uncertainty reduction theory

Uses and gratifications theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sociology

Outline
Theory · History
Positivism · Antipositivism
Functionalism · Conflict theory
Middle-range · Mathematical
Critical theory · Socialization
Structure and agency
Research methods
Quantitative · Qualitative
Historical · Computational
Ethnographic · Network analytic
Topics · Subfields
Cities · Class · Crime · Culture
Deviance · Demography · Education
Economy · Environment · Family
Gender · Health · Industry · Internet
Knowledge · Law · Literature · Medicine · Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity · Rationalization · Religion · Science · Secularization · Social networks · Social psychology · Stratification
Browse
Portal
Category tree · Lists
Journals · Sociologists
Article index v t e Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) is an approach to understanding why and how people actively seek out specific media to satisfy specific needs. UGT is an audience-centered approach to understanding mass communication.[1] Divergent from other media effect theories who question "what media do to people?", UGT focuses on "what people do with media?"[2]
This Communication theory is positivistic in its approach, based in the socio-psychological communication tradition, and focuses on communication at the mass media scale.[3] The driving question of UGT is: Why do people use media and what do they use them for? UGT discusses how users deliberately choose media that will satisfy given needs and allow one to enhance knowledge, relaxation, social interactions/companionship, diversion, or escape.[4][5][6]
It assumes that audience members are not passive consumers of media. Rather, the audience has power over their media consumption and assumes an active role in interpreting and integrating media into their own lives. Unlike other theoretical perspectives, UGT holds that audiences are responsible for choosing media to meet their desires and needs to achieve gratification. This theory would then imply that the media compete against other information sources for viewers ' gratification.[7]
UGT has a heuristic value today 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]
Contents
1 Uses and Gratifications Approach
1.1 Assumptions of the Theory
1.2 Heuristic Approach of UGT
1.3 Gratifications Sought (GS) vs Gratifications Obtained (GO)
2 History
2.1 Stages of the Theory
2.1.1 Stage 1
2.1.2 Stage 2
2.1.3 Stage 3
3 Modern Applications of Uses & Gratifications Research
3.1 Internet Usage
3.2 New Media Examples of UGT
3.3 Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratification, and Social Outcomes
3.4 Gratification Received from Use of Facebook Groups
3.5 UGT Analysis of Twitter
3.6 UGT Approach to New Mass Media Technologies
4 Related Theories
4.1 Media System Dependency Theory
4.2 Social Cognitive Theory
4.3 Cultivation Theory
5 Theory Criticism
5.1 Theorist Explanation
5.2 The Active Audience
6 See also
7 Work Cited
8 Additional References
Uses and Gratifications Approach
Mark Levy and Sven Windahl provide a good 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 selecive 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."[9]
Assumptions of the Theory
Unlike other theories concerning media consumption, UGT gives the consumer power to discern what media they consume, with the assumption that the consumer has a clear intent and use. This contradicts previous theories such as Mass Society Theory, that states that people are helpless victims of mass media produced by large companies; and Individual Differences Perspective, which states that intelligence and self-esteem largely drive an individual 's media choice.
Given these differing theories, UGT is unique in its assumptions:[3]
The audience is active and its media use is goal oriented
The initiative in linking need gratification to a specific medium choice rests with the audience member
The media compete with other resources for need satisfaction
People have enough self-awareness of their media use, interests, and motives to be able to provide researchers with an accurate picture of that use.
Value judgements of media content can only be assessed by the audience.
Heuristic Approach of UGT
Katz, Blumler, and 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 other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones." [4][10]
According to Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch 's research there were five components comprising the Uses and Gratifications Approach. The components are:[11]
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 the research, goals for media use can be grouped into five uses.[5] 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
Gratifications Sought (GS) vs Gratifications Obtained (GO)
Recently, UGT has been updated to include gratifications sought (GS) versus gratifications obtained (GO). The GS that audiences seek do not always result in GO. This discrepancy leads GO to outweigh GS is important.[12][12]
History
Beginning in the 1940s, researchers began seeing patterns under the perspective of the uses and gratifications theory in radio listeners.[13] 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.
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 [14]
Stages of the Theory
The Uses and Gratifications Theory was developed from a number of prior communication theories and research conducted by fellow theorists.
Stage 1
In 1944 Herta Herzog began to look at the earliest forms of uses and gratifications with her work classifying the reasons why people chose specific types of media. For her study, Herzog interviewed soap opera fans and was able to identify three types of gratifications. The three gratifications categories, based on why people listened to soap operas, were emotional, wishful thinking, and learning.[15]
In 1970 Abraham Maslow suggested that Uses and Gratifications Theory was an extension of the Needs and Motivation Theory. The basis for his argument was that people actively looked to satisfy their needs based on a hierarchy. These needs are organized as Maslow 's Hierarchy of Needs in the form of a pyramid with the largest, most fundamental needs at the base and the need for self-actualization at the tip. From the bottom-up the pyramid contains Biological/Physical, Security/Safety, Social/Belonging, Ego/Self-Respect and Self-actualization at the top.[16]
In 1954 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.[17]
Stage 2
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 classify viewers according to their needs in order to understand any potential mass-media effects.[4] The audience motivations they were able to identify helped lay the groundwork for their research in 1972 and eventually the Uses and Gratifications Theory.[17]
In 1972 Denis McQuail, Jay Blumler and Joseph Brown suggested that the uses of different types of media could be grouped into 4 categories. The four categories were: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity and surveillance.[17]
In 1973-74 McQuail, Blumler and Brown were joined by Elihu Katz, Michael Gurevitch and Hadassah Haas, in their media exploration. The collaborative research began to indicate how people saw the mass media.[17]
Stage 3
The most recent interest surrounding Uses and Gratifications Theory is the link between the reason why media is used and the achieved gratification.[17]
UGT researchers are developing the theory to be more predictive and explanatory by connecting the needs, goals, benefits, and consequences of media consumption and use along with individual factors.[17]
Work in UGT was trailblazing because the research of Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch 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.[17]
Modern Applications of Uses & Gratifications Research
Internet Usage
Modern communication scholars such as Tomas E. Ruggiero, highlight the necessity of UGT in understanding the proliferation and success of computer-mediated communication forms. Ruggiero states that UGT provides a "cutting-edge theoretical approach in the initial stages of each new mass communications medium: newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet."[18] Furthermore, Ruggiero argues that new media forms require analysis of potentially new uses and gratifications; for example, interactivity, hypertextuality, asynchronous communication, and demassification.[18]
Scholars like LaRose et al. utilize UGT to understand Internet usage via a socio-cognitive framework to reduce uncertainties that arise from homogenizing an Internet audience and explaining media usage in terms of only positive outcomes (gratifications). LaRose et al. created measures for self-efficacy and self-disparagement and related UGT to negative outcomes of online behavior (like Internet addiction) as well.[19]
New Media Examples of UGT
The application of New Media to the Uses and Gratifications Theory has been positive.[20] The introduction of the Internet, social media and technological advances has provided another outlet for people to use and seek gratification through those sources. Based on the models developed by Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch and Lasswell, individuals can choose to seek out media in one outlet, all falling within the proscribed categories of need. The only difference now, is that the audience does not have to go to multiple media outlets to fulfill each of their needs. The Internet has created a digital library, allowing individuals to have access to all content from various mass medium outlets.
Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratification, and Social Outcomes
In 2007 a study was conducted to examine the Facebook groups users gratifications in relation to their civic participation offline. The Web survey polled 1,715 college students, ranging in age from 18-29, who were members of Facebook groups. The respondents were given 16 statement through an electronic survey and asked "to rate their level of agreement with specific reasons for using Facebook groups, including information acquisition about campus/community, entertainment/recreation, social interaction with friends and family, and peer pressure/self satisfaction." The Likert scale indicated the 1 was strongly agree and 6 was strongly disagree. To ensure those results were not skewed, the respondents were also asked to complete a set of level of agreement questions to properly gauge their level of life satisfaction.[21]
The study ultimately yielded results through principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. The results showed that there were four needs for using Facebook groups, "socializing, entertainment, self-status seeking, and information."
Gratification Received from Use of Facebook Groups
Socializing: Students interested in talking and meeting with others to achieve a sense of community and peer support on the particular topic of the group
Entertainment: Students engaged with the groups to amuse themselves
Self-Seeking: Students maintain and seek out their personal status, as well as those of their friends, through the online group participation
Information: Students used the group to receive information about related events going on and off campus
UGT Analysis of Twitter
Twitter is an online micro-blogging platform that contains both mass-media functions and interpersonal communication options via sending tweets. Research has found a positive correlation between active time spent on Twitter and the gratification of a need for "an informal sense of camaraderie"—connection—with other users. Furthermore, the frequency of tweets and number of replies and public messages mediated the relationship between Twitter users. This helped increase both use and gratification of the media by satisfying the need for connection.[22]
UGT Approach to New Mass Media Technologies
Fueling the debate: Predictive relationships among personality characteristics, motives, and effects of melodramatic animated news viewing[23]
In 2011, a survey was conducted with 312 college students to investigate their viewing of animated news. The use of melodramatic animation in news has been an emerging technique used in news reporting.[24] It is regarded as a news technique that is going mainstream and is going global.[25] The respondents were given 59 statements to rate according to how well each of these statements applies to their viewing of animated news. Factor analysis and hierarchical regression were employed for data analysis.
In the study, seven motives were identified, through factor analysis, for viewing such animated news videos. These motives included companionship, social Interaction, relaxation, information Seeking, interpersonal Learning, entertainment and pass time.
Social interaction motive: getting information for facilitating discussion with others
Relaxation motive: watching animated news to release pressure and unwind
Information-seeking motive: viewing animated news to stay abreast of current events or to search for information
Entertainment motive: viewing animated news for amusement and enjoyment
Pastime motive: viewing animated news to occupy time or when individuals have nothing better to do
Interpersonal learning motive: the desire to understand the minds of friends or significant others by watching the animated news videos that are shared by these individuals
Companionship motive: to alleviating loneliness
The results of hierarchical regression analysis suggest predictive relationships among personality characteristics (sensation seeking and locus of control), the seven motives, the effects of perceived news credibility and newsworthiness, and the intention to share such animated news videos with others.
Related Theories
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 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.[26]
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.[12][19]
Cultivation Theory
Cultivation theory is concerned with understanding the role that media play in shaping a person 's world view—specifically television. 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.
Theory Criticism
The data behind the theory is hard to extrapolate and at times is not found. How each audience, individual and group perceives a given media outlet is extremely difficult to gauge. A main argument lies in how the media, producers and editors want the material to be interpreted. News reports on a rising restaurant could be seen as a threat to local establishments but was intended as a positive note to how well the community is doing. Morley (1992) says that "creators of media content have a preferred reading that they would like the audience to take out of the text. However, the audience might reject it, or negotiate some comprise interpretation between what they think and what they text is saying, or contest what the text says with some alternative interpretation".[27] The biggest issue for the Uses and Gratifications Theory is its being non-theoretical, vague in key concepts, and nothing more than a data-collecting strategy.[28]
Using this sociologically-based theory has little to no link to the benefit of 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.[1]
Due to the individualistic nature of Uses and Gratification theory, it is difficult to take the information that is collected in studies. Most research relies on pure recollection of memory rather than data.[29] This makes self-reports complicated and immeasurable.
The Uses and Gratifications theory has been denounced by media hegemony advocates who say it goes too far in claiming that people are free to choose the media and the interpretations they desire.[1] Audiences interpret the media in their own terms and any debate for or against this can be argued, and depending on the circumstances, won by either side. Each individuals ' actions and effects on those actions will depend solely on the situation. The Uses and Gratifications theory does not properly account for these natural occurrences but does hold a valid argument that each individual has unique uses to which the media attempts to meet their gratifications.
Theorist Explanation
"The nature of the theory underlying Uses and Gratifications research is not totally clear," (Blumler, 1979) This makes the line between gratification and satisfaction blurred, calling into question whether or not we only seek what we desire or actually enjoy it. (Palmgreen,P., and Rayburn,J.D., 1985)
"Practitioners of Uses and Gratifications research have been criticized for a formidable array of shortcomings in their outlook -- they are taxed for being crassly atheoretical, perversely eclectic, ensnared in the pitfalls of functionalism and for flirting with the positions at odds with their functionalist origins," (Blumler, 1979).
The Active Audience
Jay Blumler presented a number of interesting points, as to why Uses and Gratifications 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, 1979). Blumler then offered suggestions about the kinds of activity the audiences were engaging with in the different types of media.
Utility : "Using the media to accomplish specific tasks" [20]
Intentionality: "Occurs when people 's prior motive determine use of media"[20]
Selectivity: "Audience members ' use of media reflect their existing interests" [20]
Imperviousness to Influence: "Refers to audience members ' constructing their own meaning from media content" [20]
25 years later, in 1972, Blumler, McQuail and Brown extended Lasswell 's four groups. These included four primary factors for which one may use the media:[30]
Diversion: Escape from routine and problems; an emotional release [31]
Personal Relationships: Social utility of information in conversation; substitution of media for companionship[32]
Personal Identity or Individual Psychology: Value reinforcement or reassurance; self-understanding, reality exploration[33]
Surveillance: Information about factors which might affect one or will help one do or accomplish something [34]

Katz, Gurevitch and Haas (1973) saw mass media as a means by which individuals connect or disconnect themselves with others. They developed 35 needs taken from the largely speculative literature on the social and psychological functions of the mass media and put them into five categories:
Cognitive Needs: Acquiring information, knowledge and understanding[20]
Media Examples: Television (news), video (how-to), movies (documentaries or based on history)
Affective Needs: Emotion, pleasure, feelings[20]
Media Examples: Movies, television (soap operas, sitcoms)
Personal Integrative Needs: Credibility, stability, status[20]
Media Examples: Video
Social Integrative Needs: Family and friends[20]
Media Examples: Internet (e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, social media)
Tension Release Needs: Escape and diversion [20]
Media Examples: Television, movies, video, radio, internet
See also
Communication theory
Outline of communication
Mass communication
Mass communication theory
Media systems dependency theory
Maslow 's hierarchy of needs
Cultivation theory
Social cognitive theory
Work Cited
1. ^ a b c Severin and Tankard, 1997
2. ^ Katz, Elihu (1959). "Mass Communications Research and the Study of Popular Culture: An Editorial Note on a Possible Future for this Journal". Departmental Papers (ASC): 1–6.
3. ^ a b West, Richard; Turner, Lynn (2007). Introducing Communication Theory. McGraw Hill. pp. 392–409.
4. ^ a b c Severin, Werner J. (2000). "2: New Media Theory". Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media (James W. ed.). Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN 0801333350.
5. ^ a b McQuail, Denis (2010). Mass communication theory: an introduction. London: Sage Publications. pp. 420–430. ISBN 1849202923.
6. ^ "What Can Uses and Gratifications Theory Tell Us About Social Media?" Education|Ithink. 29 July 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2011. .
7. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
8. ^ Baran, Stanley J.; Davis, Dennis K. (2009). Mass communication theory : foundations, ferment, and future (6th ed. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. pp. 416. ISBN 0495898872.
9. ^ Levy, Mark; Sven Windahl (1985). "The concept of audience acivity". Media gratifications research: Current perspectives: 109–122.
10. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
11. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
12. ^ a b c Palmgreen, P; L. Wenner, K. Rosengren (1985). "Uses and gratifications research: The past ten years.". Media gratifications research: 1–37.
13. ^ (Lazarsfeld, 1940).
14. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
15. ^ Normal.dotm 0 0 1 25 146 Wheaton College 1 1 179 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. "Uses and Gratifications Theory." Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 392-409. Print.
16. ^ Normal.dotm 0 0 1 25 146 Wheaton College 1 1 179 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. "Uses and Gratifications Theory." Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 392-409. Print.
17. ^ a b c d e f g West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. "Uses and Gratifications Theory." Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 392-409. Print.
18. ^ a b Ruggiero, Thomas E. (2000). "Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century". Mass Communication & Society 3 (1): 3–37.
19. ^ a b LaRose, Robert; Dana Mastro, Matthew S. Eastin (2001). "Understanding Internet Usage: A Social-Cognitive Approach to Uses and Gratifications". Social Science Computer Review 19 (395).
20. ^ a b c d e f g h i j West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. "Uses and Gratifications Theory." Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 392-401. Print.
21. ^ Park, Namsu, Kerk F. Kee, and Sebastian Valenzuela. "Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes. "CyberPsychology & Behavior 12.6 (2009) 729-33. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Web.
22. ^ Chen, Gina Masullo (March 2011). "Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others". Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2): 755–762.
23. ^ Lo, W.H., & Cheng, B.K.L. (2012). "Fueling the debate: Predictive relationships among personality characteristics, motives and effects of melodramatic animated news viewing". Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Association of Education for Journalism and Mass Communication (Electronic News Division), Chicago, US, August 10–13, 2012.
24. ^ Cheng, B.K.L., & Lo, W.H. (2012). "Can News Be Imaginative? An Experiment Testing the Perceived Credibility of Melodramatic Animated News, News Organizations, Media Use, and Media Dependency". Electronic News, 6(3), 131-150.
25. ^ "In Animated Videos, News and Guesswork Mix". New York Times. December 5, 2011.
26. ^ Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J; DeFleur, ML (1979). "A dependency model of mass-media effects". In G. Gumpert & R.S. Cathart, (eds.), Inter/Media: Interpersonal communication in a media world.: 81–96.
27. ^ (Davenport, LaRose, Straubhaar, 2010).
28. ^ Littlejohn, 2002; Severin and Tankard, 1997; McQuail 1994
29. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
30. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
31. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
32. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
33. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
34. ^ Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. "Uses and Gratifications Research."The Public Opinion Quarterly 4th ser. 37 (1973–1974): 509-23. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .
Additional References
Blumler and Katz. The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research.
Davenport, Lucinda. LaRose, Robert. Straubhaar, Josheph, Media Now - Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology, Sixth Edition, Boston, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010, ISBN 978-0-495-57008-0.
DeFleur, M. L., and Ball-Rokeachi, S. J. (1989). Theories of Mass Communication.
Grant, A. E., (1998, April). Dependency and control. Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communications, Baltimore, Maryland.
Infante, Dominic A., Rancer, Andrew S., and Womack, Deanna F., eds. Building Communication Theory (1993). (pp. 204–412).
Katz, E. (1987). Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 525–545
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). Ulilization 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: Sage.
Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164-181.
Laughey, Dan. Key Themes in Media Theory. "Behaviourism and Media Effects." (p 26-27).
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1940). "Radio and the Printed Page." New York: Dvell, Sloan, Pearce.
Littlejohn, Stephen W. (2002) Theories of Human Communication (pp 323)
McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communication (pp. 135–65). Middlesex, England: Penguin.
McQuail, D. (1983). With Benefits to Hindsight : Reflections on Uses and Gratifications Research. Critical Studies in Mass Communication Theory: And Introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication: An Introduction (3rd ed.,). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Palmgreen, P., and Rayburn, J. D., (1985). "A Comparison of Gratification Models of Media Satisfaction." Communication Monographs (pg 4.)
Roger, Tony, "Why Are Newspapers Dying?", About.com, Retrieved 2011-11-02.
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.
Severin, W. J., and Tankard, J. W. (1997). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
View page ratings
Rate this page
What 's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Categories:
Communication theory
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Top of Form

Bottom of Form
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages
Deutsch
Español
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
中文
This page was last modified on 28 December 2012 at 15:00.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Mobile view

References: Davenport, Lucinda. LaRose, Robert. Straubhaar, Josheph, Media Now - Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology, Sixth Edition, Boston, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010, ISBN 978-0-495-57008-0. DeFleur, M. L., and Ball-Rokeachi, S. J. (1989). Theories of Mass Communication. Grant, A. E., (1998, April). Dependency and control. Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communications, Baltimore, Maryland. Infante, Dominic A., Rancer, Andrew S., and Womack, Deanna F., eds. Building Communication Theory (1993). (pp. 204–412). Katz, E. (1987). Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 525–545 Katz, E Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Ulilization 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: Sage. Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164-181. Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1940). "Radio and the Printed Page." New York: Dvell, Sloan, Pearce. Littlejohn, Stephen W. (2002) Theories of Human Communication (pp 323) McQuail, D., Blumler, J McQuail, D. (1983). With Benefits to Hindsight : Reflections on Uses and Gratifications Research. Critical Studies in Mass Communication Theory: And Introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication: An Introduction (3rd ed.,). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Palmgreen, P., and Rayburn, J. D., (1985). "A Comparison of Gratification Models of Media Satisfaction." Communication Monographs (pg 4.) Roger, Tony, "Why Are Newspapers Dying?", About.com, Retrieved 2011-11-02. 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. Severin, W. J., and Tankard, J. W. (1997). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media (4th ed.). New York: Longman.