Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century (1950S AND 1960S RESEARCH)

Despite disagreement by communication scholars as to the precise roots of the approach, in the next phase of U&G research, during the 1950s and 1960s, researchers
identified and operationalized many social and psychological variables that were
presumed to be the precursors of different patterns of consumption of gratifications
(Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). Accordingly, Schramm, Lyle, and Parker (1961)
concluded that children’s use of television was influenced by individual mental
ability and relationships with parents and peers. Katz and Foulkes (1962) conceptualized mass media use as escape. Klapper (1963) stressed the importance of analyzing the consequences of use rather than simply labeling the use as earlier researchers had done. Mendelsohn (1964) identified several generalized functions of radio
listening: companionship, bracketing the day, changing mood, counteracting loneliness or boredom, providing useful news and information, allowing vicarious participation in events, and aiding social interaction. Gerson (1966) introduced the
variable of race and suggested that race was important in predicting how adolescents used the media. Greenberg and Dominick (1969) concluded that race and social class predicted how teenagers used television as an informal source of learningThese studies and others conducted during this period reflected a shift from the
traditional effects model of mass media research to a more functionalist perspective. Klapper (1963) called for a more functional analysis of U&G studies that
would restore the audience member to “his rightful place in the dynamic, rather
than leaving him in the passive, almost inert, role to which many older studies relegated him” (p. 527). Markedly, Geiger and Newhagen (1993) credited Klapper
with ushering in the “cognitive revolution” in the communication field. From the
1950s forward, cross-disciplinary work between U&G researchers and psychologists has produced abundant research on the ways human beings interact with the
media.

1970S RESEARCH

Until the 1970s, U&G research concentrated on gratifications sought, excluding
outcomes, or gratifications obtained (Rayburn, 1996). During the 1970s, U&G researchers intently examined audience motivations and developed additional
typologies of the uses people made of the media to gratify social and psychological
needs. This may partially have been in response to a strong tide of criticism from
other mass communication scholars. Critics such as Elliott (1974), Swanson
(1977), and Lometti, Reeves, and Bybee (1977) stressed that U&G continued to be
challenged by four serious conceptual problems: (a) a vague conceptual framework, (b) a lack of precision in major concepts, (c) a confused explanatory apparatus, and (d) a failure to consider audiences’ perceptions of media content.
U&G researchers produced multiple responses. Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas
(1973) assembled a comprehensive list of social and psychological needs said to be
satisfied by exposure to mass media. Rosengren (1974), attempting to theoretically
refine U&G, suggested that certain basic needs interact with personal characteristics and the social environment of the individual to produce perceived problems and
perceived solutions. Those problems and solutions constitute different motives for
gratification behavior that can come from using the media or other activities. Together media use or other behaviors produce gratification (or nongratification) that
has an impact on the individual or society, thereby starting the process anew.
Seeking to more closely define the relation between psychological motives and
communication gratifications, Palmgreen and Rayburn (1979) studied viewers’ exposure to public television and concluded that the U&G approach served well as a
complement to other determinant factors such as media availability, work schedules, and social constraints. Palmgreen and Rayburn argued that the primary task
facing media researchers was to “integrate the roles played by gratifications and
other factors into a general theory of media consumption” (p. 177). Essentially,
Palmgreen and Rayburn were responding to earlier researchers’ (Greenberg, 1974;
Lometti et al., 1977) call to investigate gratification sought and gratifications re-
6 RUGGIEROceived. Blumler (1979) identified three primary social origins of media gratifications: normative influences, socially distributed life changes, and the subjective reaction of the individual to the social situation. Also, in response, McLeod, Bybee,
and Durall (1982) theoretically clarified audience satisfaction by concluding that
gratifications sought and gratifications received were two different conceptual entities that deserved independent treatment in any future U&G research.
Another related theoretical development was the recognition that different cognitive or affective states facilitate the use of media for various reasons, as predicted
by the U&G approach. Blumler (1979) proposed that cognitive motivation facilitated information gain and that diversion or escape motivation facilitated audience
perceptions of the accuracy of social portrayals in entertainment programming. In
related research, McLeod and Becker (1981) found that individuals given advanced
notice that they would be tested made greater use of public affairs magazines than
did a controlgroup.Bryantand Zillmann (1984) discovered thatstressed individuals
watched more tranquilprograms and bored participants opted for more exciting fare.

1980S AND 1990S RESEARCH
Rubin (1983) noted that gratifications researchers were beginning to generate a
valid response to critics. He concluded that his colleagues were making a systematic attempt to (a) conduct modified replications or extensions of studies, (b) refine
methodology, (c) comparatively analyze the findings of separate investigations,
and (d) treat mass media use as an integrated communication and social phenomenon. Examples include Eastman’s (1979) analysis of the multivariate interactions
among television viewing functions and lifestyle attributes, Ostman and Jeffers’s
(1980) examination of the associations among television viewing motivations and
potential for lifestyle traits and television attitudes to predict viewing motivations,
Bantz’s (1982) exploration of the differences between general medium and specific
program television viewing motivations and the comparability of research findings, Rubin’s (1981) consideration of viewing motivations scale validity and the
comparability of research results in U&G research, and Palmgreen and Rayburn’s
(1985) empirical comparison of alternative gratification models.
Likewise, Windahl (1981) also sought to advance U&G theoretically. In his
“Uses and Gratifications at the Crossroads,” he argued that the primary difference
between the traditional effects approach and the U&G approach is that a media effects researcher usually examines mass communication from the perspective of the
communicator, whereas the U&G researcher uses the audience as a point of departure. Believing it was more beneficial to emphasize similarities than differences,
Windahl coined the term conseffects and argued for a synthesis of the two approaches. Thus, he suggested, observations that are partly results of content use in
itself and partly results of content mediated by use would serve as a more useful perspective. Windahl’s approach served to link an earlier U&G approach to more recent research.
Aspiring to heighten the theoretical validity of structural determinants, Webster
and Wakshlag (1983) integrated the dissimilar perspectives of U&G and “models
of choice,” attempting to locate the interchange between programming structures,
content preferences, and viewing conditions in the program choice process. Likewise, Dobos (1992), using U&G models applied to media satisfaction and choice in
organizations, predicted television channel choice and satisfaction within specific
communication technologies.