This study explores whether, and how, motivations for two screen viewing predicted social interaction behaviors and subsequent viewing intention of TV programs. A total of 453 respondents who responded that they use social networking sites (SNSs) via smartphones and actively watch entertainment programs completed an online survey questionnaire. In agreement with uses and gratifications assumptions, motivations for TSV predicted distinctive sets of social interaction behaviors, which mediated the influence of motivations on viewing intentions. Respondents' two screen viewing was meaningfully related with social interaction, engagement with programs, information seeking, and passing time. Results suggest that two screen viewing could provide shared experiences nourishing social capital and reintegrate TV audiences by social adhesive resulting from TV with SNSs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McPhersonM, Smith-LovinL, CookJM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 2001; 27:415–444.
2.
BjurJ. (2009) Transforming audience. Patterns of individualization in television viewing. Göteborg: Department of Journalism and Mass Communication.
3.
BrookesM. (2004) Watching alone: social capital and public services broadcasting: a report. Work Foundation in partnership with the BBC.
4.
FergusonD. (2012) The trivial pursuits of mass audiences using social media: a content analysis of Facebook wall posts by fans of top-trending television programs. In Noor AlDeenH, HendricksJA, eds. Social media: usage and impact. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, pp. 39–56.
5.
JohnsMD. (2012) Two screen viewing and social relationships. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication. Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 333–343.
6.
ChenG. Tweet this: a uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:755–762.
7.
HoustonJB, HawthorneJ, MatthewLS, et al.Tweeting during presidential debates: effect on candidate evaluations and debate attitudes. Argumentation & Advocacy, 2013; 49:301–311.
8.
FiskeJ. (1982) Introduction to communication studies. New York: Methuen.
9.
HuntD, AtkinD, KrishnanA. The influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motivations for Facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2012; 56:187–202.
10.
SheldonP. The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students' Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 2008; 20:67–75.
11.
SmockAD, EllisonNB, LampeC, et al.Facebook as a toolkit: a uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:2322–2329.
12.
HaridakisPM, HansonG. Audience activity and co-viewing with YouTube: blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2009; 53:317–335.
13.
PapacharissiZ, MendelsonA. (2011) Toward a new(er) sociability: uses, gratifications, and social capital on Facebook. In PapathanassopoulosS, ed. Media perspectives for the 21st century. London: Routledge, pp. 212–230.
14.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. The benefits of Facebook friends: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–1168.
15.
LevyM, WindahlS. Audience activity and gratifications: a conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 1984; 11:51–78.
16.
McPhersonK, HuotariK, ChengF, et al. (2012) Glitter: a mixed-methods study of Twitter use during glee broadcasts. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion. New York: ACM, pp. 167–170.
17.
KimJ, RubinAM. The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 1997; 24:107–135.
18.
RubinAM, PerseEM. Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 1987; 14:58–84.
19.
DoughtyM, RowlandD, LawsonS. (2011) Co-viewing live TV with digital backchannel streams. Proceedings of the 9th International Interactive TV & Video Conference (EuroITV ’11). Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 141–144.
20.
PerseEM. Audience selectivity and involvement in the newer media environment. Communication Research, 1990; 17:675–697.
21.
MitchellK, JonesA, IshmaelJ, et al. (2010) TSV: toward content navigation using social awareness. Proceedings of the 8th International Interactive Conference on Interactive TV & Video. Tampere, Finland, pp. 283–292.
22.
HallA. Viewers' perceptions of reality programs. Communication Quarterly, 2006; 54:191–211.
23.
BarkerV. Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: the influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12: 209–213.
24.
LinK, LuH. Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:1152–1161.
25.
LeungL, WeiR. More than just talk on the move: uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2000; 77:308–320.
26.
Torrez-RileyJ. (2011) The TSV phenomenon: new technologies look to enhance television's role as an enabler of audience activity. Elon, NC: Elon University.
27.
HayesAF. (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
28.
GodlewskiLR, PerseEM. Audience activity and reality television: identification, online activity, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 2010; 58:148–169.
29.
RubinAM. An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 1981; 8:141–165.
30.
KarnikM, OakleyI, VenkatanathanJ, et al.Uses and gratifications of a Facebook media sharing group. Proceedings of ACM CSCW 2013, San Antonio, TX.
31.
LasswellHD. (1948) The structure and function of communication in society. In BrysonL, ed. The communication of ideas. New York: Harper, pp. 37–51.
32.
HaridakisPM. Audience characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media Psychology, 2002; 4:323–352.
33.
NobleRS. Toward a theory of life-span development. Advances in Psychology, 1987; 40:219–230.
34.
RubinAM. Television uses and gratifications: the interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1983; 27:37–51.
35.
PutnamRD. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science & Politics, 1995; 28:664–683.
36.
CasciatoP. (2011) New TV and Social media trend among the youth-study. www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-digital-social-tv-idUSTRE7275VC20110308 (accessed Jun.11, 2014).
37.
HutchisonJ. (2011) Brand and marketing research round-up. www.the-cma.com/news/brand-and-marketing-research-round-up (accessed Jun.16, 2014).
38.
WoberJM, GunterB. Television audience research at Britain's independent broadcasting authority, 1974–1984. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1986; 30:15–31.
39.
WoberJM, GunterB. Television and personal threat: fact or artifact? A British survey. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1982; 21:239–247.
40.
BusselleR, ReaganJ, PinkletonB, et al.Factors affecting Internet use in a saturated-access population. Telematics & Informatics, 1999; 16:45–58.
41.
JungYC, KimYW. (2013) Broadcast media behavior report in South Korea—2013. Korea Communications Commission. www.kisdi.re.kr/kisdi/jsp/fp/kr/search/search.jsp (accessed Dec.4, 2014).
42.
DugganM, BrennerJ. (2013) The demographics of social media users—2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/2013/02/14/the-demographics-of-social-media-users-2012/ (accessed Dec.4, 2014).
43.
LenhartA, PurcellK, SmithA, et al. (2010) Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults (accessed Dec.4, 2014).
44.
MarkAE, BoyceWF, JanssenI. Television viewing, computer use and total screen time in Canadian youth. Paediatrics & Child Health, 2006; 11:595–599.
45.
TaberCS, LodgeM. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 2006; 50:755–769.
46.
HimelboimI, McCreeryS, SmithM. Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2013; 18:40–60.
47.
PriceV. (2009) Citizens deliberating online: theory and some evidence. In DaviesT, NoveckS, eds. Online deliberation: design, research, and practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 37–58.
