Uses, Gratiﬁcations, and Beyond: Toward a Model of ... · Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Uses, Gratiﬁcations, and Beyond: Toward a Model of Motivated Media

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Uses, Gratifications, and Beyond: Towarda Model of Motivated Media Exposureand Its Effects on Risk Perception

Jiyeon So

Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020, USA

This study proposes a theoretical model postulating the impact of audience motivation on riskperception. Drawing from uses and gratifications theory and differential impact hypothesis,the model consists of 5 major propositions. First, an overarching proposition postulating thecapacity of audience motivation to serve as a mental frame on media exposure is proposed.Surveillance motivation is postulated to influence social risk perception, whereas enjoymentmotivation is postulated to influence personal risk perception to a greater extent. Moreover,the model predicts that mixed motivation of surveillance and enjoyment will result insimilar degrees of both social and personal risk perceptions. Lastly, the effect of personalsalience on the proposed influences is presented. Theoretical and practical implications ofthe model are discussed.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01400.x

Practically all organismic states are to be understood as motivated and asmotivating.

—Abraham Maslow

Human motivations are the driving forces behind human behaviors (Maslow,1943) and are understood to be central to human experience (Samuels, 1984).Reflecting this importance, identification of human motivations has been a continuingproject of scholars attempting to understand and predict human behaviors (Young,1961). Accordingly, scholarly interests in human motivations have generated alarge body of research that goes beyond the identification of motives to postulatethe influence of motives on various psychological processes, including perceptions(Erdelyi, 1974), attitudes (Festinger, 1957), attributions (Heider, 1958), and reasoning(Kunda, 1990).

Despite the significant influence of motivations on human behavior and relatedpsychological processes, the influence of audience motivation on the outcomes of

Corresponding author: Jiyeon So; e-mail: [email protected]

116 Communication Theory 22 (2012) 116–137 © 2012 International Communication Association

J. So Audience Motivation and Risk Perception

media consumption has not been studied extensively in media effects research. Theuses and gratifications (U&G) approach (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973), whichassumes that audiences are motivated by psychological and social needs to consumemedia, is perhaps the most prominent line of research that concerns the motivationsof audiences. However, similar to early motivational theories, the vast majority ofthe research in the U&G tradition has aimed to identify different types of audiencemotivations for media selection rather than to connect motivations to media effects.The descriptive nature of most U&G research has invited a number of criticisms, themost scathing one being that the approach is ‘‘atheoretical’’; thus, it should not belabeled as a theory (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1982; Rubin, 1994; Ruggiero, 2000).

That said, however, the approach was not intended to serve as a descriptivetool but rather to offer more precise predictions in media effects research. In fact,U&G research originally emerged as a response to the dissatisfaction with earliermedia ‘‘effects’’ research that yielded disappointing findings and sought to offer analternative explanation for findings showing limited media effects (Rayburn, 1996).More specifically, the originators of the theoretical perspective sought to improvethe predictability of media effects research by utilizing audience motivations andgratifications concepts as intervening or moderating variables in traditional mediaeffects research (Palmgreen, 1984; see Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). Ironically,however, U&G studies seemed to have generated their own line of research, failingto effectively connect with the ‘‘effects’’ research as the originators of the approachintended (Blumler, 1979; Palmgreen, 1984; Windahl, 1981).

This article seeks to integrate research in U&G into media effects research, therebyfulfilling the approach’s original purpose. Specifically, it proposes an extension of theU&G approach to predict outcomes of motivated media exposure (Figure 1). It isimportant to note that when integrating two theoretical perspectives (e.g., motivationsfor media use and media effects), it is imperative to lay out a clear boundary conditionthat pertains to the integration. As an initial attempt to connect U&G approach andmedia effects research, the present research proposes a theoretical model postulatingthe impact of audience motivation on risk perception. Consequently, the outcomeof the motivated exposure (i.e., the media ‘‘effects’’ component) has been restrictedto audiences’ perceptions of risks in this article. However, it is important to stressthat the idea that audience motivation influences outcomes of media exposure canand should be applied to many other important variables besides risk perception.In other words, the model proposed in this article represents an exemplar of manypossible theoretical models predicting influences of motivated media exposure.

The article starts with an overview of uses and effects research followed by a reviewof research on media’s influence on audiences’ risk perceptions, the initial boundarycondition of the proposed theoretical integration. Next, the theoretical mechanismthat underlies the process of audience motivations influencing risk perceptions,namely the motivation-as-frame proposition, is proposed. Following the generaltheoretical framework, a set of more specific propositions concerning the influenceof surveillance and enjoyment motivations, the two major audience motivations to

Communication Theory 22 (2012) 116–137 © 2012 International Communication Association 117

Audience Motivation and Risk Perception J. So

Figure 1 Comparison of scope conditions across the three theoretical perspectives.

consume media, on audiences’ perceptions of social and personal risk is presented.Lastly, implications of having mixed motivations of surveillance and enjoyment arediscussed. The article concludes with theoretical and practical implications of theproposed model.

Gratifications and media effects

As articulated earlier, the idea to integrate the U&G approach into traditional mediaeffects research is not new. In fact, it has been on the research agenda for gratificationresearchers for more than 3 decades, ever since the inception of the U&G (e.g.,Katz et al., 1974; Rosengren & Windahl, 1972; Rubin & Windahl, 1986; Windahl,1981). Contrary to the scholars’ research wish list, however, U&G research has beencentered on typological research (i.e., research that aims at identifying different typesof audience motivations; Palmgreen, 1984; Rayburn, 1996), with the exception of afew notable attempts to connect the two research traditions.

Before reviewing the literature on uses and effects research, it is important toclarify what is considered as a meaningful merger of the two traditions. In an effortto facilitate the theoretical integration, Windahl (1981) proposed a useful distinctionbetween effects and consequences of media exposure. According to Windahl, theyare similar in that they are both outcomes of the media exposure. However, thesetwo outcomes differ in that effects refer to outcomes of the media exposure that areprimarily caused by the characteristics of the media content, whereas consequences areother outcomes caused by the media use itself. For instance, psychological processes,



including perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes, should be considered as ‘‘effects,’’ butdisplacement of interpersonal activities and gratifications obtained are more in linewith ‘‘consequences’’ of media exposure (Windahl, 1981). This is a particularlyimportant distinction because there is a considerable literature on the relationshipbetween gratifications sought and obtained (Palmgreen, 1984; Rayburn, 1996), which,according to the distinction made above, should not be considered as an integrationof U&G and media effects traditions.

Most of the theoretical efforts to advance the U&G approach have concentratedon exploring the influence of audience motivation on consequences of media expo-sure rather than effects. Most notably, much scholarly attention from gratificationsresearchers has been focused on media dependency as an outcome variable (Palm-green, 1984; Rayburn, 1996). The general conclusion drawn from this line of researchis that ‘‘the more motivated (in terms of gratifications sought and obtained) peopleare, the more they perceive they generally become dependent on the media’’ (Ray-burn, 1996, p. 152). Specifically, Rubin and Windahl (1986) proposed a synthesis ofthe U&G approach and media dependency theory (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976).In essence, media dependency theory posits a tripartite relationship between media,their audiences, and society that is assumed to determine the media’s influence.Despite the authors’ efforts to differentiate the two theories, the literature has focusedmore on the similarities between them and tends to treat media dependency theory as‘‘a macro theory that reduces to U&G at the microlevel’’ (Ball-Rokeach, 1998, p. 5).Rubin and Windahl shared this view and proposed a ‘‘uses and dependency model,’’which postulated that individuals’ needs to consume media are shaped by societalsystems and that gratifications sought and socially determined media dependencyproduce media effects together.

Another notable theoretical advancement in connecting audience motivationsand consequences is using an expectancy-value perspective in predicting gratificationsobtained. For example, Rayburn and Palmgreen (1984; also see Palmgreen & Rayburn,1985) drew on Fishbein’s (1963) theory to formulate an expectancy-value modelof gratifications sought and gratifications obtained. Specifically, they conceptualizedgratifications sought as a function of beliefs (or expectancies) that the given mediapossess some attributes and evaluations of the particular attribute. The theoreticalmodel postulates that the products of beliefs (expectations) and evaluations togetherinfluence gratification seeking, which in turn causes media consumption that finallyresults in the obtainment of gratifications. More interestingly, it is described asa recursive model in which gratifications obtained feedback to reinforce or alteraudiences’ perceptions of gratification-related attributes of a particular media contentor genre.

While these theoretical efforts are important and noteworthy, they do not concerntraditional media effects outcomes suggested by Windahl (1981). The researchexamining the influence of audience motivation on media effects outcomes hasmostly been empirical in nature. For instance, in his review of studies that examineduses and media effects, Palmgreen (1984) concluded that audience motivations



were related to a wide range of media effects, including knowledge, attitudes, andperceptions of social reality. Empirical research is a useful starting point for anunderstudied area of research, but there is no doubt that more theoretically groundedresearch will advance the U&G approach to a greater extent.

Media’s influence on risk perception

Decades of media effects research have identified a myriad of important and widelyresearched outcome variables. Of the numerous outcomes of media effects, the modelproposed in this article concerns audiences’ risk perceptions. The influence of themass media on risk-related judgments has been one of the most widely researchedtopics in communication research and particularly in risk communication research(Coleman, 1993). The topic has received concentrated attention since the 1970s whenmedia researchers started to investigate the relationship between television viewingand both fear of victimization and crime rate estimates. Although rarely statedexplicitly as a theory concerning media’s influence on risk perceptions, cultivationtheory (Gerbner, 1960) is one of the theoretical springboards for a large body ofsubsequent research on the topic (Shrum & Bischak, 2001; Wahlberg & Sjoberg,2000). In essence, cultivation theory postulates that long-term exposure to the mediaresults in the formation of perceptions and beliefs about the world, which areconsistent with the media’s portrayals. Focusing on the social reality concerningviolent crimes, proponents of cultivation theory argued that heavy television viewersshow tendencies of (1) overestimating the incidence of serious crime in society and(2) believing that the world is a mean place where people cannot be trusted (e.g.,Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994).

Impersonal impact hypothesisThe impersonal impact hypothesis (Tyler, 1980; Tyler & Cook, 1984) is a theorythat offers a more explicit account of media’s influence on risk perception than doescultivation theory. Rather than suggesting a general main effect of media exposureon risk perceptions (as cultivation theory does), the impersonal impact hypothesisposits that the effect of the mass media is determined by the type of perceived risk(Shrum & Bischak, 2001). Specifically, the hypothesis predicts that the mass mediapredominantly influence social risk perceptions and tend to have minimal impact onpersonal risk perceptions.

The hypothesis has two major components. First, it makes a distinction betweentwo levels of risk perceptions—social- and personal-level risk perceptions. Perceivedsocial risk is defined as a person’s estimation of the generalized level of risk tosociety, whereas perceived personal risk refers to vulnerability felt by the personregarding him- or herself (Furstenberg, 1971; Tyler, 1980). Consistent findings fromexperiments and surveys demonstrate that these two levels of judgment are usuallyindependent and individuals do not draw implications about themselves from theinformation about the frequency or seriousness of a problem within the society (Tyler



& Cook, 1984). In short, it is possible for impact to occur on one level without theother level being influenced (Tyler & Cook, 1984).

Second, given the two distinct levels of risk perceptions, it postulates that theinfluence of the mass media occurs primarily on social-level and not on personal-levelrisk perceptions. Within the area of crime risk, numerous studies have substantiatedthis hypothesis (Tyler & Cook, 1984). A number of studies indicate that exposure tothe reports of crime from the mass media is unrelated to fear of crime victimization(i.e., personal risk perception), while showing positive correlation with judgmentsabout the crime rate in society (i.e., social risk perception; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981;Tyler, 1980, 1984). Although not explicitly testing the hypothesis, some cultivationresearch also lends empirical support for this hypothesis (Shrum & Bischak, 2001).For instance, in a review of cultivation research, Hawkins and Pingree (1982) suggestthat television viewing has an impact on judgments for demographic or first-order-type estimates (which are oftentimes social-level judgments), while having minimalimpact on value-system or second-order-type judgments (which are oftentimespersonal-level judgments). In a more recent study in which cultivation theory andthe impersonal-impact hypotheses were tested simultaneously, television viewingwas positively related to social crime risk but not to personal crime risk perceptionin their own neighborhood (see Shrum & Bischak, 2001).1

Although the impersonal impact hypothesis was originally proposed as a theoryconcerning crime risk judgments (see Tyler, 1980), Tyler and Cook (1984) testedthe theory in a wider variety of contexts concerning natural and social hazardsbesides crime. Subsequent studies testing the impersonal impact hypothesis haveexamined the impact of the mass media on a variety of health risks, including the riskof contracting HIV/AIDS (Basil & Brown, 1997; Coleman, 1993; Snyder & Rouse,1995), skin cancer (Morton & Duck, 2001), heart disease, and smoking (Coleman,1993), and environmental risks, including the risk of household chemicals, low-levelradioactive waste, and chemical residues on food (Coleman, 1993).

Differential impact hypothesisDespite the accumulation of empirical support for impersonal impact hypothesis,Tyler and Cook (1984) were careful enough to acknowledge that perceived personalrisk may be affected by the mass media under some conditions that are yet to beexamined. This is referred to as the differential impact hypothesis (Tyler & Cook,1984). They suggested future research is needed to ‘‘disentangle the nature of massmedia effects by probing the conditions under which mass media presentations havea personal level impact’’ (p. 707).

Motivated by their insight, scholars have investigated the conditions under whichdifferential impact of media can occur. For instance, Snyder and Rouse (1995)proposed that when the media are decomposed into informative and entertainmentmedia, impact on personal risk can be found. Specifically, they predicted thatentertainment media may have an impact on personal risk perceptions due to theirvivid and dramatic presentations, whereas informative media may be limited to



affecting social risk perceptions due to their pallid presentation of information. Theytested the hypotheses and found that exposure to entertainment media significantlypredicted personal-level risk judgment. In a related vein, Basil and Brown (1997) usedidentification with the media celebrity Magic Johnson as a factor that may contributeto the media’s influence on personal risk perception of contracting HIV/AIDS. Theyshowed that identification with Magic Johnson was a significant predictor of bothsocial and personal risk perception and partially mediated the relationship betweenmedia exposure and personal risk perceptions.

The literature on differential impact hypothesis is, however, far from conclusive.Adding to the list of conditions under which the media may exert an influenceon personal risk perception, I propose audience motivation to consume the mediaprogram as a source of differential impact of media exposure.

Influence of audience motivation on risk perceptions

Motivations as framesThe central premise of the theoretical model advanced in this article is that motivationfor consuming media regulates and affects perceptions and beliefs about self and thesociety on media exposure. In other words, audience motivation can be said to serveas a frame that audiences use to filter, interpret, and process information from themass media.

The idea that a motivated state can serve as a mental frame in informationprocessing is not new. Focusing on the motivational aspect of emotion, Nabi(2003) proposed the ‘‘emotion-as-frame’’ hypothesis. The hypothesis assumes thatemotions can play the role of a mental frame that promotes selective processingof available information and guides formation of perception and behavior as aresult. The hypothesis has its root in functional theories of emotion, which assumea critical role of discrete emotions in mobilizing and allocating mental and physicalresources (Izard, 1993). More specifically, each discrete emotion is assumed to beassociated with a core relational theme, which refers to ‘‘the central (hence core)relational harm or benefit in adaptational encounters that underlies each specifickind of emotion’’ (Lazarus, 1991, p. 121). The core relational theme, according toLazarus, reflects the essential eliciting factor of the emotion and activates distinctiveaction tendencies of the emotion. The action tendencies are the motivating factorthat induces distinct behaviors. Specifically, the action tendencies serve ‘‘to guideinformation processing, influencing what information is attended to and likely tobe recalled and what is ignored,’’ thus qualifying discrete emotions as frames (Nabi,2003, p. 227).

This hypothesis has received some empirical support. For example, Nabi (2003)found that anger and fear toward drunk driving orients individuals to fear- or anger-related information in a message, respectively, and as a result, leads to behavioralintentions supporting policies that are compatible with action tendencies of anger orfear, respectively. More specifically, those who were primed to feel anger about drunk



driving demonstrated tendencies to desire retribution-related information, whereasthose feeling fear about drunk driving demonstrated desire for protection-relatedinformation. Consequently, this led anger-induced participants to prefer retribution-related policies and fear-induced participants to prefer protection-related policies,which reflect action tendencies for anger or fear.

As emotion and motivation are closely related (Reeve, 2008), the emotion-as-frame hypothesis has a number of important implications for the proposition thataudience motivation can serve as a mental frame that can guide the processingof media content, which may result in different beliefs and perceptions. First, itis important to discuss the relationship between emotion and motivation. Owingto the motivational aspect of emotion, most emotion scholars agree that emotionsfunction as one type of motivation (Reeve, 2008). Some go even further and arguethat emotion constitutes the primary motivational systems in humans (Izard, 1993;Tomkins, 1962, 1963, 1984). Second, it is crucial to note that discrete emotionsentail action tendencies, the driving force that allows emotion to have the proposedframing effects. Action tendencies are, by definition, motivational: They are definedas ‘‘states of readiness to achieve or maintain a given kind of relationship with theenvironment’’ (Frijda, 1986, p. 75). Therefore, if it is the motivational aspect ofemotions, which causes them to facilitate selective processing, it is only logical toinfer that motivation itself can serve the same function.

In a similar vein, Slater (1997) argues that the individual reason and motivationfor media exposure (receiver goals) determines how the message is processed, therebyinfluencing the ultimate effect of the message. He adds that the presence of variousmotivations determines the processing strategy employed by audiences and ultimatelychanges the nature of emotions and cognitions generated on the media exposure.The foregoing research grounds the first proposition, which is as follows:

Proposition 1: Audience motivation to consume media serves as a mental framethat guides processing and interpretation of the media content. This biasedprocessing in turn results in the formation of differential perceptions and beliefsabout self and social reality.

Surveillance and enjoyment motivationsThe present model concerns two major audience motivations: surveillance andenjoyment. Among the many types of audience motivations, these two have beenidentified as the primary and the most fundamental motivations for consuming mediacontent generally (Katz et al., 1974). Weiss (1971) goes even further to proposea bifunctional view of audience motivations in which media content is viewedas either fantasist–escapist or informational–educational. These two categoriesbasically correspond to surveillance and enjoyment motivations, respectively. Thedichotomous view has been shared by other early U&G researchers (e.g., Pietila,1969; Schramm, 1949), who discussed a notable distinction between surveillanceand enjoyment gratifications. This argument still holds true to some extent, as many



of the specific gratifications scholars have identified (e.g., information-seeking andexcitement) actually fall into the broad dichotomous categories of surveillance (orinformation-seeking) or enjoyment (or entertainment).

Before moving on to discussing influence of these two motivations on riskperceptions, it is important to note that I recognize that it is unrealistic to assume thataudience will always use the media for one type of motivation alone (i.e., either purelyenjoyment or surveillance motivation). In other words, it is more realistic to assumethat audiences may have mixed motivations of both enjoyment and surveillance (e.g.,watching a news program to gain information and to obtain enjoyment from watchingone’s favorite anchor). However, as the model proposed in this article assumesdifferential influence of surveillance and enjoyment motivation on risk perceptions,the propositions concerning the influence of surveillance and enjoyment motivationon risk perceptions have been discussed separately. After discussing the influenceof surveillance and enjoyment motivation on risk perception, implication of mixedmotivation (i.e., having some degree of surveillance and enjoyment motivation at thesame time) has been addressed in proposition 4.

Surveillance motivation and social risk perceptionSurveillance motivation is the primary reason why audiences seek media, and newsmedia in particular (Slater, 1997; Vincent & Basil, 1997). Given the premise ofthe U&G approach, which assumes that media gratifications derive from socialand psychological needs, Katz et al. (1973) argue that the need for surveillanceoriginates from ‘‘a desire for security or the satisfaction of curiosity and exploratorydrive’’ (p. 513). This is further illustrated by the argument that the need for seekinginformation stems from ‘‘a more basic need to develop one’s cognitive masteryof the environment’’ (p. 513). Thus, surveillance needs are closely related to thecuriosity toward others and what others are doing. In other words, individuals chooseto consume informative media in order to be aware of others and what is happeningin the environment (i.e., society).

Drawing on the motivation-as-frame proposition (i.e., proposition 1), audienceswhose primary motivation is surveillance are likely to process and interpret mediacontent as information related to others (rather than to self). This is becausesurveillance motivation serves as a mental frame that guides the interpretation of themedia content. In other words, their motivation to find out what is happening in theworld and what others are doing (i.e., surveillance motivation) guides the processingof the information portrayed in the media so that risk-related information in themedia will be interpreted as information related to others. For example, the currentmodel predicts that, when audiences watch television news programs to find out whatthe current issues are (i.e., what is going on in the country or the world), risk-relatedinformation such as a steep increase in prostate cancer occurrence rate is more likelyto be interpreted as concerning others but not themselves.

Therefore, it is predicted that the outcome of some media exposure initiated bya surveillance motivation will be related to risk perceptions concerning others rather



than to oneself, thus predominantly affecting social- rather than personal-level riskjudgments.

Proposition 2: When audiences consume media primarily with a surveillancemotivation, their social risk perception will be influenced to a greater degreethan their personal risk perception by the media portrayal of risk information.

Enjoyment motivation and personal risk perceptionsEnjoyment is another primary motivation for media consumption. Despite its popu-larity in media effects research, enjoyment is still a murky concept that awaits a cleardefinition (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004; Raney, 2003). As such, enjoyment motivation hasalso not been clearly defined in the literature. However, U&G research generally viewsenjoyment motivation as the basic motivational origin that drives the consumption ofenjoyable media content (e.g., entertainment media; Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld,2004). In other words, it refers to the broad category of audience motivation thatsubsumes specific motivations related to enjoyment such as escapism (Katz et al.,1973) and mood management (Zillmann, 1988).

Scholars who relate enjoyment motivation to the consumption of entertainmentmedia commonly assume the nature of media enjoyment to be fundamentallypersonal. For example, Zillmann and Bryant (1994) conceptualize media enjoymentas originating from the basic need for relaxation and escape from daily ‘‘struggle forsurvival’’ in the society (p. 437). In other words, the experience of entertainment,which is sought by enjoyment motivation, represents an escape from the struggleand competition for survival (Bryant & Miron, 2002) and, therefore, is assumed toprovoke self-reflection and a sense of escape from the social reality (Vorderer et al.,2004). Katz and Foulkes (1962) also point out that individuals possess a need todistract themselves from their social lives on occasion and this fundamental needdrives them to seek media, particularly entertainment media. In other words, usingmedia for an enjoyment motivation stems from a desire for individuals to disconnectthemselves from their environment and puts them in a mode that makes it easier toreconnect to themselves through ‘‘self-fulfillment and self-gratification’’ (Katz et al.,1973, p. 515). Therefore, enjoyment motivation may have the potential to orientaudiences to personalize the media content and its risk-related information.

Research on audience involvement provides further support for the argument thatenjoyment motivation can facilitate personalization of media contents. Enjoymentof entertainment media commonly leads to experience identification (Cohen, 2001)and transportation (Green & Brock, 2000). A large body of literature shows that thesetwo forms of audience involvement strengthen media’s influence on personal riskperceptions. For example, as identification promotes merging of identity (Cohen,2001) and allows audiences to temporarily ‘‘become that person’’ (Oatley, 1999,p. 446), when audiences identify with a mediated character undergoing an adverselife event (e.g., cancer), they develop ‘‘cognitive and emotional understanding ofthe personal relevance of the risk’’ (Campbell & Babrow, 2004, p. 171). Moreover,



transportation into a narrative has been shown to facilitate personalization of riskinformation in the media, particularly in the context of entertainment education(E-E) interventions. For instance, Slater and Rouner (2002; also see Slater, 2002)proposed the extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM), which postulatesthat transportation into a narrative is a mechanism whereby E-E can influenceindividuals’ beliefs (i.e., personal risk perceptions) and attitudes. This is partlybecause transportation is assumed to make the narrative experience seem more likereal, personal experience, which facilitates personalization of the media content.

In short, the literature suggests that enjoyment motivation likely sets oneself ina mode to personalize the media content to a greater extent. In other words, fromthe perspective stated in the motivation-as-frame proposition (i.e., proposition 1),the motivation to disconnect oneself from the environment and have enjoyable timepromotes personalization of media content, so that risk information is more likely tobe interpreted as personally relevant to oneself. For example, when audiences watchdramas with enjoyment motivation, they are put in a mode to disconnect themselvesfrom the environment and become involved in the drama. This process facilitatespersonalization of media content so that adverse life events experienced by mediatedcharacters such as being a rape victim are likely to be perceived as more personallyrelevant. In conclusion, it is expected that audiences who seek media primarily froman enjoyment motivation are likely to personalize the risk information portrayed inthe media, resulting in greater personal risk perceptions.

Proposition 3: When audiences consume media primarily with an enjoymentmotivation, their personal risk perception will be influenced to a greater degreethan their social risk perception by the media portrayal of risk information.

Mixed motivation: Having both surveillance and enjoyment motivationAs mentioned earlier, it may be unrealistic to assume that audiences seek mediawith one particular motivation alone all the time. We sometimes consume mediawith more than one purpose. For example, we might want to seek informationwhile being entertained. This is an important issue to address as we are witnessinga recent increase in hybrid media genres such as infotainment shows (e.g., TheDaily Show With Jon Stewart, Colbert Report) that aim at gratifying audiences’ mixedmotivations.

Acknowledging that audiences may consume media genres with mixed motivationof surveillance and enjoyment (e.g., watching an infotainment show for bothinformation and entertainment), the model can be reformulated slightly to capturevarying degrees of surveillance and enjoyment motivation. Figure 2 illustrates themotivation continuum with surveillance and enjoyment motivation on each end. Aspropositions 2 and 3 postulate, a surveillance motivation results in a greater level ofsocial risk perception, whereas an enjoyment motivation results in a greater level ofpersonal risk perception. This corresponds to risk-related content in the news mediabeing more likely to affect social risk perception and that in entertainment media



Figure 2 Influence of audience motivation for media consumption on risk perceptions (themotivation continuum).

being more likely to affect personal risk perception. Interestingly, this is preciselywhat Snyder and Rouse (1995) found in their study using vividness as the criterionfor differential impact of informative and entertainment media. The present model,however, explains the same finding by conceptualizing audience motivations for eachmedia genre as the determinant of its effect on risk perceptions.

As shown in Figure 2, in the case of infotainment shows such as The Daily ShowWith Jon Stewart or health infotainment shows that are sought by audiences for mixedmotivation of surveillance and enjoyment, both social and personal risk perceptionwill be influenced to a similar extent. The model is visualized as a continuum becausevarying degrees of surveillance motivation are postulated to result in correspondingdegrees of social risk perception (i.e., greater surveillance motivation results in highersocial risk perception). The same logic applies to enjoyment motivation and personalrisk perception: When audiences seek media primarily for enjoyment motivation,their personal risk perceptions will be influenced to a much greater extent than socialrisk perceptions (as stated in proposition 3).

In summary, the motivation continuum can be understood as a visual represen-tation of the model and its propositions. With regard to having mixed motivations,the model predicts that when audiences consume media with similar degrees ofsurveillance and enjoyment motivations, their social and personal risk perceptionswill be influenced to a similar extent as well.



Proposition 4: When audiences consume media with mixed motivation ofsurveillance and enjoyment in a similar degree, both social and personal riskperceptions will be influenced to a similar extent. The extent to which social andpersonal risk perception are influenced depends on the degree of surveillanceand enjoyment motivation, respectively.

Personal salienceAdopting the concept of resonance in cultivation theory (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, &Signorielli, 1980), the current model proposes an interactive effect of personal salience(or personal relevance) on the media’s influence on risk perception. Resonancesuggests that audience members’ life experiences may moderate cultivation effects,such that those with life experiences that are more congruent with media portrayals(e.g., those who have personally experienced crime) will be affected more by themedia’s portrayal of the experience (e.g., greater [social] risk perceptions about thecrime), whereas those without such experiences will be affected less. In other words,Gerbner and his colleagues suggest that audiences with relevant personal experienceon the topic may experience ‘‘a double dose’’ of the message, one ‘‘dose’’ from themedia and the other from real life.

The concept of personal salience is similar to life experience, in that life experiencecan contribute to audience members perceiving greater personal salience on a giventopic. However, sources of personal salience are not limited to life experiences.For instance, involvement with an issue or topic regardless of having related lifeexperience can also contribute to high personal salience. For example, in terms ofhealth risks, individuals can perceive high levels of personal salience regarding a givenhealth risk due to being genetically prone to contract the disease or regularly engagingin risky health behaviors (e.g., smoking and having unprotected sex). Drawing on theliterature on the influence of personal salience, the following proposition is proposed.

Proposition 5: The variable influences of the motivated media exposurestipulated in propositions 2 and 3 will be greater in magnitude for those whoperceive high personal salience on the risk topic portrayed in the media.

Discussion

This article has taken an important step toward integrating U&G research intotraditional media effects research. As an initial attempt to merge the two majorresearch traditions, the model proposed in this article postulates the influence ofaudiences’ motivations on their risk perceptions. Specifically, audience motivationto consume media is proposed as an important variable that determines differentialimpact of the media on risk perception. Building on the overarching proposition thatpostulates the capacity of audience motivation to serve as a mental frame on whichto process media content (proposition 1), a surveillance motivation is proposedto influence social risk perception than personal risk perception (proposition 2),



while an enjoyment motivation is proposed to influence personal risk perceptionto a greater extent (proposition 3). As audiences may also seek media with mixedmotivations, having similar degrees of both surveillance and enjoyment motivationis predicted to influence both social and personal risk perception to a similar extent(proposition 4). The aforementioned predictions offered by the current model areillustrated visually in the motivation continuum (Figure 2).

Theoretical implicationsThe model presented in this article has accomplished two major purposes. First, itcarries out the longstanding research agenda in U&G research to connect motivesfor media use to the effects of that use. In other words, the current model signifiesan initial theoretical attempt to bridge the two research traditions, the U&G andmedia effects research. Given the rich research tradition in psychology regarding theinfluence of human motivation on perceptions and beliefs, this area of research holdsa great promise as early U&G researchers had anticipated. However, media effectsresearch to date has not been able to see this apparent gap in the literature. Withthe model proposed in this article as a starting point, much more research attentionneeds to be devoted to utilize U&G as a theoretical framework in the media effectsresearch. This view seems to resonate with a growing number of scholars, who arguefor the significance of U&G research in the new media environment (e.g., Ruggiero,2000). Moreover, with a resurging scholarly interest in selective exposure processes,the U&G approach has been noted as worthy of more research attention and furtherdevelopment (e.g., Slater, 2007).

Second, from the standpoint of media effects research on risk perception, thecurrent model extends the research on differential impact hypothesis (Tyler & Cook,1984) by proposing audience motivation as a possible determinant of personal andsocial risk perception. As noted earlier, much research in this area has generated anumber of possible causes of differential impact of the mass media on personal andsocial risk perception. While impersonal impact hypothesis (Tyler, 1980) posits thatrisk-related information from the mass media can only affect social risk perceptions,researchers have continued identifying various conditions under which the massmedia exposure can have a personal impact. For example, dramatic and vividportrayal of risk information from entertainment media (Snyder & Rouse, 1995) andhigh identification with a mediated character undergoing the adverse risk event (Basil& Brown, 1997) have been shown to increase personal risk perceptions of audiences.Extending this line of research, this article proposes enjoyment motivation as one ofthe reasons why individuals’ personal risk perceptions may be influenced by mediatedcontent. It is important to note that research in this area had never attempted tolook at the process from the U&G perspective (i.e., using enjoyment motivation asa potential cause of increase in personal risk perceptions). Therefore, the currentmodel should not be regarded as merely adding another variable into differentialimpact hypothesis. Rather, it should be regarded as a notable attempt to study theissue from a different perspective that has not been taken till now.



As another theoretical implication, it is important to note that the current modelpresented here carries with it a set of inherent assumptions of the U&G approach.Consistent with U&G, it assumes that audiences are goal-directed and that mediaselection is a generally conscious process, which is directed toward attaining certainspecific goals and satisfactions. Thus, the model only applies to goal-directed mediaconsumption that is not habitual or unintended. It also assumes that audiencemembers are conscious of their media-related needs and can articulate these interms of motivations. Although this assumption does not concern the model at atheoretical level, it has implications for the measurement of audience motivations ata methodological level. These assumptions have been challenged by scholars (e.g.,Biocca, 1988), and it is acknowledged that the current model is also not free fromsuch criticisms.

Practical implicationsThe model of motivated media exposure and risk perception has a number ofpractical implications as well. First, the motivation continuum allows us to makepredictions regarding the effects of different media genres. This has an importantimplication for choosing the right channel for strategic communication. This alsoleads us to the second practical use of the model: It offers new insights into effectiverisk communication practices. As risk communication efforts commonly utilizethe mass media as a communication vehicle (Noar, 2006), the present theoreticalmodel contributes to the development of effective risk communication strategies byproviding guidelines regarding the features of media content and strategic choice ofcommunication channels.

Genre-specific media effects on risk perceptionDespite the growing recognition of the importance of distinguishing media genres inmedia effects research (e.g., Bilandzic & Roessler, 2004; Holbert, Shah, & Kwak, 2003),research on genre-specific media effects have mostly been rather descriptive withoutany theoretical explanation of the observed genre-specific effects. The current model,specifically the motivation continuum, offers precise predictions for genre-specificmedia effects on risk perceptions.

Accumulated knowledge on the types of gratifications that audiences seek in dif-ferent media genres implies that audience motivation varies across media and genres(Katz et al., 1973; Sherry, 2002). For instance, audiences seek news media primarilyfor surveillance needs (Vincent & Basil, 1997) and seek entertainment media primar-ily for enjoyment (Vorderer et al., 2004). Given this relationship between audiencemotivation and genre-specific media consumption, we can use the current model topredict the effects of news and entertainment media on risk perception. Moreover,the motivation continuum (Figure 2) also acknowledges that audiences may consumemedia genres with mixed motivation of surveillance and enjoyment (e.g., watchingan infotainment show for both information and entertainment). Therefore, it canalso predict the effects of hybrid media genres such as infotainment shows.



The importance of choosing the right communication channel has been widelyrecognized by numerous risk communication scholars (e.g., Salmon & Atkin, 2003).Typically, the communication ‘‘channels’’ have referred to the ‘‘types of medium’’such as television or radio. The current model puts another layer onto this: Itsuggests that within the same medium (e.g., television), depending on audiences’motivation to consume the media, the risk information can have different impacton social and personal risk perception. In other words, different media genresmay have differential impact on audiences’ risk perceptions due to the audiencesconsuming the media genre with different motivations and purposes (e.g., con-suming news media for surveillance motivation). This has a number of importantimplications for risk communication practices. The following discussion high-lights the practical implications of the current model in the risk communicationdomain.

Health risk communicationThe literature recognizes the two major lines of risk communication research: healthand environmental risk communication (Bostrom & Lofstedt, 2003; McComas,2006). Although the concept of risk may not differ in the two domains, different typesof risk phenomena have generated different orientations to risk communicationresearch that eventually resulted in divergence in research tradition. First, healthrisk communication draws heavily on social psychology, particularly on persuasion(Bostrom & Lofstedt, 2003), and focuses on persuading individuals to adopt healthybehaviors, as they are considered to be responsible for their own health (Sjoberg,2003). Moreover, many health communication theories that aim at promotingprecautionary behaviors (e.g., protection motivation theory) assume personal riskperception, as opposed to social risk perception, as an important motivator forpreventive health behaviors. Therefore, health risk communication efforts have beendesigned to target (i.e., increase) personal risk perceptions.

Given the importance of personal risk perception in health risk communication,the predictions of the impersonal impact hypothesis has posed a challenge to healthrisk communication efforts. However, the current model suggests that mass media-based health interventions can be successful if audiences would approach the mediacontent with the motivation to be entertained and to have enjoyable time (proposition3). In other words, the model suggests that health risk communicators can effectivelyutilize the mass media channels to communicate risk by adopting features that arelikely to be perceived as enjoyable and entertaining to the audiences. These tacticsmay include the use of narratives (Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004), inducing a flowexperience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Sherry, 2002), and the use of popular mediacelebrities whom audiences may find enjoyable to watch (Basil & Brown, 1997; Raney,2004). In short, this suggests that entertainment media can be a very useful vehiclefor dissemination of health risk information. In fact, this argument resonates withgrowing popularity of E-E shows among health campaign practitioners worldwide(Singhal & Rogers, 2002).



Environmental/technological risk communicationAnother major line of risk communication research is environmental/technologicalrisk communication. Unlike health risk communication, which assumes individualsto be responsible for managing the risks, management of environmental risks(e.g., risks related to nuclear energy) is generally considered to be a responsibilityof the government (Sjoberg, 2003). Moreover, as the environment (and, thusenvironmental hazards alike) is shared by many others in the society, research onenvironmental risk communication has generally focused on understanding publicopinion, policy-related issues, and social risk perceptions regarding the environmentaland technological hazards (Luhmann, 1990; Slovic, 1987).

Another difference between health and environmental/technological risk com-munication lies in the direction of influence, which the risk communication effortsaim at achieving (Bostrom & Lofstedt, 2003). While health risk communication aimsat increasing personal risk perception as individuals tend to perceive lower risk thanthey should (Weinstein, 1980), environmental/technological risk communicationtypically aims at disseminating accurate risk information so that perceived socialrisk of potential environmental hazard can be reduced to realistic and manageablelevel (Bostrom & Lofstedt, 2003). This is because people naturally tend to regardnew technology as risky and potentially harmful (Slovic, 1996) and the ungroundedpublic fear oftentimes impedes the advancement of new technology (Bostrom &Lofstedt, 2003).

Given the characteristics and goals of environmental risk communication, thecurrent model suggests that accurate information related to environmental andtechnological risks are best to be disseminated via informative media such as newsprograms, newspapers, or documentaries. Moreover, consistent with the conceptualframework of social amplification of risk offered by Kasperson et al. (1988), themodel cautions environmental risk communicators to ensure that inaccurate andunnecessarily frightening risk information are prevented from being disseminatedthrough informative media because those media can serve as ‘‘amplification stations’’of risk information and increase social risk perception to a undesirable level.

Concluding commentsThe model proposed in this article represents the first attempt to integrate U&G intotraditional media effects research. As a boundary condition for the initial integration,the model concerns the effects of audience motivations on their perceptions ofsocial and personal risks. As noted earlier, the overarching theme of the model(proposition 1) is very broad and, therefore, can be applied to different contextsbesides media effects on risk perception. For instance, proposition 1 can be appliedto different outcome variable such as political opinion. Political communication isa particularly interesting context to apply this theoretical framework because mediagenres that convey political information and knowledge are diversifying rapidly (e.g.,infotainment shows such as The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and political blogs). Inaddition, theoretical models concerning other types of audience motivations besides



surveillance and enjoyment will contribute to invigorating this area of research evenfurther.

An obvious next step is to test the model empirically. This will involve a carefulstudy design in which audience motivation is appropriately measured (in surveys)or manipulated (in experiments). Measurement of motivation has been a commonchallenge in U&G research and is certainly an area that needs improvement toadvance the theory.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Hyunyi Cho, Miriam Metzher, and the two anony-mous reviewers for their insightful comments on the earlier versions of this article.

Note

1 It is important to note that the personal crime risk in NYC, as opposed to in participants’own neighborhoods, was positively correlated to television viewing. Shrum and Bischak(2001) note that the ‘‘pattern of results provides general support for the impersonalimpact hypothesis, but with the caveat that the notion that estimates of personal crimerisk are unaffected by media information holds only when the judgments of personalcrime risk pertain to risk within one’s own neighborhood’’ (p. 200).

References

Ball-Rokeach, S., & DeFleur, M. (1976). A dependency model of mass media effects.Communication Research, 3, 3–21.

Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1998). A theory of media power and a theory of media use: Differentstories, questions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication and Society, 1, 5–40.

Basil, M., & Brown, W. (1997). Marketing AIDS prevention: The differential impacthypothesis versus identification effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, 389–411.

Bilandzic, H., & Roessler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications ofgenre-specific cultivation effects: The gratification/cultivation model. Communications:The European Journal of Communication, 29, 295–326.

Biocca, F. A. (1988). Opposing conceptions of the audience: The active and passivehemispheres of mass communication theory. Communication Yearbook, 11, 51–80.

Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. CommunicationResearch, 6, 9–36.

Bostrom, A., & Lofstedt, R. E. (2003). Communicating risk: Wireless and hardwired. RiskAnalysis, 23(2), 241–248.

Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2002). Entertainment as media effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 549–582). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Campbell, R. G., & Babrow, A. S. (2004). The role of empathy arousal in responses topersuasive health communication. Health Communication, 16, 159–182.

Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audienceswith media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245–264.



Coleman, C. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication onsocietal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20, 611–628.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Erdelyi, M. H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance.Psychological Review, 81, 1–25.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and

the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233–240.Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Furstenberg, F. E. (1971). Public reaction to crime in the streets. The American Scholar, 40,

601–610.Gerbner, G. (1960). Toward ‘‘cultural indicators’’: The analysis of mass mediated message

systems. AV Communication Review, 17, 137–148.Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The

cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 17–41).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The ‘‘mainstreaming’’ ofAmerica: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10–29.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness ofpublic narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.

Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: Therole of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327.

Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television’s influence on social reality. In D. Pearl,L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress andimplications for the eighties (Vol. 2, pp. 224–247). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.Holbert, R. L., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Political implications of prime-time drama

and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women’s rights.Journal of Communication, 53, 45–60.

Izard, C. E. (1993). Organizational and motivational functions of discrete emotions. InM. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 631–641). New York, NY:Guilford.

Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., & Goble, R. (1988). The socialamplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. PublicOpinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by theindividual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Currentperspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Katz, E., & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of mass media for escape: Clarification of aconcept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 377–388.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Luhmann, N. (1990). Technology, environment, and social risk: A systems perspective.

Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 223–231.



Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.McComas, K. A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005.

Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 75–91.Morton, T. A., & Duck, J. M. (2001). Communication and health beliefs: Mass and

interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. CommunicationResearch, 28, 602–626.

Nabi, R. L. (2003). The framing effects of emotion: Can discrete emotions influenceinformation recall and policy preference? Communication Research, 30, 224–247.

Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude:Implications for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14(4), 288–310.

Noar, S. M. (2006). A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns:Where do we go from here? Journal of Health Communication, 11, 21–42.

Oatley, K. (1999). Meeting of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification in readingfiction. Poetics, 26, 439–454.

Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. CommunicationYearbook, 8, 20–55.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1985). An expectancy-value approach to mediagratifications. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Mediagratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 61–72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D., II. (1982). Gratifications sought and media exposure: Anexpectancy value model. Communication Research, 9, 561–580.

Pietila, V. (1969). Immediate versus delayed reward in newspaper reading. Acta Sociologica,12(4), 199–208.

Raney, A. A. (2003). Disposition-based theories of enjoyment. In J. Bryant,D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor ofDolf Zillmann (pp. 61–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moralevaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348–369.

Rayburn, J. D. (1996). Uses and gratifications. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), Anintegrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 97–119). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Rayburn, J. D., & Palmgreen, P. (1984). Merging uses and gratifications andexpectancy-value theory. Communication Research, 11, 537–562.

Reeve, J. (2008). Understanding motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a functional alternative.

In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 166–194). Middlesex,England: Penguin.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. InJ. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research(pp. 417–436). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, A. M., & Windahl, S. (1986). The uses and dependency model of masscommunication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 184–199.

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. MassCommunication and Society, 3, 3–37.

Salmon, C. T., & Atkin, C. (2003). Using media campaigns for health promotion. InT. L. Thompson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Parrott (Eds.), Handbook of healthcommunication (pp. 285–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.



Samuels, F. (1984). Human needs and behavior. Cambridge, MA: Schnenkman.Schramm, W. (1949). The nature of news. Journalism Quarterly, 26, 259–269.Sherry, J. L. (2002). Media saturation and entertainment-education. Communication Theory,

12, 206–224.Shrum, J., & Bischak, D. (2001). Mainstreaming, resonance, and impersonal impact. Human

Communication Research, 27, 187–215.Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (2002). A theoretical agenda for entertainment-education.

Communication Theory, 12, 117–135.Sjoberg, L. (2003). The different dynamics of personal and general risk. Risk Management: An

International Journal, 5, 19–34.Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Slater, M. D. (1997). Persuasion processes across receiver goals and message genres.

Communication Theory, 7, 125–148.Slater, M. D. (2002). Involvement as goal-directed strategic processing: Extending the

elaboration likelihood model. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook:Developments in theory and practice (pp. 175–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity andmedia effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. CommunicationTheory, 17, 281–303.

Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood:Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12,173–191.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, New Series, 236(4799), 280–285.Slovic, P. (1996). Perception of risk from radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68(3–4),

165–180.Snyder, L. B., & Rouse, R. A. (1995). The media can have more than an impersonal impact:

The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Health Communication, 7, 125–145.Tomkins, S. S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol. I. The positive affects. New York, NY:

Springer.Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol. II. The negative affects. New York,

NY: Springer.Tomkins, S. S. (1984). Affect theory. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to

emotion (pp. 163–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Tyler, T. R. (1980). Impact of directly and indirectly experienced events: The origin of

crime related judgments and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,13–28.

Tyler, T. R. (1984). Assessing the risk of crime victimization: The integration of personalvictimization experience and socially-transmitted information. Journal of Social Issues,40, 27–38.

Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishingimpact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 47, 691–708.

Vincent, R. C., & Basil, M. D. (1997). College students’ news gratifications, media use, andcurrent events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 380–392.

Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of mediaentertainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388–408.



Wahlberg, A. A. F., & Sjoberg, L. (2000). Risk perception and the media. Journal of RiskResearch, 3, 31.

Weinstein, N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.

Weiss, W. (1971). Mass communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 22, 309–336.Windahl, S. (1981). Uses and gratifications at the crossroads. Mass Communication Review

Yearbook, 2, 174–185.Young, P. T. (1961). Motivation and emotion: A survey of the determinants of human and

animal activity. New York, NY: Wiley.Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American

Behavioral Scientist, 31, 327–340.Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1994). Entertainment as media effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 437–461). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.


使用与满足以及其它：媒体使用动机及风险认知影响的模型

【摘要：】

长期以来研究者都想将使用与满足理论纳入传统的媒体效果研究，但这种努力至今还不尽如人意。作为对文献中此空白的回应，本文提出一个假定观众动机对风险认知影响的理论模型。该模型基于使用与满足理论和差别影响假设，包含四个主要的命题。首先，该模型提出一个总体的命题来假设观众动机作为媒体使用的心理框架。在第一个命题的基础上，该模型假定监视动机影响社会风险认知，而假定享受动机影响个人风险认知。最后，该模型提出个人特点对这些效果的影响。

Usages, gratifications et plus encore : vers un modèle des motivations de l’exposition

médiatique et de ses effets sur la perception des risques

Bien que l’on veuille depuis longtemps intégrer l’approche des usages et gratifications à la

recherche traditionnelle sur les effets médiatiques, la littérature n’a jusqu’à maintenant pas

atteint ce but. En réaction à cette lacune, un modèle théorique qui postule l’impact de la

motivation des auditoires sur la perception des risques est proposé. Partant de la théorie des

usages et gratifications et de l’hypothèse des répercussions différentes, le modèle consiste en

quatre propositions principales. D’abord, une proposition englobante, qui postule la capacité

de la motivation de l’auditoire à servir de cadre mental lors de l’exposition médiatique, est

soumise. À partir de cette première proposition, il est postulé que la motivation de

surveillance influence la perception des risques sociaux, tandis que la motivation de plaisir

influencerait la perception des risques personnels. Enfin, l’effet de la pertinence personnelle

sur les influences proposées est présenté.

Los usos, las gratificaciones, y el más allá: Hacia un modelo de la exposición motivada a los medios y sus efectos sobre la percepción del riesgo

Resumen: A pesar de la agenda de investigación de larga data que integra el enfoque de los usos y las gratificaciones dentro de la investigación tradicional de los efectos de los medios, esta investigación hasta la fecha no ha cumplido su tarea. Como una respuesta a la brecha en la literatura, un modelo teórico postulando el impacto de la motivación de la audiencia sobre la percepción del riesgo es propuesto. Tomando de los usos y las gratificaciones y de la hipótesis de impacto diferencial, el modelo consiste en cuatro proposiciones. Primero, una proposición general que postula la capacidad de la motivación de la audiencia para servir como un encuadre mental en la exposición a los medios es propuesta. Construyendo sobre esta primera proposición, la motivación vigilada se postula que influencia la percepción social del riesgo, mientras que la motivación del placer se postula que influye la percepción del riesgo personal. Finalmente, el efecto personal relevante en las influencias propuestas es presentado.

이용과 만족, 그리고 이를 넘어서: 동기화된 미디어 노출 모델과 위기인식에 대한 효과

요약

전통적인 미디어 효과연구에서의 이용과 만족 접근을 이용하려는 장기적인 연구

아젠다에도 불구하고, 현재까지의 연구는 이러한 과제를 충족했다고 보기 어렵다.

이러한 문제점에 대한 반응으로서, 위기개념에서의 오디언스 동기화의 영향을

가정하는 이론적 모델이 제안되었다. 이용과만족이론과 다른 효과 가정들로부터

이끌어낸 이 모델은 네가지 주요 전제로 구성되었다. 첫째, 미디어노출에 대한 정신적

프레임으로서 사용하기 위한 오디언스 동기화의 능력을 가정하는 전반적인 전제가

제안되었다. 이러한 첫번째 전제에 기인하여, 감시동기화가 사회적 위기 개념에 영향을

주기위해 가정화되었으며, 여흥동기는 개인적 위기 개념에 영향을 주기위한 가정으로

정의되었다. 마지막으로, 제안된 영향에 대한 개인적 현저함의 효과가 제안되었다.

Nutzen, Belohnung und mehr: Überlegungen zu einem Modell der motivierten Medienzuwendung und dessen Wirkung auf die Wahrnehmung von Risiko

Auch wenn mit intensiven Forschungsarbeiten das Ziel verfolgt wurde, den Nutzen‐ und Belohnungsansatz (Uses and Gratification) in die traditionelle Medienwirkungsforschung zu integrieren, konnte die Forschung diese Aufgabe bis heute nicht angemessen erfüllen. Als Lösungsansatz für diese Forschungslücke schlagen wir ein theoretisches Modell vor, welches einen Einfluss der Rezipientenmotivation auf die Risikowahrnehmung postuliert. Mit diesem Modell greifen wir auf den Nutzen‐ und Belohnungsansatz sowie die These des differentiellen Einflusses zurück und postulieren vier Propositionen. Die erste, eher allgemeine Proposition lautet, dass die Kapazität der Zuschauermotivation als ein mentaler Rahmen für die Medienzuwendung fungiert. Darauf aufbauend nehmen wir an, dass die Überwachungsmotivation die soziale Risikowahrnehmung und die Enjoyment‐Motivation die persönliche Risikowahrnehmung beeinflusst. Zuletzt, wird der Einfluss der persönlichen Salienz auf diese postulierten Wirkungen präsentiert.

Documents

Uses, Gratiﬁcations, and Beyond: Toward a Model of ... · Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Uses, Gratiﬁcations, and Beyond: Toward a Model of Motivated Media