changes in method and frame for the Health Information National Trends Survey (2011–2014). Journal of Health Communication, 17(8), 979–989. doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.700998 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  164. Fox, S., & Duggan, M. (2013). Health Online 2013. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/ files/old-media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  165. Galdas, P. M., Cheater, F., & Marshall, P. (2005). Men and health help-seeking behaviour: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(6), 616–623. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2648.2004.03331.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  166. Gibbons, M. C., Fleisher, L., Slamon, R. E., Bass, S., Kandadai, V., & Beck, J. R. (2011). Exploring the potential of Web 2.0 to address health disparities. Journal of Health Communication, 16(sup1), 77–89. doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.596916 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  167. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). doi:10.5210/fm.v7i4.942 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  168. Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y.-l. P. (2013). Digital inequality. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 129–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  169. Higgins, O., Sixsmith, J., Barry, M. M., & Domegan, C. (2011). A literature review on health information-seeking behaviour on the web: A health consumer and health professional perspective. Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. doi:10.2900/5788 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  170. Kontos, E. Z., Emmons, K. M., Puleo, E., & Viswanath, K. (2010). Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. Journal of Health Communication, 15(sup3), 216–235. doi:10.1080/10 810730.2010.522689 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  171. Kreps, G. L., & Neuhauser, L. (2010). New directions in eHealth communication: Opportunities and challenges. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(3), 329–336. doi:10.1016/ j.pec.2010.01.013 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  172. Kummervold, P. E., Chronaki, C. E., Lausen, B., Prokosch, H. U., Rasmussen, J., Santana, S., … Wangberg, S. C. (2008). eHealth trends in Europe 2005-2007: A population-based survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(4), e42. doi:10.2196/jmir.1023 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  173. Kwak, N. (1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26(4), 385–413. doi:10.1177/009365099026004002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  174. Kyriakidou, V., Michalakelis, C., & Sphicopoulos, T. (2011). Digital divide gap convergence in Europe. Technology in Society, 33(3–4), 265–270. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.09.001 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  175. Lumley, T. (2004). Analysis of complex survey samples. Journal of Statistical Software, 9(1), 1–19. doi:10.18637/jss.v009.i08 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  176. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006a). eHEALS: The eHealth literacy scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(4), e27. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  177. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006b). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  178. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide (online ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available online: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Books/Digital%20Divide.htm Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  179. Prestin, A., Vieux, S. N., & Chou, W.-Y. S. (2015). Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the Health Information National Trends Survey. Journal of Health Communication, 20(7), 790–798. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1018590 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  180. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  181. Renahy, E., Parizot, I., & Chauvin, P. (2008). Health information seeking on the Internet: A double divide? Results from a representative survey in the Paris metropolitan area, France, 2005-2006. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 69. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-69 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  182. Sadasivam, R. S., Kinney, R. L., Lemon, S. C., Shimada, S. L., Allison, J. J., & Houston, T. K. (2013). Internet health information seeking is a team sport: Analysis of the Pew Internet Survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(3), 193–200. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.09.008 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  183. Santana, S., Lausen, B., Bujnowska-Fedak, M., Chronaki, C., Prokosch, H.-U., & Wynn, R. (2011). Informed citizen and empowered citizen in health: Results from an [sic!] European survey. BMC Family Practice, 12(1), 20. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-12-20 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  184. Scharkow, M. (2016). The accuracy of self-reported Internet use – A validation study using client log data. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 13–27. doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1118446 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  185. Seri, P., Bianchi, A., & Matteucci, N. (2014). Diffusion and usage of public e-services in Europe: An assessment of country level indicators and drivers. Telecommunications Policy, 38(5–6), 496–513. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2014.03.004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  186. van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893–911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  187. van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. doi:10.1177/1461444813487959 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  188. van Dijk, J. (2009). One Europe, digitally divided. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  189. Routledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 288–304). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  190. Viswanath, K., & Finnegan, J. R. (1996). The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 19, pp. 187–227). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  191. Viswanath, K., & Kreuter, M. W. (2007). Health disparities, communication inequalities, and eHealth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5, Supplement), S131–S133. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.012 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  192. Weidmann, N. B., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2013). Cshapes: CShapes dataset and utilities. Available online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cshapes Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  193. Zschorlich, B., Gechter, D., Janßen, I. M., Swinehart, T., Wiegard, B., & Koch, K. (2015). Gesundheitsinformationen im Internet: Wer sucht was, wann und wie? [Health information on the Internet: Who is searching for what, when and how?]. Zeitschrift Für Evidenz, Fortbildung Und Qualität Im Gesundheitswesen, 109(2), 144–152. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2015.03.003 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427
  194. Breunig, C., & Engel, B. (2015). Massenkommunikation 2015: Funktionen und Images der Medien im Vergleich. Media Perspektiven (7-8), 323–341. Verfügbar unter http://www.ard-werbung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2015/07082015_Breunig_Engel.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  195. Costera Meijer, I. (2013). Valuable journalism: A search for quality from the vantage point of the user. Journalism, 14 (6), 754–770. doi: 10.1177/1464884912455899. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  196. Craft, S., Vos, T. P., & Wolfgang, D. J. (2016). Reader comments as press criticism: Implications for the journalistic field. Journalism, 17 (6), 677–693. doi:10.1177/1464884915579332. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  197. Donsbach, W., Rentsch, M., Schielicke, A.-M., & Degen, S. (2009). Entzauberung eines Berufs. Was die Deutschen vom Journalismus erwarten und wie sie enttäuscht werden. Konstanz: UVK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  198. Eurobarometer. (2014). Media use in the European Union. Verfügbar unter http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_media_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  199. Friemel, T., & Dötsch, M. (2015). Online Reader Comments as Indicator for Perceived Public Opinion. In M. Emmer & C. Strippel (Hrsg.), Kommunikationspolitik für die digitale Gesellschaft (S. 151–172). Verfügbar unter http://digitalcommunicationresearch.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/dcr.v1.8_friemel-doetsch.pdf? Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  200. Früh, W. (2015). Inhaltsanalyse. Theorie und Praxis (8., überarb. Aufl.). Konstanz: UVK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  201. Hamann, G. (2015). Wer vertraut uns noch?, Zeit Online. Verfügbar unter http://www.zeit.de/2015/26/journa-lismus-medienkritik-luegenpresse-vertrauen-ukraine-krise. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  202. Hoffmann, C. (2016). Lügenpresse!!!! Verfügbar unter http://de.ejo-online.eu/qualitaet-ethik/luegenpresse. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  203. Infratest Dimap. (2014). Vertrauen in Medien-Berichterstattung über den Ukraine-Konflikt. Eine Studie von infratest dimap für das Medienmagazin ZAPP. Verfügbar unter http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/zapp/inffratest102.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  204. Jackob, N. (2009). Vergessen oder Vergeben? Journalistische Fehlleistungen und ihre Folgen für das allgemeine Vertrauen in die Medien. Communicatio Socia- lis, 42 (4), 382–404. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  205. Krei, A. (2015). April: Verlustreicher Monat für Nachrichten-Portale. Verfügbar unter http://www.dwdl.de/zahlen-zentrale/50907/april_verlustreicher_monat_fuer_nachrichtenportale/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  206. Lee, E.-J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37 (6), 825–846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  207. Lee, E.-J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18 (1), 32–45. doi:10.1111/ j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  208. Lieske, S. (2008). Das Image von Journalisten. Eine qualitative Untersuchung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  209. Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2004). Die empirische Erfassung von Medien-Frames. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 52 (1), 56–75. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  210. Neuberger, C. (2014). The Journalistic Quality of Internet Formats and Services. Digital Journalism, 2 (3), 419–433. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.892742. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  211. Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2). doi:10.1515/jplr.2011.010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  212. Pew Research Center. (2012). Press Widely Criticized, But Trusted More than Other Information Sources. Verfügbar unter http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/press-widely-criticized-but-trusted-more-than-other-information-sources/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  213. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  214. Reich, Z. (2011). User Comments: The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt et al. (Hrsg.), Participatory journalism. Guarding open gates at online newspapers (S. 96–117). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  215. Reinemann, C., & Fawzi, N. (2016). Eine vergebliche Suche nach der Lügenpresse. Verfügbar unter http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/analyse-von-langzeitdaten-eine-vergebliche-suche-nach-der-luegenpresse/12870672.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  216. Reschke, A. (2016). Aber was heißt denn das: „Sagen, was ist“? Verfügbar unter http://uebermedien.de/1995/aber-heisst-denn-das-sagen-ist/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  217. Schweiger, W. (1999). Medienglaubwürdigkeit - Nutzungserfahrung oder Medienimage? Eine Befragung zur Glaubwürdigkeit des World Wide Web im Vergleich mit anderen Medien. In P. Rössler & W. Wirth (Hrsg.), Glaubwürdigkeit im Internet. Fragestellungen, Modelle, empirische Befunde (S. 89–110). München: Reinhard Fischer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  218. Schweiger, W. (2007). Theorien der Mediennutzung. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  219. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18 (7), 798–815. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  220. Taddicken, M., & Bund, K. (2010). Ich kommentiere, also bin ich. Community research am Beispiel des Diskussionsforums der ZEIT Online. In M. Welker & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse. Forschungsobjekt Internet (S. 167–190). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  221. Tota, F.-E. (2015). Russische Staatstrolle: Zwölf Stunden am Tag in Putins Sinne. Verfügbar unter http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/russische-staatstrolle-in-st-petersburg-13493398.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  222. Tsfati, Y., Meyers, O., & Peri, Y. (2006). What is good journalism? Comparing Israeli public and journalists’ perspectives. Journalism, 7 (2), 152–173. doi:10.1177/1464884906062603. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  223. Urban, J., & Schweiger, W. (2014). News Quality from the Recipients’ Perspective. Journalism Studies, 15 (6), 821–840. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2013.856670. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  224. Van der Wurff, R., & Schönbach, K. (2014). Civic and Citizen Demands of News Media and Journalists: What Does the Audience Expect from Good Journalism? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91 (3), 433–451. doi:10.1177/1077699014538974. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  225. Voigt, J. (2016). Nachrichtenqualität aus Sicht der Mediennutzer. Wie Rezipienten die Leistung des Journalismus beurteilen können. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454
  226. Ziegele, M., Johnen, M., Bickler, A., Jakob, I., & Schnauber, A. (2013). Männlich, rüstig, kommentiert? Einflussfaktoren auf die Aktivität kommentierender Nutzer von Online-Nachrichtenseiten. Studies in Communication | Media, 2 (1), 67–114. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-454

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media