The document discusses research on the participation divide in online content creation. It summarizes previous research that found demographics like age, education, and socioeconomic status predict different types of online content creation. However, these studies had limitations like focusing only on students or the US. The presented study uses social cognitive theory to examine how cognitive attributes like privacy concerns and self-efficacy may mediate the impact of demographics on different types of online content creation. An online survey was conducted with 1488 German participants and structural equation modeling was used to analyze the relationships between variables. The findings suggest cognitive constructs partially mediate the influence of demographics on content creation and different types of content are affected differently.

1. Content Creation on the Internet
A Social Cognitive Perspective on the Participation Divide
Christian Hoffmann, Christoph Lutz, Miriam Meckel
ICA Annual Conference 2014
Seattle, Washington
26 May 2014

2. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 2
From the Digital Divide…
Many people have access to the Internet
and go online regularly.
Offliner Onliner

3. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 3
…To The Participation Divide
ParticipantNon-Participant
Few(er) make use of the web’s participatory potential.

4. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 4
From the Digital to the Participation Divide
• Online media facilitate public self-expression (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Kane,
Alavi, Labianca, & Borgatti, 2013).
• Social media, especially, make it easy for lay users to publish content and
make it accessible to a global audience (Blank & Reisdorf, 2012; Correa, 2010; Hargittai &
Walejko, 2008; Schradie, 2011).
• Internet use is associated with both online and offline political participation
(Boulianne, 2009; Towner & Dulio, 2011; Vitak et al., 2011).
• Socio-demographics have been shown to differentiate web use, online
skills, and online as well as offline participation (Hargittai, 2002, 2010; Hargittai &
Hinnant, 2008; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2010; van Dijk, 2005; Zillien & Hargittai, 2009).

5. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 5
Previous Research on the Participation Divide
Hargittai & Walejko (2008)
Age, skills and SES predict online content creation (4 types of content tested).
Correa (2010)
Psychological factors and demographics predict online content creation, SES does
not (aggregates 10 different types of content into one measure).
Schradie (2011)
SES affects user propensity to create and share content, effects differ by online
activity (focus on activities rather than content type)-
Blank (2013)
SES affects user propensity to create and share content, effects differ by online
activity (3 types of content: skilled, social & entertainment, political).

6. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 6
Some Limitations of Previous Research
1) Student Samples
2) Focus on USA
3) Reliance on Regression
4) Poor or no distinction of content forms: lack
of theoretical underpinning

7. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 7
Social Cognitive Theory
Environment
Personal
Dispositions
Behavior
Demographics:
Age, Gender,
Education
Cognitive Attributes:
Privacy Concerns,
Self-Efficacy
Online Content
Creation:
Social, Skilled,
Political

8. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 8
Hypothesis
Online self-efficacy and privacy concerns mediate
the impact of demographics on online content
creation.

9. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 9
Model 1: Only Direct

10. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 10
Model 2: Fully Mediated

11. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 11
Model 3: Partially Mediated

12. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 12
Data and Method
• Online survey with 1488 participants.
• Representative distribution of gender, age and region of German
Internet population, slight overrepresentation of highly educated
users.
• Measures: Online Content Creation (Blank, 2013), Self-Efficacy
(Compeau et al., 1999; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Bala,
2008), Privacy Concerns (Malhotra et al., 2004).
• Structural Equation Modeling: Cronbach’s α, CR and AVE all above
threshold.

13. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 13
Model 1: Only Direct

14. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 14
Model 2: Fully Mediated

15. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 15
Model 3: Partially Mediated

16. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 16
Main Findings
• Cognitive constructs partially mediate the
influence of demographics on content creation.
• Different types of content are affected differently
by demographics and cognitive constructs.
• Self-efficacy depends heavily on demographics.

17. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 17
Limitations
• Cross-sectional and quantiative study.
• Only two cognitive constructs considered.
• Not an exhaustive typology of online content.
• Only one country considered.

18. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 18
Thanks for Your
Attention
Institute for Media and Communications Management
University of St. Gallen
Blumenbergplatz 9
CH-9000 St. Gallen

19. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 19
References
Blank, G. (2013). Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the
Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 590-612.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. & Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual
Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2),
145-158.
Correa, T. (2010). The Participation Divide Among “Online Experts”: Experience,
Skills and Psychological Factors as Predictors of College Students’ Web Content
Creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), 71–92.
Hargittai, E. & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and
sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239–256.

20. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 20
References
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet Users’ Information Privacy
Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information
Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.
Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0
collide. Poetics, 39(2), 145–168.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research
Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

21. Beteiligung im Internet
Präsentation Christoph Lutz
Seite 21
Construct Item Wording (Scale)
Skilled Content Creation
(SCC)
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
I comment content that other people have published.
I publish my own texts and comments on the Internet.
I discuss actively in online communities.
Social and Entertainment
Content Creation (ECC)
ECC1
ECC2
ECC3
Social network sites (e.g. Facebook, XING).
Media platforms (e.g. Youtube, Flickr).
I share photos and videos I created on the web.
Political Content Creation
(PCC)
PCC1
PCC2
PCC3
PCC4
I like and share political content on the Internet.
I publish commentaries about political topics on the Internet.
I try to persuade others online to become politically active.
I actively participate in a political online group or online community
Privacy Concerns (PC) PC1
PC2
PC3
All things considered, the Internet would cause serious privacy problems.
Compared to others, I am more sensitive about the way online companies handle my
personal information.
To me, it is the most important thing to keep my privacy intact from online companies.
Online Self-efficacy
(OSE) OSE1
OSE2
How well do you think you are able to…
…publish information on a blog or on Twitter?
…publish a video on the Internet (e.g. on Youtube)?