Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Submit your manuscript through SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Communication Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KIM, J.
Right arrow Articles by RUBIN, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Variable Influence of Audience Activity on Media Effects

JUNGKEE KIM

ALAN M. RUBIN

Audience activity in the media transaction may function to promote or to deter media effects. Facilitative activity includes selectivity, attention, and involvement. Inhibitory activity includes avoidance, distraction, and skepticism. The authors expected instrumental media motivation, selectivity, attention, and involvement to be positive predictors of satisfaction, parasocial interaction, and cultivation effects from watching daytime television serials. They expected avoidance, distraction, and skepticism to be negative predictors of those effects. Three path analyses largely supported their expectations. The authors observed direct links between instrumental motivation and media effects, and indirect links that operated through audience activity. Such variations in audience activity help explain how and why people respond differently to media messages.

Communication Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 107-135 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/009365097024002001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
W. P. Eveland Jr., D. V. Shah, and N. Kwak
Assessing Causality in the Cognitive Mediation Model: A Panel Study of Motivations, Information Processing, and Learning During Campaign 2000
Communication Research, August 1, 2003; 30(4): 359 - 386.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
W. P. EVELAND JR.
The Cognitive Mediation Model of Learning From the News: Evidence From Nonelection, Off-Year Election, and Presidential Election Contexts
Communication Research, October 1, 2001; 28(5): 571 - 601.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
A. I. NATHANSON
Parents Versus Peers: Exploring the Significance of Peer Mediation of Antisocial Television
Communication Research, June 1, 2001; 28(3): 251 - 274.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
A. I. NATHANSON
Identifying and Explaining the Relationship Between Parental Mediation and Children's Aggression
Communication Research, April 1, 1999; 26(2): 124 - 143.
[Abstract] [PDF]