Uses and gratifications theory is a communication theory that describes the reasons and means by which people seek out media to meet specific needs.[1][2][3] The theory postulates that media is a highly available product, that audiences are the consumers of the product, and that audiences choose media to satisfy given needs as well as social and psychological uses, such as knowledge, relaxation, social relationships, and diversion.[4][5][6][7]

Uses and gratifications theory was developed from a number of prior communication theories and research conducted by fellow theorists. The theory has a heuristic value because it gives communication scholars a "perspective through which a number of ideas and theories about media choice, consumption, and even impact can be viewed".[8]

History

1940s: Basic premise

Beginning in the 1940s, researchers began to see patterns under the perspective of the uses and gratifications theory in radio listeners.[9][10] Early research was concerned with topics such as children's use of comics and the absence of newspapers during a newspaper strike. An interest in more psychological interpretations emerged during this time period. By 1944, researchers began to look into the earliest forms of uses and gratifications with their work classifying the reasons why people chose specific types of media. Herta Herzog interviewed various soap opera fans and was able to identify three types of gratifications based on why people listened to soap operas: emotional, wishful thinking, and learning.[11] Then, in 1948, Lasswell introduced a four-functional interpretation of the media on a macro-sociological level: media served the functions of surveillance, correlation, entertainment and cultural transmission for both society and individuals.[12]

According to Richard West and Lynn Turner, UGT is an extension of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs that argues that people actively look to satisfy their needs based on a hierarchy. These needs are organized as a pyramid with the largest, most fundamental needs at the base and the need for self-actualization at the top.[11] Wilbur Schramm developed the fraction of selection, a formula for determining which form of mass media an individual would select. The formula helped to decide the amount of gratification an individual would expect to gain from the medium over how much effort they had to make to achieve gratification.[11] Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch synthesized that UGT's approach was focused on "the social and psychological origins of needs, which generate expectations of the mass media or other sources, which lead to differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in need gratifications and some other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones."[5][12]

1970s: Five assumptions proposed

In 1969 Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail studied the 1964 election in the United Kingdom by examining people's motives for watching certain political programs on television. By categorizing the audience's motives for viewing a certain program, they aimed to understand any potential mass-media effects by classifying viewers according to their needs.[5] The audience motivations they were able to identify helped lay the groundwork for their research in 1972 and eventually uses and gratifications theory.[11] McQuail, Blumler and Joseph Brown suggested that the uses of different types of media could be grouped into 4 categories: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, surveillance (i.e. forms of information seeking).[11]

McQuail, Blumler and Brown were joined in their media exploration by Elihu Katz, Michael Gurevitch and Hadassah Haas, and their collaborative research began to indicate how people saw the mass media.[11] A 1974 study by Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch stated five basic assumptions for a framework for understanding the correlation between media and audiences. These assumptions are:[12]

  1. The audience is conceived as active.
  2. In the mass communication process, much initiative in linking gratification and media choice lies with the audience member.
  3. The media compete with other sources of satisfaction.
  4. Methodologically speaking, many of the goals of mass media use can be derived from data supplied by individual audience members themselves.
  5. Value judgments about the cultural significance of mass communication should be suspended while audience orientations are explored on their own terms.

According to their research, goals for media use can be grouped into five uses.[6] The audience wants to:

  1. Be informed or educated
  2. Identify with characters of the situation in the media environment
  3. Simple entertainment
  4. Enhance social interaction
  5. Escape from the stresses of daily life

Applications of UGT since 1980s

Rehman (1983) applied UGT to study the relationship between movie audience expectations and the satisfaction they derived from going to the movies. The following year Alan Rubin identified two main types of television viewers: ritualized (or, habitual) users and instrumental (or, non-habitual) users. Rubin defined the ritualized users as individuals who had a high regard for television, used television often, and primarily used it for the purpose of a diversion. Meanwhile, the instrumental users were defined as having a lower regard for television, did not use it often, and when they would use television it was for the purpose of acquiring information.[13] Mark Levy and Sven Windahl identified three types of audience activity, which they labeled as preactivity, duractivity, and postactivity. Levy and Windahl described preactivity as seeking out certain media to gratify intellectual needs, duractivity as focusing on deciphering and interpreting messages, and postactivity as seeking out a message for personal or interpersonal benefit.[14]

A year later, in 1985, Levy and Windahl provided a description of what it means to be an "active consumer" of media:

As commonly understood by gratifications researchers, the term "audience activity" postulates a voluntaristic and selective orientation by audiences toward the communication process. In brief, it suggests that media use is motivated by needs and goals that are defined by audience members themselves, and that active participation in the communication process may facilitate, limit, or otherwise influence the gratifications and effects associated with exposure. Current thinking also suggests that audience activity is best conceptualized as a variable construct, with audiences exhibiting varying kinds and degrees of activity.[15]

Then, in 1987, researchers Lewis Donohew, Philip Palmgreen, and J.D. Rayburn identified four different lifestyle types of television viewers, each with a variety of differences from the degrees to which the audience member watches TV, why they watch it, what their income and gender is, their marriage status, and so on.[16] The four types are: disengaged homemaker, outgoing activist, restrained activist, and working class climber[17]

The most recent interest surrounding UGT is the link between the reason why media is used and the achieved gratification. UGT researchers are developing the theory to be more predictive and explanatory by connecting the needs, goals, benefits, consequences of media consumption and use along with individual factors. Work in UGT was trailblazed by the research of Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch which built on Herzog's research and caused a paradigm shift from how media influences people to how audiences use media, diminishing the dominance of the limited effects approach to mass media studies.[11]

Research issues

In the 1980s, Palmgreen and Rayburn proposed the model of gratifications sought (GS) and gratifications obtained (GO). GS are the rewards people seek from media, while GO are the rewards people receive from media. In their study, they found that correlations between individual GS and non-corresponding GOs were generally much lower, indicating considerable promise for a sought versus obtained conceptualization of uses and gratifications.[18]

Palmgreen et al. conducted an investigation in 1985 that provides support for a process model of uses and gratifications based upon an expectancy-value approach.[19] Results of the study supported the hypothesis that gratifications obtained are strongly related to the beliefs about media attributes but are not related to evaluations of those attributes. Further, the results demonstrated that gratifications sought and obtained may be measured at the same level of abstraction, contrary to earlier speculation.[20]

Modern applications

The studies of Katz and his colleagues laid a theoretical foundation for building the uses and gratifications approach. Since then, the research on this subject has been strengthened and extended.[21] The current status of uses and gratifications is still based on Katz's first analysis, particularly as new media forms have emerged in an electronic information age when people have more options of media use.

Mobile phone usage

Mobile phones, a comparatively new technology, have many uses and gratifications attached to them. Due to their nature of mobility, constant access, and options to both add and access content, this field is expanding with new research on the motivations behind using mobile phones. In general, people use mobile phones for the following uses and gratifications: sociability, entertainment, status, immediate access, instrumentality, mobility, and psychological reassurance.[22] Researchers have also identified that the uses and gratifications for contributing mobile content differ from those for retrieving mobile content.[23]

The specific function of text messaging has also been studied to find its uses and gratifications and explore any potential gender differences.[24] Seven uses and gratifications, in order of importance, have been proposed: accessibility, relaxation, escape, entertainment, information seeking, coordination for business, socialization, status seeking. The results also displayed gender differences, implying that social and societal expectations for females around independence and connection were a factor in their uses and gratification seeking.[24] A study on instant messaging found that women chatted longer and for sociability; men chatted for less time per session and for entertainment and relaxation.[25]

Internet usage

The Internet provides a new and deep field for exploring UGT. It was found to have three main categories of gratifications: content gratification, process gratification, and social gratification.[26] Content uses and gratification include the need for researching or finding specific information or material, which are gratified with content. Process uses and gratification involve the experience of purposeful navigating or random browsing of the Internet in its functional process. Social uses and gratification encompass a wide range of forming and deepening social ties.

Scholars like LaRose utilize UGT to understand Internet usage via a socio-cognitive framework. This reduces uncertainties that arise from homogenizing an Internet audience and explaining media usage in terms of only positive gratifications. LaRose also created measures for self-efficacy and self-disparagement and related UGT to negative outcomes of online behavior, such as internet addiction.[27]

Social media usage

Whereas basic research finds that socialization motivates use of friend-networking sites, uses and gratifications theory suggests that individual users will continue to be engaged with social networking sites if their gratifications and needs are fulfilled by such tools.[28] Some further exploration has demonstrated that although emotional, cognitive, social, and habitual uses are motivational to use social media, not all uses are consistently gratified.[29] By 2013, research has looked at social networking services, personal and subject-based blogs, and internet forums.[30][31] The relationship between gratifications and narcissism, and the effects of age on this relationship and corresponding gratifications have also been studied.[32] Overall, users have the following motivations: social and affection, need to vent negative feelings, recognition, entertainment, cognitive needs.

Users who share news are motivated by the uses and gratifications of socializing and status seeking, especially if they have had prior experience with social media.[33] Users also engage in cyberbullying in order to fulfil a need to be vengeful and malicious, while avoiding face-to-face contact.[34]

Online gaming

Achievement, enjoyment and social interaction are all motivations for starting to play an online game, with success at the game and the extent to which gamers' uses were gratified predicting continuance in playing.[35] In 2017, researchers applied UGT to study user behavior among Pokémon Go players. Results show that enjoyment, physical activity, nostalgia, image, normative influences and flow drive various forms of user behavior. In addition, perceived physical risks, but not perceived privacy risks, lead to weaker forms of usage.[36]

Entertainment media

Research has shown that media taken in for entertainment purposes have a wide range of uses and emotional gratifications,[37] and that these are not mutually exclusive but can overlap with each other. Rehman (1983) demonstrated a relationship between gratifications sought and obtained from the movies and movie attendance. The most prominently cited emotional gratification of media use of mood management. UGT proposes that eople prefer to maintain a state of intermediate arousal. When in a bad mood, bored, or over-aroused, people will seek media as regulation for or distraction from their mood.[38][39] Another emotional gratification is affective disposition, which involves people experiencing gratificaition when rooting for characters depicted as good and moral.[40] Other emotional gratifications include excitation transfer,[41] sensation seeking,[42] downward social comparison,[43][44] mood adjustment,[45][46] and competence.[47]

Additionally, the modes of reception of entertainment media correlates with emotion involvement and can facilitate the pursuit of other goals.[48][49] Entertainment media allows users to live out gender-socialised roles,[50][51][52] satisfy parasocial relationships,[53][54][55] live vicariously through fictional characters,[56][57][58] and find meaning and purpose.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

Media system dependency theory

Media system dependency theory (MSDT or media dependency theory) has been studied as an offshoot of UGT. However, media dependency theory focuses on audiences' goals for media consumption as the source of their dependency; while uses and gratification theory focuses on audience's needs as drivers for media consumption. MSDT states that as a person becomes increasingly dependent on media to satisfy their needs, that media will become more important in a person's life and thereby have increased influence and effects on that person. MSDT acknowledges and builds upon UGT because it is based on the assumptions that people have different uses for media that arise from their needs.[65]

Social cognitive theory

Building on UGT, Social Cognitive Theory helped distinguish GS versus GO stimulus for media consumption. Social cognitive theory explains behavior in terms of the reciprocal causation between individuals, environments, and behaviors. This allows for a more personal application of UGT instead of a large, blanketing assumption about a large audience of mass media. If GO is greater than GS then there will be more audience satisfaction. Lastly, audiences' GS are not always the reality of their GO.[27][66]

Cultivation theory

Cultivation theory is concerned with understanding the role that media — specifically television — plays in shaping a person's world view. Whereas UGT tries to understand the motivations that drive media usage, cultivation theory focuses on the psychological effects of media. Cultivation theory is used especially to study violence in television and how it shapes audience's understanding of the reality of violence in society. Often, because of media's influence, audiences have a more heightened and unrealistic perception of the amount of violence. A UGT approach may be implemented to Cultivation theory cases to understand why an audience would seek violent media and if audiences seek television violence to satisfy the need of confirmation of their worldview.

Hypodermic needle model

Hypodermic needle model (known as the hypodermic-syringe model, transmission-belt model, or magic bullet theory) is a model of communication suggesting that an intended message is directly received and wholly accepted by the receiver. The model was originally rooted in 1930s behaviourism and was largely considered obsolete for a long time, but big data analytics-based mass customisation has led to a modern revival of the basic idea. After that, a shift which rediscovered the relationship between media and people occurred and led to establishment of uses and gratifications approach.

Mass media

In media studies, mass communication, media psychology, communication theory, and sociology, media influence and media effects are topics relating to mass media and media culture's effects on individual or an audience's thoughts, attitudes, and behavior. Whether it is written, televised, or spoken, mass media reaches a large audience. Mass media's role and effect in shaping modern culture are central issues for study of culture.[67]

Theory criticism

Uses and gratifications theory has, almost since its inception, been viewed critics as not meeting the standards necessary to be a theory. Critics argue that it instead is more of an approach to analysis or a data-collecting strategy.[68][69][70] Common criticism include that gratifications are more dependent on input by researchers than on decisions made by research subjects;[71] that early research utilized flawed methodologies that led findings to be overstimated;[71] that audiences of different ages likely have different motivations for using identical media, and also likely have different gratifications;[72] that most research relies on pure recollection of memory rather than data;[12] and that it goes too far in claiming that people are free to choose the media and the interpretations they desire.[69]

As a sociologically-based theory, UGT has little to no benefit to psychology due to its weakness in operational definitions and weak analytical mode. It also is focused too narrowly on the individual and neglects the social structure and place of the media in that structure. Ruggiero wrote that "most scholars agree that early research had little theoretical coherence and was primarily behaviorist and individualist in its methodological tendencies."[21] Blumler and other critics have argued that the line between gratification and satisfaction is blurred, and Blumler wrote that "the nature of the theory underlying uses and gratifications research is not totally clear."[73] McQuail criticized the UGT as too cumbersome and tried to do too much, arguing that there is no real way of testing the theory through content analysis or surveys.[74]

Among the most criticized tenets of uses and gratifications as theory is the assumption of an active audience. Ruggerio noted three assumptions necessary to the idea of active audience: First, media selection is initiated by the individual. Second, expectations regarding the use of media must be a product of individual predispositions, social interactions and environmental factors. And third, the active audience exhibits goal-directed behavior. This concept of active audience finds, at best, limited acceptance outside of the United States.[21]

Jay Blumler presented a number of points as to why UGT cannot measure an active audience. He stated, "The issue to be considered here is whether what has been thought about Uses and Gratifications Theory has been an article of faith and if it could now be converted into an empirical question such as: How to measure an active audience?" Blumler then offered suggestions about the kinds of activity the audiences were engaging with in the different types of media: utility, intentionality, selectivity, and imperviousness to influence.[75] In 1973, Blumler, McQuail and Brown extended Lasswell's four groups to include four more primary factors for media usage: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance.[12]

Severin and Tankard also argued that most of the data collection method used in uses and gratification studies are self-report questionnaires, which is not a reliable way to ascertain the genuine reason for using the media because they believe that individuals can not respond accurately to questions about their own feelings and behavior.[76]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Menon, Devadas (1 December 2022). "Uses and gratifications of educational apps: A study during COVID-19 pandemic". Computers and Education Open. 3: 100076. doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100076. ISSN 2666-5573. PMC 8800936.
  2. ↑ Katz, Elihu (1 January 1959). "Mass Communications Research and the Study of Popular Culture: An Editorial Note on a Possible Future for This Journal". Studies in Public Communication. 2: 1–6.
  3. ↑ Menon, Devadas (5 March 2022). "Purchase and continuation intentions of Over -The -Top (OTT) video streaming platform subscription: A Uses and Gratification theory perspective". Telematics and Informatics Reports. 5: 100006. doi:10.1016/j.teler.2022.100006. ISSN 2772-5030. S2CID 247248868.
  4. ↑ Menon, Devadas; Meghana, H.R. (January 2021). "Unpacking the uses and gratifications of Facebook: A study among college teachers in India". Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 3: 100066. doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100066.
  5. 1 2 3 Severin, Werner J.; Tankard Jr., James W. (2000). "2: New Media Theory". Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN 978-0801333354.
  6. 1 2 McQuail, Denis (2010). Mass communication theory: an introduction. London: SAGE Publications. pp. 420–430. ISBN 978-1849202923.
  7. ↑ "What Can Uses and Gratifications Theory Tell Us About Social Media?". Ithink. 29 July 2010. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  8. ↑ Baran, Stanley J.; Davis, Dennis K. (2009). Mass communication theory : foundations, ferment, and future (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. p. 416. ISBN 978-0495898870. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
  9. ↑ Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1940). Radio and the printed page; an introduction to the study of radio and its role in the communication of ideas. New York, New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce. ISBN 9780405035753.
  10. ↑ Menon, Devadas (8 January 2023). "Reclaiming the Airwaves: Exploring the Motivations for FM Radio Listening during COVID-19". Journal of Radio & Audio Media: 1–21. doi:10.1080/19376529.2022.2145480. ISSN 1937-6529. S2CID 255664077.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. "Uses and Gratifications Theory." Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 392–409. Print.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Katz, Elihu; Blumler, Jay G.; Gurevitch, Michael (1973). "Uses and Gratifications Research". The Public Opinion Quarterly. 37 (4): 509–523. doi:10.1086/268109. JSTOR 2747854. S2CID 146632763.
  13. ↑ Rubin, Alan (1984). "Ritualized and instrumental television viewing". Journal of Communication. 34 (3): 67–77. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02174.x.
  14. ↑ Levy, Mark; Sven Windahl (1984). "Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration". Communication Research: 51–78. doi:10.1177/009365084011001003. S2CID 145257893.
  15. ↑ Levy, M. R.; Windahl, S. (1985). "The concept of audience activity". In Rosengren, Karl Erik; Wenner, Lawrence A.; Palmgreen, Philip (eds.). Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives. SAGE Publications. pp. 109–122. ISBN 978-0-8039-2471-0.
  16. ↑ Donohew, Lewis; Palmgreen, Philip; Rayburn, J. D. (June 1987). "Social and psychological origins of media use: A lifestyle analysis". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 31 (3): 255–278. doi:10.1080/08838158709386663.
  17. ↑ "Mass Media Contexts:Mass Communication in Contemporary Society" (PDF). Kendall Hunt. p. 352.
  18. ↑ Palmgreen, Philip; Wenner, Lawrence A.; Rayburn, J.D. (April 1980). "Relations Between Gratifications Sought and Obtained: A Study of Television News". Communication Research. 7 (2): 161–192. doi:10.1177/009365028000700202. S2CID 145694900.
  19. ↑ Rubin, Rebecca B.; Palmgreen, Philip; Sypher, Howard E. (2020). "Political Media Gratifications Scale". Communication Research Measures. pp. 296–300. doi:10.4324/9781003064343-49. ISBN 9781003064343. S2CID 225503658.
  20. ↑ Palmgreen, Philip; Rayburn, J. D. (December 1985). "A comparison of gratification models of media satisfaction". Communication Monographs. 52 (4): 334–346. doi:10.1080/03637758509376116.
  21. 1 2 3 Ruggiero, Thomas E. (February 2000). "Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century". Mass Communication and Society. 3 (1): 3–37. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02. S2CID 15269098.
  22. ↑ Leung, Louis; Wei, Ran (June 2000). "More Than Just Talk on the Move: Uses and Gratifications of the Cellular Phone". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 77 (2): 308–320. doi:10.1177/107769900007700206. S2CID 145212180.
  23. ↑ Chua, Alton Y.K.; Dion Hoe-Lian Goh; Chei Sian Lee (2012). "Mobile Content Contribution and Retrieval: An Exploratory Study Using the Uses and Gratifications Paradigm". Information Processing & Management. 48 (1): 13–22. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.04.002. hdl:10220/11601.
  24. 1 2 Grellhesl, Melanie; Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter (2012). "Using the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Understand Gratifications Sought through Text Messaging Practices of Male and Female Undergraduate Students". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (6): 2175–2181. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.024.
  25. ↑ Leung, L. (2001). "College student motives for chatting on ICQ". New Media & Society. 3 (4): 482–500. doi:10.1177/14614440122226209. S2CID 13578948.
  26. ↑ Stafford, Thomas F.; Marla Royne Stafford; Lawrence L. Schkade (Spring 2004). "Determining Uses and Gratifications for the Internet". Decision Sciences. 35 (2): 259–288. doi:10.1111/j.00117315.2004.02524.x.
  27. 1 2 LaRose, Robert; Dana Mastro; Matthew S. Eastin (2001). "Understanding Internet Usage: A Social-Cognitive Approach to Uses and Gratifications" (PDF). Social Science Computer Review. 19 (395): 395–413. doi:10.1177/089443930101900401. S2CID 31973510.
  28. ↑ Ifinedo, Princely (2016). "Applying uses and gratifications theory and social influence processes to understand students' pervasive adoption of social networking sites: Perspectives from the Americas". International Journal of Information Management. 36 (2): 192–206. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.007.
  29. ↑ Wang, Zheng; John M. Tchernev; Tyler Solloway (2012). "A Dynamic Longitudinal Examination of Social Media Use, Needs, and Gratifications Among College Students". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (5): 1829–1839. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.001. S2CID 639979.
  30. ↑ Leung, Louis (2013). "Generational Differences in Content Generation in Social Media: The Roles of the Gratifications Sought and of Narcissism". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (3): 997–1006. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.028.
  31. ↑ Menon, Devadas (3 March 2022). "Factors influencing Instagram Reels usage behaviours: An examination of motives, contextual age and narcissism". Telematics and Informatics Reports. 5: 100007. doi:10.1016/j.teler.2022.100007. ISSN 2772-5030. S2CID 247285444.
  32. ↑ Menon, Devadas (1 May 2022). "Updating 'Stories' on social media and its relationships to contextual age and narcissism: A tale of three platforms – WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook". Heliyon. 8 (5): e09412. Bibcode:2022Heliy...809412M. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09412. ISSN 2405-8440. PMC 9119837. PMID 35600438.
  33. ↑ Lee, Chei Sian; Long Ma (2012). "News Sharing in Social Media: The Effect of Gratifications and Prior Experience". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (2): 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002. S2CID 679551.
  34. ↑ Hicks, Amy; Stephen Comp; Jeannie Horovitz; Madeline Hovarter; Maya Miki; Jennifer L. Bevan (2012). "Why People Use Yelp.com: An Exploration of Uses and Gratifications". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (6): 2274–2279. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.034.
  35. ↑ Wu, Jen-Her; Wang, Shu-Ching; Tsai, Ho-Huang (November 2010). "Falling in love with online games: The uses and gratifications perspective". Computers in Human Behavior. 26 (6): 1862–1871. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.033.
  36. ↑ Rauschnabel, Philipp A.; Rossmann, Alexander; Dieck, M. Claudia tom (2017). "An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go" (PDF). Computers in Human Behavior. 76: 276–286. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.030. S2CID 45215074.
  37. ↑ Bartsch, Anne; Reinhold Viehoff (29 March 2010). "The Use of Media Entertainment and Emotional Gratification". Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 5: 2247–2255. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.444.
  38. ↑ Zillman, D (1988). "Mood management through communication choices". American Behavioral Scientist. 31 (3): 327–340. doi:10.1177/000276488031003005. S2CID 143633858.
  39. ↑ Zillmann, Dolf (January 2000). "Mood Management in the Context of Selective Exposure Theory". Annals of the International Communication Association. 23 (1): 103–123. doi:10.1080/23808985.2000.11678971. S2CID 148208494.
  40. ↑ Raney, A. A. (2003). J. Bryant; D. Roskos-Ewoldsen; J. Cantor (eds.). Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 61–84.
  41. ↑ Zillman, D. (1996). Vorderer, P.; H. J. Wulff; M. Friedrichsen (eds.). Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 199–231.
  42. ↑ Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. New York: Wiley.
  43. ↑ Mares, M.-L.; Cantor, J. (1992). "Elderly viewers' responses to televised portrayals of old age". Communication Research. 19 (4): 459–478. doi:10.1177/009365092019004004. S2CID 146427447.
  44. ↑ Knobloch S, Zillmann D (December 2003). "Appeal of love themes in popular music". Psychological Reports. 93 (3 Pt 1): 653–658. doi:10.2466/pr0.93.7.653-658. PMID 14723423.
  45. ↑ Knobloch, S. (2003). "Mood adjustment via mass communication" (PDF). Journal of Communication. 53 (2): 233–250. doi:10.1093/joc/53.2.233. hdl:2027.42/72504.
  46. ↑ Knobloch-Westerwick, S.; Alter, S. (2006). "Mood adjustment to social situations through mass media use: How men ruminate and women dissipate angry moods". Human Communication Research. 32: 58–73. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00003.x. hdl:2027.42/75109. S2CID 54958628.
  47. ↑ Vorderer, P; Steen, F.; Chan, E. (2006). Bryant, J.; Vorderer, P. (eds.). Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  48. ↑ Bartsch, Anne; Reinhold Viehoff (2010). "The Use of Media Entertainment and Emotional Gratification". Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 5: 2247–2255. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.444.
  49. ↑ Sückfull, M. (2004). Rezeptionsmodalitäten. Ein integratives Konstrukt für die Medienwirkungsforschung. München: Reinhard Fischer.
  50. ↑ Oliver, Mary Beth (March 1993). "Exploring the Paradox of the Enjoyment of Sad Films". Human Communication Research. 19 (3): 315–342. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00304.x.
  51. ↑ Oliver, Mary Beth; Weaver, III, James B.; Sargent, Stephanie Lee (June 2000). "An Examination of Factors Related to Sex Differences In Enjoyment of Sad Films". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 44 (2): 282–300. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_8. S2CID 144599970.
  52. ↑ Mundorf, N.; Mundorf, J. (2003). "Gender socialization of horror". In J. Bryant; D. Roskos-Ewoldsen; J. Cantor (eds.). Communication and Emotion. Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 155–178.
  53. ↑ Horton D, Wohl RR (August 1956). "Mass communication and para-social interaction; observations on intimacy at a distance". Psychiatry. 19 (3): 215–229. doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049. PMID 13359569.
  54. ↑ Kilmmt, C.; Hartmann, T.; Schramm, H.; Vorderer, P. (May 2003). "The perception of avatars: Parasocial interactions with digital characters". Vortrag Gehalten Auf der Jahrestagung der International Communication Association, San Diego.
  55. ↑ Rubin, Alan M.; Perse, Elizabeth M. (December 1987). "Audience Activity and Soap Opera Involvement A Uses and Effects Investigation". Human Communication Research. 14 (2): 246–268. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x.
  56. ↑ Busselle, Rick; Bilandzic, Helena (23 November 2009). "Measuring Narrative Engagement" (PDF). Media Psychology. 12 (4): 321–347. doi:10.1080/15213260903287259. S2CID 144767356.
  57. ↑ Green MC, Brock TC (November 2000). "The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79 (5): 701–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701. PMID 11079236. S2CID 10197772.
  58. ↑ Igartua, Juan-José (January 2010). "Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films". Communications. 35 (4). doi:10.1515/comm.2010.019. S2CID 59582658.
  59. ↑ Oliver, M.B.; Bartsch, A. (2010). "Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism" (PDF). Human Communication Research. 36: 53–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x.
  60. ↑ Tesser, A.; Millar, K.; Wu, C. H. (1988). "On the perceived functions of movies". The Journal of Psychology. 122 (5): 441–449. doi:10.1080/00223980.1988.10542949.
  61. ↑ Oliver, Mary Beth (March 2008). "Tender Affective States as Predictors of Entertainment Preference". Journal of Communication. 58 (1): 40–61. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00373.x.
  62. ↑ Oliver, M.B.; Raney, A.A. (2011). "Entertainment as Pleasurable and Meaningful: Identifying Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motivations for Entertainment Consumption". Journal of Communication. 61 (5): 984–1004. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x. S2CID 5670385.
  63. ↑ Waterman, Alan S. (1993). "Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (4): 678–691. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678.
  64. ↑ Katz, Elihu; Haas, Hadassah; Gurevitch, Michael (April 1973). "On the Use of the Mass Media for Important Things". American Sociological Review. 38 (2): 164. doi:10.2307/2094393. JSTOR 2094393. S2CID 14263420.
  65. ↑ Ball-Rokeach, S.J.; DeFleur, M.L. (January 1976). "A dependency model of mass-media effects". Communication Research. 3 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1177/009365027600300101. S2CID 145125706.
  66. ↑ Palmgreen, Philip; Wenner, Lawrence A.; Rosengren, Karl Erik (1985). "Uses and gratifications research: The past ten years". In Rosengren, Karl Erik; Wenner, Lawrence A.; Palmgreen, Philip (eds.). Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives. SAGE Publications. pp. 11–37. ISBN 978-0-8039-2471-0.
  67. ↑ Harvey, G.L. (1 July 1992). Media information review, January--June 1992 (Report). doi:10.2172/7107267.
  68. ↑ Littlejohn, Stephen W. (2002). Theories of Human Communication. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. ISBN 978-0-534-54957-2.
  69. 1 2 Severin, Werner J; Tankard, James W (1997). Communication theories: origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. Longman. ISBN 978-0-8013-1703-3. OCLC 1131288435.
  70. ↑
    • McQuail, Denis (1994). Mass Communication Theory An Introduction. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-8039-7784-6.
  71. 1 2 Lometti, G. E.; Reeves, B.; Bybee, C. R. (1977). "Investigating the assumptions of uses and gratifications research". Communication Research. 4 (3): 321–338. doi:10.1177/009365027700400305. S2CID 145381733.
  72. ↑ Greenberg, B. S. (1974). "Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children". In Blumler, Jay G.; Katz, Elihu (eds.). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. SAGE Publications. pp. 71–92. ISBN 978-0-8039-0340-1.
  73. ↑ Blumler, Jay G. (January 1979). "The Role of Theory in Uses and Gratifications Studies". Communication Research. 6 (1): 9–36. doi:10.1177/009365027900600102. S2CID 144490637.
  74. ↑ McQuail, D. (1984). With the benefit of hindsight: Reflections on uses and gratifications research. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 1(2), 177-193.
  75. ↑ West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. "Uses and Gratifications Theory." Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 392–401. Print.
  76. ↑ Infante D.A, Rancer A.S, Avtgis T.A (2010) Contemporary Communication Theory. 8. 353-354

Further reading

  • Blumler, J.; Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Straubhaar, Joseph D.; LaRose, Robert; Straubhaar, Josheph (2010). Media now: communications media in the information age (6 ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-57008-0.
  • Melvin Defleur Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Theories of Mass Communication.
  • Grant, A. E. (April 1998). Dependency and control. Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communications, Baltimore, Maryland (Report).
  • Infante, Dominic A.; Rancer, Andrew S.; Womack, Deanna F. (1993). Building Communication Theory. pp. 204–412.
  • Infante, Dominic A.; Rancer, Andrew S.; Avtgis, Theodore A. (2009). Contemporary Communication Theory. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-7575-6634-9.
  • Katz, E. (1987). "Communication research since Lazarsfeld". Public Opinion Quarterly. 51 (4 PART 2): 525–545. doi:10.1093/poq/51.4_PART_2.S25.
  • Katz, E. (1959). "Mass communication research and the study of culture". Studies in Public Communication. 2: 1–6.
  • Katz, E.; Blumler, J. G.; Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills: Sage. pp. 19–32.
  • Katz, E.; Haas, H.; Gurevitch, M. (1973). "On the use of the mass media for important things". American Sociological Review. 38 (2): 164–181. doi:10.2307/2094393. JSTOR 2094393. S2CID 14263420.
  • Laughey, Dan. Key Themes in Media Theory. pp. 26–27 – via Behaviourism and Media Effects.
  • Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1940). "Radio and the Printed Page.". New York: Dvell, Sloan, Pearce.
  • McQuail, D.; Blumler, J. G.; Brown, J. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective. Middlesex, England: Penguin. pp. 135–165 – via In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communication.
  • McQuail, D. (1983). With Benefits to Hindsight : Reflections on Uses and Gratifications Research. SAGE Publications – via Critical Studies in Mass Communication Theory: And Introduction.
  • McQuail, D. (2010). McQuails Mass Communication Theory (6 ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
  • Menon, Devadas; Meghana, H.R. (January 2021). "Unpacking the uses and gratifications of Facebook: A study among college teachers in India". Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 3: 100066. doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100066.
  • Palmgreen, Philip; Rayburn, J. D. (December 1985). "A comparison of gratification models of media satisfaction". Communication Monographs. 52 (4): 334–346. doi:10.1080/03637758509376116.
  • Rehman, S. (1983). Correlation between gratifications sought and obtained from the movies. Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Ohio (Report).
  • Roger, Tony (28 August 2019). "Are Newspapers Dying?". ThoughtCo. Archived from the original on 20 March 2023. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
  • Rubin, A. M.; Windahl, S. (1982). Mass media uses and dependency: A social systems approach to uses and gratifications. Paper presented to the meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.