rubin audience

8/18/2019 Rubin Audience

1/9

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 20 January 2015, At: 09:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication MonographsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20

Audience activity and media useAlan M. Rubin

a

a Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the School

of Communication Studies , Kent State University

Published online: 02 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Alan M. Rubin (1993) Audience activity and media use, Communication

Monographs, 60:1, 98-105, DOI: 10.1080/03637759309376300

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376300

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose

of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.

Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376300http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03637759309376300http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20


2/9

AUDIENCE ACTIVITY AND MEDIA USE

ALAN M. RUBI N

A udience activity connotes media involvement. It affects the influence of

JLJ^ media and messages, and is a crucial concept for explaining media effects.

A ltho ug h re cen t researc h qu estions such a view, an active au die nce is on e said to

be impervious to influence (Blumler, 1979). Media audiences have often been

depicted at extrem es: (a) bein g passive an d expected to be influenced by the

com m unicated m essages, or (b) being active and expected to m ake rational

decisions about what media content to accept and reject. A valid view of

audience behavior l ies somewhere between these extremes. That 's what I wish

to exp lor e in this essay.

USES AND GRA TIFICATIONS

O ver 30 years ago , Katz (1959) arg ue d that m edia messages ordinarily cann ot

influence som eone w ho has no use for them . Shortly thereafter, K lapper (1963)

stated tha t a persp ective labeled uses an d gratifications (U&G) ap pr op riate ly

shifts the focus of m edia effects from w hat m edia do to pe op le to w hat peo ple do

with the me dia. Wh en trying to explain effects, U&G rese arch ers view the m edia

as source s am id ot he r sources of possible influen ce.

U&G investigators proceed from two basic premises. First , media audiences

are variably active communicators. Second, to explain effects we must first

un de rsta nd audience motivat ion and behavior . A con tem pora ry view of U&G is

grounded in five assumptions (e.g. , Palmgreen, 1984; Palmgreen, Wenner, &

Ro seng ren, 1985; A. Rub in, 1986):

(a) Comm unication beh avior such as med ia use is typically goal-directed or m otivated. Such

behavior is functional for peo ple; it has consequences for people and societies.

(b) People select and use comm unica tion sources and messages to satisfy felt need s or desires.

Media use is a m eans to satisfy wants or interes ts such as seeking information to red uce

uncertainty or to solve personal dilemmas.

(c) Social and psychological factors m ediate comm unication behavio r. Behavior is a response

to media only as filtered thro ug h one's social and psychological circumstances such as the

potential for interp erson al interac tion, social categories, and personality.

(d) Media compete with other forms of communication for selection, attention, and use.

There are definite relationships between media and interpersonal communication for

satisfying needs or wants.

(e) People are usually more influential than med ia in media-person relationships.

U&G, then , is a psychological com m unication perspective. U&G investigators

seek to explain m edia effects in term s of th e purp os es, functions or uses (that is,

uses and gratifications) as contro lled by th e choice pa tter ns of [active] receivers

(Fisher, 1978, p . 159). U&G is gr ou nd ed in a med iated view of com m unication

influence, stressing the role of choice and individual differences in mitigating

Alan M. Rubin is Professor and Director of Gra duate Studies in the School of Communication Studies at

Kent State University.

COMM UNICATION MONO GRAPHS, Volume 60, March 1993

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ M e m

o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f o

u n d l a n d ] a t 0 9 : 4 7 2 0 J a n u

a r y 2 0 1 5


3/9

AUDIENCE ACTIVITY AND MEDIA

USE 99

direct media effects (Rosengren, 1974).

In

other words, mediated communica-

tion is socially and psychologically constrained.

U&G underscores the role of audience initiative and subjective choice and

interpretation in media effects. Personality and social context affect initiative,

choice, and interpretation . T his initiative m ediates com munication motivation,

behavior,

and

outcomes. Research

and

writings

of

the past decade appropriately

suggest, though, that we invite criticism by holding that the media audience is

superrational

and

very selective (Windahl, 1981,

p.

176). People

are

variably,

not absolutely, active when they communicate.

MEDIA

USE

AND AUDIENCE ACTIVITY

A major difference between media uses and media effects traditions is that an

effects research er most often looks at the mass communication process from

the comm unicator's end , whereas

a

media uses researcher takes

the

audience

member as a point of depa rture (Windahl, 1981, p. 176). By contrast, a major

similarity of the traditions is that uses and effects researchers seek to explain

communication outcomes. U G researchers do so, though, recognizing the

potential

for

audience initiative

and

involvement.

The Concept of Activity

Audience activity

is

U&G's core concept. Blum ler (1979) identified

a

range

of

meanings

for

audience activity :

(a)

utility,

or

people's reasons

or

m otivations

for communicating; (b) intentionality, or the purposive or planned nature of

communicating; (c) selectivity, or communication choice, which is based on prior

interests and desires; and (d) imperviousness to influence, or Bauer's (1964) notion

of the obstinate audience. All audience mem bers, though, are not equally or

absolutely active. This variability in utility, intention, and selection affects

communication behavior

and

outcomes. Blumler's argum ent that activity

is an

important variable in the process, has been empirically examined by others

(e.g., Levy & W indahl, 1984, 1985; A. Rubin & Perse, 1987a, 1987b).

Levy

and

Windahl (1984),

for

exam ple, found different links between motives

for watching television and temporal dimensions of activity (i.e., before, du ring,

and after watching). Although intention and entertainment motivation were

only weakly connected, intention and information motivation w ere more strongly

related. Levy and Windahl argued, that viewers actively seek news to gain

information, but do not actively seek diversion.

This finding is consistent with

the

results

of

studies

of

ritualized

and

instrumen-

tal media orientations (e.g., A. Rubin, 1984). An instrumental orientation

reflects audience utility (i.e., motivation), intention, and selectivity. A ritualized

orientation reflects utility

but

less inten tion, selection,

and

attention.

The

extent

of audience activeness depends, to a large degree, on the social context and

potential for interpersonal interaction, including such elements as mobility and

loneliness (e.g., Perse & Rubin, 1990; A. Rubin & Rubin, 1985). For example, we

have found that loneliness leads

to

grea ter reliance

on

electronic media than

on

interpersonal interaction and to more passive television viewing to occupy one's

time.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ M e

m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f

o u n d l a n d ] a t 0 9 : 4 7 2 0 J a n u

a r y 2 0 1 5


4/9

100 COM MUN ICATION MONOGRAPHS

Activity as a V ariable

People vary in their utility, intention, selection, and imperviousness to influ-

ence. They also vary in their media attention and involvement, which affect

whether messages even have the opportunity to affect a person's cognitions,

attitudes, or behavior. I would like to consider briefly three prem ises and a few

research questions.

Media

o rientations. First, media orientations affect audience activity. They

reflect differences in audience initiative and involvement. As mentioned before,

a ritualized orientation is less active media use. It is more habitual use of the

media primarily for diversion or to occupy time. It means greater exposure to

and affinity with the medium, rather than specific content. So, for example, we

may come to rely upo n a medium such as television as an effective way to fill idle

time. An instrumental orientation is more active media use. It is seeking media

content or messages for informational reasons. It means more intentional con-

tent selection, and greater affinity with and perceived realism of that content.

These orientations impact media effects. Windahl (1981) argued that there

are different outcomes from instrumental and ritualized media use. He saw

effects as outcomes of instrumental use of media content and consequences

as outcomes of ritualized use of a medium . For example, an effect of watching a

television news program may be gaining information, w hereas a consequence of

watching television may be displacing the time we spend in other activities.

Instrumental and ritualized orientations, then, lead to different cognitive,

affective, and behavioral outcom es (A. Rubin, 1986).

An instrumental o rientation may lead to stronger outcomes because it incor-

porates greater involvement with com munication messages. We may speculate

that people may be motivated to seek and to learn information, but that other

perceptual or emotional outcomes do not require such a motivated state. The

first part of this premise would be consistent with U&G suppositions, whereas

the latter part would be more consistent with cultivation-type suppositions.

Consequently, we can propose several questions for future research:

1. What are some cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes of instrumental versus

ritualized media use?

2.

W hat are the processes by which instrumental and ritualized orientations lead to different

outcomes?

3. Under what social and psychological circumstances might perceptual or emotional out-

comes result from motivated versus unmo tivated m edia use?

4.

Do effects such as voting decision-making result from ritualized media use as well as

instrumental media use? If so, how might the outcomes differ owing to a focus on the

medium rather than on messages?

Media attitudes.

Second, attitudes about a medium and its content affect media

orientation and effects. Perceptions of media realism and importance (i.e.,

affinity, reliance, dependence), for exam ple, influence ou r orienta tion to media

use.

Attitudinal perceptions, such as affinity and realism filter media use and

affect meaning. Such attitudes result from social and psychological dispositions

and from prior experiences with a medium; they mediate a person's subsequent

behavior.

According to one mass-communication hypothesis, heavy television viewing

cultivates our images of the surrounding world. Stronger cultivation effects,

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ M e m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f o u n d l a n d ] a t 0 9 : 4 7 2 0 J a n u

a r y 2 0 1 5


5/9

AUDIENCE ACTIVITY AND MEDIA USE 101

though, are possible when media conten t is seen as being realistic (e.g., Po tter,

1986). In one recen t study we found tha t cultivation effects (i.e., perceptions of

personal danger) were linked to watching realistically perceived action/

adventure programs rather than simply to greater television exposure (A.

Rubin, Perse, & Taylor, 1988). Television exposure, in fact, predicted percep-

tions of safety, rather than personal danger. It is reasonable to suggest, then,

that effects such as cultivation, agenda setting, and modeling would be stronger

from realistically perceived and importantly regarded content. This suggests

several questions for future research . For exam ple:

1.

Are cultivation, agenda -setting, and mo deling effects strong er w hen co ntent is perceived

to be realistic? Or, are such effects due primarily to exposure to the media or their

content?

2.

If such effects can result from media exposure, how might attitudes such as perceived

realism and affinity with the m edium me diate or mo der ate the relationship?

3.

How does med ia depen den cy affect peo ple's orientation to use the media?

Social and psychological factors. Third, social and psychological factors affect

media orientation, attitudes, and behavior. Dependency on a medium results

from one's social and psychological environment and restricted use of alterna-

tives, which affect motivation and media use. We have suggested that less

resourceful interpersonal communicators are dependent on singular com-

munication channels because they have few available alternatives and use

narrow interaction-seeking strategies (A. Rubin & Rubin, 1985). We have also

found that the less healthy and less mobile depend more on television than do

the self-reliant (A. Rubin & Rubin, 1982; R. Rubin & Rubin, 1982). Such media

reliance or dependence should be an anteceden t to media effects, and similar to

the argum ent of Miller and Reese (1982), dependency on a medium appears to

enhance the opportun ity for that medium to have pred icted effects (p. 245).

We need to consider more intensely the role of pertinent personality factors in

media selection, use, and outcomes.

In addition, research has shown tha t talk radio is an accessible and nonthreat-

ening alternative to interpersonal comm unication (e.g., Avery, Ellis, & Glover,

1978).

Recently, we found that calling talk radio functioned as a convenient

alternative to interpersonal communication for those who were apprehensive

about face-to-face interaction and had restricted mobility (Armstrong & Rubin,

1989). Research needs to delve more deeply into media content intended to

provide a forum for interpersonal interaction, especially radio and television

talk shows.

Based on the prior research we might speculate, then, that dependency would

foster expected outcomes. We might further speculate that identification and

parasocial interaction with significant media others would accentuate those

effects. We have, for example, found parasocial interaction to be a salient

com ponent of media m otivation, intention, and selection (Conway & Rubin,

1991). Recent research, th en, suggests several questions for future research . For

example:

1. What social and psychological factors (e.g., reduced opportunities for interpersonal

interaction) lead to greater media dependency? How does this impact on media orienta-

tion and effects?

2.

What personality factors lead to stronger parasocial relationships with, for example,

talk-show personalities on television and radio?


a r y 2 0 1 5


6/9

102 COMM UNICATION MONOGRAPHS

3. How does parasocial interaction affect media orientation a nd outcomes such as modeling

an d cultivation? Do, for exam ple, parasocial interaction an d identification lead to s trong er

cultivation and modeling effects?

I N V O L V E M E N T

Invo lvem ent is a key conc ept w hen stud ying me dia effects. It m ediates the

acquisi tion an d processing of information from th e en viro nm ent (Salmon,

1986,

p. 264). On the one hand, involvement signifies a precommunication

motivational state that reflects what people bring to the communication setting

(e.g., Sherif, Sherif, & Nebe rgall , 1965). For exam ple, preexist ing at t i tudes

about media credibility or importance affect how we select and process mes-

sages. On the other hand, involvement is personal experience during message

reception that reflects part icipation, at tention, and emotion (e.g. , Krugman,

1966). Involved television viewers, for example, pay attention to and think

abou t the message, get cau ght up in the action of the dr am a (Bryant &

Cornisky, 1978, p. 65), and identify with television characters (Rosengren &

Windahl, 1972).

Most media rese arch of the past de cade , including cult ivat ion, agen da set ting,

and U&G, has addressed preinvolvement elements such as prior at t i tudes,

beliefs, and motivation. More recently, some have shifted their attention to

participant involvement, considering such constructs as cognitive involvement

(e.g., thinking about messages), affective involvement (e.g., parasocial interac-

tion),

an d behav ioral involvement (e.g., interact ing ab out messages).

In one study, for example, we found two patterns of involvement with local

television news (A. Rub in & Pe rse, 1987b ). First, an in stru m en tal orie nta tion

focused o n news con ten t. Cognitive news involve m ent was linked with informa-

t ion and arousing-entertainment motivation, greater perceived news real ism

and affinity, and intentional news viewing. Second, a ritualized orientation

focused on the television medium. Reduced news affinity, intentionality, selectiv-

ity, and viewing attention were linked with habit and pass time viewing motiva-

tion.

Eased on an earlier finding that involved viewers, not heavy viewers, were

most likely to form parasocial relationships with television personalities (A.

Ru bin, Pe rse, & Powell, 1985), we also con sidere d how p atte rns of involvem ent

with daytime television soap operas affect parasocial and interpersonal interac-

tion outcomes (A. Rubin & Perse, 1987a). Those most likely to interact paraso-

cially with th e soa p-o pe ra c ha rac ters felt th e con ten t was realistic (i.e., prein volve -

ment) and paid at tention to the program when viewing (i .e. , part icipant

involvement). Those most likely to think and talk about soap-opera plots and

characters when and after viewing watched the programs to interact socially

with others. Preinvolvement, then, predicted part icipant involvement out-

comes. This supported our expectat ion that greater audience act iveness (in

terms of ut i l i ty, at t i tude, intention, and at tention) leads to stronger outcomes.

This resea rch, th en , suggests several quest ions. For exam ple:

1. Does high involvement lead to stronger outcomes such as modeling, learning, attitude

formation, cultivation, or agenda-setting than low involvement?

2. Does participant involvement necessarily follow from a heightened state of preinvolve-

ment? And, what are the implications for the media uses and effects process when the

quality and qu antity of intention, utility, and involvement change du ring media exposu re?

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ M e

m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f o u n d l a n d ] a t 0 9 : 4 7 2 0 J a n u

a r y 2 0 1 5


7/9

AUDIENCE ACT IVITY AND MEDIA USE 103

3. Is preinvolvement or participant involvement more meaningful for explaining media

outcomes such as learnin g or attitude formation? T o what extent, if any, must a consum er

be involved for an effect such as cultivation to be realized?

4.

Which aspect of the m edia uses and effects p rocess (e.g., person ality, mo tivation, involve-

me nt, expo sure) is most influential for e xplaining m edia outcomes?

MEDIA USES AND EFFECTS

During the past decade, researchers have refined the notion of the involved

or active audience, and related activity to media uses and effects. In 1979

Blum ler ar gu ed tha t we ne ed a well-formed perspec tive abo ut which gratifica-

tions soug ht from which form s of co nt en t are likely to facilitate which effects (p.

16). He proposed several hypotheses about media effects. For example, cogni-

tive motivation will facilitate information gain; diversion/escape motivation will

facilitate aud ienc e p erce ption s of the accuracy of social portra yals on ente rtain-

m ent pr og ram m ing. S ubsequently, other s tudies, including several cited earl ier,

have sought to l ink more precisely antecedents and consequents of mediated

com m unication. Research needs to continue i ts progression from simple expo -

sure explanations of effects and typologies of media motivation to conceptual

m odels that exp lain the com plexity of the m edia effects process.

From research over the past dozen o r so years we have learn ed that pe rsonal-

i ty, at t i tudes, and experience influence audience perceptions and outcomes of

media content. For example, research supports cultivation effects contingent on

perceived reality of the conte nt (e.g., Potter, 1986), aud ienc e m em be rs' pe rson al

exp erien ces w ith crim e (e.g., W eaver & W akshlag, 1986), an d m edia selectivity

(e.g., Po tter & C ha ng , 1990; A. Ru bin et al., 1988). Selectivity, involvem ent, an d

attention to con tent have been linked with parasocial interaction an d cultivation

effects (Perse , 1 990a, 199 0b). Activity or involv em ent, th en , is a salient m ed iat or

of media effects.

Windahl (1981) argued that a synthesis of uses and effects traditions would

overc om e early criticisms of U&G. Research has be gu n to m ove in that direc tion

and we have achieved a better understanding of the audience as variably active

or involved communication participants. A conceptual synthesis of media uses

and effects, tho ug h, s till has a long jou rne y. W hat m akes the jo ur ne y treache r-

ous is that single-variable causal explanations are expedient but restrictive. A

conceptual appraisal of the multivariate nature of media effects requires both

skilled dissection and the ability to fit the pieces of the broader puzzle back

togethe r. We nee d to exam ine elaborated mod els of m edia effects that c onsider

social and psychological attributes, motivation, attitudes, behavior, and out-

com es. M edia effects d on 't typically occ ur ju st from m edia e xp os ur e. All effects,

though, are not the same. Some may follow a less instrumental path and be less

contingent upon the influence of utility, intention, and selection. To date, we

have jus t touched the surface on und ers tan din g the role and outcomes of

mediated communication for individuals and societies.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, C.B., & Rubin, A.M. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of

Communication, 29(3), 84-94.

Avery, R.K., Ellis, D.G., & Glover, T.W. (1978). P atterns of com mun ication o n talk rad io. J ournal of

Broadcasting

22, 5-17.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ M e m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f

o u n d l a n d ] a t 0 9 : 4 7 2 0 J a n u

a r y 2 0 1 5


8/9

104 COM MUN ICATION MONOGRAPHS

Bauer, R.A. (1964). The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social

communication.

merican

Psychologist

19 ,

319-328.

Blumler, J.G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6

9-36.

Bry ant, J. , & Comisky, P.W. (1978). The effect of positio ning a message within differentially cognitively

involving portion s of a television seg ment on recall of the message.

Human Communication Research, 5

63-75.

Conway, J.C., & Rubin, A.M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation.

Communication

Research, 18,

443-463.

Fisher, B.A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan.

Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Pub lic

Communication, 2, 1-6.

Klapper, J.T. (1963). Mass comm unication research: An old road resurveyed.

Public Opinion

Quarterly,

27

515-527.

Krugman, H.E. (1966). The measurement of advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30,

583-596.

Levy, M.R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and

exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51-78.

Levy, M.R., & Windahl, S. (1985). T he concep t of aud ience activity. In K.E. Rosengren , L.A. Wenn er, &

P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 109-122). Beverly Hills,

Sage.

Miller, M.M., & Reese, S.D. (1982). Media depen dency as interaction: Effects of exposu re a nd reliance on

political activity an d efficacy. Communication Research, 9, 227-248.

Palm green, P. (1984). Uses an d gratifications: A theoretical p erspective. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communica-

tion yearbook 8 (pp . 20 -55 ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Palm green , P., W enn er, L.A., & Ro sengren, K.E. (1985). Uses and gratifications res earch: T he past ten

years. In K.E. Rosengren, L.A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Curre

perspectives (pp. 11-3 7). Beverly H ills, CA: Sage.

Perse, E.M. (1990a). Cultivation and involvem ent with local television news. In N. Signorielli & M.

Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp . 51-69 ). Newbury Park

Sage.

Perse, E .M. (1990b). Media involvement and local news effects. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media

34 , 17-36.

Perse, E.M., & Rubin, A.M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 34, 37-53.

Potter, W.J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic

Media, 30, 159-174.

Potter, W .J., & Ch ang, I.C. (1990). Television exp osure m easures an d the cultivation hypothesis.

Journal

of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 34, 313-333.

Rosengren, K.E. (1974). Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined . In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.),

The uses o f mass communications: Current perspectives o n gratifications research (pp. 269 -286 ). Beverl

CA: Sage.

Ros engren, K .E., & W indahl, S. (1972). Mass media consum ption as a functional altern ative. In D.

McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 166-194). Harm ondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Rubin, A.M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. J ournal of Comm unication, 34(3),

67-77.

Rubin, A.M. (1986). Uses, gratifications, a nd media effects research. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.),

Perspectives on media effects (pp . 281-301 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, A.M., & Perse, E.M. (1987a). Audience activity and soap op era involvement: A uses and effects

investigation.

Human

Communication

Research, 14,

246-268.

Rubin, A.M., & Perse, E.M. (1987b). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication

Research, 14,

58-84.

Rub in, A.M., Perse, E .M., & Powell, R.A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interac tion, an d local television

news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155-180.

Rubin, A.M., Perse, E.M., & Taylor, D.A. (1988). A methodological exam ination of cultivation.

Communication Research, 15, 107-134.

Rubin, A.M., & Rubin, R.B. (1982). Con textual ag e and television use . Human Communication Research, 8

228-244.

Rubin, A.M., & Rubin, R.B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research

agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53.

Rubin, R.B., & Rubin, A.M. (1982). Con textual ag e and television use : Reexam ining a life-position

indicator. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp . 583 -604 ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Salmon, C.T. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B.

E'ervin & M.J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 243-269). Norwood, N

Ablex.


a r y 2 0 1 5


9/9

AUDIENCE ACTIVITY AND MEDIA USE 105

Sherif,

C.W.,

Sherif,

M., & Nebergall, R.E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-

involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Weaver, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience,

and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 30, 1 4 1 - 1 5 8 .

Windahl, S. (1981). Uses and gratifications at the crossroads. In G.C. Wilhoit & H. deBock (Eds.), Mass

Communication review yearbook 2 (p p. 174-18 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ M e m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f

o u n d l a n d ] a t 0 9 : 4 7 2 0 J a n u

a r y 2 0 1 5

rubin audience

Documents