UGT in the 21st Century
MASS COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2000, 3(1), 3–37
Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century
Thomas E. Ruggiero
Communications Department
University of Texas at El Paso
Some mass communications scholars have contended that uses and gratifications is not a rigorous social science theory. In this article, I argue just the opposite, and any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication theory must seriously include the uses and gratifications approach. In this article, I assert that the emergence of computer-mediated communication has revived the significance of uses and gratifications. In fact, uses and gratifications has always provided a cutting-edge theoretical approach in the initial stages of each new mass communications medium: newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet. Although scientists are likely to continue using traditional tools and typologies to answer questions about media use, we must also be prepared to expand our current theoretical models of uses and gratifications. Contemporary and future models must include concepts such as interactivity, demassification, hypertextuality, and asynchroneity. Researchers must also be willing to explore interpersonal and qualitative aspects of mediated communication in a more holistic methodology.
What mass communication scholars today refer to as the uses and gratifications
(U&G) approach is generally recognized to be a subtradition of media effects research (McQuail, 1994). Early in the history of communications research, an approach was developed to study the gratifications that attract and hold audiences to the kinds of media and the types of content that satisfy their social and psychological needs (Cantril, 1942). Much early effects research adopted the experimental or quasi-experimental approach, in which communication conditions were manipulated in search of general lessons about how better to communicate, or about the unintended consequences
Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century
Thomas E. Ruggiero
Communications Department
University of Texas at El Paso
Some mass communications scholars have contended that uses and gratifications is not a rigorous social science theory. In this article, I argue just the opposite, and any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication theory must seriously include the uses and gratifications approach. In this article, I assert that the emergence of computer-mediated communication has revived the significance of uses and gratifications. In fact, uses and gratifications has always provided a cutting-edge theoretical approach in the initial stages of each new mass communications medium: newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet. Although scientists are likely to continue using traditional tools and typologies to answer questions about media use, we must also be prepared to expand our current theoretical models of uses and gratifications. Contemporary and future models must include concepts such as interactivity, demassification, hypertextuality, and asynchroneity. Researchers must also be willing to explore interpersonal and qualitative aspects of mediated communication in a more holistic methodology.
What mass communication scholars today refer to as the uses and gratifications
(U&G) approach is generally recognized to be a subtradition of media effects research (McQuail, 1994). Early in the history of communications research, an approach was developed to study the gratifications that attract and hold audiences to the kinds of media and the types of content that satisfy their social and psychological needs (Cantril, 1942). Much early effects research adopted the experimental or quasi-experimental approach, in which communication conditions were manipulated in search of general lessons about how better to communicate, or about the unintended consequences
References: Abrahamson, D. (1998). The visible hand: Money, markets, and media evolution. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 14–18. Aldersey-Williams, H. (1996). Interactivity with a human face. Technology Review, 99, 34–40. Anderson, D. R., Collins, P. A., Schmitt, K. L., & Jacobvitz, R. S. (1996). Stressful life events and television viewing. Communication Research, 23, 243–260. Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory: Epistemological foundations. New York: Guilford. Anderson, K. J., & Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295–328. Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. London: Routledge. Ang, S., & Cummings, L. L. (1994). Panel analysis of feedback-seeking patterns in face-to-face, computer-mediated, and computer-generated communication environments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 67–73. Anonymous. (1989). Functional displacement of traditional TV viewing by VCR owners. Journal of Advertising Research, 29(2), 18–23. Armstrong, C. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 39(2), 84–94. Atkin, D. (1993). Adoption of cable amidst a multimedia environment. Telematics & Informatics, 10, 51–58. Ball-Rokeach, S. (1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency: A sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485–510. Bantz, C. R. (1982). Exploring uses and gratifications: A comparison of reported uses of television and reported uses of favorite program type Barwise, T. P., Ehrenberg, A. S. C., & Goodhardt, G. J. (1982). Glued to the box. Journal of Communication, 32(4), 22–29. Berelson, B. (1949). What “missing the newspaper” means. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communication research 1948–1949 (pp Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bergeron, B. P., & Bailin, M. T. (1997). The contribution of hypermedia link authoring. Technical Communication, 44, 121–128. Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9–36. Blumler, J. G. (1985). The social character of media gratifications. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P Bryant, J., & Zillman, D. (1984). Using television to alleviate boredom and stress. Journal of Broadcasting, 28, 1–20. Cantril, H. (1940). The invasion from Mars: A study in the psychology of panic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cantril, H. (1942). Professor quiz: A gratifications study. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1941 (pp Cantril, H., & Allport, G. (1935). The psychology of radio. New York: Harper. Carey, J. W. (1998). The Internet and the end of the National Communication System: Uncertain predictions of an uncertain future. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 28–34. Cattell, R. B., Edger, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Cazeneuve, E. (1974). Television as a functional alternative to traditional sources of need satisfaction. Chamberlain, M. A. (1994). New technologies in health communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 271–284. Cohen, A. A. (1981). People without media: Attitudes and behavior during a general media strike. Journal of Broadcasting, 25, 171–180. Cooper, R. (1996). The status and future of audience duplication research: An assessment of ratings-based theories of audience behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 96–116. Cooper, R. (1997). Japanese communication research: The emphasis on macro theories of media in an information based environment Cowles, D. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interactive media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33, 83–89. de Bock, H. (1980). Gratification frustration during a newspaper strike and a TV blackout. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 61–66, 78. December, J. (1996). Units of analysis for Internet communication. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 14–37. DeFleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1982). Theories of mass communication (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Dervin, B. (1980). Communication gaps and inequities: Moving toward a reconceptualization. In B. Dicken-Garcia, H. (1998). The Internet and continuing historical discourse. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 19–27. Dobos, J. (1992). Gratification models of satisfaction and choice of communication channels in organizations. Communication Research, 19, 29–51. Donohew, L., Finn, S., & Christ, W. G. (1988). The nature of news revisited: The roles of affect, schemas, and cognition Donohew, L., Palmgreen P., & Rayburn, J. D., II. (1987). Social and psychological origins of media use: A lifestyle analysis Dorsher, M. (1996, August). Whither the public sphere: Prospects for cybersphere. Paper presented at the Media, Technology, and Community Conference, Grand Forks, ND. Dozier, D. M., & Rice, R. E. (1984). Rival theories of electronic newsgathering. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp Dunleavy, P., & Weir, S. (1998). How to freshen up democracy. New Statesman, 11, 535, 571–572. Dutton, W. H., Rogers, E. M., & Jun, S. (1987). Diffusion and social impact of personal computers. Dyson, E. (1993). Interactivity means “active” participation. Computerworld, 27(50), 33–34. Eastman, S. T. (1979). Uses of television viewing and consumer life styles: A multivariate analysis. Eighmey, J. (1997). Profiling user responses to commercial Web sites. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(3), 59–66. Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1995, November). Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications of the World-Wide Web. Paper presented at the Conference on Telecommunications and Information Markets. Newport, RI. Elliott, P. (1974). Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alternative. In J. G. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790. Ferguson, D. A. (1992). Channel repertoire in the presence of remote control devices, VCRs and cable television Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (1994, March). Viewing television without a remote: A deprivation study Finn, S. (1997). Origins of media exposure: Linking personality traits to TV, radio, print, and film use. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fredin, E. S., & David, P. (1998). Browsing and the hypermedia interaction cycle: A model of self-efficacy and goal dynamics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 35–54.