6

Uses and Gratifications

A Social and Psychological Perspective of Media Use and Effects

Paul Haridakis

Introduction

Uses and gratifications is an audience-centered media-effects perspective. It stresses that media effects are the result of a confluence of factors working in concert, and that many of these factors are unique to the individual. Uses and gratifications suggests that people's social and psychological characteristics influence their needs and desires which are manifested in their motives for using communication channels. Audience background characteristics and motives, in turn, influence media-use activity before, during and after use; attitudes about the media and their content; and, ultimately, effects.

Although uses and gratifications sees people as purposive, goal directed, and motivated in seeking to satisfy their needs and desires, it also recognizes that many effects – perhaps most – are unintended (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch 1974). Thus, researchers have used the perspective to explore consequences of media use other than gratifications sought to be obtained, including unintended or even detrimental outcomes of media use such as viewer aggression (Haridakis, 2002), media addiction (Kim & Haridakis, 2009), unintended perceptions gleaned from the media (Rubin, Haridakis, Hullman, Sun, Chikombero, & Pornsakulvanic, 2003), and a host of other outcomes.

But, on the whole, uses and gratifications suggests people choose media that they feel satisfies their needs. They develop expectations of media and rely on media and content that meet those expectations.

Origins and Theoretical Assumptions

Reviews of audience-centered perspectives often trace the roots of uses and gratifications to mid-twentieth century research in which scholars began to focus more deliberately on the functions media serve for people, such as surveillance, cultural transmission, entertainment and mobilization (Rubin, 2009). In early research, scholars identified reasons for which people used particular media and fare such as radio music (Suchman, 1942), radio quiz shows and serials (Herzog, 1940, 1944), newspapers (Berelson, 1949), comics (Wolfe & Fiske, 1949), and television (Horton & Wohl, 1956). Scholars came to recognize that media effects were attributable to more than simple exposure to media or their content, and that researchers needed to focus on learning more about why and how people use the media. Such a research orientation was referred to by various names including functional (Wright, 1960), phenomenistic (Klapper, 1960), and situational (Freidson, 1953). Katz (1959) referred to such an approach as uses and gratifications.

Klapper (1960) synthesized much of this research and concluded that individuals' psychological and social environmental differences, including group membership, interpersonal communication, and media use behaviors (e.g., selective exposure, perception, and retention) mediated the effects of media exposure. Much of the research reviewed by Klapper was more descriptive than explanatory But, it did reflect the growing recognition of the need to account for individual-level and media-use differences in the study of media effects. This included the influence of audience activity (Blumler, 1979), media-use motives (McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972). and background characteristics such as race (Gerson, 1966), personality, and social situation (Rosengren, 1974).

The uses and gratifications perspective that emerged from such research represented a theory of social and psychological needs that was lacking in mass communication research (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973–1974). Katz et al. (1974) summarized the perspectives' assumptions, and the breadth and scope of its application. They outlined the often-cited model of uses and gratifications that addresses

This audience-centered model saw the media consumer as active, selective, and relatively goal-directed. While acknowledging that some media use is more casual and passive, purely involuntary, unconscious, and impulsive media use was largely outside the boundaries of the focus of uses and gratifications.

Since the 1970s, scholars have tested the assumptions of the uses and gratifications model outlined by Katz et al. (1974). They have focused on clarifying the conceptualization and operationalization of concepts central to the theory, and sought empirical verification of links among these concepts as they have applied the theory to study the use and effects of various media and content.

Rubin (2009) recently described five central assumptions of uses and gratifications. First, “Communication behavior, including the selection and use of the media, is goal directed, purposive, and motivated,” and functional. Second, people “are variably active” in their “selection and use of communication” and “use media to satisfy felt needs or desires.” Third, “Social and psychological factors guide, filter, or mediate behavior.” Fourth, “media compete with other forms of communication – or, functional alternatives – such as interpersonal interaction for selection, attention, and use.” Fifth, “People are typically more influential than the media in this process, but not always” (p. 167).

In sum, uses and gratifications theory addresses media use and effects as a process that begins with the individual's needs and desires which drive him/her to use communication to satisfy those needs and desires and ends in media effects, both intended and unintended. It recognizes that need satisfaction and other media effects vary based on a host of individual differences such as personality, social relationships, potential for interaction, availability of preferred and alternative media and interpersonal communication channels, motives for using media, and how actively media are used.

Evolution of Research

Over the years different studies have focused on different parts of the uses and gratifications (U&G) model outlined by Katz et al. (1974). Rubin's (2009) update reflects a contemporary U&G model accounting for research that has refined and clarified the perspective's central tenets. Some research has focused on motives for using media and interpersonal communication. Some research has focused on understanding the variability of audience activity and/or linked motives to activity. Other research has focused on how one's social/psychological circumstances influence motives, selectivity, and/or other forms of audience activity (e.g., involvement, attention).

In still other studies, researchers have attempted to test assumptions of the whole U&G model. These types of studies typically focus on how audience background characteristics relevant to the subject of interest (e.g., medium, content, or specific media effect), media-use motives, and activity (e.g., selectivity, involvement, attention) work together to influence attitudinal or behavioral media effects.

Due to the breadth and volume of uses and gratifications research studies, available space only allows for a very abbreviated review of research conducted. It is my hope, however, that the representative review provided here will give the interested reader a flavor of the wider body of U&G scholarship of which the examples here are illustrative.

Communication Motives

The importance of audience motivation in U&G research cannot be overstated. Rosengren (1974) asserted that although U&G posits that needs drive human communication behavior, exploration of fundamental human needs is best left for biologists and psychologists. He stressed that uses and gratifications researchers concentrate their attention on communication motives in which needs are assumed to be manifested (e.g., an underlying need for human interaction may be manifested in motives such as seeking companionship or affection). Katz et al. (1974) suggested that researchers should, in fact, avoid conclusions about the cultural significance of a medium or media content until motives were fully understood. Accordingly, one important research direction beginning in earnest in the 1970s was the identification and conceptualization of media-use motives (e.g., McQuail et al., 1972).

One important advancement was the development of motive indexes that could be used to operationalize motives in empirical research. Greenberg (1974) developed an index to measure motives British children had for watching television. This research was extended by Rubin (1981, 1983). Rubin's efforts resulted in the 27-item television-viewing motive index. It measured nine specific motives for watching television: relaxation, companionship, habit, to pass the time, entertainment, social interaction, information, arousal, and escape. Greenberg's and Rubin's indexes have been used in various iterations over the years to study motives for watching television and specific television genres (see Perse, 2004).

Scholars have remained devoted to the exploration of motives in an effort to understand and explain the use of a variety of media and media fare. Examples of contemporary research include the study of motives for using/watching news programs (Perse, 1990), soap operas (Rubin & Perse, 1987a), sports (Earnheardt & Haridakis, 2008), televised violence (Haridakis, 2002), TV talk shows (Rubin, Haradakis, and Eyal, 2003), reality shows (Barton, 2009), public television (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1979), religious programs (Abelman, 1987), erotica (Perse, 1994), movies (Johnston, 1995), radio talk shows (Armstrong & Rubin, 1989), satellite radio (Lin, 2006), VCRs (Rubin & Bantz, 1987), the telephone (Dimmick, Sikand, & Patterson, 1994), cell phones (Leung & Wei, 2000), iPods (Ferguson, Greer, & Reardon, 2007), the Internet (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000), Internet content such as political fare (Kaye & Johnson, 2002), Internet sites such as home pages and social networks (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009; Papacharissi, 2002), fantasy sports (Spinda & Haridakis, 2008), and interpersonal communication (Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988).

Together, studies suggest that there are some rather stable motives for using a variety of media and media content (e.g., information, entertainment, relaxation, escape, and to pass the time). On the other hand, research has identified motives unique to selecting or preferring a particular medium or content. For example, Johnston (1995) found unique motives for watching graphic horror movies (e.g., gore watching, thrill watching). Similarly, Perse (1994) reported four motives for using erotica: sexual enhancement, diversion, sexual release, and substitution for a sexual partner. Motives for watching sports have included reasons such as achievement, aesthetics, and physical attraction to athletes, among others (Trail & James, 2001).

The difficulty of accounting for all possible motives for using specific media or fare is exacerbated in newer media environments in which people can use a growing number of media for multiple or unique purposes. For example, people may use DVDs and VCRs to watch their favorite television programs, but may choose these technologies over television because they permit them to watch the programs on-demand (e.g., Rubin & Bantz, 1987). The same time-shifting advantage occurs with DVRs (digital video recorders) such as TiVo, and video sharing sites such as YouTube (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009). People may use the Internet for some of the same reasons they use older media, and also because of its convenience (Hanson & Haridakis, 2008). And, people may prefer media such as cell phones because of their mobility (e.g., Leung & Wei, 2000).

At the same time, there may be differences between using the Internet for media consumption (e.g., listening to music, watching videos, acquiring information) and using the Internet to share information with others (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009). Similarly, although cell phones may be used primarily for interpersonal communication, they also may be used for status- or fashion-related reasons, and because of their immediacy (Leung & Wei, 2000). In addition, users' motives may differ depending on who they are talking to (e.g., immediate family members vs. business associates) (Leung & Wei, 2000).

One area of research that has been growing in particular is the study of motives for using online media for social and interpersonal interaction. Over 20 years ago Rubin and Rubin (1985) argued that people can choose media to satisfy interpersonal needs and can choose interpersonal channels to gratify media-related needs. Newer media environments have provided researchers with interesting new opportunities to explore this observation. U&G researchers have noted that the Internet, for example, is used for both interpersonal and media-related reasons (e.g., Pornsakulvanich, Haradakis, & Rubin, 2008). Such findings prompted Haridakis and Hanson (2009) to suggest that there probably always has been a false dichotomy between media-use motives and interpersonal communication motives (p. 322). For example, teenagers watching a movie together or a family playing games on the Wii are most likely satisfying both interpersonal and media-related desires.

Today, researchers seldom examine the role of motives without considering their relationship with other important concepts with which they should be related, theoretically. One particularly important theoretical development in U&G inquiry was identifying the relationship between audience activity and motives for using media.

Activity

Because U&G posits “[c]ommunication behavior, including the selection and use of the media, is goal-directed, purposive, and motivated” (Rubin, 2009, p. 167), a central tenet of the perspective is that people are active media users and that their activity level is influenced by their motives for using media. Over the years scholars have come to regard activity as a variable concept. That is, people are more or less active at different times. Activity also is manifested in different ways, such as in intentionality, selectivity, attention, cognitive and emotional involvement with media or media fare, and use of the fare consumed. Activity also occurs at different times in the media-use process – before exposure (e.g., pre-exposure planning), during exposure (e.g., involvement, attention) and after exposure (e.g., thinking/talking about the fare consumed) (Levy & Windahl, 1984).

Finding patterns of relationships among motives and different types of audience activity led researchers to suggest that there are different orientations toward media use. Various bipolar terms have been used to describe these different media-use orientations. For example, media use has been classified broadly as proactive or passive (Finn, 1992), instrumental or ritualized (Rubin, 1983), and as utilitarian or diversionary (Perse, 1990).

Regardless of the terms that have been attached to these different orientations, each suggests media use rests on a continuum from more passive to more active. According to Rubin and Perse (1987b), “thiese are general orientations toward a medium and its content, not static or discrete characteristics of individual users” (p. 59). They reflect the multivariate relationship among motives, attitudes, and behaviors. Rubin (2009) explained,

Thus, some motives such as surveillance and information seeking reflect more instrumental use, whereas using media out of habit or to pass the time reflect more passive use. But, again, these are just broad generalizations that depend on the interrelationships among motives, attitudes, and activity levels. For example, using media habitually to escape may indeed reflect more ritualized use. But, if someone is using media or media content purposively to escape, then for that person at that point in time it may reflect more instrumental use. Kim and Haridakis (2009) speculated as much when they found that using the Internet to escape predicted a dimension of Internet addiction they termed “escaping reality.”

In short, the variability of activity depends on factors such as motives, attitudes, perceptions, and expectations of media and content. It also can be affected by social context in which media use occurs and the media consumer's social situation, such as the availability of media and other communication channels from which to choose (Rubin, 2009).

The relative degree of activity may also be fostered or inhibited by the medium selected. Different media permit different levels of activity and/or interactivity. For example, certain media forms like talk radio, call-in TV like home shopping, and particular Internet functions (e.g., social networking sites) are specifically designed for interactive use. This inherent interactivity has provided researchers with new opportunities to flesh out the conceptualization and role of media user activity. It also, however, has raised new challenges not posed by the use of older less interactive media, because today media users are not just receivers of media fare. They also are content senders/sharers and creators.

Therefore, researchers have been applying U&G to examine different activities associated with receiving, sharing, or creating media fare. Consistent with U&G assumptions, research has suggested that people's background characteristics and motives influence their media-use activities, whether they are consuming, sharing, or creating content. For example, in a study of personal home pages, Papacharissi (2002) found that social interaction-reward (how satisfying one found their face-to-face communication with others to be) was a positive predictor and life satisfaction was a negative predictor of home page expressiveness. Years of Internet use and number of years of web authoring were positive predictors of home page creativity, and years of computer use was a negative predictor of creativity. Not surprisingly, self-expression motivation predicted home page expressiveness and the amount of personal information included. Haridakis and Hanson (2009) found that male gender and one's level of social activity were two background characteristics that predicted viewing YouTube videos, and social activity and internal locus of control (belief that one can control events in one's life) were characteristics that predicted sharing videos. Users also shared videos for entertainment, to coview with others, and for social interaction with others.

Media and Content Exposure

Uses and gratifications is a media-effects perspective. Because there can be no media use or effects without exposure, U&G researchers typically assess exposure to a medium or content in order to study its selection, use, or effects. Often, exposure is measured by asking respondents questions regarding the amount of time they spend with media or content or the frequency of use (e.g., Haridakis, 2002; Haridakis & Hanson, 2009).

However, the U&G theoretical framework places less emphasis on the effects of sheer exposure than it does on the effects of audience activity during exposure. Therefore, U&G studies often couple or replace measures of exposure with measures of one or more types of audience activity such as selectivity, media and content preferences, level of attention, and involvement with content.

Another exposure-related theoretical concept sometimes considered in U&G studies is the notion of functional alternatives. U&G suggests that people are most likely to choose the communication channel they feel will most ably satisfy their needs or desires. Sometimes, however, the preferred medium is not available. Thus, they turn to other communication channels, or “functional alternatives” (Rosengren & Windahl, 1972).

Use of an alternative channel is functional when it can be used in-lieu of another channel to satisfy a felt need or desire. For example, Rubin and Rubin (1985) suggested that media at times can be used to satisfy interpersonal needs. Pornsakulvanich et al. (2008) recently corroborated this when they found that the Internet was used to foster relationship closeness. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) found that those who were anxious when communicating face to face, and found it less than rewarding, tended to turn to the Internet for interpersonal utility. In addition to the Internet, technologies such as the cell phone can be used to stay in touch with friends, family and associates (Leung & Wei, 2000).

Sometimes, though, selection of alternative media may be dysfunctional, such as when it has unexpected negative consequences. As Klapper (1963) noted nearly 50 years ago, “what may be functional for one sort of person may serve no function, or may be dysfunctional, for another sort of person” (p. 521). For example, researchers have speculated that too much reliance on television or the Internet may result in addiction to the medium (Finn, 1992; Kim & Haridakis, 2009). Similarly, during a crisis people may turn to the media for political information, but may be more fearful than those who use the media for other reasons (e.g., Haridakis & Rubin, 2005).

Thus, in a U&G framework, there are a number of considerations in addition to sheer exposure. Media and content exposure is nonetheless important to measure, in order to understand what is selected, why and how it is used, and the effects it has. Making the latter determination requires consideration of media users' social and psychological background characteristics, which U&G suggests drive human communication behavior.

Background Characteristics

Uses and gratifications posits that “the selection of media and content, and the uses to which they are put, are considerably influenced by social role and psychological predisposition” (Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973, p. 165). Various types of media users' characteristics have been linked with communication motives, media and content choice or preferences, attitudes toward media, and media effects. Researchers have examined the influence of demographic and social factors. Examples include race, gender, nationality/ethnicity, life position, availability of communication channels such as interpersonal interaction, social situation in which media use occurs (e.g., coviewing with others), and a host of psychological factors such as various personality traits, dispositions, and attitudes toward the respective media or content (see Papacharissi, 2009; Rubin, 2009).

Of course, not all social and psychological characteristics can be accounted for in an individual study. Therefore, typically, U&G research focuses on characteristics relevant to the particular subject of interest in a study. For example, a study of media violence may take into account audience characteristics that have been or theoretically should be linked to the use, motives for using, preference for, or effects of media violence (Chapter 8, this volume). These may include factors such as disinhibition and experience with crime (Haridakis, 2002), sensation seeking and aggressiveness (Greene & Krcmar, 2005), neuroticism (Krcmar & Kean, 2005), and gender differences (Haridakis, 2006a).

A study of the use of media for interpersonal communication might account for factors such as unwillingness to communicate and loneliness (Pornsakulvanich et al., 2008). A study of sports media use might consider factors such as fandom and gender (Earnheardt & Haridakis, 2008), or racial differences (Bilyeu & Wann, 2002). A study of use of a newer medium might consider users' perceived self-efficacy with the medium (LaRose & Eastin, 2004). A study of political media use may consider factors such as interest in politics, trust in government, and political self-efficacy (Hanson, Haridakis, Cunningham, Sharma, & Ponder, 2010; Kaye & Johnson, 2002). A study of reality television programs that permit viewers to peek into participants' private lives may consider a viewer trait such as voyeurism (Baruh, 2009).

Across studies, social and psychological differences of media users have been found to be differentially related to motives, activity, attitudes, and media effects. Below are some representative examples illustrative of typical uses and gratifications studies.

Representative Uses and Gratifications Studies

The U&G premise that people use media to satisfy particular needs and desires has led to examinations of gratifications obtained from media use (e.g., Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rayburn, 1980). Over the years, though, researchers have applied the theory to study a host of media effects – both intended and unintended. What the studies have in common are consistent findings that various media effects are influenced by different social and background characteristics of media users, different manifestations of audience activity, use of different media and media fare, and various motives for using media – corroborating uses and gratifications assumptions.

Papacharissi (2009) suggested the term “effects” in uses and gratifications research must be employed “with care” (p. 141). Arguably one reason for such caution is that U&G researchers generally have not focused specifically on effects of media, but rather on effects attributable to how media are used. Thus, the theory often has been applied to examine and understand factors of media use (e.g., motivation, selectivity, audience activity) rather than effects, per se.

Motives and Media Selection/Use

Some research has focused on social and psychological antecedents to motivation and/or media use. For example, Finn and Gorr (1988) found that social support variables and self-esteem were positively related to watching television for mood management, and that social compensation motivation was positively related to loneliness and shyness. Perse and Rubin (1990) found that chronically lonely TV news viewers tended to watch the news to pass the time, and Roe and Minnebo (2007) found tensions within school and home social contexts were related to watching television for mood management. Weaver (2003) found that three personality traits – extraversion, psychoticism, and neuroticism – were differentially related to television viewing motives. Conway and Rubin (1991) found that viewer anxiety was related to viewing television to escape. Kaye and Johnson (2002) found users' political self-efficacy predicted two motives – guidance and information/surveillance – for using the Internet for political information. More recently, Earnheardt and Haridakis (2008) found that sports fandom was positively related to viewing televised sports for entertaining relaxation and self-esteem/achievement motivation.

However, uses and gratifications researchers generally do not focus on motives as outcome variables. Rather, the perspective views motives as explanatory of media consumption, use, and effects. Accordingly, numerous studies have explored links between motives and/or audience background characteristics and selection of media/content, or other media-use activities and attitudes.

For example, Greenberg (1974) found that arousal viewing was related to watching adventure programs and violent programs. Rubin (1981) found that information viewers preferred talk shows, whereas arousal viewers preferred sports. He also found that viewing to pass the time correlated negatively with preference for news programs, and social viewing was negatively correlated with talk show preference. Rubin (1983) found interactions among viewing motives and viewing behaviors (e.g., program preferences and viewing levels) and attitudes (television affinity, and television realism). In a study of elderly television viewers, Rubin and Rubin (1982) found that companionship, escape, pass time, relaxation, arousal, and product advertising motives were associated with watching game shows and soap operas. Entertainment and information motivation was associated with watching news, talk shows, and documentary-magazine shows.

In addition to general television viewing, studies have focused on the influence of motives and/or background characteristics on consumption or preference for media content such as soap operas (Rubin & Perse, 1987a), news (Rubin & Perse, 1987b), sports (Earnheardt & Haridakis, 2008), erotica (Perse, 1994), reality TV (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007), religious television (Abelman, 1987), and violent fare (Haridakis, 2002), to name just a few.

For example, Rubin, Haradakis, and Eyal (2003) found that different motives and specific background characteristics predicted attraction to different television talk shows (e.g., Oprah Winfrey, Jerry Springer). Perse and Rubin (1990) found that watching TV news and soap operas more ritualistically was linked to chronic loneliness. Papacharissi and Mendelson (2007) found that viewers who were higher in external locus of control, less mobile, and had reduced levels of interpersonal interaction tended to watch reality shows for companionship and voyeuristic purposes. Baruh (2009) found that younger individuals and women were most likely to watch reality shows.

Some background characteristics and motives related to consuming violent media fare have included extraversion and neuroticism (Krcmar & Kean, 2005), sensation seeking, verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, instrumental androgyny (Greene & Krcmar, 2005), male gender, arousal, and the motivation to pass the time (Haridakis & Rubin, 2003). In a study of news consumption across mediated sources (i.e., comedy news, cable news, broadcast news, Internet news, hometown newspapers), Diddi and LaRose (2006) found that news habit strength predicted overall news consumption, and that surveillance and escapism motives were consistent predictors of consumption.

Researchers also have explored the influence of background characteristics and motives on the selection and use of numerous other media such as radio (Dominick, 1974), music genres (Delsing, Ter Bogt, Engels, & Meeus, 2008), the Internet (Papacharssi & Rubin, 2000), the telephone (Dimmick et al., 1994), cell phones (Leung & Wei, 2000) movies (Johnston, 1995), and iPods (Ferguson et al., 2007). Lin (2006) found channel selectivity, diversion and habit listening motives, and certain radio format preferences predicted interest in adopting satellite radio. Leung and Wei (2000) found that instrumental motives (instrumentality, immediacy, and mobility), affection/sociability motivation, and subscribing to enhanced cell phone services predicted cell phone use.

Recently, researchers have been studying the use of the Internet's social media functions. These studies have suggested that user background characteristics and motives influence not only consumption of media fare, but dissemination or production of media content as well. For example, Haridakis and Hanson (2009) found that socially active males who watched YouTube videos for information, entertainment, coviewing with others, and social interaction watched the videos more often than did their counterparts. The latter three motives (along with internal locus of control and level of social activity) predicted sharing videos with others. Papacharissi (2002) found that people who hosted personal home pages did so for entertainment and information-related reasons, to communicate with friends and family, for self-expression, for professional development, and to pass the time. Focusing on content creation, Leung (2009) found that recognition needs and social needs drove the production of user-generated content.

Intended and Other Positive Media Effects

Although studies such as those above have corroborated uses and gratifications assumptions regarding the relationships among audience background characteristics, media-use motives, and media-use activity, perhaps the most comprehensive U&G research has focused on ascertaining how a combination of these variables representing different stages of the Uses and Gratifications Model work in concert to predict various media effects.

Because U&G assumes media use is purposive and goal-directed, U&G studies often have focused on, arguably, desired positive outcomes of media use. Examples include satisfaction with programs, content, or media (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Perse & Rubin, 1988), liking of media fare consumed (Krcmar & Kean, 2005), knowledge (Vincent & Basil, 1997), perceptions of media utility (Perse & Dunn, 1998), parasocial interaction (sense of interpersonal connection) with media personae (Earnheardt & Haridakis, 2009; Haridakis, 2006b), connection with others (Pornsakulvanich et al., 2008), perceptions of psychological empowerment (Leung, 2009), and cross-cultural adaptation (Wang, Sun, & Haradakis, 2009).

Together, the studies support assumptions that background characteristics as well as various motives or a combination of motives and audience activity levels reflective of instrumental and ritualized media-use orientations influence many desirable media effects. For example, Nabi, Stitt, Halford, and Finnerty (2006) found that voyeurism and three emotional reactions (happiness, surprise, and relief) positively predicted and one emotion (anger) negatively predicted enjoyment of reality TV shows (Chapter 16). Those who watched reality shows for relaxation and entertainment also perceived them as realistic (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007).

Rubin, Perse, and Powell (1985) found that informational viewing motives predicted parasocial interaction with newscasters. Kim and Rubin (1997) found exciting entertainment, information/voyeurism, and social utility motives, along with attention, involvement and selective perception, predicted parasocial interaction with soap opera characters.

Satisfaction with soap operas has been predicted by exciting entertainment motivation, escapist relaxation motivation, and attention (Kim & Rubin, 1997; Perse & Rubin, 1988). Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) found that satisfaction with the Internet was predicted by information motivation and feeling valued by family and friends. Pornsakulvanich et al. (2008) found that using the Internet for self-fulfillment and affection motivation, and intended self-disclosure predicted interpersonal communication satisfaction.

Despite its emphasis on individual differences and people's media-use motives, U&G does not ignore the influence of the media. A major U&G assumption is that media are used functionally (e.g., to satisfy one's needs) and that the content consumed influences effects. For example, in a study of news media use by college students, Vincent and Basil (1997) found that current events knowledge was predicted by two specific news sources: print news and viewing CNN. Diddi and LaRose (2006) found that hometown newspaper reading was a better predictor of current events knowledge than the use of other mediated news sources, and that depth of coverage (across mediated sources) also related to current events knowledge. Baruh (2009) suggested that different types of reality show content (e.g., gossip, nudity, scenes in private settings) influence the voyeuristic appeal of such shows. What these types of U&G studies have in common that often differentiates them from other media-effects studies is that they see media content as just one factor amid other factors (such as media-use motives, activity, individual differences) that work in conjunction to influence effects.

Unintended Negative Media Effects

The above research suggests, on balance, that people's media use is relatively purposive and often results in need satisfaction and other intended positive effects. That does not mean, however, that there are not extraneous effects unrelated to media users' goals. As Katz et al. (1974) suggested, U&G recognizes that many if not most consequences of media use – positive or negative – may be unintended. For example, it is unlikely that people use media to become more aggressive, to experience fear, to cultivate limited perceptions of themselves or others, or to develop an unhealthy reliance on a particular medium. But, U&G studies have uncovered such unintended or even detrimental perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral effects.

For example, researchers have used a U&G framework to examine perceptual and attitudinal media effects. Some research has revealed that cultivation effects can at times be related to more passive – less selective and intentional – media use and at other times be related to instrumental use, depending on one's background characteristics, motives, attitudes about the media fare consumed (e.g., Rubin, Haridakis et al., 2003; Rubin, Perse, & Taylor, 1988), and enhanced by facilitative activity such as selective exposure and involvement (Kim & Rubin, 1997). Perse (1994) found that watching erotica for substitution (for a sexual partner) was related to acceptance of rape myths. Sexual enhancement and diversion motives related indirectly to rape myths through their links to hostile beliefs about women and exposure. In a study of problematic body attitudes among adolescents, Tiggemann (2005) found that a drive for thinness was related to soap opera viewing. Drive for muscularity among boys related to soap opera and music video viewing. Two TV viewing motives – social learning and escape from negative affect – were related to negative body image variables.

In studies of post-9/11 news use, some research has suggested that media news could be used for healthy ends, such as reducing uncertainty viewers felt in the aftermath of the tragic events of 9/11 (Boyle et al., 2004). However, other research has suggested that some TV viewers, such as those who measured higher in external locus of control and watched terrorist-related news stories for reasons of companionship, were more fearful (Haridakis & Rubin, 2005).

U&G research has also linked media use to negative behavioral effects. For example, Greene and Krcmar (2005) found that exposure to media violence was related to violent and risky behaviors. Haridakis (2002) found that disinhibited externally controlled males who watched televised violence primarily for entertainment were more aggressive than their counterparts. Haridakis (2006a) also found that the relationships among background characteristics, motives, and postviewing aggression differed by gender.

One behavior that has been receiving more attention recently is problematic media use that may reflect addiction to a medium. U&G researchers have long been interested in media dependency (see Sun, Rubin, & Haradakis, 2008). Through the prism of U&G, media dependency is considered a normal aspect of media use, because people are assumed to choose and rely on media they expect will satisfy their particular needs or desires. But, some research suggests that some media users may become overly dependent on a medium and exhibit more problematic and even addictive media-use behavior.

For example, Kim and Haridakis (2009) found that males were more prone to addictive Internet-use behavior. However, they found different manifestations of Internet addiction were differentially influenced by personality characteristics (locus of control, loneliness, shyness, and thrill seeking) and various motives (habitual entertainment, caring for others, escape, and excitement).

Social Media Use

In recent years, researchers have been devoting progressively more attention to the study of the use of media for social interaction. Such inquiry has a long tradition in uses and gratifications studies. For example, social interaction (e.g., something to do with friends and family) is one of the motives identified in television viewing studies and measured in the television motives scale (Rubin, 1983). Lull (1980) documented several social uses of television by families. Research has also indicated that sports fans often use sports viewing to form group cohesion and/or identification and social connection with other fans (for a review see Haridakis, 2010).

The emergence of social media like YouTube, social networking sites, and blogs has heightened the need to understand better the social uses and effects of media that permit receiving, sharing, and creating messages. As referenced earlier, U&G studies have uncovered both more traditional media-use motives (e.g., entertainment, information) and social-related reasons (e.g., social connection, coviewing) for using the Internet's social networking functions (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009). Some research has focused on identifying motives specifically for the creation of online content (Leung, 2009).

The research has shown, not surprisingly, that socially interactive media such as cell phones and online communication are used to connect to friends, family, and business associates (Leung & Wei, 2000). They are used by diasporic individuals to achieve cross-cultural adaptation (Wang et al., 2009). They are also used to play games with others (Spinda & Haridakis, 2008).

Some studies have explored use of newer media to interact with strangers. Peter, Valkenburg, and Schouten (2006) found that younger adolescents were more likely to talk to strangers, as were adolescents who engaged in longer chat sessions. Adolescents who chatted to be entertained, to meet new people, and for social compensation tended to engage in more online communication with strangers. Those who were online more often interacted less frequently with strangers. Cho (2007) examined the influence of gender and motives on adolescents' self-disclosure in online chatting with strangers. Although gender did not predict self-disclosure, different motives (for interpersonal relationships, information, entertainment) did have differential impacts on the level of online self-disclosure.

Some research has focused on the use of the Internet to enhance or develop relationships. Pornsakulvanich et al. (2008) found that people who tended to use the Internet for self-fulfillment, felt their face-to-face communication was rewarding, and shared their feelings with others felt closer to their online partners than their counterparts (those lower on these characteristics). Those who used the Internet for affection and self-fulfillment reasons, and intended to disclose their feelings were more satisfied with their online communication than their counterparts.

These studies suggest that people are using social media for a wide range of activities, and, consistent with uses and gratifications assumptions, motives and individual differences differentially influence the various activities – viewing, sharing, and creating content – for which social media are used. The research also suggests that although people use social media for some of the same reasons they use more traditional media, there is a distinctly social aspect to social media use that reflects their social networking characteristics.

Conclusion

Like any theoretical approach, uses and gratifications has attracted criticism over the years. Critiques have ranged from methodological concerns such as researchers' reliance on self-reports to theoretical concerns regarding a lack of clarity of concepts, and for focusing too much attention on the individual and too little emphasis on the media's effects on cultural and societal factors (see Rubin, 2009).

Despite such alleged shortcomings, U&G has remained one of the most utilized media-effects theories. In fact, in a recent meta-analysis of research on just one medium – the Internet – Kim and Weaver (2002) found that nearly 22% of theory-driven articles from 1996–2000 mentioned or applied U&G. Arguably, U&G is a prominent theory in the twenty-first century because studies continue to support its fundamental tenets.

Perhaps one of the perspective's enduring strengths is its focus on the individual. This attribute has enabled it to be adapted to study uses and effects of each new medium that has emerged on the media landscape. Contemporary media environments in which people have more media choices and the ability to use media to not only receive content, but also create and share it, most likely makes the individual more important in the media use and effects process than ever before.

As Rogers (1986) said, media are tool technologies. The ways people have found and adapted these tools to satisfy their needs is one of the most important inquiries in media effects research. With its emphasis on individual differences, social contexts of media use, activity, and the importance of motives and needs, U&G has proved to be a valuable theory in that inquiry. Research guided by the perspective has indicated that understanding any media effect cannot be accomplished without considering how these various factors work in concert to produce the effect. Whereas some theories such as Cultivation focus on a particular medium, and others such as Agenda Setting and Framing focus largely on institutional media, U&G transcends media by focusing on the one enduring link in the process: the individual.

REFERENCES

Abelman, R. (1987). Religious television uses and gratifications. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31, 293–307.

Armstrong, C. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 39(2), 84–94.

Barton, K. M. (2009). Reality television programming and diverging gratifications: The influence of content on gratifications obtained. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 53, 460–476.

Baruh, L. (2009). Publicized intimacies on reality television: An analysis of voyeuristic content and its contribution to the appeal of reality programming. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 53, 190–210.

Berelson, B. (1949). What “missing the newspaper” means. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communication research 1948–1949 (pp. 111–129). New York, NY: Harper.

Bilyeu, J. K., & Wann, D. L. (2002). An investigation of racial differences in sport fan motivation. International Sports Journal, 6(2), 93–106.

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

Boyle, M. P., Schmierbach, M., Armstrong, C. L., McLeod, D. M., Shah, D. V., & Pan, Z. (2004). Information seeking and emotional reactions to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 155–167.

Cho, S. H. (2007) Effects of motivations and gender on adolescents' self-disclosure in online chatting. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 339–345

Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18, 443–463.

Delsing, M. J. M. H., Ter Bogt, T. F. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2008). Adolescents' music preferences and personality characteristics. European Journal of Personality, 22, 109–130.

Diddi, A., & LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50, 193–210.

Dimmick, J., Sikand, J., & Patterson, S. (1994). The gratifications of the household telephone: Sociability instrumentality, and reassurance. Communication Research, 21, 643–663.

Dominick, J. R. (1974). The portable friend: Peer group membership and radio usage. Journal of Broadcasting, 18, 161–170.

Earnheardt, A. C., & Haridakis, P. M. (2008). Exploring fandom and motives for viewing televised sports. In L. W. Hugenberg, P. M. Haridakis, & A. C. Earnheardt (Eds.), Sports mania: Essays on fandom and the media in the 21st century (pp. 158–171). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Earnheardt, A. C., & Haridakis, P. M. (2009). An examination of fan-athlete interaction: Fandom, parasocial interaction, and identification. Ohio Communication Journal, 47, 27–53.

Ferguson, D. A., Greer, C. F., & Reardon, M. E. (2007). Uses and gratifications of MP3 players by college students: Are iPods more popular than radio? Journal of Radio Studies, 14(2), 102–121.

Finn, S. (1992). Television addiction? An evaluation of four competing media-use models. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 422–435.

Finn, S., & Gorr, M. B. (1988). Social isolation and social support as correlates of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 15, 135–158.

Freidson, E. (1953). The relation of the social situation of contact to the media in mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17, 230–238.

Gerson, W. (1966). Mass media socialization behavior: Negro–White differences. Social Forces, 45, 40–50.

Greenberg, B. S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 71–92). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Greene, K., & Krcmar, M. (2005). Predicting exposure to and liking of media violence: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Studies, 56, 71–93.

Hanson, G., & Haridakis, P. (2008). YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11 Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=jep;cc=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0011.305

Hanson, G. L., Haridakis, P. M., Cunningham, A. W., Sharma, R., & Ponder, J. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 584–607.

Haridakis, P. M. (2002). Viewer characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media Psychology, 4, 323–352.

Haridakis, P. M. (2006a). Men, women, and televised violence: Predicting viewer aggression in male and female television viewers. Communication Quarterly, 54, 227–255.

Haridakis, P. M. (2006b). Self-disclosure, immediacy, involvement and parasocial interaction. Ohio Communication Journal, 41, 69–97.

Haridakis, P. M. (2010). Rival sports fans and intergroup communication. In H. Giles, S. Reid, & J. Harwood (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 249–260). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social interaction and coviewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 53, 317–335.

Haridakis, P. M., & Hanson, G. L. (2011). Campaign 2008: Comparing YouTube, social networking and other media use among younger and older voters. In L. L. Kaid & J. A. Hendricks (Eds.), Techno-politics and presidential campaigning: New technologies, new voices, new voters (pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Haridakis, P. M., & Rubin, A. M. (2003). Motivation for watching television violence and viewer aggression. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 29–56.

Haridakis, P. M., & Rubin, A. M. (2005). Third-person effects in the aftermath of terrorism. Mass Communication and Society, 8(1), 39–59.

Herzog, H. (1940). Professor quiz: A gratification study. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Radio and the printed page (pp. 64–93). New York, NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.

Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1942–1943 (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19, 215–229.

Johnston, D. D. (1995). Adolescents' motivations for viewing graphic horror. Human Communication Research, 21, 522–552.

Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1–6.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973–74). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523.

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 (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164–181.

Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 54–71.

Kim, J., & Haridakis, P. M. (2009). The role of Internet user characteristics and motives in explaining three dimensions of Internet addiction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 988–1015.

Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 24, 107–135.

Kim, S. T., & Weaver, D. (2002). Communication research about the Internet: A thematic meta-analysis. New Media and Society, 4, 518–538.

Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515–527.

Krcmar, M., & Kean, L. G. (2005). Uses and gratifications of media violence: Personality correlates of viewing and liking violent genres. Media Psychology, 7, 399–420.

LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2004). A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48, 358–377.

Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the Internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media and Society, 11, 1327–1347.

Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 308–320.

Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51–78.

Lin, C. A. (2006). Predicting satellite radio adoption via listening motives, activity, and format preference. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50, 140–159.

Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197–209.

McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 135–165). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Nabi, R. L., Stitt, C. R., Halford, J., & Finnerty, K. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media Psychology, 8, 421–447.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D., II (1979). Uses and gratifications and exposure to public television: A discrepancy approach. Communication Research, 6, 155–179.

Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D., II (1980). Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7, 161–192.

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The self online: The utility of personal home pages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 346–368.

Papacharissi, Z. (2009). Uses and gratifications. In D. W. Stacks & M. B. Salwen (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 137–152). New York, NY: Routledge.

Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. L. (2007). An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and gratifications of reality TV shows. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 355–370.

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

Perse, E. M. (1990). Involvement with local television news: Cognitive and emotional dimensions. Human Communication Research, 16, 556–581.

Perse, E. M. (1994). Uses of erotica and acceptance of rape myths. Communication Research, 21, 488–515.

Perse, E. M. (2004). Television viewing motives scale. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 371–376). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perse, E. M., & Dunn, D. G. (1998). The utility of home computers and media use: Implications of multimedia connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 42, 435–456.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap opera. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), 368–375.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 37–53.

Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Characteristics and motives of adolescents talking with strangers on the Internet. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 526–530.

Pornsakulvanich, V., Haridakis, P., & Rubin, A. M. (2008). The influence of dispositions and Internet motivation on online communication satisfaction and relationship closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2292–2310.

Roe, K., & Minnebo, J. (2007). Antecedents of adolescents' motives for television use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 305–315.

Rogers, E. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rosengren, K. E. (1974). Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 269–286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a functional alternative. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 166–194). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141–165.

Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivation. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37–51.

Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rubin, A. M., & Bantz, C. R. (1987). Utility of videocassette recorders. American Behavioral Scientist, 30(5), 471–485.

Rubin, A. M., Haridakis, P. M., & Eyal, K. (2003). Viewer aggression and attraction to television talk shows. Media Psychology, 5, 331–362.

Rubin, A. M., Haridakis, P. M., Hullman, G. A., Sun, S., Chikombero, P. M., & Pornsakulvanich, V. (2003). Television exposure not predictive of terrorism fear. Newspaper Research Journal, 24(1), 128–145.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987a). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14, 246–268.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987b). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58–84.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155–180.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Taylor, D. S. (1988). A methodological examination of cultivation. Communication Research, 15, 107–134.

Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1982). Older persons' TV viewing patterns and motivations. Communication Research, 9, 287–313.

Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(1), 36–53.

Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602–628.

Spinda, J. S. W., & Haridakis, P. M. (2008). Exploring the motives of fantasy sports: A uses-and-gratifications approach. In L. W. Hugenberg, P. M. Haridakis, & A. C. Earnheardt (Eds.), Sports mania: Essays on fandom and the media in the 21st century (pp. 187–199). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Suchman, E. (1942). An invitation to music. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1941–1942 (pp. 140–188). New York, NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.

Sun, S., Rubin, A. M., & Haridakis, P. M. (2008). The role of motivation and media involvement in explaining Internet dependency. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52, 408–431.

Tiggemann, M. (2005). Television and adolescent body image: The role of program content and viewing motivation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 361–381.

Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.

Vincent, R. C., & Basil, M. D. (1997). College students' news gratifications, media use and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 380–392.

Wang, Y., Sun, S., & Haridakis, P. M. (2009). Internet use and cross-cultural adaptation: Testing a model of Internet use in the cross-cultural adaptation context. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 20. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/

Weaver, J. B., III (2003). Individual differences in television viewing motives. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1427–1437.

Wolfe, K. M., & Fiske, M. (1949). The children talk about comics. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communications research 1948–1949 (pp. 3–50). New York, NY: Harper.

Wright, C. R. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 605–620.

FURTHER READING

Carveth, R., & Alexander, A. (1985). Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 29, 259–273.

Garramone, G. M. (1983). Issue versus image orientation and effects of political advertising. Communication Research, 10, 59–76.

Horvath, C. W. (2004). Measuring television addiction. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48, 378–398.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2003). A boost or bust for democracy: How the web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(3), 9–34.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Harper.

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

Massey, K. B. (1995). Analyzing the uses and gratifications concept of audience activity with a qualitative approach: Media encounters during the 1989 Olma Prieta earthquake disaster. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39, 328–429.

Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 175–193.

Rubin, A. M., & Windahl, S. (1986). The uses and dependency model of mass communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 184–199.

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37.