Based on the dynamic motivational activation (DMA) theoretical framework, a dynamic and stochastic semi-Markov choice model of channel changing behavior, called the ChaCha model, is developed and submitted to empirical testing. The ChaCha model integrates the motivated media processing and selective exposure behavior, and formalizes their reciprocal, recursive dynamic influences. It incorporates a logistic type of ratio of strength choice model, a reinforcement learning model, and the diffusion model of choice time to simultaneously predict sequential media channel choices and channel viewing durations. Real-time channel choice data from a selective exposure TV viewing experiment are used to test the model and to illustrate how this model can be used to understand dynamic cognitive mechanisms underlying the observed media choice behavior.
BellamyR. V. J.WalkerJ. R. (1996). Television and the remote control: Grazing on a vast wasteland. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
2.
BhattacharyaR. N.WaymireE. (1990). Stochastic processes with applications. New York, NY: John Wiley.
3.
BlalockH. M. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BöckenholtU. (2005). A latent Markov model for the analysis of longitudinal data collected in continuous time: States, durations, and transitions. Psychological Methods, 10, 65-83. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.65
BusemeyerJ. R.JohnsonJ. G. (2004). Computational models of decision making. In KoehlerD.HarveyN. (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 133-154). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch7
7.
BusemeyerJ. R.MyungI. J. (1992). An adaptive approach to human decision making: Learning theory, decision theory, and human performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 177-194. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.177
8.
BusemeyerJ. R.TownsendJ. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432
9.
BusemeyerJ. R.TownsendJ. T.StoutJ. C. (2001). Motivational underpinnings of utility in decision making: Decision field theory analysis of deprivation and satiation. In MooreS. C.OaksfordM. (Eds.), Emotional cognition: From brain to behavior (pp. 197-220). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
10.
BusemeyerJ. R.WangZ.TownsendJ. T.EidelsA. (in press). Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
11.
CoxD. R.MillerH. D. (1965). The theory of stochastic processes. London, England: Methuen.
12.
DiederichA. (1997). Dynamic stochastic model for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 260-274.
13.
EastmanS. T.Neal-LunsfordJ. (1993). The RCD’s impact on programming and production. In WalkerJ. J. R.BellamyR. (Ed.), The remote control device in the new age of television (pp. 189-210). New York, NY: Praeger.
14.
EastmanS. T.NewtonG. D. (1995). Delineating grazing: Observations of remote control use. Journal of Communication, 45, 77-95. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00715.x
15.
ErevI.RothA. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in games with unique strategy equilibrium. American Economic Review, 88, 848-881.
16.
FergusonD. A.EastmanS. T. (2006). A framework for programming strategies. In EastmanS. T.FergusonD. A. (Eds.), Media programming: Strategies and practice (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
17.
FergusonD. A.PerseE. M. (1993). Media and audience influences on channel repertoire. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 31-48. doi:10.1080/08838159309364202
18.
FoxJ. R.ParkB.GrabeE. M.LeeS. (2005, May). Stay tuned: Effects of tabloid TV news content and structural features on viewer processing, memory, and channel changing behavior in young adults. Paper presented at the Information Systems Division of the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (2000). Applied logistic regression. New York, NY: John Wiley.
21.
KashdanT. B.RoseP.FinchamF. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291-305. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05
22.
KimY. M. (2007). How intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interact in selectivity: Investigating the moderating effects of situational information processing goals in issue publics’ Web behavior. Communication Research, 34, 185-211. doi:10.1177/0093650206298069
23.
KlaassenA. (2009). Why time spent on websites can be just as important as views. Advertising Age, 80(29), p. 17.
24.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.HastallM. R. (2010). Please yourself: Social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in- and out-groups. Journal of Communication, 60, 515-535. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01495.x
25.
LamingD. R. J. (1968). Information theory of choice reaction time. New York, NY: John Wiley.
26.
LangA. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl.), S57-S80. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x
27.
LangA.ShinM.BradleyS. D.WangZ.LeeS.PotterD. (2005). Wait! Don’t turn that dial! More excitement to come! The effects of story length and production pacing in local television news on channel changing behavior and information processing in a free choice environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 3-22. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_2
28.
LinkS. W.HeathR. A. (1975). A sequential theory of psychological discrimination. Psychometrika, 40, 77-105. doi:10.1007/BF02291481
29.
LitmanJ. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 793-814. doi:10.1080/02699930541000101
30.
LuceR. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
McPheeR. D.PooleM. S. (1982). Mathematical modeling in communication research: An Overview. In BurgoonM. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 159-191). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
32.
MilosavljevicM.NavalpakkamV.KochC.RangelA. (2012). Relative visual saliency differences induce sizeable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 67-74.
PerseE. M. (1990). Audience selectivity and involvement in the newer media environment. Communication Research, 17, 675-697. doi:10.1177/009365090017005005
35.
PerseE. M. (1998). Implications of cognitive and affective involvement for channel changing. Journal of Communication, 48, 49-68. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02759.x
36.
PotterR. F.ChoiJ. (2006). The effects of auditory structural complexity on attitudes, attention, arousal & memory. Media Psychology, 8, 395-419. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_4
37.
RatcliffR.RouderJ. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00067
38.
RideoutV.FoehrU.RobertsD. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
39.
SchwarzB. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
40.
SlaterM. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281-303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
41.
SlaterM. D.HenryK. L.SwaimR. C.AndersonL. L. (2003). Violent media content and aggressiveness in adolescents. Communication Research, 30, 713-736.
42.
StephensonM. T.SouthwellB. (2006). Sensation seeking, the activation model, and mass media health campaigns: Current findings and future directions for cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl.), S38-S56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00282.x
43.
TownsendJ. T.AshbyF. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
WangZ.LangA. (2012). Reconceptualizing excitation transfer as motivational activation changes and a test of the television program context effects. Media Psychology, 15, 68-92. doi:10.1080/15213269.2011.649604
46.
WangZ.LangA.BusemeyerJ. R. (2011). Motivational processing and choice behavior during television viewing: An integrative dynamic approach. Journal of Communication, 61, 72-94. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01527.x
47.
WangZ.MoreyA. C.SrivastavaJ. (2010). Processing political ads: Dynamic interactions between emotional appeals and political attitude. Psychophysiology, 47(Suppl.), S34.
48.
WangZ.MoreyA. C.SrivastavaJ. (2014). Motivated selective attention during political ad processing: The dynamic interplay between emotional ad content and candidate evaluation. Communication Research, 41, 119-156. doi:10.1177/0093650212441793
49.
WangZ.TchernevJ. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62, 493-513. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01641.x
50.
WangZ.TchernevJ.SollowayT. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1829-1839. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.001
51.
WangZ.SollowayT.TchernevJ.BarkerB. (2012). Dynamic motivational processing of anti-drug messages: Coactivation begets attention. Human Communication Research, 38, 485-509.
