4.0889 Age of E-Mailers (2/28)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 14 Jan 91 18:35:05 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0889. Monday, 14 Jan 1991.


(1) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:19:06 EST (13 lines)
From: Sheizaf Rafaeli <USERLLHB@UMICHUB.BITNET>
Subject: Age of e-mailers

(2) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 18:38:25 EST (15 lines)
From: LL23000 <LL23%NEMOMUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: 4.0883 ... Age of E-Mailers

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:19:06 EST
From: Sheizaf Rafaeli <USERLLHB@UMICHUB.BITNET>
Subject: Age of e-mailers

James O'Donnell's point about the (unexpected) age distribution of
e-mail users is reflected in a couple of empirical studies of the
diffusion of computerized innovations. When some extraneous variables
are controlled for, the age distribution of adopters has been found
to be bimodal, with a second peak at the fiftysomething range.

Now, if only I could retrieve those cites...

Sheizaf Rafaeli
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------26----
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 18:38:25 EST
From: LL23000 <LL23%NEMOMUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: 4.0883 Further Queries: Repetition; Age of E-Mailers (2/63)

RE: age of e-mailers
> Has anyone else found themselves automatically assuming that all/most
> e-mail correspondents are more young than not? Only to be disabused
> sharply from time to time. I am myself neither old nor young, and only

I know what you mean about the age of e-mailers--I think that's becau we
assume that people who are proficient with computers are younger. But I
am always shocked at how few of my students (except for the computer
science majors) use computers except at gunpoint.

Karen Kay