The Benefits and Costsof Web Surfing

Elizabeth M. Perse and Douglas A. Ferguson

Although the Web audience is growing exponentially, little research has exploredthe benefits that the audience derives from their use of the Web. This study took acost-benefit approach to exploring the specific benefits and opportunity costsassociated with World Wide Web use. We hypothesized that greater benefits coupledwith fewer opportunity costs (e.g., computer and Internet access, computerexpertise, connection speed, effort, and multimedia) would have an impact on theamount of time people spend on the Web and the value they attach to their Web use.We conducted a Web-based survey of 250 students enrolled at two "wired"universities who were required to use the Web for coursework. The results revealedthat Leaming was the most salient benefit of the Web, followed by Pass Time andEntertainment. We found some support for the impact of opportunity costs on Webuse. Stronger support was found for the impact of benefits and costs on Web surfingvalue. We also found that Entertainment and sports Web sites xvere the ones mostlikely to be linked to beneficial Web use. The discussion relates the results of the studyto speculations about the future of the Web audience and the impact of reducedopportunity costs on Web use.

KEY CONCEPTS World Wide Web (WWW), satisfaction, cost-benefitanalysis, internet use, uses and gratifications

Elizabeth M. Perse (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is a Professor in theDepartment of Commurucation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716.Douglas A. Ferguson (Ph.D., Bowling Green State University, 1990) isa Professor in the Department of Communication, College of Charleston.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the National CommunicationAssociation annual convention, November, 2000, Seattle and was recognizedas a top-three competitive paper by the Mass Communication Division.

The World Wide Web is no longer the sole territory of early adopters. By March2001, researchers estimated that over 163 million Americans were online(Nielsen, 2001). Moreover, by October 2000, in 21 of the top 35 Internet markets,

over 50% of the population was online, up from just six markets in March (Nielsen,2000). Computers and Internet service have become much less expensive. Now, notonly are well-equipped computers available for less than $1000, but e-mail is free andaccess to the World Wide Web (WWW) can cost less than $10 per month. There are evena few providers offering "free" access to the Web, subsidizing costs through advertising.

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 48 No 4 Fall 2000, Pages 343-359

The trend toward an advertising-supported Web suggests that users will face evenfewer barriers to entry. Moreover, several years ago the Web achieved a popular-audience-odented critical mass; there is content on the Web to appeal to almosteveryone. E-mail is still the most widely used online activity, but the most-visited Websites include everything from portals (search engines and Web directories), to softwaredistribution sites, and sites providing news, games, sports, music, and entertairunent(Petersen, 1999).

A good deal of research has been conducted to understand the Web audience.^Many research firms track Web activity, including the demographics of the audience,the sites they visit, the amount of time they spend online, and the hardware that theyuse (e.g., CyberAdas, 2000). Scholars have explored the reasons motivating Web use(e.g., Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye, 1998; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999, Papacharissi &Rubin, 2000). The explosive growth of the online audience suggests that many areenjoying surfing the Web.

However, not everyone who has Web access and experience is a regular Web user(Nielsen, 1999; Peterson, 1999). Enthusiasm for the Web can wane as users find thatthe benefits from Web surfing do not outweigh their costs. As more and moreimportant and useful content moves to the Web, understanding the costs and benefitsof using the Web becomes even more important This paper reports a cost-benefitexamination of Web use from a uses and gratifications perspective.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Web UseCost-benefit analysis is an economic approach to decision-making. Key to this

approach are the concepts of costs and benefits. Costs are the outlays, expenditures, oreffort required to attain something. Benefits are valued outcomes. A cost-benefitapproach assumes that people make rational choices based on evaluations of thebenefits resulting from selecting one alternative over another compared to the costsassociated with ttiat choice (Kingma, 1996). People make one selection over availablealternatives when benefits outweigh costs. Economists often deal with monetary costsand benefits, but when dealing with individual choices, the costs and benefits need notfranslate directly into currency. Both costs and benefits can be individualized andsubjective (Layard & Glister, 1994).

Although cost-benefit analysis has been applied to various aspects of informationtechnology (e.g., Kingma, 1996), mass communication research has not specificallyexplored how perceived costs and benefits are linked to media use. Instead, masscommunication research has focused on explorations of media-use satisfaction (e.g.,Burgoon & Burgoon, 1980; Jacobs, 1996; LaRose & Atkin, 1988; Papacharissi & Rubin,2000). These explorations have been based on an expectation-confirmation modeldrawn from marketing (Oliver, 1981). According to this approach, satisfaction growsout of a process in which audience members compare their media experience againstwhat they expected from that experience. Expectations, then, serve as benchmarksagainst which the audience members judge the benefits received from media use. Ifexpectations are met, satisfaction results, and media use continues. If expectations arenot met, dissatisfaction results, and media use is reduced or discontinued.

Despite its utility in marketing research, this model has not received much supportin studies of media satisfaction. Palmgreen and Rayburn (1985a), for example, testeda full range of expectation-confirmation models of satisfaction. The discrepancybetween expectations and benefits derived contributed only modestly to satisfaction

344 Perse and Ferguson

with television news viewing. Instead, the strongest predictors of news satisfactionwere the specific Tsenefits (or gratifications obtained) obtained from news viewing.Similarly, Dobos (1992) observed that expectations contributed only a trivial amountto satisfaction with organizational media use. As before, satisfaction resulted from thespecific benefits obtained from media use.

This study builds on and expands this research on media satisfaction. Using a cost-benefit approach, we explored how benefits associated with Web surfing, coupled withthe costs associated with Web use, are linked to the amount of time people spend on theWeb and the value they attach to Web surfing. Specifically, we expect that greaterbenefits coupled with fewer costs will be linked to greater Web use and greaterperceived value placed on Web surfing.

Benefits Associated with Web SurfingMedia uses and gratifications is an audience-centered approach that holds that

media use is a goal-directed activity (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974; Rubin, 1994).People select media content based on expectations that its use will satisfy some motive.According to this perspective, media use is associated with gratifications obtained,which can be expected (i.e., based on the motives for selecting the content) orunexpected (unrelated to motives for selecting the content). Uses and gratificationsargues that gratifications obtained from media use is an important concept becausethese gratifications reinforce or change media choice and affect subsequent mediaselection and use. When the gratifications obtained from media use match or surpassthe gratifications sought, media selection is reinforced and the audience member willselect that channel or content again. On the other hand, if gratifications obtained donot match the gratifications sought, the individual is unlikely to select that channel orcontent again to fill that motive (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1985b). Another way toconceptualize gratifications obtained is to consider them as perceived benefits ofmedia use.

Although research has explored the reasons underlying Web surfing (e.g.,Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye, 1998; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; Papacharissi & Rubin,2000), no research has identified the benefits that the audience receives from Web use.Clearly, benefits associated with Web surfing are somewhat different than thoseassociated with using traditional media. Television's greatest benefits, for example,are in providing entertainment and relaxation (Perse & Ferguson, 1993). Computeruse, however, is not relaxing (Perse & Courtright, 1993; Perse & Dunn, 1998). In fact,much Web use is information-oriented rather than entertainment-oriented (e.g.,Graphics, Visualization, & Usability Center, 1997; Kaye, 1998; Stafford & Stafford,1998). The continued growth of the audience and regular increases in amount of timepeople spend on the Web (Nielsen, 1999) suggest that people are deriving some benefitsfrom the Web use. The first research question of this study focused on the benefits thatthe Web audience receives from Web use:

RQl: Which are the most salient benefits that people obtain from Web use?

As a first test of the application of a cost-benefit analysis of Web surfing, wepredicted that greater benefits would be associated with greater Web use, or theamount of time spent using the Web, and perceiving greater value in Web surfing:

Benefits-Costs of WWW 345

HI: Web surfing benefits will be directly associated with Web use.HI: Web surfing benefits wiU be directly associated with perceived value

of Web surfing.

Costs Associated with Web SurfingThe benefits that the audience derive from using the Web are only one part of

understanding Web use. According to a cost-benefit approach, we also need toconsider the costs associated with Web use. When costs have been conceptualized asthe amount of money consumers need to spend on a medium, research has found thatcosts affect media use. Humphrey (1989), for example, found that almost 40% ofsubscribers who discontinued cable gave cost as the reason. Costs, though, can includeother, nonmonetary outlays. These costs include those associated with opportunity(Kingma, 1996). oipportunity costs are typically defined as invested time (Kingma,1996). That is, time spent on one activity it is taken away from another. Opportunitycosts increase as one is required to invest more time to derive some benefit Forexample, given similar entertainment benefits, the opportunity costs of watching atelevision mini-series are greater than watching a half-hour sitcom. So, an individualmight decide to watch the sit-com rather than the mini-series. Web surfing iscomplicated by several opportunity costs that can affect the amount of time anindividual needs to spend on the Web: access to a computer, access to the Internet,computer expertise, connection speed, effort needed to surf, and multimediacapability.

A major opportunity cost associated with Web use is ease of access. The first stepin getting onto the Web is access to a computer. Having access to a computer where onelives or works reduces the opportunity costs to getting on the Web by reducing the timeneeded to travel to a computer. Similarly, access is eased with availability of an Internetconnection. When people have online access at home, work, or school, they are morelikely to use the Web (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997).

Computer expertise reduces opportunity costs of Web surfing. Unlike other media,computer hardware and software can be confusing for novices. With experience,however, users are more likely to be able to locate interesting and useful content on theWeb. Scholars have found that age and computer experience are linked to successfulWeb searches (e.g., Kubeck, Miller-Albrecht, & Murphy, 1999).

Connection speed is another aspect of opportunity costs. Web users can be impatientand easily frustrated by long response times and waiting for Web pages to load (Bucy,Lang, Potter, & Grabe, 1999). Moreover, experimental investigations of the onlineaudience found that a slow Web response can be a stress to users. One frequentlymentioned problem with the Web is web page retrieval and loading (e.g., Petersen,1999; Pew Research Center, 1998; Pitkow & Kehoe, 1996). So, higher-speed connectionsto the Web should reduce opportunity costs.

Another opportunity cost of Web surfing involves the technical capability of thehardware. The technical attributes of computers affect how they are used (Steinfield,Dutton, & Kovaric, 1989). Multimedia content (audio and video) is now common onthe Web (Orwall, 2001). In 1998, the Pew Research Center reported that already 46%of its sample had listened to an audio clip and watched a video cUp online. Morerecently, at least 16% of Web surfers use streaming audio and video regularly(CyberAtlas, 2000). There are some indications that multimedia access increases somebenefits of Web surfing. Perse and Dunn (1998) iovaxd that multimedia capabilities

346 Perse and Ferguson

lead computer owners to see computers as more useful at filling variouscommunication needs. But the multimedia capabilities of the computer used to surf theWeb can affect opportunity costs. Limited technology makes watching or listening tostreaming media frustrating (Orwall, 2001) and increases the opportunity costs ofWeb surfing.

In general, we believe that when Web users can surf more effortlessly, there will befewer opportunity costs. Another aspect of opportunity costs is the mental effortrequired to surf the Web. When mental effort is devoted to an activity, it cannot beautomatic (Salomon & Leigh, 1984). Moreover, devoting greater cognitive efforttoward a task reduces the amount of cognitive capacity available for other mentalactivities. As opportunity costs are defined as the costs associated with spending time onone activity over another, mental effort should be a signal of increased opportunity costs.

The next set of hypotheses tested whether opportunity costs associated with Websurfing would have an impact on Web use and perceived value of Web surfing.Specifically, we predicted that factors that reduced opportunity costs of surfing theWeb would be directly associated with Web use and perceived value of Web surfing.

H3: Greater Web use will be associated with (a) more readily availablecomputer access, (b) more readily available online access, (b) greatercomputer expertise, (c) faster Web connection speed, (d) bettertechnology for handling multimedia, and (e) less mental effort used inWeb surfing.

H4: Greater perceived value of Web surfing will be associated with (a)more readily available computer access, (b) more readily availableonline access, (b) greater computer expertise, (c) faster Webconnection speed, (d) better technology for handling multimedia, and(e) less mental effort used in Web surfing.

Web Content and Benefits of Web SurfingAccording to uses and gratifications, content also contributes to the gratifications

or benefits obtained from use (Katz et al., 1974). As part of our exploration of the costsand benefits associated with Web surfing, we explored how visits to different types ofWeb sites were linked to benefits of Web surfing. Search engines and portals are themost popular Web sites (see the Media Metrix, 2001, summary of Web ratings whichis updated regularly). Entertainment and commerce sites, however, are also among themost-visited sites on the Web. In February 2001, the Walt Disney Internet Group,Napster, NBC, News Corporation Online (Fox), Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and eBaywere all in the 50-most visited sites (Media Metrix, 2001). The popularity of these sitessuggests that they should be providing some benefits to their audiences. Web sites,however, can be associated with opportunity costs. CyberAtlas (2001) reports on top-25 Web site quality. According to their criteria, lower quality is reflected in brokeninternal and external links and slow-loading pages, which all can increase theopportunity costs of Web surfing.

Our next set of research questions, then, considered the benefits and costsassociated with use of different Web sites:

RQ2: What benefits are associated with use of different Web sites?RQ3: What opportunity costs are associated with use of different Web sites?

Benefits-Costs of WWW 347

RQ4: Which Web sites are associated with perceptions of greater Websurfing value?

These research questions and hypotheses were the focus of the present study.

METHODProcedure and Sample

We conducted an on-line survey Fall, 1997, among 250 college students at twouniversities, one in the Midwest and one on the East Coast These students were anespecially appropriate sample to study satisfaction with the Web because theyattended universities that provided high-speed Internet access in computer labs andin dorm rooms. Moreover, these students were enrolled in courses that involvedinstruction and assignments on the Web, including course home pages and requiredreadings posted in PDF format on the Web.

As part of the study, the respondents first completed an online questionnairelinked to the course Web page. Completed confidential surveys were received from 236respondents, all of whom received extra-credit in mass media courses for theirvoluntary participation. The HTML-coded survey assigned least (0) to most (8) formost of the scaled responses, with the assigned default value (9) for don't know/noresponse.

The SampleThe sample was 51.1% male (coded 0, female coded 1) and ranged in age from 17

to 46 (M = 19.94, SD = 2.59). Of the sample, 59.7% had access to a computer where theylived and, of those, 70.4% had access to the Internet. This compares to the nationalpersonal computer ownership of 37.4% in 1997 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997), estimatesthat 47.1% of the U.S. population used a computer regularly in 1997 (U.S. CensusBureau, 1997), and estimates that 52.6% of U.S. adults used the Internet in mid-1997(Strategis Group, 1999). As expected, the sample was somewhat computer literate.The average respondent had been using computers for almost 6 years (range = 0 to 15,M = 5.84, SD = 3.07) and had been surfing the Web for just over 2 years (range = 0 to 7,M = 2.02, SD = 1.17). Our sample members used the Internet regularly, on the average5.46 times a week (range = 0 to 100 times, SD = 9.96). They also checked their emailregularly, on the average 2.4 times a day (range = 0 to 10, SD = 1.94).

Benefits of Web SurfingRespondents marked their agreement on a nine-point scale with statements about

seven different benefits of Web use. These statements were drawn from prior researchexploring the impact of new television technologies on television satisfaction (Perse &Ferguson, 1993). The statements were: "Web-surfing helps me learn things that canhelp me," "Web-surfing helps me pass the time," "Web-surfing keeps me company,""Web-surfing helps me forget about my work and worries," "Web-surfing helps merelax," Web-surfing entertains me," and "Web-surfing peps me up."^

Web Surfing ValuePerceptions about the value associated with Web was measured with a single item:

"How valuable did you find your World Wide Web surfing in the past week?" Websurfing value ranged from 0.0 - 8.0 (M = 4.16, SD = 1.83).»

348 Perse and Ferguson

Opportunity CostsAccess. We used two questions to measure costs of access. First, respondents

indicated if they had a home computer available where they currentiy lived. Mostrespondents (59.7%) had access (coded 1, no computer coded 0). Then respondentsmarked if they had Internet access where they "live right now." Once again, most(61.0%) did (coded 1, no access coded 0).

Computer expertise. Expertise was assessed by averaging responses to twoquestions about their experience with computers in general and with surfing the Web.Nine-point response options ranged from Novice (0) to Expert (8). Responses to thetwo items were strongly correlated (r = .70), so responses were averaged to create ameasure of computer and Web expertise. Expertise ranged from 0 to 8.00 (M = 3.69, SD= 1.99).*

Web surfing effort. To measure how much effort respondents put into their Websurfing, we asked two questions that focused on their mental engagement that weredrawn from Salomon and Leigh (1984) and used in previous research on recall oftelevision channel repertoire (Ferguson & Perse, 1993). The two items were: "When Isurf the World Wide Web, I usually think hard like I'm studying a book" and "I put alot of mental effort into my World Wide Web surfing." Responses to the two items wereaveraged to create a measure of effort (r = .57, p < .001). Web surfing effort scoresranged from 0.0 - 8.0 (M = 2.14, SD = 1.99).

Connection speed. Respondents indicated the speed of the modem that they used toaccess the Web. There were 6 possible response options that ranged from 14.4 Kb/secthrough "faster than 128 Kb/sec." Most respondents (58.5%) did not know theirmodem speed or left the item blank. Because of the large number of missing values forthis variable, it was excluded from further analyses.

Multimedia capabilities. Respondents estimated "how capable" their web browserwas "in terms of playing audio and video (multimedia) on the computer you use mostto surf the web." Responses ranged from 0 (not very good) to 8 (very good, M = 4.68,SD = 2.40).

World Wide Web UseWeb exposure. Respondents indicated how many minutes they surfed the Web

"yesterday morning," "yesterday afternoon," "last night" and "on a typical day." Thenumber of minutes spent on the Web "yesterday" were summed and ranged from 0 to420 minutes (M = 35.11, SD = 56.21). On a typical day, respondents reported spendingan average of 1.64 hours (range = 0 to 12, SD = 1.75). These two estimates were modestlycorrelated (r = .30, p < .001), so "yesterday's" Web use was converted to hours and thetwo items were averaged to create a measure of typical daily Web use. Daily Web useranged from 0 to 7.28 hours a day (M = 1.08, SD = 1.10).

Web sites visited. Respondents also marked which of the top 100 Web sites they hadvisited in the "past week." This list was compiled from a list of the 100 most popularWeb sites from the week of September 11,1997 (100 Hot, 1997). Of those sites, only 27received 10 more hits by our respondents. Those 27 sites were sorted into 7 categories:search engines (e.g.. Yahoo! Alta Vista), entertainment (e.g.. Pathfinder, Sony), sports(e.g., ESPN, CBS Sportsline), utilities (e.g., CNET, Download.com), news (e.g., USAToday, ABC News), interactive (e.g, Hotmail, WebChat), and commerce (VirtualFlowers). Because each category had a different number of elements, responses wereweighted. Those seven categories were used to represent the Web sites visited by our

Benefits-Costs of WWW 349

respondents. The number of top-100 Web sites visited by our respondents mirrors theirendorsement of activities. Search engines were the most visited sites (n = 197), followedby entertainment (n = 110), sports (n = 74), utilities (n = 39), news (n = 73), interactive(n = 65), and commerce (n = 22).

Statistical AnalysisAfter scale construction and reliability analysis, several steps were taken to

answer the research questions and hypotheses. To answer the first research question,we used paired t-tests identified to identify which benefits of Web surfing were themost salient to our sample. We used two tests to assess the hypotheses and ResearchQuestions. First, we computed Pearson correlations to examine the bivariaterelationships between the variables. Then, we used hierarchical multiple regression toassess the multivariate relationships. Because of the large amount of missing data forone measure of access. Web connection speed was excluded from the analyses. Forother variables, cases with missing values were not included in analyses.

RESULTSBenefits of Web Use

The first research question explored the benefits of Web use. Learning was themost salient benefit of Web surfing realized by our respondents (see Table 1). Thisbenefit was significantly more endorsed than all other benefits. Pass time andEntertainment were ranked the next most salient benefits. Although they did not differsignificantly from each other, they were significantly more salient to our respondentsthan any of the other benefits. Relaxation was ranked next most salient to our sampleand was more strongly endorsed than Escape, Excitement, and Companionship.Escape and Excitement were the second-least salient benefits to our sample. Althoughthey did not differ significantly, there were significantly more endorsed thanCompanionship. Companionship benefits were the least salient to our respondents.They were endorsed significantly less often than any other benefit

TABLE 1Pearson Correlations

LeamPass timeCompanyEscapeRelaxEntertainExciteComputI-AccessExperEffortM-medSex

MeanSD

Leam

.16*

.13*

.11

.16*

.13

.05

.16*

.24***

.22***

.14*

.24**-.01

5.28a2.17

Pastime

.45***

.50***

.56***

.46***

.50***

.16*22***.26***

-.03.04

-.25***

419b2.45

Compa

.61***

.51***

.39***

.53***

.14*

.10

.18**

.21**

.08 .-.08

1.91c2.91

Escape

.68***

.51***

.54***

.12

.13

.25***

.17*-.06-.12

2.46d2.46

Relax

.54***

.56***

.08

.24***

.30***

.26***

.07-.24***

2.89e2.35

Entert

.63***-.06.07.17*.17*.09

-.15

3.69bf261

Excite

-.02.00.09.23**

-.01-.20**

2.44d2.23

Webuse

-.01.20***20***.20***.17**.18**.22**

-.08.05.17**

-.02.07

-.06

Value

.40***

.15**

.15**

.06

.18**

.27***

.16*-.02.13*.26***.29***.27***

-.03

Note. Benefit means with common subscripts are not significantly different. Correlations involving Web use andWeb value are one-tailed. All others are two-tailed. ***p < .001, **p< .01, *p< .05.

350 Perse and Ferguson

All benefits except Leaming were positively and significantly correlated (see Table1). Leaming was related only to Pass time. Companionship, and Relaxation. Leamingwas unrelated to Escape, Entertainment, and Excitement benefits.

Pearson correlations provided overall support for the first hypothesis. All benefitsbut Learning were significantly and positively linked to Web use. There was alsooverall support for the second hypothesis. All benefits but Escape were positively andsignificantly correlated with perceptions that Web surfing is valuable.

Multiple regressions added some support for the study's first two hypotheses.Together, all seven benefits significantly predicted amount of time on the Web (R = .31,R̂ = .10, f [1,152] = 2.41, p < .05) although no single benefit was a significant contributorto the equation. And, as a whole the benefits significantly predicted perceived valueof Web surfing (R = .43, R^ = .19, f [1,153] = 5.03, p < .001). Leaming benefits (fi= .31,p < .001) and Entertainment benefits (fi= .21, p < .05) were significant contributors toWeb surfing value.

Opportunity Costs of Web SurfingHypotheses 3 and 4 concemed the impact of opportunity costs and time spent on

the Web and perceived value of Web surfing. There was virtually no support forHypothesis 3. Of all the measures of opportunity costs, only computer experience waspositively correlated with amount of time spent on the Web (see Table 1). There wasmixed support for Hypothesis 4. Of all measures of opportunity costs, only computeraccess was unrelated to perceptions that Web surfing was valuable. But, contrary tothe hypothesis, value and effort were positively related.

The results of the multiple regressions reinforced the correlations. Opportunitycosts predicted a significant 6.9% of the variance in Web use: R = .25, f (5,162) = 2.41,p < .05. Consistent with the third hypothesis, computer expertise {J3= .21, p < .05) wasa significant predictor, but, contrary to predictions, computer access (fi= -.17, p < .05)was a significant, negative contributor to amount of Web use.

The result of the multiple regression added partial support to Hypothesis 4.Opportunity variables explained 20.8% of the variance of perceptions that Websurfing is valuable: R = .46, f (5, 163) = 8.57, p < .001. Consistent with predictions,multimedia capability (fi= .26, p < .001) Intemet access (ji- .16, p < .05), and computerexpertise (0= .15, p < .05) were positively linked to Web surfing value. But, contraryto predictions, less available access to a computer (y3= -.18, p < .05) and greaterperceived effort (fi - .20, p < .001) predicted Web value.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Web SurfingWe used hierarchical regression as an overall test of applying a cost-benefit

approach to understanding Web surfing. The analyses provided some support for acost-benefit approach (see Table 2).

For the first analysis, we regressed amount of Web use on benefits and opportunitycosts. At the first step, the benefits added nonsignificantly to the equation. Costs,added at the second step, also did not add significantly to the explained variance. Thefinal equation, however, was significant In all, benefits and costs explained 17.4% ofthe variance in amount of time spent on the Web. Companionship and computerexpertise were significant, positive predictors and computer access was a negativepredictor.

In the second regression, we regressed perceptions about Web value on benefits

Benefits-Costs of WWW 351

TABLE 2Hierarchical Regressions Testing Costs-Benefits of Web Surfing

BenefitsLeamPass timeCompanionshipEscapeRelaxationEntertainmentExcitement

Opportunity CostsComputer AceInternet AccessExpertiseEflFortMultimedia

Final/?Final/?^

Step

1

2

Web UseR^ Change

,10

,08

.42,17

Final >9 Step

1-,11,01,26*

-,09,03,08,05

2-,20*-,03,22*

-,15-,02

Perceived ValueR' Change

,16**

,13**

,58,29

Final yS

,21*-,05,04

-16-,05,14,11

-,19*,11,22*,15,20*

Note, WebUse:Stepl,F(7,112)=1,68,;) = ,12, Final F(12,107)= 1,87,/><,05,Web Value: Step 1:F(7,113) = 3,04,/> = ,12, Final F{\2,108) = 3,66,/><,001,

*/»<,05

and opportunity costs. The benefits, added at the first step, explained a significant15.8% of the variance in value. At this stage. Learning benefits were a significant,positive predictor. At the second step, opportunity costs added significantly anadditional 13.1% to the equation. In the final analysis, benefits and costs explained28.9% of the variance in perceptions about the value in surfing the Web. Learningbenefits, computer expertise, and multimedia capabilities were significant, positivepredictors and computer access was a significant, negative predictor.

Sites VisitedThe final research questions considered how the content visited on the Web is

associated with benefits, costs, and value. There were some significant correlationsamong the Web sites visited by our sample and benefits and costs of Web surfing (seeTable 3). For the most part. Entertainment sites were associated with the most benefits;entertainment sites were significantly and positively correlated with all benefits butLearning. Sports sites were linked to greater Entertairvment, Escape, and Excitementbenefits. Interactive sites were associated with greater Pass time and Escapistsbenefits. News was associated with receiving Entertainment benefits. The Pearsoncorrelations also point out that visits to some Web sites are associated withopportunity costs. Expertise, for example, facilitates visits to search engines andinteractive sites. Effort is associated with visits to search engines, entertainment sites,and interactive sites. Having ready access to a computer is associated with more visitsto entertainment and interactive Web sites.

The Pearson correlations reveal that visits to some Web sites are linked toperceptions that Web surfing is valuable. Value is positively correlated with visits tosearch engines and entertainment and news Web sites. To explore the multivariaterelationship of Web sites to perceptions of Web surfing value, we conducted anexploratory, stepwise regression in which value was regressed on the seven types of

352 Perse and Ferguson

TABLE 3Pearson Correlations: Web Sites, Benefits, and Costs

BenefitsLeamPass timeCompanyEscapeRelaxEntertainExcite

CostsC-AccessI-AccessExpertEffortMuitimWeb UseValueGender

SearchEngines

,11-,01-,01,04,05,09,01

,01,12,24***,19**,14,08,17**,08

Entertain

,06,18**,18**,20**,21**,30***,24***

,04,13*,10,20**,04,02,22***

-,12

Sports

,01,11,10,20**,12,23**,15*

-,01,02,10,07

-,10-,01,00

-,35***

Utility

,05,02,01,02,08,08,04

,05,00,06,08

-,01-,02,11,11

News

,11,03

-06-,03,01,18*,14

-,03-,02,10,11,00

-,05,20**,07

Interact

,03,15*,09,14*,07,05,03

,09,11,19**,14*,06,13*,10,07

Shcfyping

,06-,01-,07-,03-,09-,02-,10

,03-,03-,01,05,05

-,05-,05,16*

Note, ***/? < ,001, **p< ,01, *;? < ,05 (two-tailed)

Web sites. The results noted that visits to two types of Web sites were hnked toperceptions of Web surfing value: entertainment sites (y3= .20, p < .01), entered into theequation at the first step, and visits to search engines 0?= .15, p < .05), entered at thesecond step. In all, the two types of Web sites explained 7.1% of the variance in Websurfing value (R = .27, f [2, 232] = 8.86, p < .001).

DISCUSSIONThe results of this study demonstrate the utility of applying a cost-benefit

approach to understanding Web use. With the online audience increasing regularly,people are clearing obtaining some measure of satisfaction from their Web use (see alsoPapacharissi & Rubin, 2000). This study's results provide some insight into the specificbenefits that our sample received from their Web use. Learning benefits were by far themost salient benefits for our respondents. This might not be too surprising, given thatour respondents were college students enrolled in classes that used many Webresources for instruction. This learning orientation, however, mirrors some of thefindings of earlier studies (e.g., Graphics, Visualization, & Usabilities Center, 1995;Kaye, 1998) that identified information as a salient motive for Web use and as apredictor of satisfaction with all the Internet as a whole (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000).People report going to the Web to gather a wealth of information, including localinformation, news, and research for investments, purchases, and travel (Petersen,1999). For our respondents, these needs for information appear to be satisfied andincrease the value of their Web use.

Entertainment and Pass time were the next most salient benefits of Web surfing.Even though our respondents found informational utility in their Web use, they alsofound the Web a pleasant diversion and as a way to fill empty time. The strength of thisdiversionary benefit is consistent with Stephenson's "play theory" of communication.According the Stephenson (1988), all communication entered into voluntarily ismotivated by entertainment and continues only as long as it is pleasurable.

Benefits-Costs of WWW 353

The salience of these three benefits, learning, entertainment, and pass time,suggest that it might be fruitful to consider instrumental and ritualistic uses of theWeb. Research on the uses and gratifications of television have identified two generaltypes of uses. Instrumental use is content- and information-oriented and is associatedwith information-oriented television programs, such as news and news magazines.Ritualistic use, on the other hand, grows out of entertainment, pass time, andrelaxation motives and focuses on using a medium, rather than specific content (e.g.,Rubin, 1984). Future research might explore whether there are similar instrumentaland ritualistic uses of the Web as another step in exploring whether the Web is afunctional alternative to television (Ferguson & Perse, 2000).

Other benefits of Web surfing were not particularly salient to our respondents.Our respondents did not find that Web surfing was particularly good at "keeping themcompany." This finding suggests that concerns about reduced social contact as a resultof the Internet (e.g.. Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlis,1998; StoU, 1995) might be unfounded. The Web might be useful at filling empty time,but it is not a good replacement for social contact. Future research might explore howdifferent parts of the Internet, such as email instant messenger and chat, compare tothe Web in providing companionship benefits (e.g., Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000).

As an assessment of the cost-benefit approach, we tested hypotheses about theimpact of benefits and costs of Web use and perceived value of Web surfing. The resultsoffer general support for a cost-benefit approach. Although all benefits but Learningwere correlated with greater Web use, the results of the multiple regression explainedonly a modest amount of the variance in amount of time spent on the Web. OnlyCompanionship, the least salient of the benefits to our respondents, was a significantpredictor of Web use. Opportunity costs for using the Web, however, had a stronger,though unexpected effect on both Web use. Consistent with expectations, computerexpertise was linked to greater Web use. Surprisingly, however, not having access toa computer in one's residence was linked to Web use. Perhaps, for some students, goingto computer labs is a way to find companionship. Future research should explore howthe social context of computer use offers benefits to users.

Value of Web surfing depended on both benefits and costs. Consistent with priorresearch (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000), Learning was the single strongest correlate ofWeb value. Once again, given the nature of our sample, finding that students valueda medium that helped them succeed at instrumental tasks was not surprising.Opportunity costs also were linked to Web value. Computer expertise increased value.Having the knowledge and skills to work a browser, fine-tune searches, downloadmultimedia, and upgrade multimedia players might increase the ease with whichusers can get what they are looking for from the Web. Future research should explorethe dimensions of computer expertise that lead to greater satisfaction with the Web.

Using computers with greater multimedia capabilities also increased perceptionsof Web value. For our group of respondents, however, access to multimedia Webcontent was facilitated by Ethernet connections in campus residences and computerlabs. Future research should explore the appeals of multimedia in less connectedsamples. However, multimedia is a growing presence on the Web. Already there areWeb broadcasts of some concerts and in Fall, 1999, ABC "simulcast" an episode of theDrew Carey Show on the Web. Moreover, video streams of Bryant Gumble's interviewswith the Survivor contestants are well used by those not rising early enough to watchCBS's Early Show. There is already a growth in the number of Web users who have

354 Perse and Ferguson

broadband connections to the Web using cable modems and DSL telephone lines. ACyberAtlas report (2000) also noted that 75% of multimedia users intend to continueusing streaming Web-based media. Clearly, there are some benefits associated withmultimedia. Future research should explore how multimedia both stimulates Web useand enhances benefits from the Web.

Computer access emerged as a significant, negative predictor of Web value,contrary to our hypothesis. We expected that having a computer in one's residencewould enhance value of Web surfing; instead, using a computer away from one'sresidence increased value. This result is intriguing, suggesting that there might be anappeal in computing in social settings, such as campus computer labs or cyber cafes.Future research should explore the use of public computers. These results also suggestthat policy makers should consider public computer sites to be used by those whocannot afford to have their own computers. Ownership does not necessarily translateinto use or value.

Our hypotheses concerning effort were disconfirmed by our findings. We hadexpected effort to be an opportunity cost and affect Web use and value. Instead, thecorrelations revealed greater benefits, in general, are obtained when people put more,rather than less, mental energy into their Web surfing. This finding gives rise toadditional research questions. We had expected that devoting mental energy to Websurfing would be a sign of working harder to search for and appreciate Web-basedcontent Although the level of self-reported computer expertise was only aboutaverage, effort might not have grown out of confusion or uncertainty about tt\e Web.Instead, effort might be an indication of mental involvement in Web content.Cognitive involvement is an important variable in mass communication research(e.g.. Perse, 1990,1998) and has been linked to greater television satisfaction (Perse &Rubin, 1988). Future research should explore how involvement is linked to Web useand different benefits of that use.

As part of an initial exploration into how Web content is linked to benefits andvalue in Web surfing, we found that the Web sites most associated with benefits werethose providing entertainment, sports, and interactive content Entertainment sites,for example, were correlated with all benefits but Learning. Sports sites werecorrelated with receiving Entertainment, Excitement, and Escape benefits. Futureresearch should explore if those benefits, ones typically associated with television use,might lead the Web to be a functional alternative to television. Interactive sites, thosethat enable e-mail and chat were associated with Pass time and Escape benefits. Onceagain, these findings do not lead us to conclude that the Web will displace socialinteraction; companionship benefits were not associated with use of interactive sites.

There are two notable limitations to our study. The first is the problem we hadmeasuring connection speed. So many respondents provided missing data that thevariable was unusable. We suspect that the students just didn't know their connectionspeed. Ethernet access in wired dormitories and computer labs is transparent so, forthem, connection speed isn't a concern. This suggests to us that as access to the Webbecomes easier and less intrusive, the audience will expand even more rapidly, toinclude even more nontechnical users.

The use of a college student sample both limits and enhances our findings. Thesestudents were selected specifically because they had extraordinary access to the Weband were required to use the Web regularly for the class work. As such, they were aneducated and experienced group with state-of-the-art access to the Web. Clearly, they

Benefits-Costs of WWW 355

do not represent the typical home Web user. Their focus on educational uses of the Weband informational benefits probably reflects their student-oriented concerns. Futureresearch should explore the sahent benefits of a larger group of nonstudent Web users.However, our sample might represent the Web audience of the future. College studentson wired campuses are accustomed to Ethernet connections that are hundreds of timesfaster than dial-up connections. High-speed access allows students full use of the Web,including its multimedia attributes, as they download and use Web-based audio andvideo. This population might expect and demand high-speed access in their offices andhomes after they leave college. Future research should explore whether the benefitsobtained from their experiences with high-speed Web access lead college graduates tobe willing to pay more for high-speed home access, such as cable modems and DSLlines.

Another limitation of our study is that the data were collected in late 1997. Sincethat time, the Web audience and the number of Web sites has continued to grow. Butour study's focus on college students at a wired university makes our findings lessdated. Internet access at the two utuversities has not been altered in that time; Ethernetconnections are still a fast and direct way to cormect to the Internet College studentsremain a weU-connected, experienced, and enthusiastic Web audience. One differencedue to time, however, might be the technical capabilities of computers available to thestudents. Computers with a good deal of processing power and multimediacapabilities are now much more affordable. Another difference grows out of thecommon use of the Web to download music. For the most part, the kind of Web sitesthat were popular during data collection remain the most popular Web sites (Nielsen/NetRatings, 2000). The popularity of Napster and other programs that facilitate musicsharing might have altered our results in two ways. First utility sites might have beenvisited more often by our sample. Second, there might have been a positive linkbetween value and having a computer at one's residence so that one could downloadand archive mp3 files.

Overall, the results of this study suggest that a model on a cost-benefit analysis ofWeb surfing that includes concepts drawn from cost-benefit analysis of informationacquisition (Kingma, 1996) may be useful to understanding Web use. The importanceof opportunity variables suggest that the costs associated with Web surfing affect thebenefits obtained. The results of this study also provide information about the benefitsof Web surfing for an experienced sample with extraordinary access to the Internet Asthe adoption of the Web moves into the early and late majority stages, the Webaudience is becoming more mainstream (Pew Research Center, 1999). With a criticalmass of entertaiimient, informational, and commerce sites on the Web, the benefitsthat our respondents obtained from their Web surfing are also becoming moremainstream, similar to those obtained from other media (Perse & Courtright, 1993).We believe that the next large impact on the uses and gratifications of the Web will bethe growth in high-speed Web access and the growth in availability and use ofmultimedia.

NOTES' Our focus is the World Wide Web, not the Internet as a whole. Although the Web is only one

aspect of the Internet, we focused on it, rather than e-mail, newsgroups, or other features ofthe Internet because it is the Web that has drawn media-related industries and multimediacontent that resembles that of other mass media.

355 Perse and Ferguson

' These statements were presented to respondents as outcomes of Web surfing, not as motivesfor Web surfing. Reasons for Web surfing (or Web-surfing motives) were assessed earlier in thequestionnaire. Results about Web surfing motives were reported in an earlier study about theWeb (Ferguson & Perse, 2000).We recognize the limitations of using single-item measures of the benefits received from Websurfing. These items, however, have been used validly in prior research (Perse & Ferguson,1993).

' We recognize the limitations of using a single-item measure of value, however, single-itemsmeasures of satisfaction have been used validly in prior research (Palmgreen & Rayburn,1985a; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000).

* The two questions assessing expertise were: How would you rate your own expertise withcomputers in general? (0 = novice through 8 = expert) How would you rate yovu- own exper-tise with surfing the web? (0 = novice through 8 = expert).

REFERENCESBurgoon, J. K., & Biu-goon, M. (1980). Predictors of newspaper readership. ]ourrtalism Quarterly,

57, 589-596.Bucy, E. P., Lang, A., Potter, R. F., & Grabe, M. E. (1999). Formal features of cyberspace: Relation-

ships between Web page complexity and site traffic, journal of the American Society for Informa-Hon Science, 50, 1246-1256.

CyberAtlas. (1999, December). Top 50 sites of December 1999. [On-line report]. Available: http://cyberatlas.intemet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323,5931_284801,00.html.

CyberAtlas. (2000, November). Males lead in streaming video use. [On-line report]. Available:http://cyberatlas.intemet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,,5901_507871,00.html.

CyberAtlas. (2001, February 19). CyberAtlas/Watchfire Quality Test. [On-line report]. Avail-able: http://q/beratlas.internet.com/big_picture/print/0,,5871_304481,00.html.

Dobos, J. (1992). Gratification models of satisfaction and choice of communication channels inorganizations. Communication Research, 19, 29-51.

Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (1993). Media and audience influences on channel repertoire.Jourrml of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 31-40.

Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a functional alternative to televi-sion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44,155-174.

Graphics, Visualization, & Usabilities Center. (1995). GVU's 4'* WWW user survey. [On-line re-port]. Available: http://wunv.gmi.gatech.edu/user_surDeys/survey-10-1995/.

Jacobs, R. D. (1996). Cable television subscribers: A comparison of complainers andnoncomplainers. Jourrml of Media Economics, 9(3), 37-49.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the indi-vidual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectiveson gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the World Wide Web: From couch potato to Webpotato. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 6, 21-40.

Kingma, B. (1996). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis forinformation professionals. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Korgaonkar, P K., & Wolin, L. D. (1999). A multivariate analysis of Web usage. Journal of Adver-tising Research, 39(2), 53-68.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Limdmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).Intemet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.

Benefits-Costs of WWW 357

Kubeck, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A., & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding informatior; on the WorldWide Web: Exploring older adults' exploration. Educational Gerontology, 25,167-183.

La Rose, R., & Atkin, D. (1988). Satisfaction, demographic, and media environment predictors ofcable satisfaction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32, 403-413.

Layard, R., & Glister, S. (Eds.). (1994). Introduction. In R. Layard & S. Glister (Eds.), Cost-benefitanalysis (2"'' ed., pp. 1-56). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lichtenstein, A., & Rosenfeld, L. (1984). Normative expectations and individual decisions con-cerning media gratifications choices. Communication Research, 11, 393-413.

MediaMetrix, (2001, March). Top 50. [On-line report]. Available: http://us.mediametrix.com/data/thetop.jsp.

Nielsen/NetRatings. (1999). Internet uses statistics for the month of December 1999. [On-line re-port]. Available: http://209.249.142.16/nnpm/owa/NRpublicreports.usagemonthly.

Nielsen/NetRatings. (2001, March). Hot off the Net. [On-line report]. Available: h t tp : / /www.nielsennetratings.com/

Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings, jour-nal of Retailing, 57, 25-48.

Orwall, B. (2001, March 26). Thumbs up: What makes a good entertainment site click? WallStreet Journal, p. R6.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D., III. (1985a). A comparison of gratifications models of mediasatisfaction. Communication Monographs, 52, 334-346.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D., III. (1985b). An expectancy-value approach to mijdia gratifica-tions. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palingreen(Eds.), Media gratifications research:current perspectives (pp. 61-72). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting &Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.

Perse, E. M. (1990). Audience selectivity and involvement in the newer media envirormient.Communication Research, 17, 675-697.

Perse, E. M. (1998). Implications of cognitive and affective involvement for channel changing.Journal of Communication, 48(3), 49-68.

Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of commimication media: Mass andinterpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19,485-503.

Perse, E. M., & Dimn, D. G. (1998). The utility of home computers: Implications of multimediaand connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 435-454.

Perse, E. M., & Ferguson, D. A. (1993). The impact of newer television technologies on televisionsatisfaction. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 843-853.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite televisionsoap opera. Journalism Quarter, 65, 368-375.

Petersen, A. (1999, December 6). Lost in the maze: The Web's explosive growth poses a challengefor users: How to make the most of it. Wall Street Journal, p. R6.

Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. (1998). The Internet news audience^oes ordinary:Online newcomers more middle-brow, less work-oriented. [Online report]. Available: http://www.people-press.org/tech98mor.htm.

Pitkow, J., & Kehoe, C. (1995). GVU third W\NW user survey. [Online report]. Available: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu.user_surveys.

Ramsay, J., Barbesi, A., & Preece, J. (1998). A psychological investigation of long retrieval timeson the World Wide Web. Interacting with Computers, 10 77-86.

358 Perse ijnd Ferguson

Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication,34(4), 67-77.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perceptive. In J. Bryant &D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 417-436). Mahwah, NJ;Erlbaum.

Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the World Wide Web: A pre-liminary study. In D. D. Muehling (Ed.)., The proceedings of the 1998 conference of the AmericanAcademy of Advertising (pp. 174-182). Pullman, WA: American Academy of Advertising.

Steinfield, C. W., Dutton, W. H., & Kovaric, P. (1989). A framework and agenda for research oncomputing in the home. In J. L. Salvaggio & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media use in the information age:Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use (pp. 61-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stephenson, W. (1988). The play theory of mass communication. New Bnmswick, NJ: Transaction.StoU, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York: Anchor

Books.Strategies Group. (1999, November 9). U.S. Internet breaks the 100 million mark. [On-line report].

Available: http://www.strategisgroup.com/press/pubs/iut99.htm.Umphrey, D. (1989). A comparison of cable disconnecters and subscribers. Journalism Quarterly,

66, 628-631, 779.U.S. Census Bureau. (1997, October). Computer use in the United States. [Online report]. Avail-

able: http://wum.census.gov/poputation/www/socdemo/compu ter.html.

Benefits-Costs of WWW 359