JCMC 10 (1), Article 2, November 2004
Collab-U  CMC Play  E-Commerce Symposium Net Law  InfoSpaces Usenet
  NetStudy VEs VOs O-Journ HigherEd Conversation Cyberspace Web Commerce
Vol. 6 No. 1  Vol. 6 No. 2  Vol. 6 No. 3  Vol. 6 No. 4  Vol. 7 No. 1  Vol. 7 No. 2  Vol. 7 No. 3
 Vol. 7 No. 4  Vol. 8 No. 1  Vol. 8 No. 2   Vol. 8 No. 3  Vol. 8 No. 4   Vol. 9 No. 1   Vol. 9 No. 2 Vol. 9 No. 3 Vol. 9 No. 4

Cosmopoliteness in the Internet Age

Leo W. Jeffres
David J. Atkin
Cheryl Campanella Bracken
Kimberly A. Neuendorf

Cleveland State University


Abstract

The concept of cosmopoliteness previously has been associated with the diffusion of innovations. Previous research suggests that cosmopolites are earlier adopters of innovations (e.g., new media technologies) and that they use more diverse media sources. This paper details the history of the concept and identifies eight dimensions. Two surveys were employed to investigate the relationship between the concept of cosmopoliteness and new media technology usage. The results indicate that most Internet use behaviors are positively associated with cosmopoliteness. However, this pattern was not found for other media applications such as e-mail and watching DVDs. Implications of study findings are discussed.

The Internet as an Agent of Cosmopoliteness

Cosmopoliteness, or the extent to which one possesses cosmopolitan traits, is a characteristic long associated with innovation. Rogers (2004) notes that people who are more cosmopolitan are earlier adopters of innovations, know more about an innovation, and exert opinion leadership. They also are more likely to be stimulators of collective innovation-decisions, i.e., recognize that a need exists and call attention to it in a specific social system.

In the realm of media uses, cosmopoliteness often has been conceptualized in terms of motives we ascribe to new media adoption; namely, an interest in people, topics, and ideas outside one's immediate environment (e.g., Neuendorf, Atkin, & Jeffres, 1998). Cosmopolitan people are thus expected to have a greater interest in international issues, other cultures, and events occurring in other countries. Other things being equal, cosmopolites are more likely to travel more extensively, particularly outside of their local region and country. They are more likely to identify with a broad, perhaps global, culture than with a specific, more narrow milieu (Hakken, 2003; Sassen, 2002).

Yet, despite the failure of past prophecies suggesting that innovations like the airplane would shrink the globe and promote cultural understanding, scholars (e.g., Rogers, 2002) express hope that the Web could help detribalize mankind. The international character and structure of the World Wide Web thus provides a perfect test for the concept of cosmopoliteness.1 When one is on the Internet, hyperlinks often take one to other countries and regions. And search engines do not discriminate by country of origin when a topic is inserted. Hence the web provides an opportunity for satisfying uses and gratifications associated with cosmopolitanism. One can seek information about international issues and sample websites in other countries, even in other languages (see, e.g., Hakken, 2003; Salwen, Garrison, & Driscoll, 2004; Wood & Smith, 2001).

Although concepts developed to inform the study of conventional media have been applied to the Internet, notably uses and gratifications theory (e.g., Greenberg, 2002; Lin 2001, 2002; Papachrissi & Rubin, 2000), traditional social science models are yielding diminished returns (see Galauner, Beatty, Rudd, & Atkin, 2004). For that reason, a multifaceted concept like cosmopoliteness can help us to better understand the distinctive audience behaviors in the emerging Internet environment, which is characterized by infinite content options that transcend national borders, interactivity, immediacy, and the ability to fluidly “morph” between mass and interpersonal modes (see Lin, 2003). The cosmopoliteness concept should thus prove more sensitive than others developed around traditional media, i.e., outlets that are culturally-based, delivering lowest- common denominator programming on a fixed timetable (e.g., Anowkwa, Lin, & Salwen, 2003). Internet use conceivably could influence one's level of cosmopoliteness through serendipity, unplanned exposure to websites in other languages or countries. Thus, the Internet could act as an agent of cosmopoliteness, “cultivating” an identification with or interest in things outside of one’s community. The present study investigates the relationship between cosmopoliteness and Internet use behaviors.

The Concept of Cosmopoliteness

With origins in the Greek term “kosmos,” the concept of “cosmopoliteness” conveys the idea of a universe of harmony and order (Moulla, 2002). One translation depicts the “kosmos” as a “beautiful world order” (Stoicism, 2001). Cosmopolitanism was a feature of Stoicism, and people who were “cosmopolitan” were seen as acting in accordance with more universal values rather than pursuing parochial ends. German philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed a “cosmopolitan” world-state that would be governed by the same moral law (Brown, 1992) and in the United States, Thomas Paine saw education creating a “cosmopolitan” awareness of the world, where trade was expected to increase awareness of a mutual harmony shared by nations (Walker, 2000). Social scientists have stressed various dimensions of the concept in more recent times (e.g., Rogers, 2002, 2004).

One of the more enduring interpretations of “cosmopoliteness” stresses a dimension that might be called rural-urban, or local-nonlocal orientation.2 This refers to the extent one is oriented toward the community in which one lives or is oriented beyond that toward a larger context. “Cosmopoliteness” also has been used to refer to identification with a broader context, beyond one’s nation or culture (see Dye, 1963; Rogers, 1999, 2002). A third view applies the concept as parochialism or an appreciation or understanding of ' contexts and cultures beyond one’s own. Merton (1957) considered 'localites' to be parochial and cosmopolitans to be ecumenical (also see Earle & Cvetkovich, 1997).

Others have viewed “cosmopoliteness” as an attitude showing tolerance of other people, their ideas and culture, e.g., Robinson and Zill’s (1997) cultural cosmopolitanism scale conceptualizes a cosmopolite as someone free of local/national interests or prejudices; also see Phillips and Ziller (1997). The concept can be applied to contexts ranging across mass, organizational and interpersonal communication.3 Of particular interest here, Neuwirth, Salmon and Neff (1989) applied Merton’s cosmopolitan scale to news audiences, with ten items asking respondents to consider items about knowing what’s going on, the importance of local, national and international news, the level of interest in national and international interest, etc.4 Needham (1986) used a model with a reporting orientation continuum ranging from cosmopolite to localite, reflecting the extent to which coverage focuses on events in the market area of the region or extends outside the area.

The literature review leads us to conceptualize the following dimensions of cosmopoliteness: 1) Diversity of Interests— the extent to which an individual indicates an interest in local, national, and international news, and news or information about different cultures, peoples, ideas5; 2) Cosmopolitan Identification—extent to which one identifies with a larger international culture rather than as an American6; 3) Appreciation of Different Cultures—extent to which an individual has an interest in or experience with different cultures and a corresponding attitude of openness toward learning about different cultures7; 4) Tolerance of Different Cultures—extent to which one is not prejudiced toward people from different cultures or backgrounds8; 5) Knowledge of Different Cultures—level of information one has about different cultures and religions9; 6) Knowledge of Current Events and International Affairs—extent to which one is familiar with current events and international affairs10; 7) Cultural Diversity of Media Content—extent to which an individual exposes himself or herself to media messages from or about different cultures and countries. This could be operationalized by medium, by communication technology or across media11; 8) Diversity of Interpersonal Communication Network-- the extent to which the people one communicates with interpersonally come from different backgrounds.12 The concept of cosmopoliteness is viewed here as interchangeable with the notion that one is cosmopolitan.

Communication Technologies and Cosmopoliteness

We might expect that the Internet can be an instrumental tool to learn about the environment—particular contents consistent with a cosmopolitan outlook—and how to find them in other media. To wit, we would expect to see linkages between exposure to TV, newspapers, Internet, etc. and higher levels of information seeking about cosmopolitan topics and opportunities.

Rogers (1995) theorizes that individuals with a more collectivist orientation tend to express a more cosmopolitan orientation toward the outside world, while individualists would be more locally-oriented and thus less open to new ideas. Atkin et al. (1998) found, for instance, that Internet adopters were more interested in seeking information about the outside world; nonadopters were more likely to say they value their solitude and want to be left alone.

Looking at the more worldly orientation that we might associate with a cosmopolitan outlook, Atkin et al. (2004) found that adoption and use of chat services was related to interest in international news and international events. They also found support for Margolis and Resnick's (2000) contention that Web use is becoming "normalized," such that audiences are using it to process old contents in slightly different ways (as opposed to wholesale reallocations of communication functions). For instance, Levin (2002) found that the Internet does not represent the sweeping force for democracy that many futurists had envisioned. We have only a crude understanding of how "millennial audiences" (Kundanis, 2003) assimilate the diverse Internet content environment, which is literally indeterminate, and whether the technology alters or normalizes their communication behaviors.

When considering the dimensions of this diversity, commentators (e.g., Lin & Jeffres, 2001) maintain that the Internet content is distinctive from that of other media, as when Blogs (or Web logs) provide in-depth perspectives on news events ignored by mass media. The analysis by Atkin et al. (2004) of chat services found a strong explanatory role played by community variables, suggesting that the medium may, unlike the telephone, help us to reconnect around various community activities. In this regard, the Internet may help offset social trends toward tribalization introduced by earlier interpersonal telecommunication channels like the telephone (Bates, Albright, & Jones, 2002).

In the diffusion literature, cosmopolites are expected to be earlier innovators of innovations such as new technologies (Bucy & Newhagen, 2004; Busselle, Reagan, Pinkleton & Jackson, 1999; Rogers, 2002). However, the evidence for such a relationship is fairly meager and has not been updated in recent years. Media use also has long been associated with cosmopoliteness, e.g., Merton (1948-1949) found that cosmopolites read more magazines and prestige newspapers from outside the community than did localites. They also preferred radio newscasts focusing on public affairs while localites were more likely to enjoy news with personal anecdotes.13 Singh and Beal (1967) used the terms localite and cosmopolite to characterize people’s orientation toward internal or external sources of information, with a localite confining his or her interests to the local community. The new technologies offer even more opportunities for cosmopolites. A chief motivation for subscribing to satellite systems or cable TV is for the variety offered (Jeffres et al., 2002; Lin, 2001; Umphrey, 1988), and we would expect this search for diversity to be linked to those most interested in ideas, peoples and cultures outside their immediate area. Indeed, satellite distribution is an “international” medium in which signals can reach audiences across borders (Sinclair, 1997). Similarly, Neuendorf et al. (1998) found relationships between cosmopoliteness and patronage of audio information (i.e., audiotext) services. Scholars working from the uses and gratifications tradition, in turn, find that Internet use is linked to a series of instrumental as well as entertainment-oriented gratifications (e.g., Charney & Greenberg, 2002; Kang & Atkin, 1999; Lin, 2001; Papachrissi & Rubin, 2000).

Carey (1998) notes that the Internet is a global communication system that displaces the national systems that emerged at the end of the 19th century. The Internet also is often viewed as an agent of globalization because surfers do not necessarily know where websites they visit originate. However, Halavais (2000) looked at 4,000 websites and found that the Internet organization conforms to some degree to traditional national borders, i.e., websites are more likely to link to another site hosted in the same country rather than to cross national borders. When links do cross national borders, users are more likely to visit pages hosted in the U.S. than pages elsewhere in the world (also see Hongladarom, 1998; Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002). Nonetheless, a search engine may generate dozens of websites that include a mix from around the world (Lin & Jeffres, 2001).

We ask to what extent use of the Internet and other communication technologies would be related to cosmopoliteness in a modern media-rich environment. To the extent that cosmopoliteness and innovation adoption are related, we would expect cosmopolites to be heavier users of the new communication technologies. Although we might not find all aspects of cosmopoliteness to be related to the use of all communication technologies, the following guiding hypothesis is offered based on the literature:

Hypothesis: Cosmopoliteness will be positively associated with use of new communication technologies.

In addition, we pose the following research questions:

RQ1: How do user interests relate to Internet and other new media use?
RQ2: In what kinds of services are cosmopolites most interested?


Methods

Two surveys were conducted in a major metropolitan area of the Midwest with a population numbering 2 million, one in the early spring of 2000 and a second between Oct. 20 and Nov. 11, 2001. Some 351 randomly selected adults were interviewed in the first survey and 484 in the second survey, both using a computer-aided telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. Both surveys were introduced as part of a public survey of the metropolitan area.14 The first focused on technology, with several items operationalizing cosmopoliteness. In the second survey, the concept of cosmopoliteness was explicated further and operationalized on multiple dimensions but the number of items tapping technology and Internet use was smaller. Response rates for both surveys were in the 50% range.

Study 1 - Measures

The variables used in this article were operationalized as follows:

         Cosmopoliteness

Several different types of items were used to measure cosmopoliteness. Respondents were asked to use a 0-10 scale (where 0 = strongly disagree, 5 = neutral, 10 = strongly agree) to tell how much they agreed with three items, one focusing on communication with people from different backgrounds ("In any given month, I communicate with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures"), another focusing on how people see themselves as international citizens ("I think of myself as a citizen of the world"), and one emphasizing awareness of events around the world ("I'm more aware of what's going on around the world than most of my friends"). Three additional items asked respondents to use a 0-10 scale to rate their interest in travel to different countries, current events in other countries, and other cultures. Finally, respondents were asked for the number of times they had traveled outside the United States in the past five years. These items were factor analyzed, with principal component analysis and varimax rotation, yielding two factors. Loading on the first factor, which accounted for 36 percent of the variance, were four items: interest in current events in other countries, interest in travel to different countries, interest in other cultures, and the number of times one has traveled outside the United States in the past five years; the factor was labeled international focus.15 Loading on the second factor were three items agreeing with the following statements: "I think of myself as a citizen of the world," "In any given month, I communicate with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures," and "I'm more aware of what's going on around the world than most of my friends." Interest in other cultures loaded on the second factor as well. This factor was labeled cosmopolitan communication & attitude; it accounted for 17.3 percent of the variance.16 An overall cosmopolitanism score also was computed by summing up the standardized scores across all seven items (alpha = .63).

          Cosmopolitan Web Use

In the first survey, respondents were told, "Now I'm going to give you some different types of websites and ask you how often you go to each one." Then they were asked to use the following response scale for each of nine sites: several times a day, almost every day, a couple times a week, once a week, every couple weeks, once a month, almost never. Two of the websites tapped interests reflecting an interest in other cultures or countries, 1) websites in other countries, outside the United States; and 2) websites in other languages. Responses to these two items were standardized and added for a measure of cosmopolitan web use (alpha = .78).17

         Access to Communication Technologies

In the first survey several items tapped access to technologies for communication, either to send or receive messages, including cable television, satellite television, and the World Wide Web. Respondents were asked if they had access to the Internet at home or at work and whether they had ever gone on the Internet. Respondents also were told, "Now, I'm going to list some technologies and I'd like you to tell me which ones you use regularly."18 An index was constructed by adding up the number to which respondents had access (alpha = .67). The index ranged from 0 to 8, with a mean of 4.2, a median of 4.0 and a standard deviation of 1.9.

         Internet Use

In the first survey, several items measured Internet use. Those who reported they had gone on the Internet were asked, "How often do you go on the Internet at work?" A separate item asked the same question for home. The response scale was: several times a day, about once a day, several times a week, about once a week, every couple weeks, about once a month, less often than that, almost never. Those who had never gone on the Internet were assigned a 0 for each of the two items, and the responses were standardized and added for a measure of frequency of current Internet use in the entire sample (alpha = .69). Two additional items asked for the amount of time per session spent on the Internet (ranging from less than a half hour to more than four hours) and for how long respondents had been going on the Internet (from less than six months to more than 10 years). Several measures of Internet use were constructed using these measures, e.g., amount of time spent using the Internet weighted by frequency and again by number of years one has been using the Internet.

         Diversity of Web Use

Respondents also were asked to indicate how often they visited different websites using a scale ranging from almost never to several times a day; websites evaluated were those representing the metro area, those representing your neighborhood or a local community, media websites, websites of businesses or companies, entertainment websites such as those for movies, games, hobbies, etc., sports websites, organizational websites, those in other countries, and those in other languages. Responses were standardized and were summed up for a measure of Web-diversity (alpha = .89).19

         Knowledge of International Affairs and of Technology

Two sets of items tapped knowledge relevant to our key concept of cosmopoliteness: knowledge of international public affairs and knowledge of technology. Six items tapped knowledge of technology.20 The number of correct answers was summed up for a measure of knowledge of technology, which has a mean of 2.3, a median of 2.0, a range of 0-6, and a standard deviation of 1.6. The international knowledge index included four items.21 The two knowledge indices were combined for an overall measure of knowledge.

         Social Categories

Traditional measures of ascriptive (gender, race), achievement-oriented (education, household income) and life cycle (age, marital status) variables were included in both studies.

Study 1 Results

Correlations between the measures of cosmopoliteness and use of communication technologies, queried in RQ 1, are displayed in Table 1.

  Intl Focus Cosmo Comm & Attitude Cosmo Summary Score Cosmo. WebUse Div. Web Use Intl.Knowledge Tech. Knowledge Combined Intl. & Tech Knowledge
Technology Use Variables:
Tech. Access Index .20** .10# .21** .17** .46*** .08 .44*** .36***
(N=347) .14* .09 .16** .17** .44*** .02 .28*** .22**
Has gone on Web .16** .02 .10# - - .15** .45*** .40***
(N=351) .10# .04 .04     .14* .32*** .30***
Has visited chat rooms .06 .02 .07 .17** .36*** .10# .23*** .22**
(N=257) .02 .03 .05 .18** .37*** .16* .18** .22**
Freq. visit chat rooms 16# .08 .15 -.25** -.16# .10 .01 .05
(N=116) .34** .08 .16 -.25** -.19#- .10 -.02 .04
Has chat relationship .11 -.06 .07 .13 .33** .09 .25** .22*
(N=116) -.04 .02 .05 .12 .35** .04 .29** .22*
Frequency of Web Usage .19** .08 .21** .26*** .53*** .14* .32** .30***
(N=242) .14* .06 .16* .26*** .50*** .05 .27*** .21***
Hours per Web session .25** .00 .21** .34*** .49*** .17** .43*** .26***
(N=255) .15** .04 .20** .33*** .49*** .04 .31*** .24***
Years on Web .21*** -.07 .12# .34*** .46*** .17** .40*** .39***
(N=255) .11+ -.04 .09 .33*** .43*** .08 .38*** .31***
Web usage x time .29** .03 .25** .38*** .62*** .17** .44*** .37***
(N=241) .18** .05 .22** .38*** .60*** .08 .37*** .30***
Web usage x time x years .26** -.00 .20** .42*** .54*** .17** .44*** .40***
(N=239) .15* .03 .18** .42*** .52*** .07 .42*** .33***
Webdiversity .24** .02 .20** .52*** .30***
(N=245) .18** -01 .16* .53*** .25***
CosmoWebUse .25** .07 .25** .20***
(N=252) .19** .08 .24** .19***
                 
Knowledge Indexes:                
International Knowledge .26** .04 .22** .14* .13* .30*** .73***
(N=351) .23** .02 .19** .13# .10 .24*** .71***
Technology Knowledge .20** -.04 13* .17** .32***     .87***
(N=348) .07 -.01 .06 .16* .28***     .86***
Overall Knowledge Index .27** .00 .20**          
(N=348) .17** .00 .15*          

Table 1. Relationships between cosmopoliteness and communication technologies
(Study 1: Spring 2000 Survey)

As we see, a strong pattern of relationships is found between International Focus and almost all of the variables measuring use of different technologies. Even when social categories are controlled, the pattern persists. As for the specific content interests favored by cosmopolites queried in RQ2, the factor measuring a cosmopolitan attitude and communication is unrelated to any of the variables. When the two factors are merged into an overall score, there is no additive effect and in most cases relationships are weakened. We see that a cosmopolitan Internet usage pattern is strongly related to Internet variables, as well as access to a host of technologies. It also is positively correlated with the measures of knowledge. The longer one is on the Internet—frequency of use, time spent per session, years on the web—the more diverse one’s pattern of web use, i.e., the more different types of websites one visits regularly. The weighted variables demonstrate a multiplier effect across time. Internet use and access to technologies are related to knowledge about technologies but less so to knowledge of international affairs. However, the measure of international affairs is based more on current events, while the measures of technology are less time-bound. Thus, a measure of knowledge drawing on events across time might be more strongly related to the Internet use measures. We do see that those who have gone on the Internet have more such knowledge than those who haven’t. The positive correlations between measures of Internet use and knowledge of public affairs drop out when social categories are controlled. The weakest measure of technology use is visiting chat rooms, which is unrelated in most instances. However, those with an international focus are more likely to visit chat rooms more frequently if they have ever visited one. We also see that visiting chatrooms at all is correlated with a more cosmopolitan and diverse web use pattern and higher levels of knowledge about both public affairs and technology, but the actual frequency of use among those who have visited is negatively associated with those variables. Also, among visitors, frequency of use is negatively associated with a more cosmopolitan and diverse web pattern, suggesting a concentration of one’s time on the computer in chatrooms takes away visits to diverse websites. Thus, cosmopolitan patterns lead to trying out this innovation but less frequent subsequent visits.

The strong pattern of relationships with Internet use led to a subsequent study where an expanded set of measures was used to tap more dimensions of the concept.

Study 2 - Measures

In the second survey, concepts were operationalized as follows:

         Cosmopoliteness Dimensions

         Diversity of interests.

A measure of the extent to which respondents were interested in diverse topics was measured through four items; respondents used a 0 to 10 response scale to indicate how interested they were in different things, “where 0 means you’re not at all interested and 10 means you’re extremely interested. You may give any number between 0 and 10 to indicate your level of interest.” The items were: 1) news about current events in other countries; 2) other cultures; 3) learning of new ideas in the world of politics, philosophy, or government; and 4) learning of new things in the world of arts and culture. Responses to the four items were standardized and summed up for a scale (alpha = .80).

          Cosmopolitan identification.

A cosmopolitan identification was operationalized with two items measured on the same 0-10 scales and with the same instructions. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the following two statements: 1) I think of myself as a citizen of the world; 2) Some people see themselves only as Americans and nothing else but I think of myself as belonging to many cultures. Responses were standardized and added for a scale (alpha = .60).

          Appreciation of different cultures.

An appreciation of different cultures was operationalized with four items that tapped an assessment of what’s going on in the world, perceived enjoyment of traveling to different countries and frequency of such travel, and perceived enjoyment in learning about different cultures. Three items used the same 0-10 scale, where 0 means one strongly disagrees, 5 is neutral and 10 means one strongly agrees: 1) I’m more aware of what’s going on around the world than most of my friends; 2) I enjoy traveling to different countries; 3) I enjoy learning about different cultures. A fourth asked how many times in the past five years respondents had traveled outside the United States. Responses to all four items were standardized and summed up for a scale (alpha = .63).

          Tolerance of different cultures.

A measure of tolerance of different cultures was operationalized with four items based on those taken from two other scales: Earle and Cvetkovich's (1997) scale of cosmopolitanism as a cultural continuum, with cosmopolitanism at one end and pluralism at the other end; and Phillips and Ziller’s (1997) “universal orientation scale,” which measures a tendency toward “nonprejudice.” The index was dropped, however, since none of its variations could generate a reliability above .6.22

          Cultural knowledge.

Three multiple-choice items and five true-false items were used to measure people’s knowledge of different cultures and religions. Correct responses were summed up for a scale. The mean number of correct answers was 3.5, with a median of 3, a mode of 3 and a standard deviation of 1.99.23

          Current events knowledge.

Respondents were asked four items measuring knowledge of the most important critical event at the time of the study, the terrorist attack of September 11th. Items asked where Osama bin Laden was, the country where the terrorists lived before coming to the U.S., the number of terrorists on each of the four planes and the industry hit hardest by the attack.24 The number of correct answers summed up for an index. The mean number correct was 2.58, with a median of 3, a mode of 3 and a standard deviation of 1.0.

          Cultural diversity of media content.

A wide variety of items was used to ascertain cultural diversity of content from different media. The response scales varied slightly to fit the medium. Responses were standardized and summed up for a measure of cultural diversity of media content. Items were: 1) How often do you visit websites in other countries, outside the United States? (from 0 for no access, 1 for almost never to 7 for several times each day); 2) How often do you visit websites in other languages; 3) How often do you watch films on TV that have subtitles?; 4) How often do you watch the Travel Channel on TV? 5) How often do you watch BBC on TV?; 6) How often do you watch Scola news from around the world on TV?; 7) How often do you read any magazines in [another] language? (0 if no other language spoken); 8) How many books have you read in that language in the past six months?; 9) How much attention do you pay to the international news in the newspaper?; 10) How often do you read news magazines? 11) How often do you go out to see films in theaters that are from other countries or cultures? With the last item deleted, the alpha for the scale is .74. The 11 items also were entered into a factor analysis (principal component analysis, varimax rotation) that produced four factors. Loading on the first factor (accounting for 29.8% of the variance) were the two Internet items and going out to see foreign films in a theater (Internet+Films).25 Loading on the second factor were the two items tapping readership of books and magazines in other languages (13.8% of variance). The third factor included loadings by all four of the television items—watching the Travel Channel, the BBC, Scola and foreign films with subtitles on TV (11.0% of variance). The final factor captured an interest in international items in newspapers and reading news magazines (9.7% of variance). The four factor scores were saved as variables for further analysis.

          Diversity of interpersonal communication network.

Respondents were told the following: “Now, I’m going identify people from different backgrounds and I’d like you to tell me whether you’ve talked with someone like that in the past couple weeks or so, at home, at work, at a store or public place, or at a social gathering.” Affirmative responses were summed up for a measure of diversity. Five items tapped ethnicity26 and five items tapped religion.27 The ethnic communication network diversity scale has an alpha of .68; the mean number of ethnic groups talked to is 3.0, with a median of 3, a mode of 5 and a standard deviation of 1.5. The religious network diversity scale has an alpha of .47; the mean number of different religious groups is 3.1, with a median of 3, a mode of 4 and a standard deviation of 1.3. The two also were combined into a single interpersonal communication network diversity scale (alpha = .69); the mean is 6.1, with a median of 6, a mode of 6. and a standard deviation of 2.4.

          Use of Communication Technologies

          Access to communication technologies.

Respondents were asked if they had access to several major communication technologies: a DVD player at home, access to the Internet at home, and access to the Internet at work. Some 28% had access to a DVD player at home, while three fourths had access to the Internet at home or at work (32% access at home only, 9.6% access at work only, 33.5% access at both). Access to each was assigned a 1 and an additive index was created; the mean for the index was 1.4, with a median of 1.0, a mode of 2 and a standard deviation of 1.0.

          Internet use.

Respondents were asked if they had ever gone on the internet, the number of hours typically spent each week visiting websites on the Internet, whether they had ever visited an Internet newsgroup and the number of hours typically spent each week using such newsgroups, and how often they send or receive messages by email.

          Frequency of watching DVDs/videos.

Respondents were asked how often they watched DVDs at home on a scale that ranged from almost never to almost daily.

Study 2 Results

Relationships between the measures of cosmopoliteness and use of or access to communication technologies for the second survey are located in Table 2.

  Technology Access (DVD, WWWHome, WWWork) Internet access (at home or at work) Has DVD at home Has gone on Internet before Has visited newsgroup before Uses email Frequency uses email Frequency watches DVDs, Videos
Diversity of interests .12* .11** -.04 .01 .17*** .11* -.15** -.04
  .09# .06 -.02 -.06 .15* .07 -.14* -.02
Cosmopolitan identification -.06 -.02 -.09* -.04 .00 -.04 -.00 -.09*
  -.06 -.02 -.08 -.04 .02 -.02 -.00 -.08
Appreciation of different cultures .23*** .22*** .00 .20*** .24*** .11* -.22*** .05
.15** .13* -.01 .10# .21*** .05 -.21*** .05
Knowledge of different cultures .30*** .23*** .09* .31*** .27*** .20*** -.18*** .07#
  .23*** .14** .08 .22*** .23*** .13* -.17** .06
Knowledge of current events .26*** .29*** .00 .29*** .23*** 27*** -.03 -.03
  .18*** .22*** .02 .21*** .20*** .23*** .01 .04
Diversity of interpersonal network .27*** .29*** .02 .34*** .16** .14** -.18*** .04
  .22*** .22*** .02 .28*** .12* .10# -.16* .05
Cultural diversity of media content-all media .39*** .32*** .15** .39*** .23*** .11* -.17** .18* .39***
  .38*** .30*** .15** .37*** .22*** .10 -.15* .19*
Internet diversity + foreign films .31*** .28*** .09* .48*** .11* .07 -.11* .12*
  .27*** .23*** .09 .44*** .08 .03 -.10 .12*
Reading mags, books in foreign languages .10* .10* -.06 .11* .18*** .07 -.11# -.02
  .13* .12* -.05 .12* .19** .07 -.11# -.01
Diversity of television content viewed .14* .09* .17*** .06 .06 -.03 -.04 .20*
  .14* .10* .16** .07 .07 .00 -.03 .19*
Intl.news interest + news mag. Readership .20*** .12* .02 .10* .24*** .18** -.14* .01
  .21*** .12* .04 .08 .23*** .16** -.14* .01

Table 2. Relationships between cosmopoliteness and communication technologies
(Study 2: Fall 2001 Survey)


The larger number of cosmopolite measures allows us to see whether results from the first study are replicated but also to get a more precise picture of significant relationships. Per RQ1, access to technologies again is strongly related to knowledge measures and cultural diversity of both media and interpersonal networks but not to cosmopolitan identification, diversity of one’s interests or tolerance of different cultures. Access to technologies also is positively related to an appreciation of different cultures. When we pull apart the access measure, we see that Internet access accounts for the significance in most cases. Access to new technologies such as a DVD at home is unrelated to most of the measures of cosmopoliteness. An exception is found for access to DVDs, which is positively associated with diversity of television content viewed and the overall measure of cultural diversity of media content. We also see that frequency of DVD use is positively correlated with the cultural diversity of one’s media content, particularly with television content viewed. A couple of other relationships, including a negative association with cosmopolitan identification and a positive relationship with knowledge of different cultures, drop out when social categories are controlled. Access to more recent television technologies is negatively related to both an appreciation and knowledge of different cultures, and the partials remain statistically significant when social categories are controlled.

Internet use is positively associated with cosmopoliteness. We see that those who have gone on the Internet before show a higher appreciation and knowledge of different cultures, a higher knowledge of current events, a more diverse interpersonal network, and greater cultural diversity of media content. Internet users show more cultural diversity across all media except television. Those who have visited news groups also show more diverse interests and greater knowledge and appreciation of different cultures. They too have more diverse interpersonal and mass communication networks. Again, the exception for cultural diversity of media content is television.

Use of email was not measured in the first survey. Here we see that those who use email have more diverse interests but frequency of email use is negatively associated with such diversity. Similarly, those using email more frequently demonstrate a lower appreciation and knowledge of different cultures and a less diverse interpersonal and mass communication network. These relationships persist when social categories are controlled. In general, they suggest that email is used to connect with friends or associates at work. On balance, study results provide a moderate level of support for our hypothesis that cosmopoliteness will be positively related to use of new communication technologies.


Discussion

The present study set out to (1) provide a general test of the notion that cosmopolitan individuals use new media, particularly the Internet, to explore other cultures and (2) to profile the ways in which they do so. Although a pattern of relationships across two surveys provides some support for this guiding hypothesis, it was contradicted primarily by measures involving appreciation for international cultures and cosmopolitan identification. This exception, along with the middling strength of relationships between our measures of cosmopoliteness and media use, raises further questions about several challenging conceptual issues

Historical conceptualizations of cosmopoliteness emphasized a psychological orientation rather than a set of behaviors and communication habits. Our investigation indicates that extending the construct might be fruitful in a media-rich environment where symbolic and electronic extensions have replaced mental constructions of the cosmopolite’s wide world. These mediated extensions, as McLuhan would have noted, bring geographically remote locations “close” to home. Cosmopolites can do more than ponder and dream about the rest of the world–they can experience it in an immediate and colorfully mediated fashion. The Internet affords the cosmopolite communicator an unprecedented opportunity to selectively experience this vivid immediacy.

Past scholarship has focused on the tendency of those with a more cosmopolite orientation to be high in broad-reaching information-seeking behavior (e.g., Merton, 1948 1949; Neuwirth et al., 1989). Other analyses of the current data (Jeffres et al., 2002) indicate that most of the various cosmopolite dimensions relate positively to use of particular traditional media (i.e., newspaper, magazine, and book readership, as well as movie attendance) but do not in general relate to the use of broadcast media (i.e., television and radio). These differences may correspond to a division between nonimmediate but selectable content and immediate but heavily “gatekept” content (i.e., highly controlled and edited). In this case, our evidence supports a preference for the former over the latter among cosmopolite individuals. The current findings show relatively strong relationships between the cosmopolite dimensions and the set of measures of use of newer media technologies. It may be that in fact cosmopolites are strong seekers both of control over their access to mediated content and of access to timely information. The Internet offers both.

We might expect such relationships to be artifacts of a relationship between cosmopoliteness and socioeconomic status (i.e., early adopters of the Internet and other newer communication technologies tending to be of higher SES; also, SES tends to be related to the way in which the Internet is viewed, with high income users viewing the Web as a transactional arena while lower status persons see the Internet as a “kind of home digiplex” (Weiss, 2001). But this is not the picture one develops from an examination of the findings on the whole. In both of the studies reported here, a number of cosmopolite scales are related to SES measures: for Study 1, four of the eight cosmopolite dimensions are positively related to level of education, and one is positively related to income; for Study 2, five of the eight main cosmopolite dimensions are positively related to education, and four to income. However, the use of these SES measures and other social locators as control variables does not weaken the relationships between cosmopoliteness and technology adoption or use.

The exception to the pattern of cosmopolite/media technology exposure relationships is the cosmopolite identification scale, which in general is unrelated to use of the newer communication technologies. This finding fits well with other analyses of these data (Jeffres et al., 2002), which indicate that among traditional and broadcast media, cosmopolite identification correlates only with book readership. Such a pattern establishes an initial profile of the high “cosmo ID” individual as one whose identity as a global citizen is articulated in very personal and traditional communication habits; these individuals seek information about their world through the most classic and time honored mode of mediated communication, not necessarily with up-to-the-minute reports of world events. Although this finding reinforces McLuhan's global village conception, it contradicts his prediction that electronic media will facilitate the demise of printed word. That dynamic is particularly noteworthy in light of the historic roots of this sub-aspect of the cosmopolite construct, perhaps the first to be fully articulated, and emergent in a world without “mass” media (Moulla, 2002). This is the brand of cosmopoliteness that exists independent of the use of hardware devices.

The exploratory nature of our findings reinforce Flanagin and Metzger's (2001) observation that “in spite of the appropriateness and timeliness of the Internet as a topic of study, we know remarkably little about its selection and use” (p. 155). We can extend this observation here to suggest that we know even less about how cosmopolites use the Web to reinforce their world orientation, although the present study can provide some preliminary answers to this question. Like the Tower of Babel to which it has been analogized, much of the research on the Internet has originated from disparate fields and methodologies (e.g., Kraut, 1998; Salwen, Garrison, & Driscoll, 2004). Future work should explore more closely the motivations determining the selection of various media modalities, perhaps in relation to the Internet, for cultural information. For instance, the uses and gratifications perspective posits an active audience which actively seeks out and consumes media content to gratify such needs as entertainment (for mental stimulation), diversion (for temporary escape), identity (for social integration), and surveillance (for information gathering), the latter two of which would be particularly pertinent to those scoring highly on the various cosmopolite dimensions (e.g., Blumler, 1979; Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rosengren, 1985; Charney & Greenberg, 2002).

On balance, our results confirm past findings suggesting that the Web can help bring about an informed populace, with Johnson and Kaye (2000) concluding that those already harboring “an interest in political affairs are surfing the Internet, rather than television, for political information” (p. 873). Although the present study is fundamentally exploratory in nature, a first comprehensive effort to gather comparative data on the influence of interpersonal and mediated influences on political activities, we find support for major tenets of conceptions of cosmopoliteness. There are of course several other factors not tapped here that could help explain the concept (e.g., family and workplace experiences). With regard to media substitution dynamics, we see little evidence of displacement, as even the "print-heavy" elite audience members were tempted by this new technology due to its potentially diversified content offerings. Later work should explore the impact of such exposure in the context factors advanced in our model. Preliminary work (Griffin et al., 1997) suggests that the Web can play an important role here, as their experiment found that even short-term exposure to Web sources about foreign countries increased students’ knowledge about the countries (even though that group has not shown great interest in newspaper reading).

The present findings on the relationship between new and emerging media on cosmopoliteness, although largely exploratory, nevertheless help us to reconceptualize the ways in which behaviors associated with “one-way” traditional media use differ from those associated with the Internet and its two-way interactive nature. Multifaceted concepts like cosmopoliteness can help us to understand more fully the distinctive audience behaviors that emerge in such a rich environment, one that may not be completely captured by conceptions (e.g., uses and gratifications) that were developed during the era of traditional, one-way media that delivered lowest-common denominator content on a fixed timetable. In the information seeking context, the merging of “sending” and “receiving” functions that the Internet provides can help enhance one’s sense of belonging, particularly within a pluralistic community (e.g., Jeffres et al., 2002). Only time can tell whether the Internet can ultimately provide a digital nexus to enhance cross-cultural understanding, but the present results suggest that it's a viable tool for the exchange of cultural information.


Footnotes

1. For a discussion of the Internet as a mechanism of creating community(see Wellman (1997). Also see Ball-Rokeach, Kim and Matei (2001) for a major project studying a communication infrastructure model and Chayko (2002) for a discussion on social bonds in the Internet age.

2. See also (e.g., Cunningham, Cunningham & English, 1974; Grimes & Berger, 1970; Jeffres et al., 2002; Martindale & Hanson, 1969; McLeod et al., 1996; Merton, 1957; Needham, 1986; Petersen & Takayama, 1984; Neuwirth, Salmon & Neff, 1989). Neuwirth, Salmon and Neff (1989) reexamined Robert Merton’s cosmopolitan scale, finding that local-nonlocal was not a single dimension and people could be strongly or weakly oriented to both local events and events outside the community. Recently, a study of community integration by McLeod et al. (1996) broke the concept down further, looking at dimensions that included: localism versus cosmopolitanism, city versus group, city versus neighborhood.

3. Studies employing the concept in organizations view cosmopolites as having loyalty to a larger context or discipline rather than the immediate environment or organization (see Abrahamson, 1965; Bennis, Berkowitz, Affinito & Malone, 1958; Berger & Grimes, 1973; Flango & Brumbaugh, 1974; Goldberg, Baker & Rubenstein, 1965; Gouldner, 1957, 1958; Grimes, 1980; London, Cheney, & Tavis, 1977; Morse & Gordon, 1974). An application to interpersonal communication is found in the Sotirovic and McLeod’s (2001) study of values, communication behavior and political participation, which included measures of “discussion diversity,” measured on a scale indicating how often respondents engaged in discussions in which others had taken different points of view from themselves on three topics, race relations, religious beliefs, and radical political views.

4. The items include: 1) national/international events are not as important as events in (community); 2) news about (community) is more interesting than national and international news; 3) national/international events are more important because they affect (community); 4) (community) is one of the finest communities in the U.S.; 5) big cities have their place, but the local community is the backbone of America; 6) (community) newspaper is important to know what’s going on.

5. This dimension is found in descriptions of local-nonlocal cosmopolite dimensions, Dye’s (1963) local cosmopolitan scale, and the literature on parochialism. Jennings’ (1965) scale of cosmopolitanism taps an individual’s orientations toward multiple levels of government and the degree to which one follows local, state, national or international affairs.

6. Dye’s (1963) conceptualization of cosmopoliteness includes the notion that one identifies with larger systems.

7. Earle and Cvetkovich’s (1997) view of cosmopolitanism and the local-nonlocal dimension imply an appreciation of others’ cultures.

8. This notion is reflected in the scales by Robinson and Zill (1997) and Phillips and Ziller (1997).

9. Paine saw education creating a “cosmopolitan” awareness of the world (Walker, 2000) and communication scholars have linked cosmopoliteness to education.

10. Knowledge of current events and knowledge of cultures are probably related, but they are separate concepts, the former capturing currency in the news and the latter knowledge of peoples and backgrounds more closely tied to education than topical news.

11. Each medium provides opportunity for audiences to expose themselves to unfamiliar events as well as ideas, peoples, and places from cultures and contexts different from their own, e.g., reading or ignoring international news in print media, reading magazines in other languages, seeing foreign films in theaters, watching films with subtitles on television, watching foreign news or content from distant places on television, visiting websites from other countries, etc. Audiences have an almost unlimited and unprecedented opportunity to embrace different cultures and familiarize themselves with unfamiliar events in today’s media-rich environment.

12. Although Sotirovic and McLeod (2001) looked at diversity of ideas, we focus on diversity of backgrounds of partners in our interpersonal communication networks. Diversity today should capture both ethnicity and religion.

13. Donohew, Palmgreen and Rayburn (1987) found that people with more cosmopolitan lifestyles also had greater exposure to media sources of public affairs information. One study (Perry & McNelly, 1988; Perry & Melson, 1989) found that regular readership of cosmopolitan newspapers affected people’s attitudes and knowledge towards other countries. The authors suggest that media may help reduce ethnocentrism.

14. The survey took 10-12 minutes to complete. Further information on sample demographics, which mirrored those of the larger region, is available from the authors.

15. All items loaded at .70 or higher.

16. All variables loaded at .50 or higher on this factor. Communalities for the cosmopolite variables, which represent the proportion of a variable’s total variance that is accounted for by the factors, were: interest in current events in other countries, .54; interest in travel to different countries, .54; interest in other cultures, .51; the number of times one has traveled outside the United States in the past five years, .59; thinking of oneself as a citizen of the world, .68; communicating with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures, .67; and awareness of what's going on around the world compared to friends, .57.

17. Respondents who had not gone on the Internet were assigned a 0 on the 0-7 response scale.

18. The technologies and percentages reporting access to each were: a VCR at home, 84%; a TV satellite or cable TV at home, 82%; a computer at home, 68.1%; a computer at work, 55.6%; a DVD player, 12.8%; email at work, 45.9%; email at home, 52.4%; and a fax at home, 20.5%.

19. For this index, those not using the Internet were assigned 0 on the 1-7 response scale, where 1 = almost never and 7 = several times a day. When analysis was limited to those with Internet access, the index alpha was .73. Although not as robust as indexes in more established lines of inquiry, reliabilities in this range are acceptable for exploratory lines of inquiry (see DeVellis, 1991).

20. One item asked what HTML (hyper text markup language) referred to (correctly answered by 18%), another asked what the "www" in a website address refers to (correctly answered as World Wide Web by 67%), one asked what the ".com" in a website address refers to (commercial, the response of 22%), another asked respondents to select AOL as the most widely-used Internet Service Provider (ISP) from a list of five (identified correctly by 67%; the others were ESPN, MTV, Yahoo, and Netscape), one asked respondents to select Yahoo as the most popular website portal from a list (correctly identified by 37%; the others were ESPN, MTV, Microsoft, and Amazon.com), and one item asked respondents to select the U.S. Defense Department from a list as generally being credited with originating the Internet (identified correctly by 15%; the others were Al Gore, the Japanese, IBM, a Harvard professor, Bill Gates, Netscape, and AOL).

21. One asked where Kosovo was located (in Yugoslavia, answered correctly by 60%), one asked whether the conservatives or moderates had won control of the parliament in recent elections in Iran (moderates, selected by 31%), one asked what was the religion of most people in Indonesia (Islam, correctly given by 28%), and one asked respondents to select Africa from a list of continents as the one most devastated by AIDS (known by 83%). The number of correct answers was summed up for a measure of knowledge of international public affairs.

22. The most reliable iteration of this index, which was unrelated to any of our technology use measures, generated an unacceptably low alpha of .47. One item was taken from Earle and Cvetkovich’s scale: 1) "No particular culture in this world is superior to others." The others were modified from items in the Phillips and Ziller scale: 2) "I tend to value similarities over differences when I meet someone"; 3) "At one level of thinking, everyone in the world is very much alike"; and 4) "There is a potential for good and evil in all of us." Respondents were asked to use the same 0 to 10 scale to tell “how much you agree or disagree with the following statements,” where “0 means you strongly disagree, 5 is neutral and 10 means you strongly agree.” Responses were standardized and summed up for the scale.

23. The three items measuring knowledge of religion were: 1) which of the following religions believes in reincarnation: Islam, Hinduism (correct answer selected by 43.4%), Confucianism, Christianity; 2) Which of the following accurately describes the Advent season in Christianity: it occurs in the period just before Easter, to herald the crucifixion, it follows Easter as a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, it occurs in the weeks prior to Christmas as a period of penitence (correct answer, selected by 47.2%); 3) In describing the religion Islam, which of the following is true: all of the Bible is rejected, Jesus is accepted as a prophet (correct answer selected by 29.1%), Mohamed is another word for God, the holy site of Mecca is in Afghanistan. The five items measuring knowledge of different cultures were: 1) The African-American Kwanzaa celebration migrated to the U.S. from Kenya, where it’s an old tradition (false, correctly given by 27%); 2) China was a strong unified country run by the Manchu Dynasty until it was invaded by Japan in World War 2 (false, correctly given by 37.4%); 3) Brazil is the most populated Spanish- speaking country in Latin America (false, correctly given by 41.3%); 4) The Persian Empire was centered in Iran (true, correctly given by 48.5%); 5) The largest American Indian tribe, the Navajo, live in the Southwest (true, correctly given by 71.5%).

24. The items were: 1) In what country was Osama bin Laden living at the time of the terrorist attack? (no choices; Afghanistan correct response known by 67.6%); 2) According to news reports, in what country were the terrorists living when they planned the attack--France, Afghanistan, Germany (correct answer known by 33.2%), or Canada; 3) How many terrorists were there on the four planes--one on each, two on each, three on each, 4 or 5 on each (correct answer known by 60.4%), more than 5 on each; 4) What industry was hit worst by the terrorist attack-- construction, airlines (correct response known by 87.9%), technology, automobiles.

25. All variables loaded at .70 or higher. Communalities, reflecting the portion of a variable’s total variance that is accounted for by the factors, were: visiting websites in other countries, .68; visiting websites in other languages, .72; watching the Travel Channel, .57; watching BBC TV, .49; watching Scola, .53; reading magazines in other languages, .87; reading books in other languages, .87; going out to see foreign films, .49; watching films with subtitles on television, .45.

26. Five items tapped ethnicity: 1) Someone from an Asian background such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thailand, Indonesia, or the Philippines (talked to by 58.1%); 2) Someone from the subcontinent of Asia, such as India or Pakistan (talked to by 42.6%); 3) Someone who’s Hispanic, from Latin America or Puerto Rico (talked to by 60.4%); 4) Someone who’s Middle Eastern, such as Lebanese or Arabs (talked to by 54.7%); 5) Someone who’s African-American or Black (talked to by 87.9%).

27. The items measuring religious communication network diversity were: 1) Someone who’s an Orthodox Christian (talked to by 47.7%); 2) Someone who’s a Catholic (talked to by 90.6%); 3) Someone who’s protestant (talked to by 68.3%); 4) Someone who’s Jewish (talked to by 61.5%); and 5) Someone who’s Moslem (talked to by 38.3%).


References

Abrahamson, M. (1965). Cosmopolitanism, dependence-identification and geographical mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 98-106.

Anowkwa, K., Lin, C. A., & Salwen, M. (2003). International media: Cases and issues. New York: Wadsworth.

Atkin, D., Jeffres, L., Neuendorf, K., Lange, R., & Skalski, P. (2004). Why they chat: Predicting adoption and use of chat rooms. In M. Salwen, B. Garrison, & P. Driscoll (Eds.). Online news and the public (pp. 303-322) Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y. C., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28, 392-428.

Bates, B., Albright, K., & Washington, K. D. (2002). Not your plain old telephone: New services and new impacts. In C.A. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.). Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 91-124). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Bennis, W. G., Gerkowitz, N., Affinito, M., & Malone, M. (1958). Reference groups and loyalties in the outer-patient department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 481-500.

Berger, P. K., & Grimes, A. J. (1973). Cosmopolitan-local: A factor analysis of the construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 223-235.

Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9-36.

Brown, C. (1992). Cosmopolitan theory. In C. Brown, International relations theory (pp. 23-51). New York: Columbia University Press.

Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (2004). Media access. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Busselle, R., Reagan, J., Pinkleton, B., & Jackson, K. (1999). Factors affecting Internet use in a saturated-access population. Telematics and Informatics, 16, 45-58.

Carey, J. W. (1998). The Internet and the end of the national communication system: Uncertain predictions of an uncertain future. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 28-34.

Charney, T., & Greenberg, B. S. (2002). Uses and gratifications of the Internet. In C.A. Lin and D. Atkin (Eds.). Communication technology & society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 353-378). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Cunningham, W. H., Cunningham, I. C. M., & English, W. D. (1974). Sociopsychological characteristics of undergraduate marijuana users. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 125, 3-12.

Devellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Donohew, L., Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1987). Social and psychological origins of media use: A lifestyle analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 255-278.

Dye, T. (1963). The local-cosmopolitan dimension and the study of urban politics. Social Forces, 41, 239-246.

Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism and risk management. Risk Analysis, 14, 269-282.

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001, January). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181.

Flango, V. E., & Brumbaugh, R. B. (1974). The dimensionality of the cosmopolitan-local construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 198-210.

Galauner, M., Beatty, M., Rudd, J., & Atkin, D. (2004, May). The 'final frontier': Communibiological determinants of media use. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, New Orleans.

Goldberg, L., Baker, F., & Rubenstein, A. (1965). Local-cosmopolitan: Unidimensional or multidimensional? American Journal of Sociology, 70, 704-710.

Goulder, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 281-306.

Goulder, A. W. (1958). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles-II. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 444-480.


Griffin, J. L., Bartz, M. O., Dumrongsiri, N., Johnson, H. R., Leong, E. M., Mehalic, L. L., D'Arcy, J. O., & Pornsakulvanich, V. (1997). The impact of world wide web use on foreign country knowledge. Mass Comm Review, 24, 125-131.

Grimes, A. J. (1980). Cosmopolitan-local: A multidimensional construct. Research in Higher Education, 13, 195-211.

Grimes, A. J., & Berger, P. K. (1970). Cosmopolitan-local: Evaluation of the construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 407-416.

Halavais, A. (2000). National borders on the world wide web. New Media & Society, 2, 7-28.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2002). The not so global village of Netville. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 345-371). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Hongladarom, S. (1998). Global culture, local cultures and the Internet: The Thai example. Electronic Journal of Communication, 8 (3/4).

Jeffres, L. W., Atkin, D., & Neuendorf, K. (2002). A model linking community activity and communication with political attitudes and involvement in neighborhoods. Political Communication, 19, 387-421.

Jeffres, L., Atkin, D., Neuendorf, K., & Lin, C. A. (2004). The new 'wired nation' and menu of abundance. Telematics & Informatics, in press.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2000, Winter). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 865-879.

Kang, M., & Atkin, D. (1999). Exploring the role of media uses and gratifications in multimedia cable adoption. Telematics and Informatics, 16, 59-74.

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

Kundanis, R. M. (2003). Children, teens, families, and mass media: The millennial generation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Levin, Y. (2002). Politics after the Internet. The Public Interest, 149 (Fall), 80-94.

Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. (2002). Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs. London: Sage.

Lin, C. A. (2001). Audience attributes, media supplementation and likely online service adoption. Mass Communication and Society, 4 (1), 19-38.

Lin, C. A. (2002). Perceived gratifications of online media service use among potential users, Telematics & Informatics, 19, 3-19.

Lin, C. A. (2003). An interactive communication technology adoption model. Communication Theory, 13 (4), 1-21.

Lin, C. A., & Jeffres, L. W. (2001) Comparing distinctions and similarities across newspaper, radio and televison websites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 555-574.

London, M., Cheney, L. A., & Tavis, R. L. (1977). The relationship between cosmopolitan-local orientation and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 182-195.

Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace "revolution." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martindale, D., & Hanson, R. G. (1969). The conflict of local and translocal forces. In D. Martindale, Small town and the nation. Westport, CT: Crowned Publication Corp.

McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland Jr., W. P., Bayer, J., Yang, S., & Wang, H. (1996). Community integration, local media use and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179-209.

Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure, (2nd ed). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Morse, E. V., & Gordon, G. (1974). Cognitive skills: A determinant of scientists-local-cosmopolitan orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 709-723.

Moulla, F. (2002). Cosmopoliteness and the diffusion of information about a critical event in an Internet environment. Master's thesis, Cleveland State University.

Needham, R. D. (1986). The cosmopolite-localite model: Newspaper types and natural hazard information potentials. Environmental Management, 10, 271-284.

Neuendorf, K., Atkin, D., & Jeffres, L. (1998). Understanding adopters of audio information services. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 80-95.

Neuwirth, K., Salmon, C. T., & Neff, M. (1989). Community orientation and media use. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 31-39.

Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rosengren, K. E. (1985). Uses and gratifications research: The past ten years. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 11-37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

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

Perry, D. K., & Melson, W. (1989, May). Cosmopolitan media use, knowledge and attitudinal differentiation of countries. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Perry, D. K., & McNelly, J. T. (1988, May). The news media and audience images of foreign countries: optimism and pessimism. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Peterson, L. R., & Takayama, K. P. (1984). Community and commitment among Catholics: A test of local-cosmopolitan theory. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 97-112.

Phillips, S. T., & Ziller, R. C. (1997). Toward a theory and measure of the nature of non-prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 420-434.

Robinson, J. P., & Zill, N. (1997). Matters of culture. American Demographics, 19, 48-52.

Rogers, E. M. (1999). George Simmel's concept of the stranger and intercultural communication research. Communication Theory, 9, 58-74.

Rogers, E. M. (2004). Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press [lst ed., 1962].

Rogers, E. (2002). The information society in the new millennium: Captain's log, 2001. In C. A. Lin and D. Atkin (Eds.). Communication technology & society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 43-64). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Salwen, M. B., Garrison, B., & Driscoll, P. (2004). Online news and the public. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Sassen, S. (2002). Global networks, linked cities. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Sinclair, J. (1997). The business of international broadcasting: Cultural bridges and barriers. Asian Journal of Communication, 7, 137-155.

Sotirovic, M. & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participation. Political Communication, 18, 273-300.

Stoicism (2001). Microsoft Encarta online encyclopedia [On-line]. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2001 from http://Encarta.msn.com.

Umphrey, D. (1988). Segmenting the cable audience by reason for subscribing. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 972-975.

Walker, T. C. (2000). The forgotten prophet: Tom Paine's cosmopolitanism and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 51-72.

Wellman, B. (1997). The road to utopia and dystopia on the information highway. Contemporary Sociology, 26, 445-449.

Weiss, M. J. (2001, March). Online America. American Demographics, 53-60.

Wood, A. F., & Smith, M. (2001). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, culture. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.


About the Authors

Leo W. Jeffres (Ph.D., University of Minnesota, 1976) is Professor in the School of Communication at Cleveland State University. His interests include media effects, neighborhoods and urban communication systems, communication technologies and political communication.
Address:

David J. Atkin (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1988) is Visiting Professor at University of Connecticut and Professor of Communication at Cleveland State University. His research interests include telecommunication uses and policy, audience analysis and media effects.
Address:

Cheryl Campanella Bracken (Ph.D., Temple University, 2000) is Assistant Professor in the School of Communication at Cleveland State University. Her interests include psychological processing of media with a emphasis on the concept of presence, media effects, and communication technologies.
Address:

Kimberly A. Neuendorf (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1982) is Professor in the School of Communication at Cleveland State University. Her research interests include media and race/ethnicity, new media technologies, and affective correlates of media use.
Address:

©Copyright 2004 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication