4. Literature Review

For this blog, I will be focusing my attention on the literature that has been written on:

1. Media Audiences
2. The effects of isolation and depression on audience activity

But first I have to explain the details of the phenomenon to assist with background information.

The Phenomenon: COVID 19 in South Africa

When the first case of the pandemic was encountered in South Africa, no one could have imagined how fast the state of the country would change. Within two weeks the South African Government announced a national lockdown with the almost immediate effects of isolation greatly changing the patterns of consumers. With no way of participating in social events or social gatherings, people as social beings relied on the only way to interact with others: Social Media and Online entertainment platforms.

With this onset, I tried to look at the previous global pandemic that influenced the world in such a way as the current pandemic. This was the 1918 Pandemic of the H1N1 Virus, according to the Centre of Diseases Control and Prevention. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2019) We cannot rely completely on the data that was gathered to compare it to current data, because the scenario of traditional consumers has completely changed with the digital landscape thus the digital consumer/audience has changed.

My question though is how has the digital consumer changed throughout this pandemic and how were they influenced and motivated. Thus, the psychological aspect of choice.

Audience Research

As I look at the research progress of the audience and how it was delved into over the years, a leader in the field, Denis McQuail highlighted a question that Elihu Katz (1959) focused on earlier: “Why do people use media and what do they use them for?” (McQuail, 1997) In Katz’s case, he also suggested that we should look at “What do media do to audiences—and what do audiences do with media?” McQuail discusses this idea by stating that “his questions signalled a reorientation from issues concerning the effects of media on audience attitudes and behaviours toward the uses and gratifications of media by and for audiences” (Blumler and Katz 1974; Rosengren et al. 1985) (McQuail, 1997)

 

James Beniger suggests in his book The Control Revolution that industries are mostly in control of audience research, as they are the paying customers that seek the information given. 

(Beniger, 1986) McQuail joins in this discussion by stating that that the main reason for audience research is “manipulating and channelling audience choice behaviour” (McQuail, 1997) 

 

Jensen and Rosengren (1990) listed five areas of focus when it comes to audience research: “effects; uses and gratifications; literary criticism; cultural studies; and reception analysis” 

(Jensen & Rosengren, 1990) However, McQuail suggests that the five areas should be further narrowed into “structural,” “behavioural,” and “sociocultural” methods as the fields are connected more on this bases. (McQuail, 1997)

 

Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974) suggests that how audiences choose and relate to media can be followed through the following steps: “(1) the social and psychological origins of (2) needs that generate (3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources which lead to (5) differential exposure (or engaging in other activities), resulting in (6) need gratification and (7) other consequences” (p. 20). (McQuail, 1997)

 

Within this, my main concern for my research lies within the Uses and Gratification Theory and using this theory as a basis to analyse my data.

 

McQuail suggests that 20 years after the theory was first founded the following assumptions were made with which we can follow now “(a) media and the content choice is generally rational and directed toward certain specific goals and satisfactions (thus the audience is active and audience formation can be logically explained); (b) audience members are conscious of the media-related needs that arise in personal (individual) and social (shared) circumstances and can voice these in terms of motivations; (c) broadly speaking, personal utility is a more significant determinant of audience formation than aesthetic or cultural factors; and (d) all or most of the relevant factors for audience formation (motives, perceived or obtained satisfactions, media choices, background variables) can, in principle, be measured.” (McQuail, 1997)

 

Later on, McGuire (1974) suggested another theory for audience motivation, that falls more within the psychological field. “He distinguished first between cognitive and affective needs, then added three further dimensions: “active” versus “passive” initiation; “external” versus “internal” goal orientation; and orientation to “growth” or to “stability.” When interrelated, these factors yield 16 different types of motivation that apply to media use” (McQuail, 1997)

Although the world of Audience Research is an interesting field. There are multiple counter thoughts that belief that this field is too inconsistent such as Babrow (1988). He suggested that research focuses more on “interpretive frameworks,” based on experience. (McQuail, 1997) McQuail also suggested that the audience is a “contested category”, and states “it is not surprising that the purposes of researching audiences are varied and often inconsistent.” (McQuail, 1997) “ This branch of the theory of media use is individualistic and behaviouristic in a formulation, although it also implies that audiences will have some collective properties, especially shared sets of expected satisfactions and a similar range of needs deriving from their social background” (Babrow, 1988; Lichtenstein & Rosenfeld, 1983; McQuail, 1984).