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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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?
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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.
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
8/18/2019 Rubin Audience
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
Top Related