This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 COLLEGE STUDENTS AND TIME SHIFTED TV: A USES AND GRATIFICATIONS STUDY By DAVID JONATHAN CHASE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 David Jonathan Chase
3 To my Mom, Rachel Hall
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my parents and my family. I offer special thanks to my Aunt, Tamara Anderson who dragged me almost kicking and screaming to Lincoln University for my first degree. I extend my gratitude to my mother Rachel Hall who served as proofreader and confidant throughout my tertiary education. I must also thank my father David Walter Chase who showed me how to remain calm amidst adversity. I must thank my sister Dr. Carlene Chase, a long time gator who helped make my transition to graduate school as smooth as possible. I would also li ke to thank the faculty and teaching staff at my alma mater, Lincoln University who provide d the platform on which my scholarship is based. I thank my advisor and chair Dr. Armstrong for motivating and encouraging me along the way. I reserve special thanks for Dr. Kim Walsh Childers, Dr. Johanna Cleary and Dr. Ron Rogers, with whom I enjoyed the pleasure of working with, in the College of Journalism. I must also thank Telecommunications Chair Dr. David Ostroff for putting up with numerous late requests for funding. I thank Dr. Andy Selepak for helping me get started as a teaching assistant. Lastly, although I have completed this task well after my cohort, I must thank my classmates who made my time in Gainesville at the University of Florida a time that I wi ll cherish.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................ 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY ................................ ..................... 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Time shiftin g Devices ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 Uses & Gratifications ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 Structural Constraints ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 Media Usag e Definitions ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 Research Questions ................................ ................................ .............................. 36 RQ1. Do Users Of Time Shifting Devices Report Different Motivations For Watching Time Shifted TV Content When Compared With Motivations For Watching Live TV? ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 RQ2. Are College Students More Likely To Use Time Shifting Devices If They Face Structural Constraints Than If They Do Not? .............................. 39 RQ3. Does The Use Of Time Shifting Devices By College Students Impact Their Engagement With The Content? ................................ ......................... 40 RQ4. Do High Users Of Tsds Experience Greater Change In Their TV Watching Habits (I.E., More Binge Watching, More Or Less Watching In General) Than Low Users Of Tsds? ................................ ............................. 40 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 41 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 49 Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 49 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 49 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 55 Motivations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 56 Relaxation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56 Habit ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 57 Pass Time ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 58 Entertainment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 58
6 Social Interaction ................................ ................................ ............................. 59 Information ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 60 Arousal ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 60 Escape ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 61 Companionship ................................ ................................ ............................... 61 Behavior Change ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 63 Engagement ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 64 Structural Constraints ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 Limitation s and Future Research ................................ ................................ ........... 67 In Closing ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 68 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ....................... 70 B ................................ ................................ ... 78 C EMAILS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS ................................ ................................ ...... 79 D INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ .............. 82 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ .............................. 84 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ........................... 89
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 TSD usage and Structural Constraints ................................ .............................. 46 3 2 Principal Component Analysis ................................ ................................ ........... 47 4 1 Comparison of means, Independent t test ................................ ......................... 50 4 2 Structural Constraints Independent Samples Test ................................ ............. 52 4 3 Engagement Independent Samples Test ................................ ........................... 53 4 4 TV Watching Habits ................................ ................................ ........................... 54
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 TV Viewing Model ................................ ................................ ............................. 20
9 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S TSD Time shifting device U&G Uses and Gratification s
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication COLLEGE STUDENTS AND TIME SHIFTED TV: A USES AND GRATIFICATIONS STUDY By David Jonathan Chase December 2012 Chair: Cory Armstrong Major: Mass Communication Time shifting devices (TSDs) allow viewers to control when and what they watch; via TV screen, the internet, the device itself or some combination of those means. The purpose of this study is to examine how the use of TSDs impacts viewer motivations for using TV as well as to identify possible changes in viewer behavior that come about as a result of TSD usage. Just as TSDs provide consumers a wealth of options, they also offer media scholars a myriad of ways to examine media use. For many years media sc holars have looked at how different media impact users. As models for mass communication evolved and as technology permitted, scholars began to think of mass communication as more than just linear, one way communication. They began to look for ways that me dia were used by consumers rather than just means by which consumers were affected by those media. The uses and gratifications approach posits that consumers make choices on what content to consume based on different needs that can be gratified by consumin g said media. This study applied this approach to examine the use of TSDs among college students. Television Uses and Gratifications: The Interactions of Viewing
11 Patterns and Motivations identified and measured nine different motivati ons to explain shifted use as a means of comparing motivation for watching live TV to motivation for watching time shifted TV. The results of the study reveal significant differ ences in viewer motivation for viewing time shifted TV when compared to those for watching TV live. These results offer support for the idea that as viewers gain more control over when and what they watch, why they use that content will be modified as well How users make use of the content can change as well. Media scholars may now be urged to discover why motivations have changed or be tasked with discovering exactly what new behaviors and usage patterns have emerged as TSDs modify the media landscape.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY At home, on the bus, at work and on vacation, more and more people are time shifting the practice of controlling when you consume media such as TV shows and movies certainly is convenient, entertain ing and increasingly popular. The rise of time shifting devices (TSDs) is widespread; as Americans watch more TV, they are finding more ways to enjoy their favorite content (The Nielsen Company, 2012). Time shifting Devices exist because they make viewing various media content more convenient for the masses. While most video watched by Americans is still viewed on a TV set, the way that video is delivered to the TV is changing. Over the last several years consumers have begun looking to TSDs more and more t o watch video content that they want to watch, when they want to watch it (Cross Platform Report Q4 2011, 2012). Time shifting can be cheap or free, from web www.hulu.com that allow users to access their favorite content on their desktop computers, net books, smart phones and videogame consoles. With services that cater instead to televisions, time shifting generally comes with a larger price recording systems like TiVo allow users to time shift and watch their shows, movies and specials on their own schedule, but commonly at a higher price than web based TSDs. TiVo subscribers pay a subscr iption fee. They have the choice of a lump sum to cover the box as long as they own it ($500) or they can pay $15 monthly fee (for at least one year). This does not include purchasing the hardware. TiVo boxes can cost any where from $150 for the basic unit to $400 for high end model (Newman, 2012).
13 In 2010 Purcell estimated that 69% of all adult internet users had watched a video also acknowledges that as far as wat ching video goes, younger users are more likely to watch online video than any other group; 78% of the youngest age group polled (18 29) said that they watched videos online. While YouTube (which primarily hosts short clips created and uploaded by users) s till has a large share of the online viewing audience, 2009 (Purcell, 2010). These TV shows are being viewed using time shifting devices and appear on a mix of free and subsc ription based services. In 2010, Hulu.com helped ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the CW (Lawler, 2011). Netflix remains near the top of the list when it comes to streaming TV shows and movies online as well. In 2010, Netflix generated approximately $800 million in revenue, making it one of the most lucrative companies in online media (Fritz, 2011) Netflix, which began as a DVD by mail service, expanded to offer streaming video to their subscr ibers and by 2010, 75% of their customers were streaming only consumers who elected to eschew the use of DVDs in return for a reduced subscription price (Fritz, 2011). Netflix forged partnerships with movie producers and the makers of personal web browsing devices and other internet connected devices. Their streaming service and many smart phones as well (Kopytoff, 2010). For television programmers and adv ertisers, time shifting devices and their popularity present both opportunity and hazard. By allowing more people to view their
14 content, time shifting helps boost ratings, (especially since audience analysts are paying more attention to time shifting viewe rs) but TiVo and other digital video recorders also allow consumers to skip or skim through commercials (Martin, 2009). Other time shifting devices take viewers away from the TV set entirely. Although many in the industry are embracing time shifting devic es, TSDs have others fearing for the economic health of TV. Martin argues that TSDs pose a direct threat to the existing consumer model of the television industry: The content owners should protect their primary monetization engine (the TV) most harshly be cause it aggregates audiences and pays for the hit programming that can then be monetized on all other platforms. Today, Hulu has too much value vis vis other distribution platforms which could destroy other distribution windows' economics (Martin, 2009) shifting device (Hulu) presents to the industry was based on the fear that TSDs cannot monetize the content the same way that over the air TV or cable TV does. A prime example is Comedy show from Hulu.com and made it available on their website. Fears that TSDs, and Hulu in particular, could not properly monetize their service s pay service, Hulu+ helped the company to raise its revenue from $260 million in 2010 to almost double that at $500 million in 2011 Time shifters made their viewership cou nt in a meaningful way by effectively seemingly by fans within weeks of its pilot. Although live ratings continued to fare poorly, the show was given a huge boost in the 7 days following live broadcasts. The
15 + 7 1 shared top ratings honors for the 10 p.m. time % and 69 % ratings increases respectively after time shifting viewers were tallied, is food for thought. In the coming years, academics will not be the only ones studying time shifting. They will be joined by network executives making decisions on which shows to cancel and which ones to keep on the air Other companies are looking into using TSDs as well. Apple, via AppleTV and Amazon through Amazon Instant Video are just two media giants that have added to the options American consumers have for time shifted television content. As more companies begin to enter the streaming fray and DVD rental giant Blockbuster repositions itself as both in store and online video rental portal; the clear winners in this batt le will be the consumers (Cunningham, Silver, & McDonnell, 2010 & Haridakis & Hanson, 2009). More than ever before, interested patrons are not subject to shifting devices and the fragmentation of mass media ens ure that consumers have plenty to choose from. Certainly, they depend on the availability of content and for their favorite shows to remain on the air, but consumers now can choose when to watch and how to watch TV shows and movies. For media scholars thi s should be a signal to pay greater attention to the way media are used by the consumer, rather than the way it is produced by the industry; a clue that Chaffee and Metzger identified in 2001. 1 Nielsen measures TV ratings live, live + SD which i ncludes all viewings that occur before 3:00 am the day following the first airing of a program, live + 3 which includes all viewings that occur within 3 days of the program airing and live + 7 which includes all viewings within 7 days of first airing.
16 [T]he fact that new media shrink the size of the audience for a ny particular mean reduced costs of production and distribution, then more content producers will be able to enter the media market. In the near future, the issue may be less abou t what media companies are doing to people and more about what people are doing with the media. (pp. 369 370). Studies that employ uses and gratifications approach (which takes into consideration the influence of content selection in media consumption pat terns) should provide a fresh lens through which to examine media consumption behavior in a time shifting environment. To date, many of the scholarly articles on time shifting devices have focused on the technology: the way faster internet connections for more people are creating new opportunities to harness the World Wide Web as a platform to supplement or even replace television (Cooper & Tang, 2009 ; Cooper & Tang, 2011 ; Chuang, Huang, & Hwang, 2011). Although scholars have looked at the technological as pects of online literature revealed few studies that examined media use and time shifting devices and none that utilized a uses and gratifications approach to understand media consumption shifting environment. The growing popularity of time shifting devices and their significant impact on the media industry presents an opportunity for media scholars to discern how the use of these devices impacts the uses and g ratifications of consumers as compared to more traditional use of media. Traditional means of understanding, predicting and explaining media consumption need to be reexamined as media use changes (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001) Utilizing a uses and gratifications approach that considers user motivations for media use as well as acknowledging the impact of structural constraints, this paper
17 seeks to discover the impact of time shifting on program selection, viewer behavior and e Viewing Patterns and Motivations (1983) identified and measured viewer motivations for watching TV. It will be used to help form a comparison between TV viewing motivations an d time shifted TV viewing motivations. This comparison should raise further questions that reach beyond motivation and encourage examination of how the medium is being used and how different ways of using it can impact the viewer. One of those questions i s whether engagement will be impacted by TSD use. Engagement is an important factor for understanding user behavior and the impact of mediated messages. From an industry standpoint, engagement is important as a way of determining if mediated messages, espe cially commercials, have had the desired effect. Measuring, and indeed defining engagement, has been difficult for media scholars in the past. But generally, engagement has been related to attentiveness, involvement and time spent with the media (Bezjian A very, Calder, & Iacobucci, 1998; Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel, 2009) y changing how the medium is used. TSDs are essentially providing a different way for viewers to view telev ision programming, because of this process of program selection (what a viewer does from the moment they decide to watch TV to the point at which they decide upon a show and begin watching) will be changed ( F igure 1 1). There are two expected changes in behavior that availability of time shifting devices can bring about. The first expected behavior is that consumers will identify programs as those that they plan to watch live, and others that they will watch
18 later on. The second e xpected behavior is that the availability of content via time shifting episodes and at times, entire seasons to accumulate, in order to participate in longer than usual sess in academic research of media use, but it is explained and referenced in periodicals as well as blogs (Lawson, 2006). Viewer preferences play a role in program selection and all kinds of media usage. Research indicates that for television watching; genres or favorite genres are not a great predictor of program selection. That is, traditionally speaking, scholars noted that much of television watching done by people who liked a particular g enre could not be explained by their preference for that genre ( Rubin, 1994) People tended to watch a wide range of programs. Researchers posit that user preferences more often dictate what they will not watch (Domzal & Kernan, 1983; Perse, 1990; Rubin, 1 994). This would suggest that program selection for users watching live TV and those who utilize time shifting devices may be similar despite the greater control afforded to users of time shifting devices. However, this bears examination because so many st udies that look at program selection fail to take into account uses and gratifications or the motivations that drive media consumption. common and can be as easily achieved via tim e shifting as by watching live TV, some research indicates a higher level of engagement when users select the programs themselves via time shifting device, rather than simply turning on the television to see what is currently on (Levy, 1983). Higher levels of engagement are a goal for media
19 producers because they are correlated with higher recall which entices advertisers, who fit the bill for the whole thing (Webster J. G., 2005; Webster, Phalen, & Lichty, 2006) Chafee and Metzger asserted that as more cho ices become available to the TV watching public there will be significant changes in the way the medium is used (2001) Since TV consumed via TSD can been selected from a veritable sea of content, there may be a change in the way time shifting viewers inte ract with content they select as opposed to content that is available when they choose to watch. It is possible that this change may influence viewer behavior and engagement. The following model may describe how television watching might be affected in a time shifting environment in which the consumer has access to all the content he or she could or would watch live, available via TSD. One might assume that given these conditions, viewers with a preference for a particular show or genre can watch as much o f that show or genre available to them. Their viewing behavior will proceed according to how much of the show or genre of shows they want to see and is available In the past viewers were only able to watch as much of a show or a genre as was broadcast at a time they could watch it live. In other words in the past, viewers may have been stymied by structural constraints or a lack of programming to suit their tastes. This means that using TSDs might affect viewer behaviors such as genre loyalty or binge watc hing. In the proposed model, (F igure 1 1 ) structural constraints lie at the start of a come into play. The model predicts that behaviors like binge watching and the level of engagement viewers have during a show can be impacted by their own preferences,
20 time constraints and the availability of multiple episodes or seasons via TSD. In other words, it is not simply down to the content on the screen or even how the user feels about that content but rather a holistic approach that includes convenience and allows for the habits and idiosyncrasies of individual viewers. Figure 1 1 TV Viewing Model By providing viewers with wider variety, greater control and new ways to enjoy television shows, sporting events and movies, time shifting devices have begun to change what it means to be a consumer of these media. In an already fractured market, time shif ting devices have and will continue to play a role in further segmentation (if only by time of viewing the media product) of media audiences (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001; Domzal & Kernan, 1983; Webster, Phalen, & Lichty, 2006). This segmentation and the impact time shifting can have on viewer behavior as well as engagement further reduces the influence of singular channels and indeed mediums to reach a majority in society. Even if network television stations maintain the highest quality and most desirable conte nt, their live broadcasts may no longer enjoy the ratings they did in the past (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). To borrow a term used by Chaffee and Metzger, this television in par ticular (2001). Media programmers and product advertisers, two vital
21 parts of the television landscape have begun to adapt their methods and search for ways to maximize their effectiveness in this fragmented media environment (Russell, 2009; Webster & Ksia zek, 2012). Much of the scholarly research on TSDs has been written about the technology involved. However there is a great deal of discussion of how and why viewers use certain media and how their choices, behavior and experiences m ay be explained or exam ined. Chapter 2 is a review of the literature on time shifting devices and a discussion of how the uses and gratifications approach has evolved si nce it was first posited. C hapter 2 also introduces the research questions and defines key terms that are disc ussed later in the paper. Chapter 3 outlines the method of the study. It discusses IRB approval, survey construction and explains how the survey instrument was used to answer the research questions. Chapter 4 discusses the findings, revealing the answers t o the rese ar ch questions and providing analysis of said findings. Chapter 5 discusses the answers in detail and puts the research into context. Chapter 5 also reviews the goals of the study, identifies limitations and underscores areas for further research
22 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW As this paper will focus on Time shifting Devices and their potential impact on viewer motivation, behavior and engagement; it makes sense to begin with a definition. The act of time shifting refers to users gaining control over multimedia content to access or view on their own terms (Bulcka, 1999; Levy, 1983). A time shifting device then, is any tool that gives control to individual (and in some cases, individual units for example a family or a pair of roommates) med ia consumers over when some segment of media is consumed. Time shifting Devices It is important to note that television or commonly televised content is not the only type of media content that is time shifted. Radio content, movies and other types of media such as concerts, sports and live performances are often also time shifted. The primary means of time shifting audio is by downloading content onto a portable device that allows the user to listen to it whenever convenient (Carlisle, 2005; Rose, 2006). Us ers may also download content from the internet onto their desktop or laptop computers. A study conducted in 2005 determined that at that point, a quarter of Americans owned some type of mp3 player (Rose & Lenski, 2005). MP3 players are to music what TSD s have become to TV: they have freed the user to choose what he or she wants to listen to at any time. Examining the rise in popularity of MP3 players especially among college students Ferguson, Greer and demand co ntent is evident in the increasing players is not solely an issue of time shifting. Of great value to users is portability and
23 convenience (2007). These two needs, wh ich were stimulated by the introduction of While MP3 players and internet radio services have helped to replace traditional radio listening by filling some of those gratificat gratifications by offering new ways to use content. Similarly, movies have not been left out of the time shifting wave. Services like Netflix, Amazon and AppleTV offer rentals or subscription based viewing through p roprietary software. Much like MP3s and greater access to broadband internet stimulated users to experience music they had not listened to either on the radio or on CD. Thus, time shifted movie viewing has offered a great deal of flexibility to the user. I n December of 2010, Netflix Inc. noted that it had 16 million North American subscribers with plans that allowed streaming video (Netflix, 2011). Time shifting can occur with virtually any media product but some content is less likely to be time shifted t han others. It stands to reason that sporting events have a short shelf life, given the number of games or matches that teams play in a season. later, as discussed earlier, the constraints of storage are often a problem. However, until recently, there was very little opportunity in the United States to (legally) time shift ESPN has offere d access to numerous sporting events at the discretion of users (Bing, 2010). As discussed, time shifting can occur with various media products and across multiple platforms. In an effort to limit the scope and gain a better understanding of the
24 act of t ime shifting and the possible changes it may bring about in viewer behavior, this research will be focused on time shifted viewing of televised content and movies. For televised content, time shifting devices come in many shapes and sizes. Primarily thoug h, they can be sorted into a pair of broad categories; recorders and streaming services. Recording devices such as VCRs, DVD burners, Digital Video Recorders (such as TiVo ), require users to select a program they would like to see at a later time or date and record it. These also rely on the user having a television and often times a cable or satellite hook up. There are two main drawbacks of recording time shifting devices: space and programming. Each device has a limited capacity for media. If a user doe user later on. Streaming time shifting devices require a connection to the internet and, rather than recording when the content is broadcast, they send it to individual users as requested. Users are limited to the content that media producers wish to make available on demand and the quality of the viewing experience can be impacted both by the indi shifting devices are; Netflix watch instantly, Video On Demand, Hulu and iTunes. It should be noted that as broadband internet gains greater market penetration, many of the constraint s that make streaming video online for users or supplying that video for consumers will be eased, if not eliminated. Set top devices like AppleTV and Slingbox confound attempts to categorize them. AppleTV allows users to stream content that they rent and it also allows them to stream
25 purchased content from their computers, to their TV sets (Cohen, 2006). In this way, it produces recorded content, whilst not actually recording it. Primarily though, it is a streaming device. Slingbox allows users to access content stored on DVRs or other time shifting devices remotely, via a broadband internet connection. Time shifting devices were once prohibitively expensive. They were expensive enough that only a relatively small percentage of the American population was able to access television in this way (Dawson, 2010; Yu, Zheng, Zhao, & Zheng, 2006). While it remains true that time shifting incurs some costs, it has become much cheaper and far Screen Report, time shifting is now more common than ever and is expected to grow even more. In fact, more than one third of US homes now have at least one digital video recorder and 63.5% of Americans have broadband internet connections (a vital cog for s treaming time shifting devices) in the home (p. 2). Over five billion minutes worth of online video were watched on Hulu.com in 2009. During the year, the average user watched over 2 hours of time A shift in viewing patterns has meant that despite the average number of videos watched, almost doubling from 2008 to 2009, the time spent watching long form videos also increased by 28%, which is in line with general trends towards a greater percentage of users v iewing television and movie content online rather than short user generated clips (comScore, 2010). Further support for online video watching increases of the month of March in 2011 and compares it to March 2012. The comparison revealed an increase in hours per viewer, videos watched per viewer and minutes per
26 video watched by internet users from March 2011 to March 2012. The biggest increase was hours of video watched online per user which went from 14.7 in 2011 to 21.4 in 2012 (comScore, 2012). Netflix has also reported major gains in viewership. With streaming services in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Latin America, total subscribers are now above 26 million Significant penetration is not the only reason to consider research into time shifting devices important. The depth of this penetration and the impact the usage of time shifting devices has on both audience and media is of interest to academics (Webster & Ksiazek, 2012). Traditionally accepted factors in studying media usage such as audience availability and structural constraints are heavily impacted by the use of time shifting devices (Krugman & Johnson, 1991). Krugman and Johnson began tracking the im pact of time shifting with one of the earliest time shifting devices, the VCR. They found that in addition to engaging the interest of viewers more than broadcast or cable TV, VCR rental movies required different preparations, offered the viewer more contr ol Phalen and Litchty argued that before long, the popularity of time shifting would make studying its impact a necessity. They surmised that given the great control aff orded to users of time shifting devices; structural constraints and viewer availability as determinants of program choice would have to be reassessed (pp. 194 196). Those determinants and the unique gratifications that are satisfied (or not satisfied) when viewers watch time shifted TV are best studied using an approach that examines why programs are selected and not simply which are most popular (Cooper & Tang, 2009). The uses and gratifications approach would be best to seek these answers.
27 Uses & Gratific ations Uses and gratifications is an approach to media studies that assumes individuals are equipped to make the most of the media that they consume. Primarily, uses and what needs these uses gratify (Rubin, 1994; Ko, Cho, & Roberts, 2005). Unlike some other media effects models that assume media have a blanket effect on users, uses and gratifications expects that people can use the same media, indeed the same medium, and experience each differently and satisfy unique psychological needs (Ko, Cho, & Roberts, 2005). This theory is built upon the belief that there are two major types of goal oriented media use: instrumental and ritualistic (Katz, Blumler, & Gerevitch, 1974; awareness of the (Ruggiero, 2000, p. 18). The roots of U&G based res [E]arly U&G studies were primarily descriptive, seeking to classify the resp onses of audience members into than objects to be acted upon by media, consumers might possibly have had a role in the consumption of their media. In the 1940s a serie s of articles that examined motives for use of comics, newspapers, quiz shows and listening to radios is the foundation for what is now known as uses and gratification (Ruggiero, 2000). In one such study Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch found that people used me dia as a means of surveillance and as part of information seeking behavior (1974). Because researchers sought to discover what made media users pursue the media they consumed, much of the work done that helped to shape the uses and gratifications approach was linked to socio psychological research
28 (McQuail, 1993). But studies such as those conducted by Charles Wright (1959), according to Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch stood out from other media studies at that time because they were less concerned with the eff ects associated with media use and people bend the media to their needs more readily than the media overpower them; that the media are at least as much agents of diversio (Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973). As more research was completed, scholars began to gain deeper insight into the specific needs that triggered media usage. Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas (1973) were instrumental in catalogi needs were broken down into two broadly defined groups as being either instrumental or ritualistic (Katz, Blumle r, & Gerevitch, 1974). Traditionally, instrumental use has been associated with information seeking behavior. It is explained by users interested in learning something and for the most part, believing what they read, view, or hear on the medium in questio n. Papacharissi and Mendelson (2007) identify several program types that might satisfy viewing motives linked to instrumental media use; including nightly news programs, news magazine programs and reality TV shows. However, there are programs more closely linked to entertainment that might provide information that is perceived to be realistic by viewers. In this sense, a drama about crime scene investigators or the F.B.I. might qualify as instrumental use for some viewers.
29 Ritualized media use requires user s to utilize the medium in question to fill their day (Rubin, 1983) It is generally associated with viewers who are avid consumers of a particular medium. Studies show that the average American television viewer would fall into this category (The Nielsen Company, 2010). Escape, relaxation, social interaction and entertainment are all motives that might spur ritualized media use (Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Rubin A. M., 1985). A large proportion of television programming supports ritualized use. Cartoons, soap operas, dramas and even sports might all serve to satisfy ritualistic media viewing needs. Uses and gratifications approach has been used to study all manner of mediated communication. The uses and gratifications approach is especially useful for understa nding new media, its effects on users and user behavior and motivation (Kaye & Johnson, 2002) Rubin (1985) used it to study individual programs and genre. It has been used to analyze how certain groups use a medium or some media content, and it has been used to examine various communication technologies including but not limited to: cable TV, VCRs remote controls and even internet connected cellular phones (Kaye, 2005; Ko, Cho, & Roberts, 2005; Stafford, Stafford, & Schkade, 2004). One way that scholars use U&G approach to study new is by uses and resulting user its use for the study of radio and television, uses and gratifications approach has been key in many studies aimed at investigating the internet. This approach requires the researcher to exami ne media usage from the perspective of individual users. Because of its specific nature, the uses and gratifications approach is an excellent tool for examining media that allow the user to
30 craft their own experience. According to Kaye (2005) and Stafford et al. (2004), this is why the uses and gratifications approach has been popular with scholars studying the internet. A Google wide further 1,740 results, which suggest that uses and gratifications is a useful means of studying internet use. Research can be done on a grand scale to determine patterns of use for the World Wide Web as a whole or in more focu sed studies looking for details such as motivations for using political blogs (Kaye, 2005). Ruggiero has identified three qualities of new media that make them well suited for and the ability of the user to shape his or her own experience. Demassification implies that with greater choice and flexibility offered to use rs, traditional mass media traits are discarded for patterns of use more akin to interpersonal communication. Asynchroneity describes the ability of the user to time accelerated media aspects interactivity, demass ification, and asynchroneity offer a qualities make time shifting viewing an attractive prospect for communication researchers employing a uses and gratifications approach. In ex amining the needs and gratifications satisfied by the internet Kaye and Johnson determined that although there were marked differences between television and the internet, some uses of the internet overlapped with television and vice versa. Generally speak ing, TV use is more passive and requires less interaction than the
31 internet (2002). The internet has been used to meet informational and entertainment needs. Different types of websites and different means of using them also reflect varying levels of satis faction for those needs and motivations for using them in the first ascertain insight into som e part of society (Kaye, 2005; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000). As, Kaye (2002, 2005), Ferguson & Perse (2000) and Rose (2006) have noted, there are numerous ways users can utilize the internet. The differing motivations for individual use of the internet can lead to varied effects, not limited to a broad range of gratifications. This principle extends to time shifted televised content. A great deal of time shifted content is available via the internet and even those streaming devices that have customizable sof browser are dependent broadband internet and provide viewers with the same kind of flexibility that the internet does (comScore, 2010; Rose, 2006). Structural Constraints Media consumption, no matter how autonomous the selection process is, has limitations. People can only watch TV, listen to an MP3 or read a book when they are available to do so. When communication scholars speak of barriers to media consumption, they sometimes use the term structural con straints (Cooper & Tang, 2009) Structural constraints to viewing media are real world factors that affect a forms including work and school commitments which take potentia l viewers away from the television set. Structural constraints can also come in the form of other media that consumers would rather view. Of course there are also financial constraints such as the
32 inability to afford premium cable TV or a pay per view even t. Structural constraints tend to be very important in predicting viewer availability to consume media. As such, they (Cooper & Tang, 2009). In contrast to uses and gratif ications, which puts control into the hands of the user and assumes that media consumers are active, the structural constraints model treats viewers as passive (Cooper & Tang, 2009; Rubin, 1994). Scholars taking a structural constraints approach would exam to be sold to advertisers or to help sell advertising (Ruggiero, 2000; Webster et al., 2006). These data show patterns of usag e, highlighting popular programs or channels and also revealing the opposite. But these data, the basis for the structural constraints approach pursued by Cooper & Tang, do not provide the full picture. They ignore why viewers consume the media that they d o consume, constraints or not. Webster et al. (2006, p. 9) pit structural constraints against uses and gratifications. Structural constraints help to explain media viewing decisions by thousands of viewers or perhaps hundreds of thousands of media consumer about why, or how or for what purpose the individual viewer consumes or chooses not to consume the media examined. Webster et al. maintain that research that is centered on simply what is or is not watched is li mited in scope. The reduction of TV audience members to people who have either watched a program or not watched a program is well suited to commercial research done by ratings companies for use by advertising agencies and TV stations, but treating the audi ence as a commodity offers no insight
33 into explaining the choices that are made on a person by person level. A structural that ought to be the central But not all scholars see this as a zero sum game. Certainly it would appear that scholars who favor a uses and gratifications approach and those who subscribe to the importanc e of structural constraints in media consumption would be at odds. But these two means of understanding communication can work together. Structural constraints are a justification for the use of time shifting devices (Krugman & Johnson). In the past, faced with a choice between one show and another or watching television and say, walking the dog, there would almost always be a loser. Users could not then bend the TV schedule to their will as they can now. By acknowledging the role that structural constraint s play in influencing viewer choices, and still taking into account other factors that play a role in media selection, we can gain a much richer understanding of media consumption (Cooper & Tang, 2009). In other words, it makes sense to think of this consu mption as guided by choices that are influenced by psychological motivations and limited by structural constraints which may themselves be loosened by the use of time shifting devices. As such, studies examining media consumption under the lens of time shi fting should consider the role that structural constraints will have on media use and indeed the use of time shifting devices. For the purposes of this research, structural constraints will be defined outside factors that prevent a viewer from watching a t elevision show they desire to watch. This can be manifest as a time commitment or by
34 the inability of the user to see the content for any reason other than a lack of desire to view it. Media Usage Definitions Engagement, also sometimes referred to as invo lvement, is a means of describing the degree to which certain media resonate with consumers (Russell, Norman, & Heckler, 2004) Relatively speaking, any program that gains and holds the attention of a consumer has engaged that viewer. Balder identifies mul tiple ways content can be relaxation or escape (ritualistic) then they have be come engaged by the content in question. (Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel, 2009, p. 322). The extent of the engagement is related to how well the consumer feels his needs or motivations for consuming that content are met. If the specific reasons a user decid es to tune in are met, he or she is more likely to have a high level of engagement. High engagement is important to producers and especially advertisers. Both parties would rather spend time and money on a TV show that has engaged viewers who are more like ly to recall the content and respond favorably to it that TV shows that do not engage their viewers. Although media scholars have struggled to come up with a concrete definition for engagement, as Calder et al. note, there is some common ground to work wi th. Generally speaking an engaged viewer is present, attentive and involved (2009). A is not actively consuming the media. An attentive viewer spends more time watchi ng the
35 useful in defining viewer engagement. TV connectedness, according to Russell, Norman and Heckler, exists on a continuum where at one end, viewers are barely engage d. Viewers at the low end of this continuum are viewing the medium or specific content simply as a means of passing time or for background noise. On the other end of the continuum are viewers who interact strongly with characters portrayed in their favorit e shows. Somewhere in the middle are viewers who are attentive and experience some form of connection with the plot and or the characters in the TV that they watch. For the purposes of this study, engagement shall be defined as a means for measuring how at tentive, connected and emotionally or intellectually invested a viewer is with televised content. Binge watching is a media use behavior that refers to occasions when viewers consume at once, more of a specific program than usually available (Lawson, 2006 ). Watching two back to back episodes of a courtroom drama is not that unlikely. Syndicated shows like Law & Order often run consecutively on cable networks. Those consecutively. A vie wer that watches an entire marathon or one that procures the DVD of a season or streams several episodes in one sitting, allowing them to watch a season or a large portion of the season over a very short time frame has engaged in binge watching. For the pu rposes of this research, binge watching is defined as viewers watching several episodes of a TV program in one sitting. This includes watching more episodes than usually available on live broadcast as well as watching an entire season or a series in a matt er of days or a week, rather than the months it would otherwise take.
36 Past research, especially research that did not take a uses and gratifications approach suggests that TV watching occurs primarily to pass the time and as such, the content that is watch ed does not necessarily reflect a preference by the audience watching it but simply an acceptance of what was available. Genre loyalty, communications scholars surmised, did not exist. Viewers would choose what not to watch more carefully than what they di d watch. In other words, viewers might enjoy dramas, comedies and documentaries, but those preferences would not guide their usage. If the same viewer however was at odds with a genre, for example horror or thrillers, that preference would be salient and d ominant when program selection occurred (Pingree, Hawkins, Johnsson Smaragdi, Rosengren, & Reynolds, 1991). Genre loyalty therefore is media consumption behaviors that demonstrate a preference for certain genres and consumption patterns that reflect more c ommon viewing of preferred genres than all other genres. Research Questions Despite their prevalence and penetration, relatively little is known about time climate. In fact, time shifting devices were ignored for ratings purposes until 2006 (The Nielsen Company, 2010). Both Krugman and Johnson (1991) and Perse (1990) content via time shifting devices, suggesting a link between time shifting and instrumental use. But given the fragmentation of mass media and the widening cross section of programs that viewers have available to them via time shifting devices (Webster J. G., 2005; Webster, Phalen & Lichty, 2006) a closer look is needed. Do these factors influence program choice? How important are they and is the change in
37 the media landscape with the advent of time shifting devices so drastic that time shifted TV viewing takes place for different reasons as live broadcast viewing? Viewer motivations for watching time shift ed TV may be different from those for live TV for a number of reasons. To begin with, media scholars have identified that live TV is watched either for instrumental use, or for ritualistic use (Katz, Blumler, & Gerevitch, 1974) That is, viewers watch it either to gain specific information or to watch a specific show or because they want to watch TV. Time shifting devices, allow both of those motivations to be blended together. I f for example a viewer enjoys comedy and at once. Watching a program via TSD could b e done for instrumental purposes like information gathering or for ritualistic purposes such as having free time and using the media to fill otherwise unoccupied time (Ferguson & Perse, 2000) With TSDs, both instrumental use, such as might be exhibited wi th learning information from a specific show and ritualistic use, such as one might expect to find from someone who returns home from school or work and just wants to unwind, can occur with the same program. One way to measure any apparent changes would b e to identify a study that examined viewer motivations several years ago utilizing a uses and gratifications approach. The study would have to be dated enough so as to not be affected by TSDs. By replicating such a study, but modifying it to reflect TSD us age changes in viewer motivation may be identified. As a means of determining changes over time, media scholars often replicate older studies as in the case of Voorta, Nikkenb and van Lilc (2009) who replicated a 1982 study on parental guidance of children
38 case of Slatterya and Hankaneb (2009) who sought to track sensationalism in newscasts by replicating a 1978 study. conditions. The study is old enough that it predates the use of most TSDs and the survey instrument asked a broad spectrum of questions that were re asked to present Television Uses and Gratifications: The Intera ctions of Viewing Patterns and Motivations (1983) provides a look at what viewing motivations used to be, allowing for RQ1. Do Users Of Time Shifting Devices Report Different Motivations For Watching Time Shifted TV Content When Compared With Motivations For Watching Live TV ? Time play a role in media selection and that demands on their time can prevent them from consuming media. What r esearchers do not yet understand is how these factors fit together and whether the changing media landscape has affected user motivation. This study examines the use of time shifting devices among a segment of the population that shares similar constraints and could also be united by motivational uses for media consumption. College students often share instrumental and ritualistic motivations for media consumption (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007). They may be considered a good sample for this study because shifting, especially via the internet, at a higher rate than other parts of the population (Purcell, 2009). Time shifted devices have already secured significant penetration and viewing is on the rise and will continue to grow, particularly among young adults (The Nielsen Company, 2010). Similar results for the penetration of time shifted media have been
39 seen for time shifted audio content as well. Ferguson, Greer & Reardon found that college aged subjects shared similar motivations for using another time shifting device, the mp3 player (Ferguson, Greer, & Reardon, 2007). Furthermore, selecting from a segment of the population that generally consumes a lot of television and one which also shares similar tastes should provi de significant data returns for analysis (Rubin A. M., 1985). RQ2. Are College Students More Likely To Use Time Shifting Devices If They Face Structural Constraints Than If They Do Not? Dating back to the original time shifting studies, communications researchers have sought to determine if use of time shifting devices impacted viewer engagement. That is, were viewers attentive, emotionally or intellectually involved with the content and would they recall what they had seen later on. Schmitt, Woolf, & Anderson (2003) found that typical viewers of television programming may spend as little as 46% of the time in front of the set actually looking at the TV. Mark Levy (1983) determined that co mpared to broadcast TV or televised cable, viewers paid more attention to rented movies. Levy (1983) showed that despite being in the act of what they described as watching television, people were not concerned only with the television while a program was on. The level of their engagement or the amount of attention they gave to the television increased for time shifted content. Krugman and Johnson (1991) found that time shifting devices play a significant role in engagement. They linked pre watching behavio r with the use of VCRs to watch movies. With such a narrowly deployed comparison, broadcast to VCR rental movies, there remains room to analyze the impact of time shifting devices further.
40 RQ3. Does The Use Of Time Shifting Devices By College Students Imp act Their Engagement With The Content? Rather than just looking at engagement, actual patterns of use might be examined. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) accurately predicted significant change in the media landscape with the advent of broadband internet and in creased user control (time shifting). Ferguson et al. (2007) note that access to broadband internet, time shifting, as well as place shifting devices caused users to change their behavior significantly. So how have viewers changed with the advent and preva lence of time shifting? There are myriad ways the use of time shifting devices can impact viewer watching habits. Viewers might set aside a usual time to watch recorded TV or they might watch more TV because of greater access or convenience. Viewers could possibly watch less TV if their viewing becomes more instrumental. But before we can determine how TV watching and media consumption is affected by time shifting we must first determine whether or not it is affected at all. RQ4. Do High Users Of Tsds Exper ience Greater Change In Their TV Watching Habits (I.E., More Binge Watching, More Or Less Watching In General) Than Low Users Of Tsds? Although deeper questions about viewer behavior and the impact of TV watching on viewer behavior are important and need t o be asked, first we must establish that there is grounds for researching these questions. The answers to these four research questions will hopefully provide a platform for discussion and launch further studies about user motivation, gratification and beh avior, with regard to time shifted content.
41 CHAPTER 3 METHODS As a means of gathering the opinions and feelings of a large group of people, a as a research method is its ability to ask the same set of questions to multiple participan ts, building strong reliability (Rubin & Babbie, 2010). In addition to the method being convenient for ascertaining opinions, feelings and usage habits of the participants, this method was essential to answering one of the research questions which was base d on comparing motivations for TV watching and time shifted TV watching. IRB approval of protocol UFIRB#2011 U 0008: Time shifting devices was obtained. An online survey consisting of 52 questions polling media use and specifically time shifted TV viewi ng was administered to students attending the University of Florida. A voluntary sample was drawn from three large, multi section courses open to students from all majors. Students enrolled in RTV 3405, TV & American Society; MMC 2604, Mass Media and You a nd AEB 2014, Economics Issues, Food and You, were offered a small amount of extra credit (1.5% of their total grade) to participate in the survey which ran from February 7th to February 16th 2011. The survey was self administered and voluntary. Students were also offered other options for extra credit in the class. Combined enrollment for these classes is usually in the 800 to 1,000 student range, but in the semester data were collected, combined enrollment was 901. The goal was to retain 300 usable sur vey responses. Four hundred and twenty eight students or 47.5% of those contacted participated in the survey. There were 74 respondents who indicated that they had never used a time shifting device.
42 These respondents were sent to the end of the survey and excluded from the sample. There were 11 students who failed to complete more than a quarter of the questions. Those students were dropped from the results. Following the culls, the survey yielded 341 usable responses, a 37.8% response rate. The data were c ollected during the month of February. Due to the practice of collecting ratings data for television stations during February (Webster, Phalen, & Lichty, 2006), typically most television stations show fewer reruns which should increase the interest in tele vision shows (Webster J. G., 2005). The Nielsen Three Screen Report shows that time shifted viewing has been marginally higher in the 1st quarter of the year than in other quarters as well (2009; 2010). In order to record the possible effects of time shift ed viewing on motivations for viewing TV shows, the results Gratifications: The Interactions and Viewing Patterns and Motivations which examined nine motivations for watch ing television. The portion of the survey designed to test motivations for watching time shifted TV will be worded almost exactly like those used in the previous study, the only differences of course will be that they specify time shifted viewing rather th an live viewing ( A ppendix A ). In addition to ensuring that participants were users of time shifting devices and consumers of television, the survey needed a point of comparison in order to help tions: The Interactions study (1983) examined viewing motivations television watchers utilizing a survey that vey offered respondents a
43 Likert item survey featured 27 different item s that began with interaction, information gathering, arousa be seen in T able 4 1. item item s asked participants if they watched TV to avoid being alone, when they did not have someone to speak or be with or becaus e watching TV made them feel less lonely. To measured with three questions asking if participants watched TV during periods of by three item s that asked if the participants watched TV to be entertained, for enjoyment TV as an activity to do with friends, or to be able to talk about what is on TV or to be prompting participants to resp ond to survey items on the topic of learning. Did participants watch TV to watch TV to learn about themselves and others? Did they watch TV to learn how to do something? Did users watch TV to find out about what
44 item item s asked if participants watched TV to: forget school, escape family or escape an activity. As a means of creating reliability and to promote easier comparison (Rubin & Babbie, 2010), this study utilized the same item s outlined above, with the addition of the item s. To determine the possible effect of TSD usage, one of the survey used as a benchmark for TSD use. Question two (2) of the survey ( Appendix A ) asked shifting devices to watch a single scale answers from 1 3 times correlating standard deviation was 1.13. The responses were split at th at mean and rounded into two categories: low users answers and high users. The decision to split at the mean was made because with only five possible responses, it would have been problematic to split the responses twice and discard a middle portion which may otherwise have served as a buffer between low and high users. It should also be noted that by discarding the middle response, the results would have dismissed a significant portion of the responses. With the responses split at the mean, l ow users were those 1 or 2). High users were those participants who utilized TSDs to watch at least one episode of a TV show four to seven (4 7) times per month. Based on these qualificati ons, low users were n=177 and high users were n=163.
45 In order to measure for structural constraints, an index of questions related to structural constraints was created from the item having to miss important events or 1 The item s asked participants to respond in a range from one (1) indicating their experience was nothing like this to five (5) indicating that their experience is exactly like this. The plan had been to have a three item index, but the third item was not a good fit. A Varimax rotated component matrix determined that the responses to the item time were not a fit with item shifted TV because I have to Item s fifty and fifty one loaded at .837 and .720 respectively, item fifty two loaded at just .121 and as such it was not included in the index. As a result, a Pearson correlation of item s fifty (50) and fifty one (51) was .53 with p < .01. The survey item rel ated to activities or events and the item for work or classes fit, the index comprised just those two item s. The item about events or activities returned a mean of 3.6 with a standard deviation of 1.449. The mean for the item that specified work or class a s the structural constraint was 3.41 with a standard deviation of 1.443. These means and standard deviations were markedly different from those of the final structural constraints item which listed channel availability as a constraint. That item returned a mean of 2.78 and a standard deviation of 1.535. It was determined that this 1 Full items can be found in Appendix A. The items referenced here are questions 50, 51 and 52.
46 was a poorly written item and possibly one that either did not make sense or confused study participants. Table 3 1 TSD usage and Structural Constraints Item Mean SD r Events 3.60 1.449 .531 Work/School 3.41 1.443 .531 shifted TV to avoid having to miss important events and shifted TV because I have to work or attend class while the show I want to watch is S ignificant at the .01 level (2 tailed) The independent variable in this scenario is use of TSDs, more specifically, whether the respondent was a high user or a low user of time shifting devices. In addit ion to creating an index of structural constraints, the respondents were classified either as low users of TSDs or high users of TSDs. To achieve this, the responses were and seventy seven (177) low users and one hundred and sixty three (163) high users. Low users were respondents who answered either 1 or 2 (3 times or less per month) to the item shifting devices to watch a single televisio n 5 (4 times or more per month) to the item A similar index was created for engagement. As discussed in the literature review, engagement can be seen as a combination of attention, motivation and the degree to which the viewer identifies with the content. As such, this index combined the responses to survey item s that asked how attentive participants were when they watch TV via a TSD, how well they relate to the characters, plot or problems described in the TV shows that they watch on TSDs, how important watching TV shows on TSDs were for passing
47 time, how important watching TV shows on TSDs were for their entertainment and information gathering. When conducted, a principal components analysis revealed that with an eigenv alue of 2.337, 3 of the item s loaded at or above the acceptable 60/40 threshold (Sun, Hullman, & Wang, 2011), with one well below and one just under. The of internal consistency (Gliem & Gleim, 2003). Table 3 2 Principal Component Analysis Factor Factor Loading Attention .458 Relate .566 Pass time .829 Entertainment .862 Information .613 Eigenvalue 2.337 TV watching habits among survey participants were measured by asking changed as a result of having access to time viewing habits were tallied and expressed as a percentage of the total responses. These results were measured and classified by TSD usage into low users of and high users of TSDs to provide some perspective with regard to a relationship between TSD usage and viewing behavior change in order to answer to research question four. The range of possible answers went fr om 1 which indicated that a participant never uses
48 TSDs up to but not more than 3 tim es a week responded by choosing 3 and those who used TSDs 4 6 times per week answered by selecting 4.
49 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Profile There were 341 respondents. One hundred and twenty seven were male ( 37.24 %) and 212 were female, while two preferred not to identify their gender. Thirty nine point six percent of participants used time shifting devices to watch television for more than thirty (30) minutes on the day prior to completing the survey. Eighty seven p oint one percent of participants admitted that during a typical weekday, they use a TSD to watch TV. Although participants engaged in quite frequent use of TSDs, 69.5% used one or two different time shifting devices during a typical week. Analysis A compar ison of means (T test) was conducted in order to analyze the first research question. T tests are appropriate statistical tests used to judge whether or not a pair of corresponding means are significantly different (Rubin & Babbie, 2010, p. 559). In order to answer the second, third and fourth research questions (RQ 2, RQ3 and RQ4), the remainder of the survey asked students various questions about their TV shifting devices. This approach for gaining insight into motivations for using different media has been used by other media scholars in the past (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007; Rubin & Babbie, 2010 ; Ruggiero 2000). The first research question sought to find out if users of time shifting devices had different motivations for watching television than viewers who do not view TV via a TSD. To answer that question T able 4 1 was constructed that allowed the researcher to view the means of the responses to the related questions in this survey a longside the means
50 of the same responses from the earlier survey conducted by Rubin (1983). T tests, comparing the means revealed that 19 of the 27 means were significant ly different ( T able 4 1) T able 4 1 shows results for the comparison of 9 different m otivation indices. Table 4 1 Comparison of means Independent t test Rubin (n=464) Chase (n=341) It em Mean SD Mean SD t score Relaxation: relax 3.25 1.07 3.00 1.232 3.086* Relaxation: unwind 2.89 1.17 3.16 1.240 3.158* Relaxation: rest 2.9 1.04 3.22 1.234 3.986* Companionship: alone 1.97 1.17 1.79 1.142 2.18 Companionship: talk 2.45 1.25 2.30 1.257 1.679 Companionship: lonely 1.88 1.06 1.72 1.131 2.058 Habit: just there 2.38 1.25 2.94 1.193 6.407* Habit: j ust to watch 2.68 1.16 3.48 1.166 9.655* Habit: just a habit 2.33 1.27 2.59 1.268 2.874* Pass time: nothing better 2.89 1.3 3.13 1.260 2.624* Pass time: bored 2.72 1.3 3.29 1.193 6.368* Pass time: occupy 2.38 1.21 3.18 1.223 9. 234* Entertainment: entertains 3.71 0.96 3.88 1.094 2.34 Entertainment: enjoyable 3.26 0.91 3.87 1.113 8.55* Entertainment: amuses 3.02 0.99 3.80 1.109 10.502* Social Interaction: friends 1.59 0.87 2.51 1.304 12.003* Social Interaction: talk 2.06 1.07 2.48 1.295 5.034* Social Interaction: family 2.39 1.14 2.32 1.270 .8206 Information: to be informed 2.71 1.16 2.44 1.255 3.154* Information: learn about self 2.09 1.08 2.57 1.274 5.775* Information: current events 2.1 1.06 2.39 1.242 4.674* Arousal: thrilling 2.09 0.94 3.15 1.376 12.988* Arousal: exciting 2.29 1 2.14 1.288 1.861 Arousal: pep 1.89 0.96 2.75 1.313 10.744* Escape: school 2.41 1.27 2.22 1.171 2.168* Escape: family 1.64 0.92 1.87 1.129 3.183* Escape: current task 2.22 1.2 2.00 1.187 2.584* *indicates statistical significance Of the motivations measured, only companionship failed to yield at least one mean which was significantly different. This suggests that there w as no significant change (p < .01) for viewers who watched TV because they wanted companionship as compared to
51 viewers who watched time shifted TV. Of the remaining eight motivations, only escape had two means that were not significantly different for time shifted viewing than they were in the original Rubin (1983) study. This suggests the possibility that as a motivation for watching television escape was slightly different for viewers of live TV as compared to viewers of time shifted television. Entertai nment, social interaction and arousal each had a single mean that was not significantly different for time shifted viewing as compared to live viewing. This suggests that as motivations for use, entertainment, social interaction and arousal were significan tly different for viewers of live TV than they were for viewers of time shifted TV. For the remaining motivations: relaxation, habit, pass time and information each of the item s yielded significantly different means, indicating that they were almost certai nly different for live TV as compared to time shifted TV. Research Q uestion 2 was aimed at determining if participants used time shifting devices to avoid structural constraints. Structural constraints were identified as a time commitment at the same time a TV show participants wanted to watch was being aired live. The structural constraints index combined answers to two item s and was used to compare high users of TSDs to low users of TSDs. High users had a mean score of 7.52 and low users a mean of just 6. 53. The independent samples test compared the means, indicating a t score of 3.69 which was significant at p < .005. The independent variable in this scenario is TSD usage. High users and low users were separated. As compared to low users, high users of ti me shifting devices were more likely to report the use of TSDs to avoid structural constraints. The mean response for high users of time shifting devices was 7.52. This was significantly higher than the
52 mean response for low users of time shifting devices. That mean was 6.53. Table 4 2 shows the means and the t score used to compare the means. Table 4 2 Structural Constraints Independent Samples Test Low users (n=177) High users (n=163) Mean 6.5311 7.5215 SD 2.6623 2.2942 Significant at p < .005 t score 3 6 9 degrees of freedom 33 6 While both high and low users of TSDs will experience structural constraints that prevent them from watching a TV show they want to watch live, the results indicate that high users were more likely avoided structural constraints by using TSDs to watch their program of choice later than low users of TSDs were. Research Question 3 looked at engagement. As discussed, engagement as it relates to TV can be related to attentiveness, involvement and time spent with the media. The focus was to determine if TSD usage made an impact on engagement with TV shows for college students. An engagement index was created based on the responses to item s that measured how much participants paid attention to TV they watched via TSD, how we ll they related to the characters portrayed and whether they considered their use of TSDs to be related to passing time entertainment and information gathering An independent t test was undertaken as a method of comparing the index of engagement means f or low users of time shifting devices with the means for high users of time shifting devices. As T able 4 3 shows, the mean response for high users of time
53 shifting devices was higher than for low users of time shifting devices. This indicates that respond ents who used TSDs more frequently, were more engaged while watching various television programs. The t score of 6.497 indicates that difference in the means is statistically significant. Table 4 3 Engagement Independent Samples Test Low users (n=177) High users (n=163) Mean 15.000 17.5693 SD 4.0422 3.2276 Significant at p < .005 t score 6.497 degrees of freedom 323.083 The final research question asks whether the length of time that participants use TSDs influence change in their overall use of television. High users of time shifting devices were more likely to report changes in their TV watching habits than low users of TSDs. Among survey participants, 34 or 10 % said their habits did not currently have regular access to time shifted content. 71 or 20.8 % said they had not noticed any changes, while 87 or 25.5 % said that they noted slight changes in their TV watching habits due to access to time shifted content. 77 or 22.6 % said that they had noticed some changes while 71 or 20.8 % said that they no ticed a great deal of change in their TV watching habits. 148 participants or 43.4 % of the participants reported that they noticed either some change or a great deal of change in their TV watching habits. Those figures increase to 235 participants or 68.9 % o f respondents who noticed any changes at all in their TV watching habits as a result of having access to time shifting devices. High users of TSDs were more likely to report that their habits changed. The
54 mean response for high users was 3.71 indicating in this study, the TV watching habits of high users of TSD s had changed significantly more than low users of TSDs. Table 4 4 TV Watching Habits Low users (n=177) High users (n=163) Mean 2.8 3.71 SD 1.226 1.148 Overall, analysis of the results suggests that TSD usage plays a significant role in revealed to impact: viewer motivation for watching TV, viewer engagement with TV, and viewer behavior.
55 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Time shifting devices have wrested control of TV from the grips of programmers and allowed consumers to create stations of their own. The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of TSDs accompanied a change in viewer motivation for watching TV an d to determine what this greater control for the individual means. The uses and gratifications approach invites researchers to examine media from the perspective of the consumer. But it also provides an opportunity to examine the medium itself. As a result of the introduction of TSDs, both the consumer and the product have changed. with the medium. TV as a medium is different too. The highly coveted live audience remains par amount in the eyes of producers, programmers and advertisers. But delayed viewers are being counted and paid subscription services like Netflix and Hulu+ offer a new way for the industry to monetize its content. Results indicate that motivations for watch ing time shifted TV differ significantly from motivations for watching live TV. Uses and gratifications approach calls for researchers to understand viewers as unique, empowered and capable of using and experiencing the same media in different ways (Ruggie ro, 2000). People using TV for different reasons will behave differently and experience the medium and its content differently. Relaxation, habit, pass time and entertainment all turned out to be significant motivations for time shifting. Heavy users of TS Ds reported a greater change in their TV watching habits since they began using TSDs than light TSD users. The majority of participants, nearly 70 % reported that since beginning to use time shifting devices, their TV watching habits had changed. In times
56 multiple distractions, including the internet, is higher than ever before (Russell, 2009), the question of whether viewers are more engaged during time shifted viewing is important There is some evidence to support t hat study participants who used TSDs frequently were more engaged with the content they were watching than those who used TSDs infrequently. Advertisers value ratings, but they also value engaged viewers (Peterson, 2012) and the study revealed that higher TSD usage correlated with greater engagement among the participants. Motivations The first research question asked whether motivations for watching time shifted TV were significantly different from those for watching live TV. The results revealed that for the participants in this study that was true. Of the 27 questions asked on viewer motivation for watching time shifted TV, 19 of them returned means that were significantly different from corresponding means extracted from an earlier study. Seven of the nine motivations measured were significantly different for time shifting viewers than they were for viewers of live TV. Relaxation In the relaxation index, all three item s returned means that were significantly different for this survey, when compared t one of just three indices that returned means of to each item of over 3. This cements relaxation as one of motivations that was most significantly different for participants in this study, when compared to thos for the participants of this survey, their affinity with TV as a medium, possibly as a result of TSD usage, has caused a shift in the relationship between watching TV and relaxation. This could just be ov erall affinity with the medium building up over the years.
57 Another explanation might be a change in the way TV is used in comparison to other forms of media, entertainment or recreation. Given the way this index compares to the corresponding index in Rubi study, we can also conclude that relaxation as a motivation for watching is more salient among users who time shift, that those who view TV live. This might be for various reasons. It could be that live TV viewing is done on the terms of the progr ammer. particular show. Time shifted viewing is done at the convenience of the viewer and perhaps this means that commitments are taken care of and the schedule is clea r. This is TV watching with the terms set by the watcher and not the programmer. It may also be that viewers have recorded or selected shows that they find enjoyable and by extension relaxing. Habit The habit index also returned three means that were sign ificantly different to and higher than those collected in the original study. The differences in the means in this shifted TV: because I just like to watch returned a mean that was above 3, indicating that for survey participants, this motivation was especially important. This move towards overall salience in the habit index was somewhat unexpected. Although research has suggested that Americans tend to watch TV out of habit (Papacarissi & M endelson, 2007), particularly during a lull or free time, the use of TSDs usually reflects selection and a departure from just turning on the TV. The use of interactive media like TSDs is supposed to amplify the tenets of uses and gratifications theory (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001) and make the experience more about the user than about
58 their habitual use of the medium. This suggests that either TSDs have brought about only behavior modification or that users have gain ed a level of affinity with it that has allowed them to slip into familiar routines. Pass Time Results showed that participants used time shifting devices to watch TV as a means of passing the time, more so than Rubin found among viewers of live TV in his item s yielded means that were all significantly higher than the mea item passing idle time is one of the most salient motivators explaining TSD usage. These results suggest that participants in this survey either had more time to pass or were more frequently bored than their peers in the earlier study. That is one possible explanation for these results. It is also possible that with the public watching more and more TV, time shifted or otherwise, (The Nielsen Company, 2012) people are more that participants in this study eschewed other means of passing time for TV not because of affinity w ith the medium but perhaps due to a lack of affinity with other pass times like reading, which as college students they are required to do for their classes. Entertainment The item s for entertainment as a motivation for watching TV via TSDs returned mean scores of well above 3, all of which were higher in this study than the means collected in the 1983 study. Just as in the initial study, these data suggest that entertainment is a highly salient motivation for watching time shifted TV With means approachin g 4, entertainment is the most salient motivator for watching time shifted TV.
59 This could reflect greater affinity for TV due to TSDs which afford the user the ability to watch only what viewers consider to be the most entertaining programs as opposed to w hatever is on when they have free time. It may also be explained by greater affinity among survey participants with the medium in general. Perhaps the most interesting possible explanation is that TSDs and other changes that have helped foster fragmentatio n of the medium. An occurrence that Chafee and Metzger (2001) predicted would lead to greater variety in TV programming, ensuring that the medium now more limited offeri ng could not. Social Interaction As a motivation for watching time shifted TV, social interaction also returned two item s with means significantly different to the means collected for live TV. Social interaction appears to be a more important motivator f or viewers who time shift TV than it is for viewers who watch TV live. But there may be many reasons for this change other than the method of delivery. TV may have facilitated social interaction better many years ago before the advent of the internet and s ocial media. Not only do these media allow for social interaction, they allow viewers to interact with each other even if they now have several TVs (Cross Platform Report Q4 2011, 2012), the TV set is no longer a place that families congregate at as often as they once did. TSDs have only added to that. Even if the TV itself is not the center of social interaction for viewers as mentioned, it plays a significant role in soci al interaction via social media. It is here that However
60 TV executives have begun to exploit social media to promote their content (Peterson, 2012) and even to lev erage its popularity to gain an advantage in securing advertising dollars (Crupi, 2012). Information Information seeking does not seem to be an overly important motivation for watching time shifted TV as compared to other motivations like entertainment or pass gathering information from social networking sites, news websites and other electronic media (Poynter Institute, 2009). It also makes sense because information in th e form of news and current events has a sell by date. It goes bad. Time shifting the news or news magazine programs would only be useful for information gathering if the viewers involved had no access to other means to access the news or watched it soon af ter it was broadcast. Arousal For participants in this study, arousal was a more important reason for watching time shifted TV than live TV. However, because there was such range within the index difficult to draw firm conclusions. One explanation for the gap in means might be the choice of words used in the item participants might have caused some confusion. P utting aside the variance found in the three means returned, it does appear that arousal is a more important motivator for participants watching time shifted TV. This could express both a difference in the way both sets of participants feel about the conte nt or perhaps just a change in the way TV is used today. With more TVs in households and greater choice among programs
61 (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001), it is possible that the increased arousal is due not to time shifting strictly, but simply to viewers watching programs that cater more directly to their entertainment desires. Escape As a means of motivating viewers to watch television live or via a TSD, escaping everyday life is not a great motivating factor, according to the results of this survey and 1983 study. For time shifted viewers, the responses are very much the same. All three item s returned means below 2.3, comparing favorably with escape as a motivation for watching live TV in the earlier study. TSD usage did not appear to impact viewers usi ng TV as a means of escaping reality. Companionship The responses to the item s for companionship as a motivation for time shifted TV watching were not significantly different to those recorded in the earlier study. In addition, with means all 2.3 or lowe r, it was not a particularly salient motivator. Companionship may become an even less salient motivator in the future given how greater choice and variety in programming, tempered by the availability of TSDs has helped to fragment the audience (Ruggiero, 2000). Given the penetration of social media like Facebook and twitter and the widespread use of smart phones and the internet among Americans around the age of the survey participants (comScore, 2011), it is not surprising that companionship was not an sa lient important motivator for time shifted TV viewing. If media consumers seek companionship, the answer may lie in web 2.0. Facebook and twitter provide a means for media consumers to maintain contact with their friends and loved ones even when they do n ot share the same space physically.
62 TV producers are even finding ways to exploit the widespread use of social media by connecting their content to their websites or by inviting viewers to comment on Facebook or twitter (Peterson, 2012). If companionship i s sought, it might be satisfied Facebook page, message board or by using twitter hashtags (Lin & Pea, 2011). It is likely that companionship may be an important motivator f or using social media or websites to interact with other fans of a show and that as a result, if companionship is sought, it may be satisfied indirectly. The results show great difference in viewer motivation for watching time shifted TV versus viewer mot ivation for watching live TV. Time shifters are allowed more flexibility and choice and with their increased options they are tuning in for different reasons. Different motivations are important beyond providing media scholars with insight into why people watch TV. Uses and gratifications approach suggests that how people use media is linked very closely with why they use it. For this reason, changes in motivation for TV watching are important because they may predict or explain changes in behavior. It is probable that viewer motivation among live and time shifting viewers will continue to differ. The more TSDs penetrate the market and the more viewers become comfortable with using them, the less likely they are to turn to live TV for anything other than in strumental viewing. The technology needed to allow viewers to record up to 4 different programs at once already exists. Netflix has an exhaustive library of TV shows and movies and even companies like Amazon are joining the video on demand fray. As the tec hnology advances, time shifting, which is already very common, will become ubiquitous. People will time shift on their phones, and other mobile devices with
63 increasing frequency. Technology will continue to drive advances in the medium. This will allow for an extremely personalized and user friendly if not user dominated medium. Behavior Change es the length of time that participants use TSDs influence change in their overall use of television? Heavy users were more likely to report changes in their TV watching habits than light users of TSDs. TSDs open up a world of programming possibilities for the individual viewer because consumers are no longer limited by what is on when they have free time. A change in viewer behavior can be manifested in different ways. Viewers may wish to watch late episodes o f their favorite show to watch all at once in a binge watching session. Viewers who chose to watch a TV show only after they can watch several episodes at once will not impact the ratings the show receives when it first airs. Likewise, viewers who would ot herwise not watch a show for whatever reason who can watch it within a tells us determi nes whether that show survives or not. Although viewership that occurs more than a week after a program is first broadcast is not currently considered important enough for The Nielsen Company to track (Cross Platform Report Q4, 2011, 2012), this viewershi p is not without significance. Very late viewership might not mean much in terms of a show being saved from cancellation, but it does provide TV and film producers with insight into what audiences are interested in. A cancelled show can be enjoyed by consu mers via TSDs
64 like DVDs, Netflix or AppleTV. The popularity of a cancelled show can mean added revenue based on royalties or subscription fees. However in some instances, a shift in user behavior can trigger action from media producers and bring life to a show where was cancelled, but will return to its fans exclusively on Netflix who are filming a season to be broadcast in the spring of 2013 (Bensinger, 2012). According t o Bensinger, Netflix will also be coming up with even more original content. The company is filming a new TV and film companies to make their content available to vi ewers in the United States. In this way, TSDs can open up foreign markets providing greater variety to consumers. Another change in behavior is binge watching. TSDs not only allow viewers to record or select recently broadcast TV shows but also to revisit full seasons that have been aired and in many cases, even entire series that are no longer on the air. This can mean the opportunity to watch an entire season in one weekend or an entire series in a week or a month. This practice, commonly referred to as binge watching, has the potential to change the way the user experiences TV. It is the equivalent of reading a book in one or two sittings, it allows the producers to speak directly to the viewer and tell the story they set out to tell with fewer interrupt ions and in a more condensed time frame. Engagement The third research question sought to determine if the use of TSDs by college students had any impact on their engagement with media. As discussed, engagement as it relates to TV can be related to attenti veness, involvement and time spent with the media (Webster & Ksiazek, 2012). Engagement is important to advertisers and
65 producers. The more engaged a viewer is, the more immersed in the program they are. The mean response for high users of time shifting de vices was higher than for low users of time shifting devices indicating that more frequent use of TSDs was linked with higher engagement with TV content among participants in this study. There may be several explanations for this, including but not limited to the ability to pause and rewind shows. Given concerns over how TSDs may negatively affect the monetization of TV content (Martin, 2009), a boost in engagement may be used as a carrot to entice advertisers (Peterson, 2012) whose spending fund TV. But en gagement is not simply about advertising dollars. High engagement is tied viewers becoming more involved with the program they are watching. Viewers who are engaged in a program who have access to it via TSD are likely to make time to watch that program. I n the days before time shifting making time could be difficult. Viewers who liked and were engaged in a show had to be in front of a TV when the show was broadcast. However, viewers can now watch hours and hours of their favorite show on end, at their co nvenience. Viewers that engage in such binge watching are more likely to be those who take on marathon viewing sessions. Engagement is important because it is a way not only to predict or explain ratings or overall viewing of a show or program but also bec ause it reflects a connection with mediated content that can manifest itself in viewing behaviors. Structural Constraints Survey results revealed that high users were more likely to report that they used TSDs when faced with structural constraints than lo w users. This is noteworthy because it demonstrates that given the means to, viewers will watch their favorite TV programs via TSD if they have to miss them live. The result may mean higher ratings for some shows and possibly a new wrinkle for TV programme rs to work out. The practice of
66 (Webster, Phalen, & Lichty, 2006), but while in the past this often forced viewers into choosing which show they wanted, with TSDs readil y available, this may no longer be the case. The implications of viewers being able to watch significantly more of their favorite shows regardless of when they air are significant and far reaching. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) suggest that as consumers are given more options their usage will become more fragmented. Because structural constraints such as attending class or going to work succeed in splitting the audience and restricting the number of TV shows they can watch live, the ability to watch shows at a time more convenient to the individual viewer could mean higher viewership for some programs (Carter, 2012). But the overall effect should not counteract the general fragmentation of the audience because most programming is subject to a bump from TSD usa ge. Sporting programs and current events programs should remain unaffected, but most ritualistic viewing should be subject to the whims of viewers and their TSDs. Greater choice in content and greater flexibility of when to view that content should eventua lly lead to a highly fragmented audience like Chaffee and Metzger predicted. If a great many structural constraints are circumvented by the use of TSDs, it is possible that regular usage of TSDs may require scholars to examine the effect of high TSD usage on motivation for watching TV in its most general forms: ritualistic or instr umental viewing. Ritualistic viewing is viewing that is normally associated with the Instrumental viewing is just the opposite, it is linked to viewers watching TV for a set program or to fulfill a set need (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007). With news programs,
67 by using TSDs, viewers can set their own schedule for viewing other current affa irs type programs like variety shows, sporting events and documentaries or any kind of program that is generally watched to satisfy a need for information. By doing so, they can satisfy their need for information during time they have set aside for TV, thu s blurring the line between ritualistic and instrumental viewing. Limitations and Future Research The sample used in this study was drawn from a very small segment of the population. Students almost exclusively in a small, set age group at one university s elf reported their TSD usage and motivations for using TSDs for watching TV. Because of the sample, the results are not generalizable to the wider population. Surveys that reach out to a broader sample will provide a deeper understanding of TSDs and their effect on motivation and viewer behavior. Perhaps future studies could include media journals that would provide researchers with greater detail. A mixed methods study design may have yielded results, particularly as they relate to behavior change and TSD usage that go beyond hours of use or simply a change in viewing habits. Allowing participants to respond freely about their TSD and overall media use in two staged study design could have informed more probing survey questions about TSD use and TV watching behavior. In future studies, a qualitative approach may help in identifying themes, patterns of use and behavior changes that can be examined quantitatively. This study did not differentiate between TSD users who were watching on recorded devices, programs that they elected to record and from users who browsed menus of available content to select programs that were pre loaded to the TSD of their
68 choice. It is p ossible that there are different motivations for use when just browsing and looking for content are different to motivations when choosing from which programs a viewer actively recorded. In future research, media scholars may ask the question whether viewe rs watching shows they recorded are tak ing part in instrumental use and if those selecting from pre loaded TSDs are exhibiting ritualistic use. Although this study made use of data that was collected in a seminal study, more research needs to be done in t his field in order to make studies like this one more viable. The language and the item vernacular. New surveys could also update the language and full access to all the data could allow for a comparison of indices in addition to the means of individual item s. With the understanding that the use of time shifting devices can have an impact Why is user motivation impacted by t questions: How specifically is viewer behavior affected? What role does TSD usage watching. These topics in themselves can open up the door to further examination. How prevalent is binge watching? What impact does it have on engagement? Utilizing the same motivations that scholars identified for a medium that has grown and changed a great deal in the last 5 years, much less the last 30 years is problematic. In addition to more quant itative work, a qualitative look at the subject may help uncover new motivations or better terms or item s to use in future quantitative research on this subject. In C losing Freedom of choice and convenience are products of TSDs. While consumers will be pl eased to be their own media programmers to an extent, these new options present
69 a challenge for media producers as the TV market becomes more and more fragmented. The potential for TSDs to change the way people deal with structural constraints as they affe ct their media choices is great. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) describe audience fragmentation as a response by the consumer to the great many channels that are available. Their prediction that audience fragmentation may cause media scholars to focus less on what media does to people and more on what people do with media is applicable not only to audience fragmentation across various channels but also across time (pp. 369 370). In short, the way that audience members use time shifting devices to consume media has created another lens through which scholars can examine media use. Insight gained into fragmentation of audiences along the timeline as opposed to across various channels and media may well interest programmers, advertisers and television producers. As things stand, currently TV viewing that occurs more than seven (7) days after a program is first aired is not counted by Nielsen, the leader in television ratings in the United States. But even though it is recorded, it is only recently that it has been u sed to make programming decisions (Carter, 2012). Time shifting and time shifters should be getting more attention from media scholars. The use of mobile devices to time shift is becoming more prevalent and as a result, viewers can not only access their fa vorite TV whenever they want, but also have access to it wherever they want as well. Time shifting is here to stay. It brings with it far reaching ramifications for producers and a world of possibilities for consumers and researchers alike.
70 A PPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Uses And Gratifications Of Time Shifting Devices This survey is designed to measure your use of time shifting devices to view TV shows. A time shifting device is anything that allows you to watch or listen to media after the time it was first aired. DVDs qualify but so do websites like Hulu or even the websites of your favorite TV stations. TiVo and other digital recorders are also time shifting devices. Keep those things in mind when answering the following questions about your media us e. TSD Usage and Engagement 1. Please select your gender: male/female/prefer not to say 2. Indicate how often you use time shifting devices to watch a single television episode. 1: never 2: 1 3 times per month 3: 4 7 times per month 4: more than twice a week but not every day 5: just about every day 3. How many different time shifting devices (such as Hulu, DVDs, DVRs, Netflix, individual TV station websites etc.) do you use in an average week? 1: none 2: 1 3: 2 3
71 4: 4 5 5: 6 or more 4. Please list up to 3 TV shows that you have or plan to time shift in the near future 1: 2: 3: 5. Please list up to 3 TV shows that you will watch live in near future 1: 2: 3: 6. Did you use a time shifting device yesterday (or last weekday)? 1: No 2: Yes, for less than 30 mins 3: Yes, fo r between 30 mins and 1hr 4: Yes, for between 1 to 2 hrs 5: Yes, for over 2 hrs 7. During a typical weekday how long do you use time shifting devices? 1: Not at all 2: less than 30 mins 3: between 30 mins and 1hr 4: between 1 to 2 hrs 5: over 2 hrs
72 8. When you watch a TV show on a time shifting device, how attentive are you? 1: for the most part, it is usually just for background noise 4: I may occasion ally shift focus, but I spend most of my time looking at the screen 9. On a scale of 1 5 with 1 signifying not at all and 5 typifying your experience, how well do you relate t o the characters, plot or problems described in the TV shows you watch on time shifting devices? 1: not at all 2: 3: 4: 5: I feel strongly connected to the content 10. How important are time shifting devices for you when it comes to passing the time? 1: not v ery important 2: 3: 4: 5: extremely important 11. How important are time shifting devices for you for entertainment purposes? 1: not very important
73 2: 3: 4: 5: extremely important 12. How important are time shifting devices for you when it comes to getting or st aying informed? 1: not very important 2: 3: 4: 5: extremely important 13. Indicate how much not being able to use time shifting devices at all would upset you by selecting a number from 1 5 with one signifying that you are not bothered very much and 5 meaning that you would have trouble dealing with such a situation 1: not bothered 2: 3: 4: 5: very disappointed 14. Would you say that the amount of time you spend using time shifting devices has changed in the last 6 months? 1: it has remained the same
74 2: it has in creased marginally 3: it has decreased marginally 4: it has increased significantly 5: it has decreased significantly 15. How skilled are you at finding something to watch using a time shifting device? 1: I can never find something interesting 2: Only rarely do I find something to watch 3: I can find something to watch often 5: If it is out there, I can find it 16. Have your TV watching habits changed as a result of having access to time shifted content? have access to time 3: I have noticed slight changes 4: Yes, somewhat 5: Considerably so 17. How often do you watch more than one episode of a TV show at once, via time shifting device? 1: nev er 2: rarely (about once a week) 3: sometimes (up to 3 times a week) 4: often (4 6 times a week)
75 5: very often (more than 6 times a week) 18. How many programs do you watch via time shifting devices that you have no intention of watching live? 1: none 2: 1 3: 2 4: 3 5: 4 or more 19. Is it important to you that you watch certain time shifted programs at or around the same time each week? shifted programs at the same time 2: Not important, if it happens, it happens 3: I try to watch some shows a round the same time 4: I have a set schedule to watch one or several of the shows I like 5: There is (are) a (several) show(s) that I always watch at a specific time shifted vie shifted viewing experience is nothing like I watch (time Relaxation 20. Because it relaxes me 21. Because it allows me to unwind
76 22. Because it is a pleasant rest Companionship 23. 24. When there is no one else to talk or be with 25. Because it makes me feel less lonely Habit 26. 27. Because I just like to watch 28. Pass Time 29. When I have nothing better to do 30. Because it passes the time 31. Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time Entertainment 32. Because it entertains me 33. 34. Because it amuses me Social Interaction 35. 36. So I can tal 37. So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching Arousal 38.
77 39. 40. Because it peps me up Escape 41. So I can forget about school or other things 42. So I can get away from the rest of the family or others 43. Information Motivation 44. To be informed 45. To learn about myself or others 46. To track current events that interest me These questions will be answered in the same manner as above, but they are not for comparison to TV motivations Convenience Motivation 47. So I can watch TV shows when it suits me 48. To watch cancelled TV shows or movies no longer offered on cable/broadcast TV 49. To catch up on a TV show or a movie that I was watching before but got interrupted Structural Constraints 50. To avoid having to miss important events or activities 51. Because I have to work or attend classes when some programs are broadcast 52.
78 APPENDIX B RESULTS Y (Rubin, 1983)
79 APPENDIX C E MAILS SENT TO PARTIC IPANTS Hello RTV 3405 Students: My name is David Jonathan Chase. I am a graduate student in the College of Journalism and Communications. I am conducting a study eval use of media devices. Your instructor has agreed to award 5 points extra credit for completing my survey, so be sure to enter your identifying information correctly. You may also want to take a screen shot or print the last page o f the project to verify your participation. This project must be completed by Sunday, February 20 th at midnight and will take about 15 minutes of your time. If you have ANY questions please contact: johnochase@gma il.com Please find link to the study below. If you have problems with the link, please cut and paste it directly into your browser. https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV _5hii7BlGPAmuEew Thank You: David Jonathan Chase
80 Hello Mass Media and You Students: My name is David Jonathan Chase. I am a graduate student in the College of use of media devices. Your instructor has agreed to award some extra credit for completing my survey, so be sure to enter your identifying information correctly. This project must be completed by Sunday, February 20 th at midnight and will take about 15 minutes of your time. If you have ANY questions please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Please find link to the study below. If you have problems with the link, please cut and paste it directly into your browser. https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5hii7BlGPAmuEew Thank You: David Jonathan Chase
81 Hello Economics Issues, Food and You Students: My name is David Jonathan Chase. I a m a graduate student in the College of use of media devices. Your instructor has agreed to award some extra credit for completing my survey, so be sure to enter your ident ifying information correctly. This project must be completed by Sunday, February 20 th at midnight and will take about 15 minutes of your time. If you have ANY questions please contact me via email at: johnochase@gm ail.com Please find link to the study below. If you have problems with the link, please cut and paste it directly into your browser. https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5hii7BlGPAmuEew Thank You: David Jonathan Chase
82 APPENDIX D INFORMED CONSENT FOR M Protocol Title: Time shifting devices UFIRB #2011 U 0008 Please read this document before you decide whether you will participate in this study. Purpose of study: The purpose of this study is to examine your use of time shifting devices such as Hulu, Netflix and Digital Video Recorders. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to answer several questi ons on your use of time shifting devices via a electronic survey. This survey can be taken from a computer with a working internet connection. Time required: 15 minutes Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks involved with this study. We do not anticipate that you will benefit directly by participating in this study. Compensation: You may receive extra credit for RTV 3405, AEB 2014 or MMC 2604 for your participation in this study. The extra credit will not exceed 2 percent of your final grade in the course. There will be other opportunities for extra credit not linked to this research. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. You will be asked to provide your Gator1 # so that your instructor can a ssign extra credit, but it will not be linked with your answers. Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.
83 Withdraw from the study: If you so choose, you may stop participating in this study at anytime without consequence. Contact person: David Jonathan Chase, Graduate student, Department of Journalism, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611 or email@example.com OR Dr. Cory Armstrong at firstname.lastname@example.org or 352 392 0847 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University o f Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; ph 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure. I understand that I may print this page for my own records. ________I agree ________I DO NOT AG REE. I WILL NOT PART ICIPATE IN THE STUDY
84 LIST OF REFERENCES Bensinger, G. (2012, September 26). Netflix CEO Keeps Focus on Expansion, Price. Wall Street Journal. Bezjian Avery, A., Calder, B. J., & Iacobucci, D. (1998). New Media Interactive Advertising v s. Traditional Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 23 32. Bing, B. (2010). 3D and HD Broadband Video Networking. Norwood, MA: Artech House. Bulcka, J. V. (1999). VCR use and patterns of time shifting and selectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & E lectronic Media, 316 326. Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 321 331. Carlisle, A. (2005, March/Apri l). The top five tech toys on today's college campuses. Women in Business, pp. 20 22. Carter, B. (2012, June 25th). NBC Series Saved by Delayed Viewership. New York Times p B1. Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The End of Mass Communication. Mass Communication & Society 365 379. Chuang, C. F., Huang, N., & Hwang, S. L. (2011). User Interactive Design for Digital TV Web Surfing. In J. Jacko, Human Computer Interaction. Users and Applications (pp. 439 442). Berlin: Springer. Cohen, P. (2006, Septem ber 12). Apple 'It's Showtime!' event -live coverage. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from MacWorld: http://www.macworld.com/article/52855/2006/09/showtime.html.comScore. comScore. (2012, June 14). State of US internet in Q1 2012. Reston, VA. comScore. (2010 ). The 2009 US Digital Year in Review. comScore. Reston, VA. Cooper, R., & Tang, T. (2009). Predicting Audience Exposure to Television in Today's Media Envritonment: An Empiraical Integration of Active Audience and Structural Theories. Journal of Broadcast ing & Electronic Media, 400 418. Crupi, A. (2012, August 23). Media Buyers Suit Up for NFL Season NFL Network leverages fantasy draft as a means to sell its 13 game slate. Adweek Cunningham, S., Silver, J., & McDonnell, J. (2010). Rates of change: online d istribution as disruptive technology in the film industry. Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 119 132.
85 Dawson, M. (2010). Television between Analog and Digital. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 95 100. Domzal, T. J., & K ernan, J. B. (1983). Television Audience Segmentation According to Need Gratification. Journal of Advertising Research, 37 49. Drotner, K. (2005). Media on the move: Personalized media and the transformation of publicness. Journal of Media Practice, 53 64. Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a functional alternative to Television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 155 174. Ferguson, D. A., Greer, C. F., & Reardon, M. E. (2007). Uses and Gratifications of MP3 Players by College Students: Are iPods More Popular than Radio? Journal of Radio Studies, 102 121. Finn, S. (1997). Origins of media exposure: Linking personality traits to TV, radio, print, and film use. Communication Research, 507 529. Fritz, B. (2011 July 25) Netf lix Revenue and Guidance Disappoints Wall Street. Los Angeles Times Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/07/netflix stock drops as wall street disappointed with revenue and guidance.html Gleim, J. A. & Gleim, R. R. Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert Type Scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education (pp. 82 88). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Ha ridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social Interaction and Co Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 317 335. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilizatio n of Mass Communication by the Individual. In J. G. Blumler, E. Katz, & eds., The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research (pp. 19 32). Beverly Hills: Sage. s Media for Important Kaye, B. K. (2005). It's a Blog, Blog, Blog, Blog World. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 73 95. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the Know: Uses and Gratifications of the Web for Political Information. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 54 71.
86 Ko, H., Cho, C. H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). internet Uses and Gratifications: A Structural Equation Model of Interactive Advertising. Journal of Advertising 55 70. Kopy toff, V. G. (2010, September 26). Shifting Online, Netflix Faces New Competition. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/technology/27netflix.html?_r=1 Krugman, D., & Johnson, K. F. (1991). Differences in the Consumption of Traditional Broadcas t and VCR Movie Rentals. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 213 232. Lawler, Ryan. (2011, February 11). Can Hulu hang On to Its Online TV Audience? [Blog Post]. NewTeeVee. Retrieved from http: //gigaom.com/video/hulu comscore audience/Lawson, M. (2006, November 2). Are you sitting comfortably? The Guardian, p. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/02/television. Levy, M. (1983). The Time Shifting Use of Home Video Receorders. Journal of Broadc asting & Electronic Media, 263 268. Lin, J. S., & Pea, J. (2011). Are you following me? A Content Analysis of TV Networks' Brand Communication on Twitter. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17 29. Martin, L. (2009). Hulu: Killer App or TV Killer? Solei l Securities. McQuail, D. &. (1993). Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication. London: Longman. Netflix Media Room. (2011, January 4). Streaming From Netflix Will Soon be Even More Convenient With Netflix One Click Remotes Introduced by Maj or Consumer Electronics Makers. Retrieved from http://netflix.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=381 Newman, J. (2012, August 17). PCWorld. Retrieved September 11, 2012, from Today @PCWorld: www.pcworld.com/article/261011/tivo_premiere_4_dvr_4channel_record ing_for_ 250.html Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. L. (2007). An Exploratory Study of Reality Appeal: Uses and Gratifications of Reality TV Shows. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 355 370. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting, 175 196. Perse, E. M. (1990). Audience Selectivity and Involvement in the Newer Media Environment. Communication Research, 675 693.
87 Peterson, T. (2012, February 17). TV Check In Apps Get Social With mobile utilities wanting to keep users engaged, big events like the Oscars are golden opportunities. Adweek. Pingree, S., Hawkins, R. P., Johnsson Smaragdi, U., Rosengren, K. E., & Reynolds, N. (1991). Television Structures and Adolescent Viewing Patterns: A Swedish Americ an Comparison. European Journal of Communication, 417 440. Poynter Institute. (2009). State of the News Media 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_newspapers_intro.php ?media=4 Purcell, K. (2010). The State of Online Video. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP The State of Online Video.pdf: Pew Research Cen ter's internet & American Life Project. Rose, B. &. Lenski, J. (2006). internet and multimedia 2006: On demand media explodes. Arbitron/Edison Media Research. Rose, B. & Lenski, J. (2005). internet and multimedia 2005: The on demand media consumer. Arbitr on/Edison Media Research. Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media Uses and Effects: A Uses and Gratifications Perspective. In J. Bryant, & D. e. Zillmann, Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 417 436). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rubin, A M. (1983). Television Uses and Gratifications: The Interactions of Viewing Patterns and Motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 37 52. Rubin, A. M. (1985). Uses of daytime television soap operas by college students. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic M edia, 241 258. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2010). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Ruggiero, T. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication and Society, 3 37. Russell, M. G. (2009). A Call for Creativity in New Metrics for Liquid Media. Journal of Interactive Advertising. Russell, C., Norman, A., & Heckler, S. (2004) The Consumption of Television Programming: TV Connectedness Development and Validation of the Connectedness Scale. Jour nal of Consumer Research, 150 161. Schmitt, K. L., Anderson, D., & Woolf, K. D. (2003). Viewing the Viewers: Viewing Behaviors by Children and Adults During Television Programs and Commercials. Journal of Communication, 265 281.
88 Slatterya, K. L., & Hakanen b, E. A. (2009). Trend: Sensationalism versus public affairs content of local TV news: Pennsylvania revisited. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 205 216. Smith, C. (2011, August 29). Hulu Yahoo Sale? Video Streaming Website Reportedly In Discussi ons To Sell. Huffington Post. Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining Uses and Gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences, 259 282. Sun, S., Hullman, G., & Wang, Y. (2011). Communicating in the multichannel age: Inter personal communication motivation, interaction involvement and channel affinity. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 7 15. The Nielsen Company. (2010). Three Screen Report volume 8. The Nielsen Company. The Nielsen Company. (2012). Cross Platform R eport Q4, 2011. The Nielsen Company Voorta, T. H., Nikkenb, P., & van Lilc, J. E. (2009). Replication: Determinants of parental guidance of children's television viewing: A Dutch replication study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61 74. Webster J. G. (2005). Beneath the veneer of fragmentation: Television audience polarization in a multichannel world. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 366 382. Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Atte ntion in an Age of Digital Media. Journal of Communication, 39 56. Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F., & Lichty, L. W. (2006). Ratings Analysis: The Theory and Practice of Audience Research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Wright, Charles. 195 9. Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Random House. Yu, H., Zheng, D., Zhao, B., & Zheng, W. (2006). Understanding User Behavior in Large Scale Video on Demand Systems. EuroSys, 18 21.
89 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Jonathan Chase was born to Rachel Hall and David Chase, in Port of Spain, Trinidad in 1983. His mother was an English Teacher and sub editor at a national newspaper and his father was a career newspaper man who split time as an editor and as columnist. Both parents played a significant role in shaping Jonathan. Rachel taught him to read and to write and David helped Jonathan get started in broadcast journalism. But it was his maternal grandmother Lucille who first instilled in him the belief that he could become a journalist while they lived together in Belize. Shortly after his graduation from Belize Christian Academy, Jonathan began as an intern at a local TV station, starting his career as a broadcast journalist. After his first stint as a reporter in Trinidad, Jonathan att ained a BA of Mass Communications and English from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. There he worked circuit TV station. Following graduation, Jonathan worked in the Communications & Marke ting Department at Lincoln before returning to broadcast journalism in Trinidad. During his second stint in TV Jonathan worked as a producer and presenter. After returning to the United States, initially to care for his ailing father, Jonathan elected to return to school, applying to and His studies were interrupted when he too was ill. Following that break, he returned to Gainesville where he completed his Master of Arts in Mass Communication, graduating in December of 2012.