Theories of media exposure

Resilient
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In today's society every individual is bombarded[peacock term] by different types of media. Studying the
decision making process has led to the Theories of Media Exposure.
Contents
[hide]

1 Specific Theories
o

1.1 Uses and Gratifications Theory

1.2 Social Learning Theory

2 References

3 External links

Specific Theories[edit]
Uses and Gratifications Theory[edit]
One of the most popular theories, Uses and Gratifications Theory, is based on users actively
attempting to satisfy their media needs. Elihu Katz is often credited with being one of the original
creators of this theory. This theory states that an individual will choose the media or form of media
that will satisfy their desires most completely. There are a number of different desires involved with
this theory, such as a desire for information or social interaction. When seeking to fulfill these
desires, an individual will need to make a decision. This decision making process if the primary
interest for the theorists. When comparing social networking websites, it is simply a matter of
preference at the time. However the decision making process becomes more convoluted when
deciding between watching a movie, playing a game online, or reading a newspaper. The same
fundamental principle applies however, the person will make the decision based on what brings the
most gratification.[1]

Social Learning Theory[edit]

Social Learning Theory, similar to Uses and Gratifications Theory, is based on the gratification of an
individual, but differs in that it is based more on behavior rather than decision making. Albert
Bandura is said to be the forerunner of this theory. Each individual will make decisions based on
anticipation. There is a heavy reliance on previous experience knowing what leads to gratification
and what will not. If one receives joy from watching comedies, then an individual will seek out
comedies in the future. If horror films leave a person with nightmares then they will most likely

attempt to avoid them. This theory also states that the experience of others can be used in the
decision making process. If a family member recommends a book then an individual is more likely to
pick up the book and read it themselves. This theory does address more thoroughly media
avoidance than does Uses and Gratifications Theory.[2]

References[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Straubhaar, Joseph., LaRose, Robert., & Davenport, Lucinda. (2010). "Media Now:
Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology."

2.

Jump up^ Straubhaar, Joseph., LaRose, Robert., & Davenport, Lucinda. (2010). "Media Now:
Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology."

External links[edit]

Active audience theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This broadcasting-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Active audience theory argues that media audiences do not just receive information passively but
are actively involved, often unconsciously, in making sense of the message within their personal and
social contexts.[1] Decoding of a media message may therefore be influenced by such things as
family background, beliefs, values, culture, interests, education and experiences.
Other theories and models are compatible with active audience theory, including
the Encoding/Decoding model and the Uses and gratifications theory, which states that audiences
are actively involved in determining what media they engage with and how, in order to gratify specific
needs or desires.[2] The Mass media article refers to a Culturalist theory, however there is little
evidence of its use in relation to (mass) media.
Active audience theory is seen as a direct contrast to the Effects traditions, however Jenny Kitzinger
argues against discounting the effect or influence media can have on an audience, acknowledging
that an active audience does not mean that media effect or influence is not possible. [3] Supporting
this view, other theories combine the concepts of active audience theory and the effects model, such
as the two step flow theory where Katz and Lazarsfeld argue that persuasive media texts are filtered
through opinion leaderswho are in a position to 'influence' the targeted audience through social
networks and peer groups.

References[edit]
1. Jump up^ Munday, Daniel Chandler, Rod (2011). A dictionary of media and communication (1st ed.
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-956875-8.

2. Jump up^ McQuail,, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience: A revised
perspective. Media studies: A reader. London: Longman. pp. 271284.
3. Jump up^ Kitzinger, J (1999). A sociology of media power: key issues in audience reception research.
Message Received. Harlow: Longman. pp. 238, 20743.

Character theory (media)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A character theory is used to understanding media, such as print or electronic media texts or
productions such as films and plays. It is useful for analysing and understanding media in which
people take on the role of an actor or social actor. Character theories are popular with academics
teaching and researching media and film studies. This is because they assist in the appreciation of
the structure of different types of media and the roles of the characters, fictional or otherwise that are
portrayed in them. Character theories are often based on stereotypes, and the different
characteristics that make them up can either be used for positive or negatives purposes [1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Goffman's character theory

2 Propp's character theory

3 Bartle's character theory

4 Campbell, Fletcher and Greenhill's character theory

5 Bishop's character theory

6 References

Goffman's character theory[edit]

Erving Goffman's character theory [2] suggests that there are four main types of broad character in a
media text or production;
1. The protagonist (leading character)
2. The deuteragonist (secondary character)
3. The bit player (minor character whose specific background the audience is not aware of)
4. The fool (a character that uses humor to convey messages)

Propp's character theory[edit]

Vladimir Propp developed a character theory[3] for studying media texts and productions, which
indicates that there were 7 broad character types in the 100 tales he analysed, which could be
applied to other media:
1. The villain (struggles against the hero)
2. The donor (prepares the hero or gives the hero some magical object)
3. The (magical) helper (helps the hero in the quest)
4. The princess (person the hero marries, often sought for during the narrative)
5. The false hero (perceived as good character in beginning but emerges as evil)
6. The dispatcher (character who makes the lack known and sends the hero off)
7. The hero [AKA victim/seeker/paladin/winner, reacts to the donor, weds the princess

Bartle's character theory[edit]

Richard Bartle's character theory was one of the earliest dedicated to the Internet, and is still used
for analysing early virtual worlds today.[4] It took the following form:
1. Achievers (preferred to gain "points," levels, equipment and other concrete measurements of
succeeding in a game)
2. Explorers (preferred to be discovering areas, creating maps and learning about hidden
places)
3. Socializers (preferred to be interacting with other players, and on some occasions,
computer-controlled characters with personality)
4. Killers (preferred to depart from the norm of being "the good guy" who comes to save the day
and play on the side of evil or conquest)

Campbell, Fletcher and Greenhill's character theory[edit]

John Campbell, Gorden Fletcher, and Anita Greenhill.[5][6] developed a character theory for
analysing online communities, based on tribal typologies. In the communities they investigated they
identified three character types:
1. The Big Man (offer a form of order and stability to the community by absorbing many
conflictual situations personally)
2. The Sorcerer (will not engage in reciprocity with others in the community)
3. The Trickster (generally a comical yet complex figure that is found in most of the world's
culture)

Bishop's character theory[edit]

Jonathan Bishop developed a character theory [7][8][9][10] for analysing online communities, partly
utilizing Campbell et al.'s character theory. In the online community he investigated, he found a
number of character types, which can be applied to various usages of online communities,
including Internet trolling.[11]
1. Lurker - Driven by Surveillance forces. Lurkers make silent calls by accident, etc., clicking
on adverts or like buttons, using referrer spoofers, modifying opinion polls or user kudos
scores.
2. Elder - Driven by Escapism forces. An Elder is an out bound member of the community,
often engaging in trolling for newbies, where they wind up the newer members often
without questioning from other members.
3. Troll - Driven by Chaos forces. A Troll takes part in trolling to entertain others and bring
some entertainment to an online community.
4. Big Man - Driven by Order forces. A Big Man does trolling by posting something pleasing to
others in order to support their world view.
5. Flirt - Driven by Social forces. A Flirt takes part in trolling to help others be sociable,
including through light teasing.
6. Snert - Driven by Anti-social forces. A Snert takes part in trolling to harm others for their own
sick entertainment.
7. MHBFY Jenny - Driven by Forgiveness forces. A MHBFY Jenny takes part in trolling to help
people see the lighter side of life and to help others come to terms with their concerns.
8. E-venger - Driven by Vengeance forces. An E-Venger does trolling in order to trip someone
up so that their 'true colours' are revealed.
9. Chat Room Bob - Driven by Existential forces. A chatroom bob takes part in trolling to gain
the trust of others members in order to exploit them..
10.Ripper - Driven by Thanatotic forces. A Ripper takes part in self-deprecating trolling in order
to build a false sense of empathy from others.
11. Wizard - Driven by Creativity forces. A Wizard does trolling through making up and sharing
content that has humorous effect.
12.Iconoclast - Driven by Destructive forces. An Iconoclast takes part in trolling to help others
discover 'the truth', often by telling them things completely factual, but which may drive them
into a state of consternation. They may post links to content that contradicts the worldview of
their target.

References[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Hinton, P. (2000. Stereotype, Cognition and Culture. Psychology Press. ISBN 0415-19866-6

2.

Jump up^ Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday

3.

Jump up^ Propp, V.I.A. (1969). Morphology of the Folk Tale. Texas: University of Texas
Press.

4.

Jump up^ Richard Bartle (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who suit MUDs.
Available online

5.

Jump up^ Campbell, J., Fletcher, G. & Greenhil, A. (2002). Tribalism, Conflict and Shapeshifting Identities in Online Communities. In the Proceedings of the 13th Australasia Conference on
Information Systems, Melbourne Australia, 79 December 2002

6.

Jump up^ Campbell, J., Fletcher, G. and Greenhill, A. (2009). Conflict and Identity Shape
Shifting in an Online Financial Community, Information Systems Journal, (19:5), pp. 461478.
Availableonline

7.

Jump up^ Bishop, J. (2008). Increasing Capital Revenue in Social Networking Communities:
Building Social and Economic Relationships through Avatars and Characters. In: Romm-Livermore, C.
(ed.) Social Networking Communities and eDating Services: Concepts and Implications. Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. Available online

8.

Jump up^ Bishop, J. (2012). Scope and Limitations in the Government of Wales Act 2006 for
Tackling Internet Abuses in the Form of Flame Trolling. Statute Law Review 33 (2), 207-216.
Availableonline

9.

Jump up^ Bishop, J. (2014). Representations of 'trolls' in mass media communication: a

review of media-texts and moral panics relating to 'internet trolling.' The International Journal of WebBased Communities 10(1), 7-24. Available online

10.

Jump up^ Bishop, J. (2013). The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending
and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives. In: J.
Bishop (Ed.) 'Examining the Concepts, Issues, and Implications of Internet Trolling.' Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. ISBN 1466628030.

11.

Jump up^ The Twelve Types of Internet Troller

Media system dependency theory[edit]

Media-system Dependency Theory (MSDT or Media Dependency Theory) has been studied as an
offshoot of UGT. However, media dependency theory focuses on audiences' goals for media
consumption as the source of their dependency; while uses and gratification theory focuses on
audience's needs as drivers for media consumption. MSDT states that as a person becomes
increasingly dependent on media to satisfy their needs, that media will become more important in a
person's life and thereby have increased influence and effects that person. MSDT acknowledges
and builds upon UGT because it is based on the assumptions that people have different uses for
media that arise from their needs.[60]

Social cognitive theory[edit]

Building on UGT, Social Cognitive Theory helped distinguish GS versus GO stimulus for media
consumption. Social cognitive theory explains behavior in terms of the reciprocal causation between
individuals, environments, and behaviors. This allows for a more personal application of UGT instead
of a large, blanketing assumption about a large audience of mass media. If GO is greater than GS
then there will be more audience satisfaction. Lastly, audiences' GS are not always the reality of their
GO.[12][20]

Cultivation theory[edit]
Cultivation theory is concerned with understanding the role that media play in shaping a person's
world viewspecifically television. Whereas UGT tries to understand the motivations that drive
media usage, Cultivation theory focuses on the psychological effects of media. Cultivation theory is
used especially to study violence in television and how it shapes audience's understanding of the
reality of violence in society. Often, because of media's influence, audiences have a more
heightened and unrealistic perception of the amount of violence. A UGT approach may be
implemented to Cultivation theory cases to understand why an audience would seek violent media
and if audiences seek television violence to satisfy the need of confirmation of their worldview.

Theory criticism[edit]

Paper
A Social Cognitive Explanation of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward
a New Theory of Media Attendance

By

Robert LaRose, PhD

Department of Telecommunication
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

larose@msu.edu

Matthew S. Eastin, PhD

School of Journalism and Communication
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

A paper submitted to the Communication and Technology Division,

International Communication Association

November 1, 2002

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following students in collecting the
data for this project: Mike Mackert, Sri Sukotjo, Yu-Chieh Lin, Jinhee Hong, Songyi Park, WenYa Wu, Li-An Liu, Charintip Tungkittisuwan, Kuang-Chiu Hang

A Social Cognitive Explanation of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward

a New Theory of Media Attendance

While most of the prior research explaining Internet usage has followed the
conventional uses and gratifications paradigm, some extensions and challenges to
that prevailing theory of media attendance have emerged. These include the
discovery of new gratifications overlooked in the annals of mass communication
research and the introduction of powerful new explanatory variables. However,
much of the extant research has focused on college students populations, while the
Internet has penetrated deeply into the general population. The present study
extends previous research to more diverse populations and evaluates new
explanatory variables within the framework of Banduras (1986) Social Cognitive
Theory. Respondents from two Midwestern states were contacted by mail to
complete an on-line questionnaire. Among conventional Uses and Gratifications
variables, expectations about participating in enjoyable activities online and
expected social outcomes explained 23 percent of the variance in Internet usage.
Habit strength, deficient self-regulation and Internet self efficacy combined in a
stepwise multiple regression model that explained 40 percent of the variance in
usage, in a model in which conventional Uses and Gratifications variables were not
significant predictors. A new model of media attendance was proposed.

A Social Cognitive Explanation of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward

a New Theory of Media Attendance

The addition of the Internet to the electronic media environment has renewed
interest in the question of media attendance: the factors that explain and predict
individual exposure to the media. Much of the research has followed the
conventions of Uses and Gratifications framework, but there have been fresh
approaches to conceptualizing the problem of media attendance that have
introduced new conceptual and operational approaches and new variables.
However, these relationships have been explored among college student samples
and must now be extended to the general online population. The present research
tests a model of media attendance inspired by Banduras (1986) Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT) that builds upon the conventional Uses and Gratifications approach.

Uses and Gratifications Meet the Internet

. Numerous studies (e.g. Kaye, 1998; Eighmey & McCord, 1998; Perse &
Greenberg- Dunn, 1998; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; Lin, 1999; Parker & Plank,
2000; Ferguson & Perse, 2000;Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Dimmick et al., 2000;
Chou & Hsiao, 2000, Flanagin & Metzger, 2001; Charney & Greenberg,
2001; LaRose, Mastro & Eastin, 2001; Stafford, 2001; Song, LaRose, Lin & Eastin,
2002;) have applied Uses and gratifications to the Internet, extending a well-known
theory of media attendance that is arguably the dominant paradigm of media
attendance (Palmgreen, Wenner &Rosengren, 1985). Collectively, these studies
have generally upheld the basic proposition about media attendance from the Uses

and gratifications tradition: the gratifications sought from the Internet predict
individual exposure to the medium.
However, many of Internet-related studies that have examined the
relationships between gratifications and media exposure (e.g. Kaye, 1998; Ferguson
& Perse, 2000; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Parker & Plank, 2000) have also
reconfirmed a basic weakness of Uses and gratifications as a theory of media
attendance: it does not predict media exposure very well. Consistent with Uses and
gratifications studies of other media (cf. Palmgreen, Wenner & Rosengren, 1985),
the Internet studies that hewed most closely to the concepts and operational
measures of the Uses and gratifications tradition have explained less than ten
percent of the variance in Internet usage from gratifications.
That the Internet is in many ways a unique medium (Morris & Ogan, 1996)
has not escaped the attention of Uses and gratifications researchers who have
contributed innovative variations on conventional approaches. One response
has been to expand the time-honored list of media gratifications derived from early
television studies (notably Greenberg, 1974; Rubin, 1983) to explore unique facets
of the Internet medium. For example, Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) developed
measures of interpersonal communication gratifications, recognizing that
communication functions like email and chatrooms are the dominant mode of
Internet usage. Korgaonkar and Wolin (1999) found that dimensions of information
control, interactive control, and economic control, as well as more conventional
escapist, social and informational gratifications, distinguished Internet users from
non-users.
Other researchers reopened the basic question of what do we use the media
for by beginning with focus groups (Charney & Greenberg, 2001) or broader

theories of human behavior (Song et al., 2002) to generate gratification items. This
resulted in the discovery of new gratifications that were either downplayed in
conventional mass media Uses and gratifications research (e.g. interpersonal
communication, Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; problem solving, persuading others,
relationship maintenance, status seeking, and personal insight for Flanagin &
Metzger, 2001) or previously unexplored (e.g. Song et al.s virtual community
gratification, Charney & Greenbergs coolness, sights and sounds, career, and peer
identity factors).
Others have innovated with conceptual and operational definitions of
gratifications, creating what might be called prospective, or expected gratifications.
These ask respondents to indicate the gratifications that they expect from the
Internet in the future as opposed to those that they desire or have obtained in the
past. This is a departure from the gratifications sought/gratifications obtained
(GS/GO) formulation that has long guided Uses and gratifications (Palmgreen et al.,
1985). Studies that have employed prospective measures (e.g., Lin,
1999; Charney & Greenberg, 2001; LaRose, Mastro & Eastin, 2001) have doubled
and or tripled the amount of variance explained in Internet attendance behavior
compared to conventional approaches.
A Social Cognitive Perspective of Uses and gratifications
Prospective gratification measures are consistent with a social cognitive view
of media attendance derived from Banduras (1986, 1989) Social Cognitive Theory
(SCT). In SCT, the expected outcomes of a behavior are important determinants of
its performance. LaRose et al. (2001) found that expected outcomes produced
superior predictions of Internet attendance compared to conventional Uses and
gratifications research. They argued that expected outcomes (e.g. when using the

Internet it is likely that I will have fun) improve upon the explanatory power of both
gratifications sought and gratifications obtained.
Unsuccessful attempts by Uses and gratifications researchers (Babrow &
Swanson, 1988) to distinguish the predictive power of outcome expectations
(derived from a related theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, Ajzen, 1985) from
gratifications perhaps indicated that the two are related constructs. However, the
distinction between outcome expectations and gratifications is potentially
consequential. Gratifications obtained (e.g. I use the Internet to have fun) fail to
distinguish the likelihood of encountering the desired outcomes in the future. If we
say we use the Internet for fun but seldom have any, then that belief is unlikely to
influence our usage. Gratifications sought (e.g. I use the Internet because I want
fun) neglect the possibility that we may be looking for something that just is not
available. So, in some instances, the gratifications sought could be a negative
predictor of exposure, in others a positive one, but in the aggregate are just possibly
a confounded one. Comparing gratifications obtained with those sought may
produce confounding instances (e.g. gratifications that are obtained but not sought)
that may have no reliable relationship to exposure. Outcome expectations cut
through the ambiguity because they reflect current beliefs about the outcomes of
prospective future behavior but are predicated upon comparisons between
incentives expected and incentives attained in the past. (LaRose et al., 2001, p.
399)
SCT is familiar to many media scholars in its earlier incarnation as Social
Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977), as a theory of media effects. Specifically, the
vicarious learning mechanism is recognized as a determinant of the effects of the
media, television in particular. However, SCT is a broad theory of human behavior
that may be applied to media attendance as well as to the effects on behavior that

result from that exposure. SCT posits reciprocal causation among individuals, their
behavior, and their environment, mediated by human symbolizing processes that
integrate stimulus-response experiences into cognitive models that guide behavior.
The vicarious reinforcement mechanism of interest to media effects researchers
describes how observations of others behavior modifies expectations of the
outcomes of our own behavior. Enactive learning is the mechanism through which
we learn from our own experiences, the process by which our personal experience
with the media may shape our expectations about outcomes of media exposure that
determine our future levels of media attendance.
SCT has its own version of gratification categories. These are a
priori categories of behavioral incentives derived from observations of behavior
across wide variety of domains of human behavior. Categories include novel sensory
stimuli, monetary, social, status, activity, and self-evaluative incentives. A close
analysis of these categories against Internet gratifications (LaRose et al., 2001)
revealed that conventional Uses and gratifications research underemphasized
status and monetary incentives that had significant positive correlations with
Internet usage (see also Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; Flanagin & Metzger,
2001; Charney & Greenberg, 2001. When expected outcome measures reflecting
the full range of these categories were subjected to exploratory factor analysis in
conventional Uses and gratifications style a new virtual community dimension was
uncovered that drew heavily on the status incentives lacking in conventional Uses
and gratifications research (Song et al., 2002). Others paralleled conventional Uses
and gratifications dimensions. Activity incentives, predicated on the desire to take
part in enjoyable activities, correspond to the entertainment factors found in many
Uses and gratifications studies. Self-evaluative incentives, which involve attempts to
regulate dysphoric moods, parallel pass time or boredom gratifications. Novel

sensory incentives include the search for novel information, they parallel
information seeking gratifications. Social incentives stemming from rewarding
interactions with others correspond well to social gratifications.
SCT stresses the importance of self efficacy, or belief in ones capability to
organize and execute a particular course of action (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is
particularly relevant to the Internet since it is a somewhat troublesome medium.
This is especially so for novice users who have not as yet acquired the requisite
skills to obtain useful information and deal with the discontents of life online, from
viruses to balky home internet connections. Self-efficacy has proven to be robust as
a significant predictor of Internet usage (Eastin & LaRose, 2000; LaRose et al.,
2001).
Self-Regulation and Internet Usage
The SCT construct of self-regulation (Bandura, 1991) has also emerged as an
important predictor of Internet consumption (LaRose et al., 2002). The selfregulatory mechanism describes how individuals continually monitor their own
behavior (self-monitoring), judge it in relation to relevant personal and social
standards (judgmental process), and apply self-reactive incentives to moderate their
behavior (self reaction). Self-regulation is an important point of distinction between
SCT and functionalist or stimulus-response theories of human behavior in that it
describes self-generated influences that free the individual from blindly following
the dictates of external reinforcement. Self-regulation is perhaps what best
distinguishes humans from Skinners (1938) pigeons: we are able to conceptualize
and evaluate our own behavior and formulate and implement our own courses of
action, pigeons are not.

Self-regulation may normally be expected to moderate media consumption.

Indeed, an experimental manipulation of self-regulation as it is understood in SCT
reduced media usage (Robinson, 1999). However, when self-regulation fails
increased media consumption may be expected. This issue has been conceptualized
in terms of habit and deficient self-regulation (LaRose et al., 2002).
A habit is simply a recurring behavior pattern. Habit is a well-established
predictor of behavior (Triandis, 1980; Oulette & Wood, 1998) that has perhaps been
somewhat overlooked in communication research (cf. Stone & Stone, 1990;
Rosenstein & Grant, 1997). There, it has been associated with ritualistic
gratifications such as passing the time (after Rubin, 1984). However, there is a
growing body of research (e.g. Aarts, Verplanken, & van Knippenberg,
1998; Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994) suggesting that habit is a form of automaticity, a
pattern of behavior (e.g. checking ones email) that is triggered by an
environmental stimulus (e.g. seeing ones computer desktop in the morning) and
performed without further active consideration. This is perhaps outside the realm of
active media selection processes that are presumed by Uses and gratifications
theorists. At best, automatic media consumption behaviors were initially framed by
such active considerations, which were eventually forgotten (cf. Stone & Stone,
1990). We may have thought carefully about our communication options the first
time we used email; for example, but by the hundredth time we did not.
Within SCT we might describe this as a failure of the selfmonitoring subfunction of self-regulation. Through frequent repetition we become
inattentive to the reasoning behind our media behavior, our mind no longer devotes
attention resources to the consideration of such routine behavior, freeing itself for
more important decisions. In one study, a measure of habit was found to be a
significant predictor of Internet usage (LaRose et al., 2001).

Deficient Self Regulation is defined as a state in which conscious self-control

is relatively diminished. Working from conceptual and operational definitions of
behavioral addictions, LaRose and his colleagues have shown the variable to be a
powerful predictor of both e-commerce activity (LaRose & Eastin, 2002) and general
Internet usage (LaRose et al., 2001) and have proposed it as an explanatory
mechanism for so-called internet addictions (LaRose et al., 2002).
However, the relationship between habit and deficient self-regulation has not
been clearly distinguished. Addictions, including behavioral addictions, may be
regarded as a form of habitual behavior (Marlatt, Baer & Kivlahan, 1988) so the two
constructs overlap on a conceptual level. Since LaRose et al.s operational
definitions of deficient self- regulation were drawn from the symptoms of behavioral
addictions, there is the possibility of confounding. At the operational level, the
measures of habit have been underdetermined; that is, they have had too few items
to produce reliable measurement. LaRose et al. (2002) were forced to conclude that
they could not clearly distinguish habit from deficient self-regulation, leaving a topic
for further research. The present research will assess these constructs to determine
if they are empirically distinct.
Are College Students Typical Internet Users?
Much of the extant research on Internet usage has focused on college
students. The rationale often offered is that college students are a population of
interest because of the ready access to the Internet they enjoy and the high
incidence of users found in that population. As such, they might represent typical
populations of users and also, as part of the first Internet generation, a cohort of
particular interest to scholars wishing to follow the new medium from its birth. And,
there is the general caveat that scholars are interested in the lawful relationships

among variables that should be observable among many groups, including

purposive samples of college students.
But there are also some important ways that college students differ from the
general population that may affect the relationships among variables, and these are
particularly salient from the SCT perspective. Internet usage has become such a
vital part of collegiate life that students are virtually forced to embrace the medium
when they enter college. But half do not begin using the Internet until after they
reach college (Pew Research Center, 2002a). In SCT terms, this may create a large
subclass of student users with low Internet Self Efficacy and thus exaggerate the
importance of that variable in student populations. Non- volitional uses in which
students are required to perform class-related tasks on the Internet might diminish
the impact of active selection processes represented by the conventional Uses and
gratifications approach. College students, and particularly the freshmen who
populate the large introductory class sections from which many willing survey
respondents are drawn, have relatively high levels of depression (Rich & Scovel,
1987) and depression is known to inhibit effective self-regulation (Bandura, 1991),
possibly exaggerating the effect of that variable as well. One reason that freshmen
are depressed is because they have been seized from the bosom of their family and
friends. That may unnaturally heighten the importance of sociability or social
interaction gratifications and contribute to disproportionate usage of the Web for
social support. Indeed, college students demonstrate an especially heavy reliance
the Internet for social interaction and they are also more likely to engage in fun
activities than other Internet users (Pew Research Center, 2002a). Now that
research has compiled an ample number of studies developing psychological
motives for Internet use and usage now reaches deeply into the general population,
it is feasible to survey Internet users in the general population and determine

whether the relationships among variables found in college populations can be

replicated in broader populations.
Hypotheses
Following LaRose et al., (2001) we propose that the gratifications of the
Internet, reconceptualized as outcome expectations reflecting each of the incentive
categories recognized by SCT will be positively related to Internet usage. In the
present study, self-evaluative and activity outcomes, combined in the previous
research to attain satisfactory reliability, will be separated to match the conceptual
distinction between these two incentive categories. Previously, self-evaluative
outcomes were also found to predict Internet usage (LaRose et al., 2002).

H1: Internet usage will be positively related to a) novel sensory, b) activity, c)

social, d) status, and e) self-evaluative outcome expectations.

Also consistent with earlier results, status and monetary incentives that were
under-represented in prior Uses and gratifications research are expected to predict
Internet usage as well:

H2. Internet usage will be positively related to a) status and b) monetary

outcome expectations.

Although struggling novice Internet users may be especially prevalent among

college freshmen, we also expect to find them in the general population. For

example, Cole (2001) estimated that 7 percent of the general population of Internet
users rated their Internet ability as poor and another 30 percent rated it only
fair. Thus, Internet Self-Efficacy might still be related to Internet usage in a
general population sample:

H3: Internet self-efficacy will be positively related to Internet usage.

On the question of the distinction between habit and deficient self-regulation,

there may be a valid theoretical distinction between the two concepts. Habit could
represent the failure of self-monitoring, one of the three subfunctions of selfregulation, while deficient self-regulation may represent a failure of the judgmental
and self-reactive subfunctions. Individuals who are inattentive to repetitive patterns
in their behavior are also unlikely to compare it to personal or social norms or to
self-generate incentives (e.g. indulging in feelings of guilt or rewards for moderate
behavior). However, the conceptual definition of deficient self-regulation (based on
symptoms of pathological gambling and substance dependence) and
its operationalization (e.g., I feel my Internet use is out of control, I feel tense
moody or irritable if I cant get on the Web when I want) betray an intense, even
painful self-awareness of media consumption. Deficient self-regulation reflects a
quite distinct state of mind from one in which we are inattentive to a repetitive
behavior pattern and both might have independent effects on media attendance. A
user might be painfully aware of deficient self-regulation with respect to, say, online
gambling sites or Internet pornography, while still remaining blissfully unconcerned
that she spends even more time on email. Thus, habit and deficient self-regulation
could have independent effects:

H4: Internet habit strength will be positively related to Internet usage.

H5: Deficient Internet Self-Regulation will be positively related to Internet

usage.

Also consistent with LaRose et al. (2001), the new variables should improve
upon the predictive power of conventional demographic and Uses and gratifications
dimensions. Race (Hoffman & Novak, 1998) and gender (AAUW, 2000) have been
suggested as relevant demographic variables explaining Internet usage.
H6: Status and monetary incentives, habit strength, Internet self-efficacy
and deficient Internet self-regulation will be positively related to Internet
usage after controlling for demographic variables and conventional uses
and gratifications dimensions.

RESEARCH METHODS
The respondents were thus a somewhat biased sample of the respective
populations from which they drawn. However, the purpose of the study was not to
estimate the population distribution of the items in the survey but rather to
examine lawful relationships between variables. As such, a diverse sample of adult
respondents was deemed suitable for the purpose of the present study.
Procedure

Adult Internet users were the population of interest. To obtain a diverse

sample of the general population of adult Internet users, respondents were recruited
by mail from two Midwestern communities to complete an on-line survey. Both of
the communities surveyed included the home town of a major university and
several surrounding counties.
A commercial mailing list vendor provided a random sample of household
addresses in the designated communities. The initial mailing included a letter
advising respondents of the purpose of the study and their rights as human
subjects. Half the letters requested that the survey be filled out by a male head of
household and the other half by a female head of household, if such a person were
available. Also included in the envelope was a nominal cash incentive and a
postcard with the URL and a respondent ID for the survey. Internet users were
instructed to use the card and ID number the next time they went on the Internet.
Non-users were instructed to indicate their gender and year of birth and return the
card by mail so that response rates could be calculated and the results compared to
U.S. Census data.
Respondents
Of the 1100 solicitations sent, 170 (15%) bad addresses were returned;
leaving a total usable sample of 930. A total of 334 responded to the
solicitation. One hundred and seventy-five Internet users completed the survey and
159 returned the non-Internet user postcard (36% total response rate). There were
no response difference by city and thus data were collapsed. As a total sample (N =
334) participants were 55 percent male and 45 percent female. In comparison to
the general population, which consists of 50 percent female (U.S. Census, 2002). Six
percent of the participants were between the ages of 18-24 (census population =

17%), 48 percent were between the ages of 25-44 (census population = 30%) 34
percent were between 45-65 years old (census population = 40%), and finally, 13
percent were over the age of 65 (census population = 14%). The respondents were
thus a somewhat biased sample of the respective populations from which they were
drawn. However, a diverse sample of adult respondents was obtained and thus, this
sample was deemed suitable for the purpose of this study which was to examine
relationships between variables.
The non-Internet users (N = 159 card returns) consisted of 48 percent male
and 52 percent female and their mean age was 52 years old. Given current
estimates of Internet penetration (54%, NTIA, 2002) we estimated that respondents
at 504 (out of 938) of the valid addresses had access the Internet, and thus, could
have completed the online survey. Therefore, we estimate that the 175 people who
completed the survey represent an Internet user response rate of 35 percent. Of
those, 42 percent were female and 55 percent were male (with 2 percent not
indicating their gender) with an average age of 42 years old. Eighty-eight percent
were Caucasian, five percent were African American, two percent were Latino and
the remaining four percent were Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American or other.
Forty-two percent of the sample indicated an average household income under
$50,000; the remaining 58 percent indicated an average annual income greater
than $50,000. Educationally, participants ranged between 9-22 years beyond
kindergarten (M = 16, SD = 2.61).
Operational Measures
The usual procedure for analyzing gratifications in the Uses and gratifications
tradition is to conduct an exploratory factor analysis of the gratification items. This
procedure was not followed in the present research since a priori theoretical

assumptions about the nature of the gratification variables were available, in the
form of the incentive categories recognized in SCT. Instead, gratification items were
collected from prior Uses and gratifications studies, rephrased as outcome
expectations (i.e., using the Internet how likely are you to.. on a scale of one to
seven, where one was very unlikely and seven very likely). These statements of
outcome expectations were classified into SCT incentive categories by consulting
the conceptual definitions found in Bandura (1986, pp. 233ff) and supplemented
with items reflecting status and monetary incentives that were
under represtentedrepresented in Uses and gratifications research (cf. LaRose et al.,
2001). Internal consistency (Cronbach alphas) were computed for each.
Six categories of expected outcomes, one representing each incentive
category, were operationalized. The range, means, and standard deviations of these
variables are found in Table 1. These included novel sensory outcomes [1] ( = .74),
activity outcomes[2] ( = .73), social outcomes[3] ( = .89), and self-evaluative
outcomes[4] ( = .77) that corresponded to Uses and gratifications dimensions
common in mass communication research. Measures of status outcomes [5] ( = .75)
and monetary outcomes[6] ( = .72) were also included.
Previous research (LaRose et al., 2002) had left the distinction between habit
strength and deficient self -regulation unresolved. Under determination (i.e. too
few items) of the habit strength variable was a possible confounding factor.
Accordingly, new items were developed by drawing upon theoretical works
describing habitual behavior (Aarts et al, 1998; Oulette & Wood,
1998; Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994). The combined pool of habit strength and deficient
self-regulation items was subjected to an exploratory factor analysis
using varimax rotation. Two interpretable factors emerged. On one, three of the
habit strength items[7] had loadings of .6 or more and were combined into an

additive index ( = .76). On the other factor, items reflecting deficient selfregulation appeared, and nine[8] with factor loadings over .6 (and no secondary
loadings over .4) were combined into a measure of deficient self-regulation ( = .
91). These factors seemed to reflect the distinction between the selfobservation subfunction of self-regulation on the one hand and the judgmental
process and self-reactive subfunctions on the other hand.
Internet Self Efficacy Scale (Eastin & LaRose, 2000) was replicated, but two
items were deleted because of potential ceiling effects. The resulting 5-item
additive scale[9] had a Cronbach alpha of .91. Gender (1 if male, 0 if female), age (in
years), race (1 if white, 0 if minority) were all assessed through single questionnaire
items.
The dependent Internet usage variable was the sum of the total number of
minutes spent on the Internet in the typical weekday, the typical weekend day, and
the day prior to the survey. An inspection of the distributions of responses to these
items revealed that outliers were present and so a log10(1+value) transform was
applied to each one before summing the three items. The resulting composite index
had a Cronbach alpha of .66.
Data Analysis
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, exploratory factor
analysis, and multiple regression analyses were performed using SPSS version
10.1(SPSS, Inc., 2000).
Hypothesis 6 was tested through a hierarchical stepwise regression.
Following the Uses and gratifications tradition, demographic variables were entered
first, followed by gratification dimensions, recast here as expectations of novel

sensory, activity, self-evaluative and social outcomes. Next, monetary and status
outcome expectations were entered, reflecting the two types on incentives
underrepresented in conventional Uses and gratifications research. The SCT-derived
variables Internet Self-Efficacy, habit strength, deficient self-regulation were added
in the final step.
An inspection of the zero-order relationships (Table 1) revealed several
correlations between independent variables over .6, a common rule of thumb for
detecting possible multicollinearity problems, and so the
SPSS multicollinearity diagnostics were run. The maximum VIF (variance inflation
factor) was 2.83 and maximum condition index was 18.5, which were deemed
acceptable.
RESULTS
The results shown in Table 2 show that Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.
Internet usage was positively related to measures of a) novel sensory (r = .338, p <
.001), b) activity (r = .428, p < .001), c) social (r = .429, p < .001), d) status (r = .
528, p < .001), and e) self-evaluative (r = .392, p < .001) outcome expectations.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Internet usage was also positively related to status
(r = .528, p < .001) and monetary outcome expectations (r = .266, p < .
001). Internet Self-Efficacy (r = .405, p < .001), habit strength (r = .494, p < .001),
and deficient self-regulation (r = .469, p < .001) were also related to Internet usage
as predicted by Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
Stepwise multiple regression results are shown in Table 2. The prediction
equation that resulted after each block of variables was entered is shown, along
with the associated regression statistics. None of the demographic variables
emerged as significant predictors, although ethnicity had a significant, but low,

zero-order correlation with the dependent variable (r = -.157 p < .05). After the
outcome expectation variables corresponding the most closely to conventional Uses
and gratifications factors were added, a significant (F2,164 = 26.023, p < .001, R = .
491, corrected R2 = .232) regression equation was obtained (labeled Uses and
gratifications in Table 2). Social ( = ..290, t = 3.76, p < .001), and Activity ( = .
282, t = 3.65, p < .001) outcome expectations were significant predictors. In the
next model (labeled Uses and gratifications+ F3,163 = 22.355, p < .001, R = .540,
corrected R2 = .278), to which gratification dimensions atypical of conventional
Uses and gratifications research were added, status outcome expectations were the
only remaining significant predictor of Internet usage ( = .350, t = 3.41, p < .
001), producing a significant increase in the overall variance explained
(Rsq change = .051, p < .001). After SCT variables were introduced a final
prediction equation was obtained (F6,160 = 19.386, p < .001, R = .649,
corrected R2 = .399 ) in which Internet self-efficacy ( = .152, t = 2.16, p < .05),
deficient self-regulation ( = ..218, t = 3.02, p < .01), and habit strength ( = .
239, t = 3.23, p < .001) were significant predictors.
DISCUSSION
The present results both affirm and extend the prevailing paradigm of media
attendance and exposure in communication studies, adding both to our
understanding of the factors that predict Internet usage and our understanding of
underlying theories of media attendance. A basic implication of Uses and
gratifications, that media exposure may be predicted from media gratifications was
again upheld. However, new variables and new operational definitions from SCT
greatly improved -- and in the end subsumed --- the predictive power of media
gratifications, here re-construed as outcome expectations.

Using dimensions that paralleled those common to Uses and gratifications

studies of the Internet, but changing the conceptual and operational focus from
gratifications sought to outcomes expected, resulted in explaining nearly three
times the variance in Internet usage previously reported (e.g., 9 percent
for Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000, compared to 28 percent here). Expected activity
outcomes, which closely parallel entertainment gratifications in Uses and
gratifications research, and social outcomes/gratifications were significant
predictors, much as they had been in prior research involving college students
(e.g., Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; LaRose et al., 2001; Kaye, 1998).
Status outcomes, a gratification/outcome dimension identified by SCT but
underrepresented in prior Uses and gratifications research in which predictions of
exposure levels were the focus, further added to our ability to explain Internet
attendance. Indeed, this variable subsumed the effects of the two conventional
gratification dimensions on Internet usage. The perceived ability of the Internet to
improve ones lot in life thus emerges as a powerful motivating factor for the use of
the medium.
Uses and gratifications research, including Internet studies, have tended to
subsume habit in other gratifications dimensions, usually under either an
entertainment or pass time factor. Here, it emerged as a powerful and
independent predictor of media exposure even after the effects of gratifications
sought/expected outcomes had been accounted for. This
lends credence credibility to the initial supposition that the significance of habit
strength had been previously overlooked owing to underidentification of the
variable: the items used in previous studies were perhaps too few or too
ambiguously worded to properly distinguish this variable. This finding lends
credence to the conceptualization of habit strength as a distinct construct from

gratifications/expected outcomes. The low-to-moderate zero-order correlations

between habit and expected outcomes perhaps indicated the availability of
memories of past active media selection processes, in the form anticipated by Uses
and gratifications research, that had become dormant with repetition. In this vein, it
is interesting to note that among newer Internet users (those who had been online
less than three years) the correlations between expected outcomes and usage were
higher than among those with more experience. For example, the correlation
between activity outcomes and usage was .545 for new users, compared to .345 for
the more experienced ones. This could indicate that the newer users were still
making active media selection decisions on the basis of expected outcomes while
veteran users had lapsed into more habitual modes of Internet consumption.
The relationship of habit and deficient self-regulation was also further
clarified. Habit perhaps indicates a failure of the first of the three subfunctions of
self-regulation proposed by SCT, self-observation. Habitual media attendance means
engaging in media consumption behavior in direct response to environmental
stimuli, without engaging in (or at least without replicating) the active analytic
thought processes assumed by Uses and gratifications. As such, this aspect of
unregulated media behavior is closely related to notions
of automaticity (Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994). Deficient self-regulation derives from the
failure of the judgmental and self-reactive subprocesses of self-regulation. It reflects
a conscious failure of self-control wherein individuals struggle with themselves to
judge their own behavior against appropriate standards and to apply incentives to
moderate their consumption. The two variables are theoretically related in that
excessive habitual usage might trigger the struggle for self control. However,
habitual behavior is inherently automatic and unobserved, while individuals with
high levels of deficient self-regulation are keenly, even perhaps painfully, aware of

their behavior. Both variables were unique significant predictors of usage in the
present study. This suggests that these two constructs are in
fact different, confirming the notion proposed by LaRose et al. (forthcoming).
Internet self-efficacy was also a significant predictor of Internet usage,
although it was not as powerful a predictor as it was in previous studies involving
college student populations (LaRose et al., 2001). The substantial correlations
observed between Internet self-efficacy and novel sensory outcomes (r = .496) and
status outcomes (r =. 488) perhaps suggest that self-efficacy building is an ongoing process. Even after basic Internet skills are acquired, users must continue to
develop skills and confidence in using the Internet to obtain useful information (i.e.,
obtain novel sensory experiences) and improve their social position. Further, as
virtual environments become more prevalent or as technological convergence
technologically advances, self-efficacy will theoretically play an important role in the
adoption and utilization process.
The Internet emerges from the present study as something of a distinctive
medium, but perhaps not in ways previously described. That the Internet is a
medium of social interaction is indisputable, but a question now arises as to the
purpose of the social interaction. Prior research, especially that surrounding the socalled Internet Paradox (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay,
& Scherlis, 1998) focused on social interaction as a means of securing social
support and thereby improving psychological well-being. Now it appears that social
status, not social support might be the prime mover in Internet usage. And, the
enjoyable activities pursued on the Internet may also be a means of achieving
status, such as the bragging rights to the coolest selection of MP3
recordings. Perhaps by finding like-minded individuals on the Internet and
expressing ourselves in those venues we enhance our social status. Or,

recalling Turkles (1995) Life on the Screen ethnography, perhaps the Internet is a
means of constantly exploring and trying out new, improved versions of our
selves. From this we should begin to empirically explore the alternative dimensions
of social expectations such as social development (as self or with virtual other) and
social maintenance (a support mechanism).
The failure of demographic variables to explain Internet usage may seem
somewhat surprising in view of the extensive attention that the Digital Divide has
received. However, it may be that once disadvantaged groups gain access they are
able to to close the gap in usage. Indeed, one way to interpret the negative
correlations between race and outcome expectations (recalling that effects coding
was used, in which Anglos were coded as 1 and minorities as 0) is that minorities
have their expectations met better by the Internet than Anglos. This may be
especially true of status outcomes. However, there was a positive correlation
between gender (with males coded 1, females 0) and Internet self-efficacy (r = .
239, p < .05), suggesting a confidence gap still may exist between male and female
users. The inferior forms of access that females experience (AAUW, 2000) is a
possible explanation for this deficit.
Limitations
The generalizability of the present research is limited due to its limited geographic
scope. The Internet user sample contained disproportionately small representations
of young people and males. As a one-shot survey study, the direction of causation
cannot be established. Indeed, within SCT reciprocal causation is recognized. For
example, self-efficacy is a precondition for successful performance of a behavior but
successful performance also increases self-efficacy. However, given that this process
is ongoing, conventional longitudinal research methods, which evaluates

perceptions several times a year, may miss subtle changes over time. Here,
experimental lab based research that allows the user to continually mark perceived
expectations and self beliefs would provide a more enlightening picture of the
reciprocal process.
Implications for Further Research
Habit strength, deficient self-regulation, and self-efficacy might be
productively applied to the study of other media. Television addiction
(Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) has been described in the same terms of
behavioral addiction that underlie the present conceptualization of deficient selfregulation, for example. A wide variety of media consumption behaviors (from
reading the newspaper over breakfast to tuning in TV comedians at bedtime) would
seem to be habit-prone on their face in that they recur in a consistent context,
perhaps with little active re-evaluation each time the behavior is repeated. While
few mass media consumption behaviors require skills as complex as those needed
to surf the Web, there are perhaps parallel media self-efficacy constraints. Anyone
who has ever put down a book because it was too deep or turned away from a
television drama that was too disturbing might be said to have experienced a selfefficacy constraint. Considering television or more relevant advanced television
systems, self-efficacy could be a users perceived ability to manage their viewing
needs.
The present research suggests some new departures for the Uses and
gratifications tradition. It appears that redefining gratifications as expected
outcomes may have merit, on both a conceptual and operational level. Secondly,
the process of continually recycling gratification dimensions from previous (mostly
mass media oriented) research may have left out some potentially important

variables, particularly regarding the status that media consumption may confer.
Third, habit strength appears to be a conceptually and empirically distinct construct
from gratifications. Early conceptualizations of Uses and gratifications
(e.g. Palmgreen et al., 1985, p. 17) observed that distinction but it appears to have
been lost over the years, buried in the factor structure of entertainment and pass
time gratifications.Given this, scholars would be well served to revisit research
comparing models of displacement between television and the Internet. Such
analysis (or reanalysis) of these constructs would offer a more accurate picture
regarding how users are viewing each medias ability to fulfill expectations.
Some departures from Uses and gratifications are perhaps also in order. The
present findings are consistent with the view that active selection of media content
and media channels takes place only at the habit formation stage. That might
happen either when, as the case of the Internet, a new medium is introduced or
when there is some disruption of personal routines. Thereafter, media consumption
is primarily habitual and automatic as the once-active media selection thought
processes fade into memory. There is still active monitoring of media consumption
taking place, but not the type of active seeking of gratifications that Uses and
gratifications posits. Instead, only the general levels of media consumption are
being monitored. That is, once habitual consumption patterns are established users
no longer think much about whether the Internet or a phone call is a better way of
gratifying a need for social interaction. Perhaps explaining why teens and young
adults no longer prefer the telephone over computer-mediated-communication
(Pew Research Center, (2002b). They Users do perhaps still monitor their overall
level of Internet usage and apply self-reactive incentives to either increase or
decrease the amount of usage to appropriate levels. But some users may lose the
power to self-regulate their own consumption as well, perhaps through a process of

operant conditioning (cf. LaRose et al., 2002) at which point they might be said to
have a media addiction, or media dependency. SCT provides a framework for
integrating Uses and gratifications mechanisms with these competing influences on
individual media attendance.

REFERENCES
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A . (1998). Predicting
behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of
habit? Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 28,1355-1374 .
AAUW Educational Foundation (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the
new computer age. Washington, DC: Author.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned
behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds). Action-control: From cognition to
behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
Babrow, A. S., & Swanson, D. L. (1988). Disentangling antecedents of
audience exposure levels: Extending expectancy-value analyses of gratifications
sought from television news. Communication Monographs, 55, 1-21.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal directed
action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situation and behavior. In W.
D. Spaulding (Ed.), NebraskaSymposium on Motivation (Vol 41, pp. 71124). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Charney, T. & Greenberg, B. (2001). Uses and gratifications of the Internet. In
C. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication, technology and society: New media
adoption and uses. Hampton Press.
Chou, C., & Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and
pleasure experience: the Taiwan college students' case. Computers and
Education, 35, 65-80.
Cole, J. (2001). Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for
Communication Policy. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on September 20, 2002:
http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pdf/UCLA-Internet-Report-2001.pdf
Dimmick, J., Kline, S., & Stafford, L. (2000). The gratification niches of
personal e-mail and the telephone. Communication Research, 27, 227-248.
Eastin, M. A., & LaRose, R. L. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology
of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 6(1).
Retrieved November 29, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html

Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: Uses
and gratifications of sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research,
41, 187-194.
Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a functional
alternative to television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 155-174.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary
media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181.
Greenberg, B. S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their
correlates for British children. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.) The uses of mass
communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 7192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hoffman, D. L. &. Novak, T. P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the
Internet, Science, April 17.
Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the World Wide Web: From
couch potato to Web potato. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 6, 21-40.
Korgaonkar, P. & Wolin, L. (1999). A multivariate analysis of Web
usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 53-68.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T.,
& Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social
involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Television addiction. Scientific
American, 286(2), 74-81.

LaRose, R. & Eastin, M. S. (2002). Is on-line buying out of control? Electronic

commerce and consumer self- regulation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 46(4).
LaRose, R., Lin, C., & Eastin, M. S. (2002). Media addiction, media habits and
deficient self-regulation in the case of the Internet. Paper presented to the
International Communication Association, Communication and Technology
Division, Seoul, Korea, July, 2002.
LaRose, R., Mastro, D. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding Internet
usage: A social cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science
Computer Review, 19, 395-413.
Lin, C. (1999). Online-service adoption likelihood. Journal of Advertising
Research, 39, 79-89.
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Donovan, D. M., & Kivlahan, D. R. (1988). Addictive
behaviors: Etiology and treatment. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 223-252.
Morris, M. & Ogan, C. (1996). The Internet as a mass medium. Journal of
Communication, 46, 39-50.
NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2002). A
Nation Online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet.
Retrieved October 23, 2002 from World Wide
Web: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/anationonline2.htm.

Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The
multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological
Bulletin,124, 54-74.
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L., & Rosengren, K. (1985). Uses and gratifications
research: The past ten years. In K. Rosengren, L. Wenner, &
P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media Gratifications Research (pp. 11-37). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet usage. Journal
of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.
Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000). A uses and gratifications perspective on
the Internet as a new information source. American Business Review, 18, 43-49.
Perse, E., & Greenberg Dunn, D. (1998). The utility of home computers and
media use: Implications of multimedia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, 42, 435-456.
Pew Research Center (2002a). The internet goes to college:
How students are living in the future with today's technology. Retrieved October 20,
2002 from the Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71.
Pew Research Center (2002b). The Internet and Education:Findings of the Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved October 1, 2002 from the Web:
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports
Rich, A. R., & Scovel, M. (1987). Causes of depression in college students: A
cross-lagged panel correlational analysis. Psychological Reports. 60, 27-30.

Robinson, T. N. (1999). Reducing childrens television viewing to prevent

obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(16), 1561-1567.
Rosenstein, A. W., & Grant, A.E. (1997). Reconceptualizing the role of habit: A
new model of television audience activity. Journal Of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 41, 324-344 .
Rubin, A.M. (1983) Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing
patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.
Rubin, A.M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of
Communication, 34, 67-77.
Song, I., LaRose, R., Lin, C., & Eastin, M.S. (2002). Gratifications of Internet use
and Internet addiction. Paper presented to the International Communication
Association, Communication and Technology Division, Seoul, Korea, July.
Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
SPSS, Inc. (2000). SPSS for Windows, Version 10.1. Chicago, IL: Author.
Stone, G. & Stone, D. (1990). Lurking in the literature: another look at media
use habits. Mass Communications Review, 17, 25-33.
Triandis, H.C. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior.
In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Volume 37, pp. 195259. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New
York: Simon & Schuster.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002). State & County QuickFacts. Retrieved from the
Web on October 25, 2002: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

Table 1 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Independent and Dependent

Variables

Variable

1. Internet Usage
1.00
2. Age in years
-.072

1.00

.066

.044

1.00

-.157*

.136

.051

1.00

-.188* .044

-.183

3. Sex

4. Race

5. Activity Outcomes
.428**
6. Novel Sensory Outcomes

1.00

10

.338**

-.060

.076

-.181 .436** 1.00

7. Self-evaluative Outcomes
.392**

-.192* .076

-.216* .650** .260** 1.00

8. Social Outcomes
.429**

-.007

-.049 -.166* .475** .364** .507** 1.00

-.056

.012

-.109

.020 -.248** .650** .444** .585** .673** .437** 1.00

9. Monetary Outcomes
.266**

-.168* .400** .528** .366** .320** 1.00

10. Status Outcomes

.528**
11. Internet Self Efficacy
.405**

-.153* .239*

-.114 .332** .496** .312** .330** .379** .488** 1.00

-.119

-.117 .360** .363** .386** .457** .335** .421** .351** 1.0

12. Habit Strength

.494**

.077

13. Deficient Self Regulation

.469**

-.155* .171* -.158* .320** .174* .411** .406** .093 .450** .201* .44

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

Table 2 Stepwise Multiple Regression of Uses and Gratifications and Social

Cognitive Variables on Internet Usage

Model
Variable

Uses and Uses and

gratificat gratificati
ions
ons+

SCT

Social Outcomes
.290**

.126

.012

.134

.089

.350**

.180

Activity Outcomes
.282**
Status Outcomes

Habit Strength
.239**
Deficient Self
Regulation
.218*
Internet Self Efficacy
.152*
Multiple R
.491
Adjusted R2
F

.540

.649

.232

.278

.399

26.023** 22.355** 19.386**

Note: Table entries are standardized beta weights.

* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .001 level

[1]

The items were: Obtain information that I cant find elsewhere, get immediate knowledge of big news events, find
a wealth of information, solve a problem.
[2]

Hear music I like, feel entertained, have fun, play a game I like.

[3]

Feel like I belong to a group, find something to talk about, get support from others, maintain a relationship I
value.
[4]

Forget my problems, find a way to pass the time, relieve boredom

[5]

Improve my future prospects in life, find people like me, find others who respect my views, get up to date with
new technology
[6]

Save time shopping, find bargains on products and services, get free information that would otherwise cost me
money, get products for free
[7]

The Internet is part of my usual routine, I find myself going online about the same time each day, I would miss the
Internet if I could no longer go online
[8]

I have a hard time keeping my Internet use under control, I sometimes have to struggle with myself to limit my
time online, I have to keep using the Internet more and more to get my thrill, I have tried unsuccessfully to cut down
on the amount of time I spend online, I feel my Internet use is out of control, I get tense, moody, or irritable if I cant
get on the Web when I want, I often think about the Internet even when I am not online, I sometimes try to conceal
how much time I spend online from my family or friends, I would go out of my way to satisfy my Internet urges.
[9]