1. An Exploratory Study of the Motivations and
Satisfactions on Mobile Web Browsing
Ru Ping, Kuo (ruping@uw.edu)
Abstract
Nowadays, people go online using their smartphones become an overwhelming trend even though
browsing on a mobile phone has some limitations in nature. However, a clear picture of
motivation on mobile web browsing is still unavailable. This study intends to discover the valid
predictors about this matter by adopting uses and gratifications theory. Moreover, this study
assumes that users’ satisfaction and attitude toward future use will be affected by the limitations
of mobile phones such as screen-size. In order to answer above questions, an online survey was
conducted (n=63). Three positive factors: “pass time & pleasure”, “convenient to search”,
“habit” and two negative factors: irritations cause by “the device” and “the web” were
discovered by using factor analysis technique. The correlation analysis shows that only “pass
time and pleasure” has a positive correlation with “intention of future use” but both irritating
factors influence the users’ satisfaction as expects.
1. Introduction
Despites the current mobile web browsing experience is mostly troublesome, the intense
need of accessing internet from mobile devices was clearly discovered among many studies (e.g
Church and Oliver, 2011; Kane et al.,2009; Li, Griswold, and Hollan, 2008; Heimonen, 2009;
Cui, and Rot, 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). In general, these studies explored this subject from three
different approaches: the nature of information need and triggers, taxonomy of mobile web
usage, and looking for the patterns from users’ real behaviors (Kaikkonen, 2011). Although these
studies share some agreements among the findings, a clear picture of motive predictors on mobile
web browsing is still unavailable. Moreover, we don’t know whether these predictors are
different from or similar to prior user motivations in web browsing studies, too. Therefore,
today’s website designers face a difficulty about making better design decisions for tailor-making
their mobile websites. The discussion above suggests that mobile users’ motivation and attitude
toward mobile web browsing is a domain requiring further academic research. Meanwhile, the
uses and gratifications (U & G) theory has fruitful results on explaining users’ attitudes and
1

2. motivations toward the web in past one to two decades. Hence, my empirical study intends to
discover the valid predictors about mobile web browsing motivates by adopting U & G theory. In
addition, there are some well-known usability issues of mobile browsing and these issues such as
small-screen constriction strongly affect user experience on mobile web browsing. My study also
aims to learn how do these limitations influence the motivations and satisfactions of users in
mobile web browsing?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Current status of Mobile Web Browsing
Kaikkonen’s (2011) survey found that 92% of the respondents report that “able to access
web” is important when they purchase a mobile phone. Morgan Stanley’s analysts1 predict that
the mobile web will be bigger than desktop Internet use by 2015 based on the current adoption
rate. Even today, according to StatCounter data, over 13% global websites traffic is accessed
from mobile devices2. Moreover, a recently study3 shows that more than 58% of mobile internet
users in the U.S. are getting content through their browsers (42% via mobile apps). Clearly,
people go online using their advanced mobile devices become an overwhelming trend even
though browsing on a mobile phone has some limitations in nature.
2.2 Small-Screen Effect and Mobile Web Browsing
In the last few years, the advanced mobile technology has changed the role of internet on
mobile (Kaikkonen, 2011), for example, a great improvement in the cost and the speed of internet
connection, touch screen, better display quality, and custom-made content and applications. Even
though people are more willing to go online with their mobile device, still, the screen-size-
constraint is the inevitable obstacle. Many researchers (e.g. Jonesa, Buchananb, and Thimbleby,
2003; Jones, Marsden, Mohd-Nasir, Boone, and Buchanan, 1999; Roto and Kaikkonen, 2003)
found evidences support that the need of “tailored mobile approaches to Internet”; but shortly, it
become clear that this approached is not satisfy users’ diverse needs (Kaikkonen, 2008). Some
studies (e.g. Kaikkonen, 2008 and 2011; Schmiedl, Seidl, and Temper, 2009) found that mobile
users choose to use “full web” for their specific needs even they might encounter more usability
issues than use “mobile tailored web”. In other words, users’ motivations play an important role
1Retrieval from http://mashable.com/2010/04/13/mobile-web-stats/
2 Retrieval from StatCounter http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-201209-201211
3 STAT (Simple Targeting & Audience Trends)report, provides by Junptap
Retrieval from http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110511005706/en/Jumptap-Launches-STAT-Simple-Targeting-Audience-Trends
2

3. on this matter; therefore, website owners or designers might make better decision about their
mobile web design strategy if they can better understand these various needs from mobile users.
2.3 What Motive People Browsing on Mobile Phone
Since the end of 2010, several published papers focus on this topic. For example, in a two-
week diary study, researchers discovered that mobile users’ information needs are very situation-
oriented. The researchers labeling top three category of information needs are trivia (18.5%),
direction (13.3%), and point of interest (12.4%) which is also related to second category (Sohn,
Li, Griswold, and Hollan,
2008). The other similar
study was conducted by
Church and Oliver in 2011;
they also found the context
influences (location, time,
activity and social interaction) Figure 1 Percentage of behaviors exhibited for each motivation (Taylor et al., 2008)
in mobile settings. Moreover,
Church and Oliver (2011) found that mobile web is used in repetitive daily compared to mobile
search (e.g. googling) is used in more random situation. Taylor et al., (2008) proposed a
preliminary framework (see Figure 1 for details) describing the relationships between motivations
and behaviors based on the qualitative data analysis which they collected from 11 interviewees.
As the role of internet on mobile usage changed, Kaikkonen (2011) compared her recently
finding with prior studies, she concluded that people browse wider variety of web today. In
addition, several web activates are more common on their mobile device than computer, such as
information search (57.9% vs. 53.3%), reading news & weather (56.6% vs. 34.8%), reading email
(57.1% vs. 51.7%), search contact information (51.3% vs. 40.8%), location information /viewing
maps (57.1% vs. 46.7%), and sharing photos (50.4% vs. 49.6%). Last, according to a recently
online survey, search for general information, looking for a store address, killing time, looking for
contact information, and read about a company are most common activities when people
browsing on their mobile phone4.
2.4 “Uses and Gratifications Theory” and User Motivations in Web Browsing Study
4 1) General information (25%), 2) looking for a store address (17%), 3)killing time (15%), 4) looking for contact information (12%), 5) others
(9%) & 6)read about a company (8%) .The Seybold Report (Volume 11, Number 16 • August 22, 2011) is conducted by Modapt, Inc. and
Morrissey & Company.
3

4. The notion of “active audience” makes Uses and Gratifications (U & G) Theory becomes
the most favorable theory when researchers like to understand consumer motivations for media
use. Although some scholars worried about the
present U&G model might insufficient because
that the internet seems providing infinite choice
to the users and reasons for using the internet
are differ from person to person (Ruggiero,
2000). However, plentiful empirical studies
proved that the adaptability of this theory by
Figure 2 Attitude toward the web model
extending its theoretical framework.
Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) discovered five
predictors about internet motives: interpersonal, utility, pass time, information seeking,
convenience and entertainment; their finding becomes an effective and flexible model for
following researchers. Similarly, Stafford and Stafford (2002) conducted a two-step study to
discover the factors motivating commercial websites use. At length, they identified five key
underlying factors from 179 web use motivations, which are searching, cognition (information for
education or learning), new and unique, socialization, and entertainment. Chen and Wells (1999)
in their “Attitude toward the site” study discovered two positive factors: entertainment,
informativeness, and one negative factor: organization (irritation). According to Luo (2002), this
“Users’ Attitude towards the Web Model” (see Figure 2 for details) has been considered as a key
indicator of user’s attitude toward the web. That is to say internet users who perceive the websites
as entertaining and informative generally show a positive attitude toward them and more willing
to visit them again. In contrast, those who perceive irritating experience of websites indicate a
negative attitude toward them. In sum, the uses and gratifications approach is highly appropriate
for studying new communication sources (Kaye, 2010).
3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework
Based on the above discussions, the conceptual framework of my study was created (see
Figure 3 for details). Since this study attempts to discover how the users’ motives in web
browsing are changed because the limitations of mobile phones such as screen-size effect, the
approach of my study design requires the gathering of a list of identified use and gratification
factors from previous U & G studies which relate to this topic and testing whether these factors
apply in my research context. In addition, the “Users’ Attitude towards the Web Model” extends
4

5. the explanatory power of U
& G theory by highlighting
the negative factor
“irritation”. Thus, it is
necessary considering the
negative variables in my
study because the natural
limitation of mobile web
browsing. Accordingly, to
investigate the relationship
between users’ motivations
and future usages of mobile
web browsing, the following
hypotheses are constructed. Figure 3 the conceptual framework of my study
H 1: There is a positively relationship between “motives” and the “intention toward the
future usage” of mobile web browsing.
H2: There is a negatively relationship between “irritation” and the “intention toward the
future usage” of mobile web browsing.
4. Methods
To best evaluate the uses and gratification in a new media context, the survey method is
widely accepted and used by many researchers from various disciplines. This study conducts an
online survey in a similar manner. Moreover, in order to enhance the internal validity of the
questionnaire, two strategies: experts review and pilot test were used.
4.1 Questionnaire Design
The survey questionnaire was developed and adapted from many previous studies
(Ebersole, 1999; Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000; Parker and Plank, 2000; Stafford and Stafford,
2002; LaRose and Eastin, 2004; Nguyen, Ferrier, Western, and McKay, 2005; Johnson and Yang,
2009; Luo, Chea, and Chen, 2010; Jere and Davis, 2011; Lim and Ting, 2012) since there is no
any prior effective questionnaire available. After the pilot study, the final questionnaire was
revised based on the participants’ feedbacks and it consists of four major sections: demographic
and general internet usage, general mobile usage, motivations and gratifications of mobile web
5

6. browsing, and attitude toward future usage (see appendix for details). All measurement scales
(except demographic and general internet and mobile usage) are Likert-type with 5-point format,
anchoring at "1"(strongly disagree) and "5"(strongly agree).
4.2 Participants
This study used Google Docs to create the questionnaire and adopted “snowball sampling”
strategy to recruit participants because of the resource limitation. Total 63 valid responses are
collected between Nov 20, and Nov. 27, 2012. For ensuring the participants’ attributes are
represented the desired target population, two screening questions: “mobile web browsing
experience” and ”months of currently-owned smartphone” were used in the survey as well. Of the
63 respondents, 33 are male (52.4%) and 30 are female (47.8%). Most of them are in the age
groups between 25 and 34 (“25~29 years” is 25% and “30~34 years” is 22%).
5. Results
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of General Mobile Usage
In range, the respondents’ smartphone-screen-size is between 3.3” and 5.0” (mode is 3.5”,
65.6%). The survey data shows Android as the leading OS with 51% of all participants’
currently-owned smartphone, followed by Apple iPhone at 41.5%, Microsoft at 3.2% and the
others at 4.3%. Of respondents, for five most types of websites they visit are: Search Engine
(M=3.98, SD=.13); News websites (M=3.69, SD=.53); Maps websites (M=3.61, SD=.61); Portal
sites (M=3.31, SD=.62); Web-based mail (M=3.31, SD=.74).
5.2 Mobile Web Browsing Motivations and Irritations
5.2.1 Means
This construct was measured by 38 items adapted from the prior U & G studies, which
include: why people do mobile web browsing (motivations/24 items), why people avoiding
mobile web browsing (irritations/10 items), and their attitudes toward this matter and future
usage (4 items). First step, this study will report the importance of these items to the
respondents by measuring and comparing items’ means and standard deviations (see Table
1, Table2, and Table 3 for details).
6

7. 5.2.2 Factor Analysis
This study also categorized individual motivational items (24 items) into broader
categories. By doing so, I can compare the valid motivators (factors) about mobile web
browsing with prior studies and underline my finding for future discussion. Meanwhile,
irritations (factors) of mobile
Table 1 Factor analysis of motivations items
web browsing were extracted
from the other 10 items as
well. Thus, according to
respondents self-report, these
34 items are analyzed using
exploratory factor analysis. In
addition, KMO (Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin) and Bartlett’s
test were used in order to
verify the internal reliability.
For the motivation of mobile
web browsing part, the KMO
value is .781 and is significant
Table 2 Factor analysis of irritations items
(p = .000), therefore factor
analysis is appropriate. Total
24 items were assigned to a
particular factor if the primary
loadings were greater than .50
(Rencher, 1995; Pallant,
2011). However, using the
default options in SPSS, I
Table 3 Factor analysis of attitude items
obtained a seven-factor
solution. According to Pallant
(2011), every component
should has three or more
items loding. Therefore, I
used “fixed number of factors”
option instead, a more optimal “three-factor solution” was extracted. These three factors
were retained accounting for 55.796% of the variance and they comprised of 21 items of
7

8. the original 24 items. Based on the character of each factor, I labeled them as “pass time &
pleasure”, “convenient to search”, and “habit” (see Table 1 for details).
For the reasons that irritating respondents’ mobile web browsing uses were extrated into
two componints (factors) explaining a total of 47.121% of the variance. These two factors
were comprised of 8 items of the original 10 irritations (see Table 2 for details). Its KMO
value is .739 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value is significant (p = .000), too. As
seen in Table 3, the first group of irritation factor is generally caused by devices’
constratction and the second group is mostly because of websits’ design.
Last, two factors were extracted from 4 items that used to evaluate respondents’
satisfaction and attitude toward future usage of mobile web browsing. These two factors
were retained accounting for 79.374% of the variance and I labeled them as “current
satisfaction” and “intention of future use” (see Table 3 for details). The KMO value is .675
and is significant (p = .000) as well.
5.3 Correlation Analysis
5.3.1 Correlation between “Motives” and “Attitude toward Future Usage”
Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explore H1. In other words, both two factors
related to satisfaction and Table 4 &5 Correlation between motives and attitude toward future use
intention toward future usages
were assessed with three
motivation factors (pass time &
pleasure, convenient to use, and
habit) in order to see is there any
significant relationship. As seen in
Table 4, a significant positive
association was found between
“pass time & pleasure” and
“intention of future use” (r=.294,
p<.005); and the other significant
positive relationship is between
“habit” and “current satisfaction”
(r=.331, p<.001). However, the
motive of “convenient to search”
8

9. has no relationship with both “current satisfaction” and “intention of future usage”.
Therefore, H1 is only partly supported. In addition, among all questions about “why people
do mobile web browsing”, the positive relationship only shows on the items as follow: “I
want to get in-depth information”, “It’s entertaining.”, “It’s enjoyable.”, “I just like to surf
websites”, and “I want to share information with others.” (See Table 5 for details).
5.3.2 Correlation between “Irritation” and “Attitude toward Future Usage”
Similarly, Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explore H2, too. This study seeks the
negative relationship among the irritations and respondents’ “attitude toward future usage”
on mobile web browsing, Table 6 & 7 Correlation between irritation and attitude toward future use
especially the irritating items
regarding the “small-screen”
effect (e.g. “I often feel the
screen size is too small to
browse websites”; “I easier
being tired when reading words
on the screen”; “I find that most
websites are difficult to
navigate with my mobile”). As
seen in Table 6, although both irritation factors have significant negative relationship with
“current ratification” (r= -.340, p<.001; r= -.274, p<.005). But H2 is not supported because
neither “irritation from device” nor “irritation from website” was a negative predator to
“future usage”. Furthermore, there was no negative relationship between “intention of
future use” and any individual items of irritation besides “information is too hard to find”
(see Table 7 for details).
6. Conclusion
To the best of my knowledge, this study is the first research intends to discover motive
predictors on mobile web browsing by adopting U & G theory. The results show that there are
three valid motive factors: “pass time and pleasure”, “convenient to search”, and “habit”;
however, only “pass time and pleasure” has a positive correlation with “intention of future
usage”. It’s fair to say that mobile user’s web browsing needs are diverse and very situation-
oriented as prior studies suggested (e.g. Sohn, Li, Griswold, and Hollan, 2008; Taylor et al.,
2008). Moreover, “pass time” plays a significant role in this matter. It is clear that smartphone
9

10. users use their phone to have fun and stay informed since they always keep the phone around. To
many respondents, web browsing on smartphone becomes a habit in the end. Although my study
shows no correlation between “convenient to search” and “intention of future usage” or “current
satisfaction”, it does not mean “search” is not important to mobile users; on the contrary,
information search is one of the most important web activities according to many prior researches
(e.g. Kaikkonen, 2011). Meanwhile, in small samples, the correlation coefficients among the
variables are less reliable although different research suggests the minimum sample size in factor
analysis differently. Therefore, even Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) value both show my study is appropriate; it is beneficial to expand the sample size in
order to verify these motivations in future studies. Moreover, convenient sample is not a random
sample of the population, the generalizability of this study is limited.
An important assumption of this study is that users’ motives in web browsing activities will
be changed because the limitations of mobile phones such as screen-size effect. The results of
correlation suggest that irritation from both “the device” and “the website” negatively influences
users’ satisfaction of mobile web browsing, however, no evidence shows that it will diminishes
users’ intention of future use. Obviously, mobile web browsing is too convenient to give up. As
the result, the internet use pattern might change because of the limitation of mobile phone (e.g.
“avoiding tasks that required input”, “avoiding read long articles on smart phone”), the trend of
mobile web browsing is overwhelm as many researches already suggested (e.g. Kaikkonen,
2011). It’s also worth to notice that most of respondents agree that they unwilling to browsing
internet on their smartphone because website are messy (M=3.45, SD=.56) and difficult to
navigate (M=3.87, SD=.55). As more and more people visit websites from their mobile devices,
web designers should pay attention on the website traffic statistics. Look for the main user
activities (browsing patterns and related pages) that generate from mobile devices and consider
adopting “responsive web design” approach to redesign these pages at least.
Last but not least, my exploratory study presents three predictors of mobile web browsing
based on a small-sample size survey. However, people seemed to have multiple motivations and
it leads to differentiation in the activities users do. It is also of interest to examine whether users’
demographics or preexisting preference and experience on web browsing affects the motivation
and satisfaction on mobile web browsing in the future study.
10

11. References
Anne Kaikkonen. (2008). Full or Tailored Mobile Web- Where and How do People Browse on Their
Mobiles?. In: The international conference on mobile technology, application, & systems. Ilan,
Taiwan.
Anne Kaikkonen. (2011). Mobile Internet, Internet on Mobiles or Just Internet You Access with
Variety of Devices?. In: OZCHI '11. Canberra, Australia.
An Nguyen, Elizabeth Ferrier, Mark Western and Susan McKay. (2005). Online News in Australia:
Patterns of Use and Gratification. Australian Studies in Journalism, 15: 5-34.
Betty J. Parker, and Richard E. Plank. (2000). A Uses and Gratifications Perspective on the Internet as
a New Information Source. American Business Review, 18(2), 43-49
Carol A Taylor, Ona Anicello, Scott Somohano, Nancy Samuels, Lori Whitaker, and Judith Ramey.
(2008). A Framework for Understanding Mobile Internet Motivations and Behaviors. In: CHI
2008, Florence, Italy.
Dan Li. (2005). Why Do You Blog: a Uses-and-gratifications Inquiry into Blogger’s Motivations.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Marquette University.
Grischa Schmiedl, Markus Seidl, and Klaus Temper. (2009). Mobile Phone Web Browsing – A Study
on Usage and Usability of the Mobile Web. In: MobileHCI’09. Bonn, Germany.
Jere, M. G., and Davis, S. V. (2011). An Application of Uses & Gratifications Theory to Compare
Consumer Motivations for Magazine & Internet Usage among South African Women’s
Magazine Readers. South African Business Review, 15(1), 1-27.
Karen Church, and Nuria Oliver. (2011). Understanding Mobile Web and Mobile Search Use in
Today’s Dynamic Mobile Landscape. In: MobileHCI 2011, (pp. 67-76). Stockholm, Sweden.
Barbara K. Kayea. (2010). Going to the Blogs: Toward the Development of a Uses and Gratifications
Measurement Scale for Blogs. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 194-210.
Matt Jones, Gary Marsden, Norliza Mohd-Nasir, Kevin Boone, and George Buchanan. (1999).
Improving Web Interaction on Small Displays. Computer Networks, 1129–1137.
Matt Jonesa, George Buchananb, and Harold Thimbleby. (2003). Improving Web Search on Small
Screen Devices. Interacting with Computers, 479–495.
Julie Pallant. (2011). Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. Allen &
Unwin.
Philip R. Johnson, and Sung-Un Yang. (2009). Uses and Gratifications of Twitter: An Examination of
User Motives and Satisfaction of Twitter Use. In: The Communication Technology Division of
the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Boston, USA.
Qimei Chen, and William D. Wells (1999), Attitude toward the Site, Journal of Advertising
Research,27-37.
11

12. Samuel E. Ebersole. (1999). Adolescents’ Use of the World-Wide Web in Ten Public Schools: A Uses
and Gratifications Approach. ph.D. thesis, Regent University.
Shaun K. Kane, Amy K. Karlson, Brian R. Meyers, Paul Johns, Andy Jacobs, and Greg Smith. (2009).
Exploring Cross-Device Web Use on PCs and Mobile Devices. In:Human-Computer
Interaction - INTERACT 2009, Uppsala, Sweden.
Timothy Sohn, Kevin A. Li, William G. Griswold, and James D. Hollan. (2008). A Diary Study of Mobile
Information Needs. In: CHI '08, pp. 433-442. ACM Press, New York.
Thomas E. Ruggiero. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication
& Society, 3-37.
Tomi Heimonen. (2009). Information Needs and Practices of Active Mobile Internet Users, In: the 6th
International Conference on Mobile Technology, Application & Systems 2009, Nice, France.
Virpi Roto, and Anne Kaikkonen. (2003). A.: Perception of Narrow Web Pages on a Mobile Phone.
Human Factors in Telecommunications 2003, Berlin, Germany.
Weng Marc Lim, and Ding Hooi Ting. (2012). E-shopping: An Analysis of the Uses and Gratifications
Theory. Modern Applied Science.
Xueming Luo. (2002). Uses and Gratifications Theory and E-Consumer Behaviors: a Structural
Equation Modeling study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 34-41.
Yanqing Cui, and Virpi Roto. (2008). How People Use the Web on Mobile Devices. In: The 17th
international conference on World Wide Web. Beijing, China.
Zizi Papacharissi, and Alan M. Rubin. (2000). Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 175-196.
12

13. 7. Appendix: Questionnaire
Hello, thank you for considering participating in this study. The purpose of this survey is
to learn more about the reasons why people browsing website on their mobile phones. If you
own a smartphone and at least 18 years old, please spend few minutes answer the questionnaire.
The survey form is anonymous. I will not ask for your name or identifying information. If you
have any questions, please contact me at the phone number or e-mail address provided.
Yours sincerely,
Graduate student | Ruby Kuo (ruby_tw@yahoo.com)
HCDE program at the University of Washington
Part I: Demographic and General Internet Usage
• What is your gender? Male Female
• What is your age? 18~24 25~29 30~34 35~39
40~44 45~49 50~54 55~59
older than 60
• How would you rate your computer skills? Novice Average Expert
• About how many years have you had access to the Internet?
Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 4 - 6 years 7 - 9 years 10 years or more
• About how many years have you had access to the Internet via your mobile phone?
never Less than 1 year 1 - 2 years 3 - 4 years 5 years or more
• How often do you access the Internet?
Less often 1 - 2 times a week 3 - 5 times a week About once a day
Several times a day
• How many hours do you spend on web browsing in a week? __________
• How many hours do you spend on web browsing via your mobile in a week? __________
Part II: General Mobile Usage
• How long have you been own a smart phone? _____ month(s) _____year(s)
• How long have you been own your current smart phone? _____ month(s) _____year(s)
13

14. • How many smart phones you currently have? ____________
• OS of smart phone that you currently have (if you have more than one, please answers
this question with the one you mainly use)?
iphone window phone android phone others, _______________(please
give details)
• Screen size of smart phone that you currently have (if you have more than one, please
answers this question with the one you mainly use)? ______________
• What is your smartphone’s brand (if you have more than one, please answers this
question with the one you mainly use)?
_________________ and model _________________
• What kind of browser you use (if you have more than one, please answers this question
with the one you mainly use)? _______________________
• How often do you use your smart phone for
Making voice calls very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Sending messages very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Checking email very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Browsing websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Videotaping or taking picture very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Playing games very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Watching TV (videos) very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Listening to music (or radio) very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Reading eBooks very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Use other applications very frequently often sometimes rarely never
• What often do you visit these websites with your smart phone
Search engine very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Portal site very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Maps website very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Social media very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Web-based mail very frequently often sometimes rarely never
News websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Sports websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Online shopping websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never
14

15. Video sharing and hosting
very frequently often sometimes rarely never
websites
Leaning and reference websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never
Others _____________________________________________________________
Part III: Motivations and Gratifications of Mobile Web Browsing
In the next section of the survey, your will find a number of potential reasons regarding why (and why not) people
browsing websites with their smartphone. Please read over each of the potential reasons and then select an
appropriate response based on your level of agreement with that statement.
A. “I browsing website with my smartphone, because...”
Strong Strong
Agree Natural Disagree
Agree Disagree
it’s a new way to do research
I want to look for specific information
I want to see what is out there
I want to get up-to-date news and information
I want to get timely things(information) quickly
I want to find interesting things
I want to get in-depth information
I want to get nearby information
I want to get direction or address (information of location)
it’s easy to use
I can use it anytime, anywhere
it’s a habit
I want pass time when I bored
I want to occupy my time
I have nothing better to do
it’s entertaining
it’s enjoyable
I want to relax
I just like to surf websites
I like to access certain sites
I want to keep in touch with friends and family
I want to share information with others
when there’s no one else to talk or be with
15

16. it makes me feel less lonely
B. “I don’t like to browse website with my smartphone, because...”
Strong Strong
Agree Natural Disagree
Agree Disagree
I often lose track of time and my surroundings when I’m online
I often feel the screen size is too small to browse websites
I easier being tired when reading words on the screen
I often feel irritated when browsing website with my mobile
I often feel distraction when browsing website with my mobile
I often feel frustrated when browsing website with my mobile
when websites (or the tasks) require me to input
I find that most websites are messy
I find that most websites are difficult to navigate with my mobile
I likely not to browsing website because information are too hard to
find
Part IV: Attitude and Intention toward Future Usage
Strong Strong
Agree Natural Disagree
Agree Disagree
It’s likely that I will continue to browsing websites with smart
phone
I plan to do more mobile web browsing in the future
I feel comfortable when I browsing websites with my smart phone
I feel confident that I can efficiently get information I need by
browsing the websites
Thank you for taking the time to fill out the questionnaire! If you have questions or
suggestions about it, please contact me by phone 206-7798746 or e-mail
ruby_tw@yahoo.com.
16