Synthesis of the Structure and Functions of the Uses and

Gratification Model

By

Syed Abdul Siraj

Chairman, Mass Communication
Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad
Pakistan
Cell phone: 3335209269
sasiraj99@yahoo.com

Biography:
Syed Abdul Siraj, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Chairman Mass Communication at
the Allama Iqbal Open University, Pakistan. He carries over 21 years of teaching and
research experience at university level. He has been visiting scholar at foreign and
national universities. Dr. Siraj holds masters in Journalism with distinction, doctorate in
Mass Communication (Pakistan) and conducted Post-doctorate research at the Southern
Illinois University Carbondale (USA). He has vast experience of course development at
graduate, post graduate and PhD levels. Dr. Siraj has authored 17 research papers,
published in national and international research journals and contributed chapters in
11books in Mass Communication. He participated in national and International
Conferences. He is member of the Board of Studies for Mass Communication at several
Universities in Pakistan.
 Synthesis of the Structure and Functions of the Uses and
Gratification Model

Abstract
The theory of Uses and Gratifications has three specific objectives. First, UGT attempts to
explain how specific viewers use mass media to meet individual needs. Second, researchers
endeavor to discover a viewer's underlying motives for using the media. Finally, theorists want to
identify the positive and negative consequences of an individual's mass media utilization. Uses
and gratifications (U&G) theories and research have helped to explain the many reasons why
people engage in specific types of communication. Researchers have proposed that media is used
to provide structure and to punctuate the environment, to facilitate communication, to learn in
social context, to practice inclusion or avoidance, to provide pleasure and relaxation, to allow
expression influence, to determine interpersonal roles and to gain information.(Rubin, Pearce &
Babaro, 1988; Ruggiero, 2000; Suler, 1999; Weaver, 1991).

Key words: Media uses/ Gratification/Audiences/new tecnology

Introduction
The uses and gratification tradition developed from the Functionalist theory by well-
known sociologist researchers, including, Jay Blumler and Elihu Katz. The functionalist
paradigm insists on media effects towards people, such as the frequently used model of
the "hypodermic needle" or a "bullet theory" aimed at a passive audience (Severin &
Tankard, 1997). This model was used by practitioners from the 1920's to the 1940's, but a
shift occurred during the middle of the 20th century that lead mass media to further
develop and understand the notion of Uses and Gratifications. Following discussion
synthesizes findings of various researches on the Uses and Gratification model.

The Uses and Gratification approach was first denoted by Elihu Katz in 1959. Most
communication research up to this point was questioning, "What do media do to people?"
However, Katz suggested asking the question, "What do people do with media?" (Severin
& Tankard, 1997). Nevertheless, the uses and gratification approach, within the
Functionalist theory, shifted the focus from the purposes of the communication to the
purpose of the reader (Severin and Tankard, 1997) and opened a door to a modern
understanding of mass communication.
 Uses and gratifications theory, in the 1940s by Lazarsfeld and Stanton (1944),
attempts to explain the reasons people use mass media and the different types of
gratification they receive from it. Gratifications, simply stated, are rewards or
satisfactions obtained by the individual. The theory relies on the belief that the audience
is not merely a group of passive media consumers, but they play an active role in
selecting different media to meet their needs (Infante, Rancer & Womack, 1997; Lowery
& De Fleur, 1983). The theory came into prominence in the late 1950s and early 1960s at
a time when researchers realized that traditional effects theories did not adequately
explain audience experiences with mass media (Bulmer, 1979; Swanson, 1979).

In the 1940s most research attempted primarily to describe behaviors and categorize
responses. Early researchers rarely looked at correlations between observed gratifications
and the psychological origins of the satisfied need (Ruggiero 2000). Even through the
1960s, researchers focused on the intended, or sought-after gratifications, rather than the
gratifications actually received (Rayburn, 1996). During the late 1970s, theoretical
development helped researchers recognize that affected or cognitive states influenced
media usage (Ruggiero, 2000). Stress and boredom resulted in contrasting choices of
media, and research by Katz and Lazarsfield (1956) suggested that selectivity in media
choice may actually “empower” media users.

Lazarsfeld and Stanton (1944) pioneered the development of uses and gratification
theory (UGT) during World War II and initially focused on radio serial programs (Infant,
Rancor, & Womack, 1997). These media theorists including Herta Herzog began
speculating that it might behoove communicators to study an active, gratifications-
seeking audience. It was Herta Herzog who gave birth to the uses and gratifications
theory with her study “Motivations and Gratifications of Daily Serial Listeners.” It was
the first publisher study to examine media gratifications. She studied 100 listeners of
radio soap operas to determine their reasons for listening to the dramas. She found that
they listened for a variety of reasons. They are, in order of frequency: merely a means of
emotional release, the opportunities for wishful thinking, and advice.
Application of the UGT Model
Elihu Katz (1959) was the researcher to employ the UGT approach by initially
questioning what individuals do with mass media (Severin &-Tankard, 1997). Katz
named a Bernard Berelson (1959) study that examined a two-week newspaper strike, but
from the individual reader's perspective. Katz found that while some readers felt
compelled to do so for social or informative reasons, many individual readers used
newspapers for diversion, relaxation, and entertainment. Katz also noted that Riley and
Riley's (1951) study showed that children use media stories as premises for group play.
Katz's work demonstrates that different individuals can "use" the media in contrasting
ways

In a study using cluster analysis, Katz, Gurevitch and Hass (1973) identified fourteen
different needs fulfilled by media use. Types of usage included television, radio,
newspaper, books and film. Among the initial needs recorded were:
Strengthening self-knowledge (to know oneself, develop good taste, study)
 Weaken contact with self (avoid loneliness, pass time, escape)
 .strengthen social knowledge (government progress, information, official’s
profiles)
 Strengthen experience with others (get to know others, participate)

Rubin's study falls into the uses and gratifications category of communication
research. Uses and gratifications have been quite good at description and measurement of
different types of programs and consumption. This typological research occurred early on
and identified the major types of motives for media consumption. The theory has
focused primarily on sociological influences, however psychological stimuli may provide
some compelling answers-especially in the case of solitary viewing. This generates the
question whether interaction with a television set a social even if not, then solitary
viewing habits ought to be studied with a focus on the individual and through a
psychological framework rather than the sociological one most commonly used.

Rubin's study distributed personal interview questionnaires to 626 respondents in

November of 1978. The three sections of 1he questionnaire dealt with viewing
motivations, television viewing behaviors and attitudes, and demography. He focused on
the relationship between age and viewing motivations and how motivations and
behaviors were related. He categorized nine main viewing motivations and Hypothesized
that age would be negatively correlated to each motivation, amount of television viewing
would be positively correlated, affinity to the medium of television would be positively
correlated, and perceived reality of television content would be positively correlated.
Rubin's results indicated that only four clusters were negatively correlated with age, and
that for each of the other hypotheses, all but one motivation was positively correlated. His
study lacks a discussion of the non- correlating motivations. Arguably, this is the
interesting part.

Rubin (1986) stated two underlying presumptions of the uses and gratifications
model. First researchers need to understand audience needs and motives for using mass
media in order to comprehend the effects of the media. Second, understanding audience
consumption patterns will enhance understanding of media effects. Rubin (1979)
identified six major uses of television for children and adolescents: learning, passing time
or habit, companionship, escape, arousal, and relaxation. In a separate study, Rubin
(1983) found, five reasons that adults use television for passing time, information,
entertainment, companionship, and escape. Rubin (1984) also identified in a subsequent
study two types of television viewers—ritualized and instrumental. Ritualized users are
frequent TV viewers who use television mainly as a diversion. Instrumental users usually
have a specific purpose in mind when they watch 'IV and often use it for information
purposes.

Levy and Windahl (1984) refine the idea of a "totally active audience" (p. 73), and
suggest different, members of an audience will display different types and amounts of
activity in different communication settings and at different times in the communication
sequence. They identified three types of audience activity people engage in when using
the mass media: pre-activity (behaviors taken in the selection of mass media content);
duractivity (psychological attentiveness and personal involvement in the experience); and
post-activity (behaviors taken after the experience, such as discussion or reflection).
These activities obviously varied in degree from person to person. Levy and Wmdahl
(1984) found that ' overall, the public is more or less active and relatively self aware and
knowledgeable about the media's ability to gratify certain social and psychological needs.

Garramonc (1984) writes that audience motivation is a mediating factor in

information processing. The Reasons a person uses various media affect their attention to
various aspects of the media presentation, including the channel and the content. While
the bulk of UGT research focuses on the individual alone, some research blends mass
media and social psychology approaches to examine the extent gratification is associated
with social identity (Harwood, 1999). Researchers speculated that in spite of prior
individual and interpersonal views, media use might also lead to social identities.
Harwood asserts that people may actively use mass media to enhance individual
perceptions of a particular social group, or to make the affiliation a more positive one.
Blumler (1995) demonstrates that societal groups attach different significance to different
gratifications, but also that the personal identity framework overshadows an individual’s
social identity.

Audience Gratification Categories

Social identity, while part of the self-concept, is distinct from the personal identify
(Harwood, 1999). Harwood attempted to measure the reliability of social gratification as
a measure of social identity, as well as links between social gratification and viewing
choices. With a sample of 235 undergraduate communication students from a large
American University, researchers attempted to determine preferences for actual television
programs and for experimentally manipulated, artificial television programs. Noting a
mean age of less than 20 years, researchers placed the experimental group in a “young”
social classification (Harwood, 1999). Results show that when respondents prefer
younger television programs, these results increased age identification. The simple act of
making television-viewing choices may enhance a sense of belonging to a particular
group. Researchers admit that the actual viewing behavior may be a better predictor than
planned viewing and may result in effects that are more substantial. Loneliness, a motive
linked to UGT, is always a negative and unpleasant psychological state in which an
individual feels a discrepancy between desired and actual interaction, support, and
intimacy (Canary & Spitzberg, 2000).

Paradoxically, lonely individuals who need social interaction are less likely to seek
relationship to solve the loneliness problem, because doing so would exacerbate feelings
of threat and anxiety. These individuals still have virtually the same information and
entertainment needs of non-lonely counterparts. Since lonely individuals view relational
interaction as an unsatisfactory coping strategy, research shows that some of the lonely
turn to the media to gratify the needs left vacant by the lack of social interaction. Some
research provides empirical evidence that certain media are considered more useful than
other in satisfying an individual’s parasocial needs (Canary & Spitzberg, 1993). Media
choices, however, differ in parasocial constructs. Rubin, Pearce, and Powell (1985) found
that parasocial involvement takes many forms in the media: guidance seeking, seeing
personalities as friends, imagination and fantasy, and desiring to meet media people. The
studies that have researched the extent to which loneliness influences media interaction
have yielded mixed results.

Canaty and Spitzberg (1993) found that chronically lonely people are likely to
attribute loneliness to internal and enduring factors. For both chronically and situational
lonely individuals, research shows that escape gratification is more applicable in relieving
loneliness. Lonely groups obtain more significant escape from the media than do non-
lonely groups. Lonely individuals expect more information-based gratification from the
media than the non-lonely, but lonely, individuals acquire less surveillance gratification
from the media.

The U.S. government requires American television stations to regularly determine the
needs of the serviced community (Wulfemeyer, 1983). A major study in New York,
published in 1978, found that three-quarters of survey respondents regularly watch
television newscasts. Viewers tune in for various reasons, including to obtain information
and to be entertained. Researchers found news stories of both entertainment items and
unexpected events ranked equally high among survey respondents. A respondent's gender
and age were insignificant in determining news content preferences.

Lin (1992) studied why audience choose particular newscasts over others. With
regard to news' anchor selection, the researcher found that viewers do not prefer one
gender to another or whether one or more anchors are used. In terms of newscaster
preference, the study shows audiences prefer anchors with the attributes of knowledge,
experience, professionalism, and pleasing appearance. Additionally, when comparing
anchors from different stations, viewers did not display a distinct preference; this is
possibly because anchors in the same market may employ similar styles.

Kepplinger and Daschmann (1997) examined how viewers process television news by
comparing objective news content to the subjective meaning of news stories. Researchers
studied four 15 to 30 minute newscasts on tl1ree German networks on May 11, 1993.
German newscasts are commercial free and play an important information dissemination
role in German society, but vary significantly in content and form when compared to the
US networks. Researchers utilized content analysis to examine news story content, and
employed a viewer interview approach to determine the news story's subjective meaning.
The researchers asked viewers to list the most important story from a particular newscast
(Kepplinger & Dasclmtann, 1997). Results confirmed the idea that viewers consider
stories placed near the beginning of a newscast as being more important. Additionally,
viewers tended to have the greatest recall of negatively portrayed events that ran near the
start of the program. Next, researchers asked the 'viewers' opinion of what they thought
was the main point of the story listed as most important in the newscast. Result show that
the majority of respondents mentioned items that were unverifiable. Recall was also
inaccurate in that nearly all respondents added information about people, places, causes,
or developments. While the added information makes sense to the individual viewers,
researchers conclude that the supplementary information added fits a story line or
otherwise established patterns (KeppJinger & Dasclmlann, 1997). The supplemental
information, often in a broader context than presented in the newscast, may come from
other news sources, such as television news programs and newspapers.
 The Abehnan, Atkin, and Rand (1997) study includes a survey of 30 statements
utilizing 5-point likert scale with one corresponding to strongly disagree and five
corresponding to strongly agree. The survey contained 10 uses and gratification theory
areas with three questions under each area. The areas are as follows: relaxation, social
interaction, companionship, habit, pass time, entertainment, information, arousal and
moral support. Researchers analyzed the audience's viewing motivations by
intercorrelating the items along with a principal factor analysis with oblique rotation.
Results show that ritualized/habitual viewers and goal-oriented viewers exist.

When applied to the T AC advertising campaign, Uses and Gratification theorists

McQuail & Blumler suggests the advertisements are by particular individuals or groups
who take on the meanings and messages in the dominant or preferred way because in
some way it is rewarding to them. These theorists are also concerned with data and they
would look at the road toll stat1stics and the graphs, which do show, that from 1989 in
Victoria, the number of deaths that occurred on the roads has been substantially reduced.
It can be shown that drivers are saying, 'Life is valuable. I feel good about being a
responsible road user. I will drive more safely. On this basis Uses and Gratification
theorists would say the advertisements are working.

Uses and Gratification and the New Technology

The uses and gratifications model is an important theoretical perspective when
applied to studying the role of new communication technologies. It explores the role of
the Internet in human communication and why people use the Internet (December, 1996;
Monois & Ogan, 1996; Newhagen & Rafaeli, 1996). The uses and gratifications approach
considers consumers of media to be purposive in their choice of media and to actively
seek media to fuJfill their needs for a variety of purposes (Blmnler & Katz, 1974;
Palmgreen, Wenner, Rosengren, 1985).

Considering that Internet is one of the most innovative communication media, it is

natural that many researchers have examined psychological and behavioral tendencies of
Internet users under the uses and gratifications perspective (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000).
Since one of the strengths of the Internet is its "interactivity”, the uses and gratifications
perspective, which contains "audience activity" as its core concept, is currently regarded
as one of the most effective conceptual basis to study this medium. As a result, many
researchers have offered this perspective in order to understand why people use the
Internet and the number of gratifications derived from its use.

Researchers have looked at a variety of users spending excessive amount of time on

the Internet (Kandeil, 1998; Wallace, 1999; Young, 1996). It seems logical to assume that
excessive, or even moderate, continued use indicates a fairly important need fulfillment.
Rubin cites arguments made by W. Schutz, who in 1966 (Papacharissi & Rubin 2000)
suggested three interpersonal needs affecting all aspects of communications: affection,
control and inclusion. In 1988, six primary motives for interpersonal communication
were suggested: Pleasure, affection, inclusion, escapism, relaxation and control (Rubin,
Pearce & Barbato, 1988). In 1998, Flaherty, Pearce and Rubin (1998) reported that
individuals used computers to satisfy three major needs: nterpersonal needs (inclusion,
affection, relaxation and control); traditional needs associated with media (social
interaction, passing time, information, habit, entertainment); and new media needs (time
shifting, meeting other individuals). While the classes and categories of identified needs
have broadened as more studies have been completed, affection, inclusion and control
seem to continually appear as factors:

Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) recently identified three additional factors they believe
influence Internet usage: contextual age (as opposed to using the limitations of
chronological age); unwillingness to communication (the tendency to avoid verbal
communications du to factors including low self-esteem, introversion and apprehension);
and media perceptions (the lack of social presence on the Internet, informational benefits,
interpersonal benefits). Eighmey (1997) investigated the users of commercial websites
based on the findings of previous research on radio and television. He also found that
entertainment value, personal relevance, and information involvement are the three
significant motivational factors for surfing commercial websites. In addition to
Eighmey’s study, Korgaonkar and Wolin (1999) examined Internet users’ motivations
and concerns by categorizing 41 items into the seven factors: social escapism,
transactional security and privacy, information, interactive control, socialization, non
transactional privacy, and economic motivation. Subsequently, they investigated the
relationship between the seven motivational factors and the three usage contexts: time
spent on the Web business. As a result, the findings indicated that the seven factors for
using the Internet and demographic factors are significantly correlated with the tree usage
contexts. The results of their study suggested that people use the Internet not only for
instrumental purposes to retrieve information but also for ritualistic purposes to seek
entertainment and relaxation.

Lin's findings (1999) provided a different approach from the previous computer-
mediated communication studies of the uses and gratifications theory. She investigated
both television and Internet use motives in order to examine the media substitution
hypothesis. In this process, she also examined likely online-service adoption, which
indicates possibility of visiting a certain website. The work sought to determine whether
motives for the two media are related with the likely online access to a certain type of
website. As a result, her study revealed that e. users' motives for both media are similar to
each other. Only the motives for using the Internet significantly correlated with the likely
online-service adoption.

Other recent studies supported suggestion that personality and social environment
have an influence on need and choices. Perceptions, socialization, psychological
characteristics and attitudes have been found to influence behaviors and motives
(Papacharissa & Rubin, 2000); and thereby can conceivably influence choices in media.
Sensation seeking is considered by Kermar to be one of the more relevant variables in
this area of study. This concept is important for online studies because it is directly
related’ to the need for stimulation and has measurable characteristics (KCImar &
Greene, 1999). .

Kayany and Yelsma (2000) cite reports estimating that 42 percent of the U.S.
population or 84 million adult Americans use the Internet. Of these 84 million, 37 million
hook up daily from their homes. Their research reflects a time displacement effect, in that
users experiences a reduction in time spent on other activities, including family
interaction and domestic conversations. In her book, The Psychology of the Internet
(1999), Wallace writes that time spent online causes a decrease in family
communications, and that feeling of loneliness and depression began to surface over time.
It seems logical to assume that continued use indicates a fairly important need fulfillment,
especially in cases where continued use contributes to a negative atmosphere in the home.

According to a study of computer users by Hellerstein (1986), evidence suggests that

computers, as communication media, are being used for some gratification purposes.
Hellerstein observed that heavy users of computerized communication spend some of
their time on-line in a social function In the study, 40% of the heavy users accessed the e-
mail system at their university to chat with friends and even to initiate a friendship
compared to 26% of light users. Finally, light users used the e-mail system most of the
time (33%) to alleviate boredom.Williams, Rice and Rogers (1988) found that interactive
media, like computer-mediated communication, gave people the chance to disseminate
messages that have a niche. Computer-mediated communication has the ability, unlike
network television where the programming is for a mass audience, to only reach an
audience of selective tastes since computer-mediated communication has the ability to be
personalized. The audience for some computer-mediated communication user groups,
whether technical or social, can vary with people's tastes.

A study of the WWW use by the Nielson (1997) survey found that there were three
main gratifications, being provided by the Web: (1) The first is simply browsing,
followed by (2) information seeking, and finally (3) entertainment. The browsing and
exploration gratification that the users are receiving from the Web can be seen as an
extension of their affective and cognitive needs. Web users are finding entertainment
ma1nly from simply exploring what is out there. The Nielson survey also found that 90%
of Web users were simply browsing and exploring. Similarly, the Georgia Tech (1996)
study found that 82.6% of users were just browsing. Another need is the informational or
cognitive need. This finding is common considering that the Web was originally designed
with the idea of handling information. According to the Nielson survey, 73% of users
access the Web to search for information.
 A survey on how different generations use the Internet showed that while middle-
aged adults use the Internet ma1nly for research and surveillance, those aged between 18
and 24 use the Internet for entertainment. (Techserver, Mar. 24 1998). The American
Psychological Convention's report reveals that Internet users were more likely to go on-
line in search of social entertainment as opposed to looking for information. The study,
which was focused on international Internet users, found that 35% of those surveyed used
chat rooms, 28% said they participated in interactive on-line fantasy games. The report,
"Internet Addiction: What Makes Computer-Mediated Communication Habit Forming",
announced that "pathological Internet users were logging on in a bid to create another
persona" (Nando Techserver, Aug. 14 1997).

According to the Commerce Net/Nielsen Internet demographic survey in June 1998,

reported that the number of people purchasing products and services via the Internet has
hit 20 million, double what it was nine months ago. The survey revealed that most 0n-
line shoppers (64%) and purchasers (71%) were men. Another on-line market researcher
plan reported that Internet users over the age of 55 are highly educated, affluent and have
a higher tendency to purchase on-line than younger users. The report noted that the travel
industry is expected to represent for 35% of all on-line sales by the year 2002. Once
consumer trust grows, the amount of money being spent
On-line will increase. College students would be heavily targeted by marketers who
acknowledged the potential spending power of this group (Binary Compass Enterprises,
Nov. 101997).

Conclusion
To sum up, the uses and gratifications perspective has been quite effective in gaining
a better understanding of the motivation and concern of electronic media including
Internet. Nonetheless, some uncertainty still exists for obtaining gratification items,
particularly for the Internet users. A particularly, unexamined area at present time is how
the net is used simultaneously by segments of global audiences. Considering that
audience activity is one of the key components of the uses and gratification research, it is
expected that audiences are purposive and active, all it depends on their various needs,
especially when react to the interactive advertising in the Internet. Therefore, the uses and
gratifications research for global interactive advertising should begin with what the core
motives of global audiences are and how they are different across culture or countries.

References

1. Abelman, R., Atkin, D., & Rand, M. (1997). What viewers watch when they watch TV: Affiliation
change as a case study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 360 – 379.
2. Abercrombie, Nicholas (1996): Television and Society. Cambridge: Polity Press
3. Angleman, S. (December, 2000). Uses and Gratifications and Internet Profiles: A Factor Analysis.
Is Internet Use and Travel to Cyberspace Reinforced by Unrealized Gratifications? Unpublished
manuscript, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.
http://users.bscn.com/san/InternetGratificationStudyIndex.html
4. Al-Najran, Talal., (1998). Internet adoption and use by Kuwait University students: new medium,
same old gratifications. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, School of Journalism and
Communication.
5. Blumler, J.G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratification studies. Communication
Research, 6, 9-3
6. Blumler, J.G. (1995). The social character of media gratification. In K.E. Rosengren, L.A.
Wenner, & R. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research (pp. 41-60). Beverly Hills,
California: Sage.
7. Canary, D.J., & Spitzberg, B.H. (1993). Loneliness and media gratification. Communication
Research, 20, 800-821
8. Fisher, B.A. (1978). Perspective on human Communication. New York. McMillan.
9. Furno-Lamude, D., & Anderson, J. (1992). The uses and gratification of rerun viewing.
Journalism Quarterly, 69, 362-372.
10. Flanagan, A.J.and M.J. Metzger (2001), “Internet Use in the Contemporary Media Environment,”:
Human Communication Research (27), No. 1, pp. 153-181.
11. Garamond, G. (1984). Audience motivation effects. Communication Research, 11, 79-96.
12. Gunter, B. (2000). Media research methods: Measuring audiences, reactions, and impact. London:
Sage Publication.
13. Hal loran, J.D. (ED.). (1970). The Effects of Television. St. Albans: Panther.
14. Hart, Andrew (1991): Understanding the Media: Apractical Guide. London: Routledge.
15. Harwood, J. (1999). Age identification, social identity gratifications, and television viewing.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 123-138.
16. Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about day time serial listeners? In B.F. Lazarsfeld &
F.N. Stanton Edition. Radio Research. (1942-1943). Pg. 3-33, New York. Duell, Floam and
Pearce.
17. Horton, D., Wahl, R.R (1956). Mass Communication & Parasocial Interaction. Psychiatry, 19,
215-229.
18. Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S., & Womack, D.F. (1993). Building communication theory (2nd ed.)
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
19. Kandell, J. (1998). Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students. Cyber
Psychology and Behavior, 1, (1), 11-17.
20. Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication in research and the study of popular culture Studies in
Public Communication, 2, 1-6.
21. Katz, E., J, G, Blumler, and M. Gurevitch (1974), “Utilization of mass communication by the
individual,” In Blumler, J.G. and E. Katz (eds.), The Uses of Mass Communication: Current
Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 19-32.
22. Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of mass media for important things.
American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.
23. Krcmar, M. & Greene, K. (1999). Predicting exposure to and uses of television violence. Journal
of Communications, 49(3), 24-45.
24. Kepplinger, H.M., & Daschmann, G. (1997). Today’s news-tomorrow’s context: A dynamic
model of news processing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 548-565.
25. Klapper, J.T. (1963). Mass Communication Research & Old Road Resurveyed. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 27, 515-529.
26. Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Stanton F. N. (1944). Radio rsearch 1942-1943. New York: Duel, Sloan, and
Pearce.
27. Levy, M. R., & wmdahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification
and exploration. Communication Research 11, 51-78.
28. Lin, C. A. (1992). Audience selectivity of local television newscasts. Journalism Quarterly, 69,
373-382.
29. Lin, Caroline A. (1999). Online-Service Adoption Likelihood, Journal of Advertising Research,
Mar/Apr 1999, pp. 79-89.
30. Lowery, S. & De Fleur, M. (1983). Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects.
New York: Longman Publishers.
31. McCombs, M, E., & Shaw, D, L. (1972). The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
32. McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction. (3ed.). London: Sage
Publications.
33. McQuail, D. (1988). Mass communication theory: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34. McQuail, D., Blumler, J., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience, a revised perspective.
In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communications. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
35. Mendelssohn, H. (1963)/ Spcop-psychological Perspective on the Mss Media & Public Anxiety.
Journalism Quarterly, 40, 511-516.
36. Morris, M. And C. Ogan (1996), “The Internet as Mass Medium,” Journal of Communication
(46), No.1, pp. 39-50.
37. Newhagen, J. E., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet:
A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 46, 4-13.
38. Palmgreen, P. C., Wenner, L. A., & Rosengren, K. E. (1985). Uses and gratifications research:
The past ten years. In K. E. Rosengren & L. A. Wenner & P. C. Palmgreen (Eds.), Uses and
gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 11-37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. Papacharissi, Z. And A. M. Rubin (2000), “Predictors of Internet Use,”Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media (44), No. 2, pp. 175-196.
40. Pearlin. L. I (1959). Social and Personal Stress & Escape. Television Viewing. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 23, 255-259.
41. Rayburn, J. (1996). Uses and Gratifications: An Integrated approach to communication theory and
research. In Salwen & Stacks. (1996). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. Riley, M. W., & Riley, Jr., J. W. (1951). A sociological approach to communications research.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 445-460.
43. Rosengreen, K. E. (1974). Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. The uses of mass
communications: Current perspectives of gratifications research In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds
(pp. 269-286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44. Rubin, A. M. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication
Research, 5, 109-120.
45. Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and
motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.
46. Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental uses of television Journal of
Communication,34(3),67-77.
47. Rubin, A.M., Pearce, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local
television news viewing. Communication Research 12, 155-180.
48. Rubin, A. (1986). Uses, gratifications and media effects research. Perspectives on media effects
(pp. 281-302). In J. Bryant & D. Zillman, (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
49. Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E, M (1987a). Audience Activity and Soap Opera involvement. Use and
Effects Investigation. Human Communication, 14, 246-268.
50. Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E, M (1987b). Audience Activity and Television news Gratifications.
Communication Research, 14, 58-84.
51. Rubin, R., Pearce E., & Barbato, C. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal
communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602-628.
52. Rubin, Alan (1994). Media Uses and Effects: A Uses-and-Gratifications Perspective, In Media
Effects, J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
53. Ruggiero, T. (2000) Uses and Gratifications theory in the 21st century Mass Communication &
Society 3, (1), 3-37.
54. Severin and Tankard, “Introduction to Communication Theory,” in Communication Theories, 4 th
edition, 1997, pp. 1-20.
55. Severin and Tankard, “Uses of the Media,” in Communication Theories, 4th edition, 1997, pp. 329-
341.
56. Stephenson, W. (1979). The Play theory of Mass Communication. Chicago University of Chicago
Press.
57. Swanson, D. (1979). The continuing evolution of the uses and gratifications approach.
Communication Research, 6, 3-7.
58. Swanson, D. L. (1979). The uses and misuses of use and gratifications. Human Communication
Research, 3, 214-221.
59. Suler, J. (1999). Cyberspace as Psychological Space. The Psychology of Cyberspace
http//www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/psychspace.html> (September, 2000)
60. Suler, J. (1999a). To get what you need: Healthy and Pathological Internet use. The Psychology of
Cyberspace. http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/getneed.html (August, 2001).
61. Universal Service and the Information Superhighway (1996). [Online] Available:
http://www.benton.org/Library/Universal/briefl.html (February, 1999).
62. Wallace, P. (1999). The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Weaver III, J. (1991) Exploring the links between personality and media preferences. Personality
and Individual Differences_12, 12, 1293-1299.
64. Williams, Fredrick, Ronald E. Rice, and Everett M. Rogers (1988). Research Methods and The
New Media, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
65. Wright, C. R., (1960) Functional Analysis & Mass Communication. Public Opinion Quarterl, 24,
605-620.
66. Wulfemeyer, K. T. (1983). The interests and preferences of audience for local television news.
Journalism Quarterly, 60, 323-328.
67. Young, K. S. (1996) Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyber
Psychology and Behavior, 1, (3), 237-244.
68. http://www.cultch.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/effects.html
69. http;/www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjsc/groups/0082/uses&gratification.html