Uses & Gratifications Theory PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of the uses and gratifications theory ...

Description

Uses & Grats

1 USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY Summary: Uses and gratification theory (UGT) is an audience-centered approach that focuses on what people do with media, as opposed to what media does to people.

Originators and Key Contributors: Uses and gratification theory builds off of a history of communication theories and research. Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail laid the primary groundwork in 1969 with their categorization of audience motivations for watching political programs during the time of the 1964 election in the United Kingdom[1]. This eventually led them to develop UGT later on with their colleagues[2][3][4].

Keywords: gratification, media, audience, entertainment, mass media, communication

Uses and Gratification Theory

Uses and gratification theory seeks to understand why people seek out the media that they do and what they use it for. UGT differs from other media effect theories in that it assumes that individuals have power over their media usage, rather than positioning individuals as passive consumers of media. UGT explores how individuals deliberately seek out media to fulfill certain needs or goals such as entertainment, relaxation, or socializing.

USG History

Uses and gratification theory builds off of a history of communication theories and research. Its beginnings lie in researchers’ studies of radio listeners in the 1940s. Other research at that time looked into children’s comics and the absence of newspapers during a newspaper strike. USG history can be described as falling within a series of stages:

Stage 1

In 1944 Herta Hertzog interviewed people who listened to soap operas and determined that they sought three different types of gratification from this form of entertainment. These three types of gratification were emotional, wishful thinking, and learning.

In 1954 Wilbur Schramm developed a formula for determining which media an individual might select all contribute to the foundation for modern developments of this theory. This formula took into account the amount of gratification an individual expected to get out of a certain form of media and the amount of effort the individual would have to exert to get it.

In 1970 Abraham Maslow posited that USG was an extension of the needs he had himself organized into his Hierarchy of Needs.

Stage 2

In 1969 Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail studied the United Kingdom 1964 election and categorized people’s motives for watching certain political programs on television. These audience motivations formed the foundation for their research in 1972 and led to USG later on.

In 1972 Jay Blumler, Joseph Brown, and Denis McQuail proposed four uses of media: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance.

In 1973-74 Blumler, Brown, and McQuail were joined by colleagues Michael Gurevitch, Hadassah Haas, and Elihu Katz. The six conducted collaborative research on how people viewed mass media.

Stage 3

UGT researchers today are exploring predictive and explanatory possibilities of the theory by connecting media usage with individual factors. There is particular interest in the link between why media is used and the gratification received. Overall, UGT has been crucial to a shift that focuses on the media user and their agency in the field of mass media studies.

Modern-Day Applications

Today, UGT has more relevance than ever as a tool for understanding how we as individuals connect with the technologies around us. These technologies span everything from the Internet to video gaming to mobile phones. UGT research into mobile phone usage has found that people seek a number of gratifications from their phones, including affection/sociability, entertainment, and mobility, among others. As another example of a contemporary technology, when using social media, users can be motivated by factors like a need to vent negative feelings, recognition, and cognitive needs. Animated news and entertainment media are just two other examples of media technologies that UGT researchers continue to explore.

Theory Criticism

UGT has been plagued almost from its inception by criticisms that it does not meet the standards necessary to be a theory. Common criticisms include the fact that gratifications are more dependent on researchers’ input than on the subjects’, that audiences of different ages will have different motivations for watching the same media, and that much of the information collected in studies is self-reported, and as such, difficult to measure. Despite the criticism, UGT may be more relevant and useful today as media users now have hundreds of TV channels, the internet, and a whole array of other media entertainment options that help solidify the argument that the individual has agency over their media consumption.

References

Blumler, J. G., & McQuail, D. (1969). Television in politics: Its uses and influence. University of Chicago Press. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III.

https://www.learning-theories.com/uses-and-gratification-theory.html

Uses and Gratifications Theory Using the uses and gratifications theory to examine television viewing and the effects on television after shows is relevant because this theory seeks to understand why and how people seek out media to satisfy a specific need (Ruggiero, 2000). Originated from Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch (1973), there are five basic assumptions to this theory. The first assumption is that the audience is active and media use is goal-oriented, meaning media consumption is being done with a purpose in mind. The second assumption is that audience member determines what specific media fills a need. The third assumption is that the media competes with other sources for need satisfaction and fulfills human needs in a varying role dependent upon the viewer. The fourth assumption is that people are sufficiently self-aware enough to report their own interests and motives for viewing television. The fifth, and final, assumption is that there should be no value judgements in relation to the audience using media to fulfill needs. Audience. The uses and gratifications theory allowed researchers to begin to focus on the audience (McQuail, 1994) as opposed to solely focusing on media messages and consequences. In relation to television viewing this means that the active audience chooses the content to watch, chooses who to watch television with or to watch it alone and chooses when to talk about the programming either during the watching or at a later date. This theory allowed for the audience to now be the mediating factor in potential media effects (Rubin, 1994). Blumler (1979) defined active in relation to the uses and gratifications theory with four different meanings: 1) utility, media has different uses for people and people can put media to those uses; 2) intentionality, media consumption is directed by prior motivation; 3) selectivity, media behavior reflects prior interests and preferences; and 4) imperviousness to influence, people actively trying to avoid media influence (Bauer, 1964). By being active and holding power over television choices,

viewers are responsible for choosing the specific content that meets their wants and needs to achieve fulfilment. Communication Convergence. The growing trend of converging communication technologies is evident in mobile phones and tablets as they integrate digital audio, video, text and data all in one. These platforms are now called hybrid mediums and now offer alternative channels of communication for news and entertainment (Wei, 2008). Cesar et al. (2008) examines the secondary screen, which observes the number of devices used for rendering multimedia content or for interacting with content. The most important notion of the secondary screen is that it may be split across multiple devices at one time, with one device rendering parts of the presentation and another device used for controlling the presentation. In other words, a remote control may be used to control a television while a mobile phone or tablet may be used to render additional content to continue interaction surrounding the television show. Cesar et al. (2008) found that handheld devices will be used in the living room in conjunction with other devices for consuming and manipulating television content for four reasons: to control, to enrich, to share and to transfer television content. Computer-mediated communications are becoming an indispensable part of our daily interactions. Mobile phone and tablet manufacturers are investing in ways to broadcast television cross these devices (O'Hara et al., 2007). The cell phone specifically increases the scope of information content through mobility and accessibility. Wei and Lo (2006) found that the focus on the cell phone is timely because “it represents a convergent new media technology that is both a two-way communication medium and a novel one-to-many information source” (p. 54). The uses and gratifications approach, similar when studying television viewing, provides a strong

framework for studying mobile devices because individuals’ differences cause each user to choose a different mobile device to seek out different media (Wei & Lo, 2006). As mobile devices are routinely used to view television content, the technologies are now transforming the way that users can view video. Perez (2015) found that the average consumer now spends 220 minutes a day on the phone (in apps and mobile browsers) and 168 minutes watching television. However, it is difficult to know how much of the television is dedicated viewing and how much is background noise in conjunction with users engaging in the secondary screen. O’Hara et al. (2007) found that mobile video was a way for users to take back their own spare time in relation to shared spaces (public transport, home, workplace, etc.) and find a way to have some alone time. The researchers also found that users were able to shift their viewing habits to coincide with family activities by using on-demand and streaming services on their own time. Users were also able to use mobile video as a way of sharing space without sharing content by facilitating togetherness in the home and allowing people to watch their own content in close proximity to family (O’Hara et al., 2007). Thus actively sharing content was a key motivator in supporting conversation. Socialization and Convenience. As research pertaining to uses and gratifications theory highlighted changing media over the years, television viewing motivations and viewing patterns were examined to show how this medium allows for an individual to use television to fulfil multiple needs (Rubin, 1983). One of the needs that may be fulfilled is that of socialization by watching television in a group or alone. Morrison (2001) found that watching television is a social activity done through group interaction. Csikszentmihalyi and Kubey (1981) found that television watching is more challenging, cheerful and sociable when it is being watched with

family, rather than alone. They found that “alone” experiences tend to be more generally negative than group experiences in relation to activities. However, while some past research has found that watching television has been criticized of being isolating and an anti-social experience (Decheneaut, et al., 2008), watching television alone can also be a factor of convenience. One unique aspect of television viewing is that it does not need to be coordinated with other people (Frey, Benesch, Stutzer, 2007). A viewer can watch TV at any time of his or her choosing. This activity does not require any similar time availability or similar preference with anyone else. A viewer can now watch television on his or her own schedule, due to the rise of streaming and on-demand television negating all previous notions of following a television programming guide.

Along with sharing content, the need for convenience and socialization are two additional motivations for why viewers may participate in television after shows. Ducheneaut et al. (2008) highlighted two forms of sociability that viewers can participate in when watching television. The first is direct, which is when television viewers are speaking with family or friends during a television program (Ducheneaut, et al., 2008). How the viewer is speaking to family is not categorized, therefore it may be direct conversation in person but could also include conversation online and across social media platforms. Technology now offers the ability for more remote interactions, offering collaboration and community to viewers regardless of their location (Subrahmanyman, et al., 2002; Schwartz, 2004). The second type of sociability is indirect, which is when television viewers talk about the programming they have already watched with family or friends after viewing the program (Ducheneaut, et al., 2008). An example of this is the watercooler effect or gathering around a common area to discuss programming watched the night before.

References Andrejevic, M. (2008). Watching television without pity: The productivity of online fans. Television & New Media, 9(1), 24-46. Arcy, J. (2016, April 26). After the show it’s the after show: Fan engagement and convergent

television. Retrieved from http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/imr/2016/04/29/after-show-it-s-after-showfan-engagement-and-convergent-television. Bauer, R.A. (1964). The obstinate audience. American Psychologist, 19, 319-328. Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R., 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Blumler, J.G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9-36. Casey, B., Casey, N., Calvert, B., French, L., & Lewis, J. (2002). Television studies: The key concepts. London: Routledge. Cesar, P., Bulterman, D. C., & Jansen, A. J. (2008). Usages of the secondary screen in an interactive television environment: Control, enrich, share, and transfer television content. In Changing television environments (pp. 168-177). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Cesar, P., Chorianopoulos, K., & Jensen, J. F. (2008). Social television and user interaction. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6(1), 4. Cesar, P., & Geerts, D. (2011, January). Past, present, and future of social TV: A categorization. In Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), 2011 IEEE (pp. 347-351). IEEE.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Kubey, R. (1981). Television and the rest of life: A systematic comparison of subjective experience. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(3), 317-328.) Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., Oehlberg, L., Thornton, J. D., & Nickell, E. (2008). Social TV:

Designing for distributed, sociable television viewing. International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction, 24(2), 136-154. Fratti, K. (2016, April 5). Without an aftershow, what would fans do? Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/lostremote/without-an-aftershow-what-would-fans-do/55754 Flomenbaum, A. (2015, April 20). Consumers use second screen device while watching TV. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/lostremote/accenture-report-87-of-consumersuse-second-screen-device-while-watching-tv/51698 Frey, B. S., Benesch, C., & Stutzer, A. (2007). Does watching TV make us happy?. Journal of Economic psychology, 28(3), 283-313 Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N., Stone, A.A., 2004. A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM). Science 306, 1776–1780. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mor r i s on ,M.( 2 0 01 ) .Al o oka tma s sa n dc o mp ut e rme d i a t e dt e c hn ol o g i e s :un de r s t a n di n gt he r o l e soft e l e vi s i o na n dc o mpu t e r si nt heh ome .J o ur na lofBr oa dc a s t i n ga n dEl e c t r on i c Me di a,4 5( 1 ) ,13 5-16 1.

Th eNi e l s e nCo mp a n y .( 20 15 ,Apr i l6) .Li v eTV+s oc i a lme di a=En g a g e dv i e we r s .Re t r i e v e d f r o mh t t p : / / www. n i e l s e n. c o m/ u s / e n / i n s i g h t s / ne ws / 2 01 5/ l i v e t v s o c i a l me di a e n g a g e d v i e we r s . h t ml

O'Hara, K., Mitchell, A. S., & Vorbau, A. (2007). Consuming video on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 857-866). ACM. Perez, S. (2015, September 10). U.S. consumers now spend more time in apps than watching TV. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/10/u-s-consumers-now-spend-more-timein-apps-than-watching-tv/ Pi ne ,J .( 19 93 ) .Ma s sc u s t o mi z a t i o n:Then e wf r o n t i e ri nb u s i n e s sc o mpe t i t i on.Ca mbr i d g e , MA:Ha r v a r dUn i v e r s i t yPr e s s . Reiss, S., & Wiltz, J. (2004). Why people watch reality TV. Media psychology, 6(4), 363-378. Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 27(1), 37-51. Ru b i n ,A. M.( 1 99 4) .Me d i aus e sa n de ffe c t s :Aus e sa n dg r a t i fic a t i o nsp e r s p e c t i v e .I nJ .Br y a nt & D.Zi l l ma n( Ed s . ) ,Me d i ae ffe c t s :Ad v an c e si nt h e o r yan dr e s e ar c h( p p.4 17 43 6) , Hi l l s da l e ,NJ :La wr e n c eEr l ba um As s o c i a t e s ,I n c . Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass communication & society, 3(1), 3-37. Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, culture, and society, 31(1), 41. Walker, J. R., & Bellamy, R. V. (2001). Remote control devices and family viewing. Television and the American family, 75-89. Wei, R. (2008). Motivations for using the mobile phone for mass communications and entertainment. Telematics and Informatics, 25(1), 36-46. Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social

connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53-72. Wh i t e ,E.S.( 19 86 ) .I nt e r pe r s on a lb i a si nt e l e v i s i ona ndi nt e r a c t i v eme di a .I nG.Gump e r t&R. Ca t hc a r t( Ed s . ) ,I nt e r / Me d i a :I n t e r pe r s on a lCo mmu ni c a t i oni naMe di aWo r l d( p p.1 10 1 20 ) .Oxf or d:Oxf o r dUn i v e r s i t yPr e s s . Wohn, D. Y., & Na, E. K. (2011). Tweeting about TV: Sharing television viewing experiences via social media message streams. First Monday, 16(3)....