Citation

Hawkins RP, Pingree S, Hitchon J, Gorham BW, Kannaovakun P, Gilligan E, Radler B, Kolbeins GH, Schmidt T. Media Psychol. 2001; 3(3): 237-263.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_02

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

"Active" television viewing has meant (among other things) selective exposure to types of content, attention to that content, and several different kinds of other activities during viewing itself. This study argues that such meanings are differently predicted by three types of predictors (individuals' gratifications sought from different television genres, their expertise with these genres, and their need for cognition), and also vary by genre. Two different instrumental reasons for viewing (mood and content preference) both predicted selective viewing and thinking while viewing, but only content preference predicted attentive viewing. Casual reasons for viewing were related to less viewing and more channel surfing behavior. Need for cognition was unrelated to variation in genre viewing, but it was related in differing but sensible ways to attention to different genres. These results support the utility of genre in differentiating processes in television viewing and further argue for making a number of distinctions in research: between genres, between gratifications, between gratifications and other predictors, and between selective viewing and during-viewing activities.
"Active" television viewing has meant (among other things) selective exposure to types of content, attention to that content, and several different kinds of other activities during viewing itself. This study argues that such meanings are differently predicted by three types of predictors (individuals' gratifications sought from different television genres, their expertise with these genres, and their need for cognition), and also vary by genre. Two different instrumental reasons for viewing (mood and content preference) both predicted selective viewing and thinking while viewing, but only content preference predicted attentive viewing. Casual reasons for viewing were related to less viewing and more channel surfing behavior. Need for cognition was unrelated to variation in genre viewing, but it was related in differing but sensible ways to attention to different genres. These results support the utility of genre in differentiating processes in television viewing and further argue for making a number of distinctions in research: between genres, between gratifications, between gratifications and other predictors, and between selective viewing and during-viewing activities.