Although media production is a critical concept in communication theory, we know surprisingly little about the timing, content, and context of individuals' production behavior. Intensive observation and analysis of 94 American adults' smartphone use over 1 week showed that although time spent in producing content was on average only about 6 percent of the amount of time spent on smartphones, the production content was more purposeful, expressive, articulate, condensed, confident, personal, and emotionally charged than consumption content. Analysis of the temporal dynamics of production suggests that the content consumed in the minute before individuals' production began to resemble the subsequently produced content. Other results suggest that content production on smartphones was fragmented, idiosyncratic, and purposeful, highlighting the impact of individuals' quick interactions with media, and the need to develop user-centric theories about how, when, and why individuals produce digital content.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SundarSS, OhJ, BellurS, et al. Interactivity as self-expression: a field experiment with customization and blogging. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM: Austin, TX; 2012; pp. 395–404.
2.
JenkinsH.Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London, 2006; pp. 275 – 284.
3.
BarnesSB. Understanding Social Media from the Media Ecological Perspective. In: Mediated Interpersonal Communication. (Konijn EA, Utz S, Tanis M, Barnes SB. eds.) Routledge: New York, NY; 2008; pp. 14–33.
RafaeliS. Interactivity: From New Media to Communication. In: Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes. (Hawkins RP, Wiernan JM, Pingree BS, (eds.) Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 1988; pp. 110–134.
6.
CsikszentmihalyiM, LarsonR. Validity and Reliability of the Experience-Sampling Method. In: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands; 2014; pp. 35–54.
7.
FraleyRC, HudsonNW. Review of intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. J Soc Psychol, 2014; 154(1):89–91; doi: 10.1080/00224545.2013.831300
8.
BerryN, EmsleyR, LobbanF, et al.Social media and its relationship with mood, self-esteem and paranoia in psychosis. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 2018; 138(6):558–570.
9.
MilyavskayaM, SaffranM, HopeN, et al.Fear of missing out: Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of experiencing FOMO. Motiv Emotion, 2018; 42(5):725–737.
10.
DruckmanJN, LevenduskyMS, McLainA. No need to watch: How the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. Am J Pol Sci, 2018; 62(1):99–112.
11.
OhJ, BellurS, SundarSS. Clicking, assessing, immersing, and sharing: An empirical model of user engagement with interactive media. Commun Res, 2018; 45(5):737–763.
12.
SundarSS, BellurS, OhJ, et al.User experience of on-screen interaction techniques: An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging, and flipping. Hum Comput Interact, 2014; 29(2):109–152; doi: 10.1080/07370024.2013.789347
13.
WangZ, LangA. Reconceptualizing excitation transfer as motivational activation changes and a test of the television program context effects. Media Psychol, 2012; 15(1):68–92; doi: 10.1080/15213269.2011.649604
14.
SuNM, BrdiczkaO, BegoleB. The routineness of routines: Measuring rhythms of media interaction. Hum Comput Interact, 2013; 28(4):287–334; doi: 10.1080/07370024.2012.697026
15.
TanejaH, WebsterJG, MalthouseEC, et al.Media consumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media Soc, 2012; 14(6):951–968; doi: 10.1177/1461444811436146
16.
Dvir-GvirsmanS, TsfatiY, Menchen-TrevinoE. The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli Elections. New Media Soc, 2016; 18(5):857–877; doi: 10.1177/1461444814549041
17.
ColleoniE, RozzaA, ArvidssonA. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. J Commun, 2014; 64(2):317–332; doi: 10.1111/jcom.12084
18.
Ribeiro-NavarreteS, SauraJR, Palacios-MarquésD. Towards a new era of mass data collection: Assessing pandemic surveillance technologies to preserve user privacy. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2021; 167:120681.
19.
ReevesB, RamN, RobinsonTN, et al.Screenomics: A framework to capture and analyze personal life experiences and the ways that technology shapes them. Hum Comput Interact, 2019; 36:150–201.
20.
KahnemanD.Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan: London; 2011.
21.
ZhangB, WuM, KangH, et al. Effects of security warnings and instant gratification cues on attitudes toward mobile websites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM: Toronto; 2014; pp. 111–114.
22.
GerlichRN, DrumhellerK, BabbJ, et al.App consumption: An exploratory analysis of the uses & gratifications of mobile apps. Acad Mark Stud J, 2015; 19:69.
23.
HoHY, SyuLY. Uses and Gratifications of Mobile Application Users. In 2010 International Conference on Electronics and Information Engineering. IEEE: Kyoto; 2010; pp. V1–V315.
24.
KramerAD, GuilloryJE, HancockJT. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2014; 111:8788–8790.
25.
ValenzuelaS, PiñaM, RamírezJ. Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: How conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. J Commun, 2017; 67:803–826.
26.
SchwartzHA, EichstaedtJC, KernML, et al.Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS One, 2013; 8:e73791.
27.
RamN, YangX, ChoMJ, et al.Screenomics: A new approach for observing and studying individuals' digital lives. J Adolesc Res, 2020; 35:16–50.
28.
KrämerNC, WinterS. Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. J Media Psychol, 2008; 20:106–116.
29.
ScheufeleDA, TewksburyD. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. J Commun, 2006; 57:9–20.
30.
McCombsME, ShawDL. The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. J Commun, 1993; 43:58–67.
31.
BrinbergM, RamN, YangX, et al.The idiosyncrasies of everyday digital lives: Using the Human Screenome Project to study user behavior on smartphones. Comput Hum Behav, 2021; 114:106570.
32.
ChiattiA, YangX, BrinbergM, et al. Text Extraction from Smartphone Screenshots to Archive In Situ Media Behavior. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Capture Conference. ACM: Austin, TX; 2017; pp. 1–4.
33.
SmithR. An overview of the Tesseract OCR engine. In Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2007). IEEE: Curitiba; 2007, Vol. 2, pp. 629–633.
34.
CuljakI, AbramD, PribanicT, et al. A brief introduction to OpenCV. In 2012 Proceedings of the 35th International Convention MIPRO. IEEE: Opatija; 2012; pp. 1725–1730.
35.
ChenT, HeT, BenestyM.XGBoost: Extreme gradient boosting (R Package Version 0.4-2, 1–4) [Computer Software]; 2015.
36.
HastieT, TibshiraniR, FriedmanJ. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer: New York, NY, 2001.
MohammadS. Obtaining reliable human ratings of valence, arousal, and dominance for 20,000 english words. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL: Melbourne; 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pp. 174–184.
39.
HuM, LiuB. Mining Opinion Features in Customer Reviews. In AAAI, San Jose, CA; 2004, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 755–760.
40.
JockersML.Syuzhet: Extract sentiment and plot arcs from text [Computer Software]; 2017.
41.
RinkerTW.Sentimentr: Calculate text polarity sentiment (version 2.6.1) [Computer Software]; 2018.
42.
RamN, GrimmK. Using simple and complex growth models to articulate developmental change: Matching theory to method. Int J Behav Dev, 2007; 31:303–316.
43.
KarsayK, SchmuckD, MatthesJ, et al.Longitudinal effects of excessive smartphone use on stress and loneliness: The moderating role of self-disclosure. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2019; 22(11):706–713.
44.
MelumadS, MeyerR. Full disclosure: How smartphones enhance consumer self-disclosure. J Mark, 2020; 84(3):28–45.
45.
MatthesJ, KobanK, NeureiterA, et al.Longitudinal relationships among fear of COVID-19, smartphone online self-disclosure, happiness, and psychological well-being: Survey study. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(9):e28700.
46.
YeykelisL, CummingsJJ, ReevesB. The fragmentation of work, entertainment, E-Mail, and news on a personal computer: Motivational predictors of switching between media content. Media Psychol, 2018; 21:377–402.
47.
AalbersG, vanden AbeeleMM, HendricksonAT, et al.Caught in the moment: Are there person-specific associations between momentary procrastination and passively measured smartphone use?. Mobile Media Commun, 2022; 10(1):115–135.
48.
ZhaoS, RamosJ, TaoJ, et al.Who are the smartphone users? Identifying user groups with apps usage behaviors. GetMobile Mobile Comput Commun, 2017; 21(2):31–34.
49.
SauraJR, Ribeiro-SorianoD, SaldañaPZ. Exploring the challenges of remote work on Twitter users' sentiments: From digital technology development to a post-pandemic era. J Bus Res, 2022; 142:242–254.
50.
SauraJR, DwivediYK, Palacios-MarquésD. Online user behavior and user-generated content. Front Psychol, 2022; 13:895467.
51.
SauraJR, Ribeiro-SorianoD, Palacios-MarquésD. From user-generated data to data-driven innovation: A research agenda to understand user privacy in digital markets. Int J Inf Manage, 2021; 60:102331.
52.
LiuH, LiuW, YoganathanV, et al.COVID-19 information overload and generation Z's social media discontinuance intention during the pandemic lockdown. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2021; 166:120600.
53.
LyngsU, LukoffK, SlovakP, et al. ‘I Just Want to Hack Myself to Not Get Distracted’ Evaluating Design Interventions for Self-Control on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM: Honolulu, HI; 2020; pp. 1–15.
54.
HanJH.The effects of personality traits on subjective well-being and behavioral intention associated with serious leisure experiences. J Asian Finance Econ Bus, 2020; 7(5):167–176.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
