These days, many individuals engage in a unique form of TV viewing that includes a simultaneous act of watching television content and talking about it with others in a mediated environment. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as social TV viewing. Responding to the popularity of this form of TV viewing behavior, the present study examines the individual differences of the social TV viewing experience, particularly with regard to different communication platforms (e.g. private vs. public). Based on the data collected from an online survey, primary findings indicate that extroverted and lonely individuals have different social TV viewing experiences such as preferences for a particular type of platforms for social TV viewing. Further, social presence plays an important role in the understanding of social TV enjoyment in private and public platforms.
AmielTSargentS. L. (2004) Individual differences in Internet usage motives. Computers in Human Behavior20: 711–726. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.002.
2.
BaraschABergerJ (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research51(3): 286–299. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0238
3.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
4.
BaumgartnerSESumterSR (2017). Dealing with media distractions: An observational study of computer-based multitasking among children and adults in the Netherlands. Journal of Children and Media1–19. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2017.1304971
5.
BellmanSRobinsonJAWooleyB, et al (2017). The effects of social TV on television advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications23(1): 73–91. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2014.921637
BianMLeungL (2015). Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Social Science Computer Review33(1): 61–79. doi: 10.1177/0894439314528779
8.
BioccaF.HarmsC.BurgoonJ. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 456–480. doi: 10.1162/105474603322761270
9.
BoydD (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In BuckinghamD (Eds.), MacArthur foundation series on digital learning–Youth, identity, and digital media volume (pp. 119–142).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CesarP and GeertsD (2011) Past, present, and future of social TV: A categorization. Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 347–351.
11.
CorreaTHinsleyAWDe ZunigaHG (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior26(2): 247–253. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
12.
EdwardsCEdwardsASpencePR, et al (2016). Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies1–12. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2015.1121899
FrisonEEggermontS (2015). Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Communication Research (e-published ahead of print)1–28.
18.
GeertsDDe GrooffD. (2009). Supporting the social uses of television: sociability heuristics for social TV. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 595–604). ACM.
19.
HanELeeS-W (2014). Motivations for the complementary use of text-based media during linear TV viewing: An exploratory study. Computers in Human Behavior32: 235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.015
20.
HarboeG (2009) In search of social television. Social Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, 719–731.
21.
HarringtonSHighfieldTBrunsA (2012). More than a backchannel: Twitter and television. Audience Interactivity and Participation10(1): 13–17.
22.
JohnOPNaumannLPSotoCJ (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnORobinsRWPervinLA (Eds), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed), (pp. 114–158). Guilford Publications, Inc.
23.
KimJMerrill JrKCollinsC (2020) Touchdown together: Social TV viewing and social presence in a physical co-viewing context. The Social Science Journal. doi: 10.1080/03623319.2020.1833149.
24.
KimJMerrill JrKCollinsC, et al. (2021) Social TV viewing during the COVID-19 lockdown: The mediating role of social presence. Technology in Society. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101733.
25.
KimJMerrill JrKYangH (2019a) Why we make the choices we do: Social TV viewing experiences and the mediating role of social presence. Telematics and Informatics45: 101281. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101281.
26.
KimJSongH (2016). Celebrity’s self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior62: 570–577. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.083
27.
KimJSongHLeeS (2018). Extrovert and lonely individuals’ social TV viewing experiences: A mediating and moderating role of social presence. Mass Communication and Society21(1): 50–70. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2017.1350715
28.
KimJSongHLuoW (2016). Broadening the understanding of social presence: Implications and contributions to the mediated communication and online education. Computers in Human Behavior64: 672–679. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.009
29.
KimJTimmermanCE (2018). Effects of supportive feedback messages on exergame experiences: A mediating role of social presence. Journal of Media Psychology30: 29–40. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000175
30.
KimJYangHKimJ (2019b) Being social during the big dance: Social presence and social TV viewing for March Madness in public and private platforms. The Social Science Journal58: 224–236. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2019.04.004.
31.
KrämerNCWinterSBenninghoffB, et al (2015). How “social” is Social TV? The influence of social motives and expected outcomes on the usage of Social TV applications. Computers in Human Behavior51: 255–262. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.005
32.
KrautRKieslerSBonevaB, et al (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues58(1): 49–74.
33.
LeeKM (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory14(1): 27–50. doi: 10.1093/ct/14.1.27
34.
LochrieMCoultonP (2012). Sharing the viewing experience through second screens. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video (pp. 199–202). ACM.
NowakKBioccaF (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence12: 481–494. doi: 10.1162/105474603322761289
39.
OliverMBKrakowiakKM (2009). Individual differences in media effects. In BryantJOliverMB (Eds), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 517–531). NY: Routledge.
40.
PearsonJCCarmonATobolaC, et al (2010). Motives for communication: Why the millennial generation uses electronic devices. Journal of the Communication, Speech and Theatre Association of ND22(1): 45–55.
41.
PerseEMRubinAM (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media34(1): 37–53.
42.
PittmanMTefertillerAC (2015). With or without you: Connected viewing and co-viewing Twitter activity for traditional appointment and asynchronous broadcast television models. First Monday20(7). doi: 10.5210/fm.v20i7.5935
43.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers36: 717–731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553
44.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40: 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
45.
RaneyAAJiQ (2017). Entertaining each other?. Human Communication Research43(4): 424–435. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12121
46.
RossCOrrESSisicM, et al (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior25: 579–586. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
47.
RussellDPeplauLACutronaCE (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminate validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39: 472–480.
SchirraSSunHBentleyF (2014, April). Together alone: motivations for live-tweeting a television series. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 2441–2450). ACM.
50.
ShortJWilliamsEChristieB (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
51.
SigilianoDBorgesG (2017). The X-Files: uma análise das estratégias de social TV do perfil@ thexfiles. Comunicação, Mídia e Consumo14(40). doi: 10.18568/cmc.v14i40.1378
52.
SongHKimJChoiY (2019a) The role of social presence in social TV viewing. Journal of Digital Contents Society20: 1543–1552. doi: 10.9728/dcs.2019.20.8.1543.
53.
SongHKimJParkN (2019b) I know my professor: Teacher self-disclosure in online education and a mediating role of social presence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction35: 448–455. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1455126.
54.
SongHZmyslinski-SeeligAKimJ, et al (2014). Does Facebook make you lonely?: A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior36: 446–452. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011
55.
SpencePRWestermanDEdwardsC, et al (2014). Welcoming our robot overlords: Initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Communication Research Reports31: 272–280. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2014.924337
TamboriniRBowmanNDEdenA, et al (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication60: 758–777. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x.
60.
VermeulenAVandeboschHHeirmanW (2017). Shall I call, text, post it online or just tell it face-to-face? How and why Flemish adolescents choose to share their emotions on-or offline. Journal of Children and Media1–17. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2017.1386580
61.
ZywicaJDanowskiJ (2008). The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability and self‐esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication14(1): 1–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x
