Uses and gratifications (UG) theory attempts to explain how people use the media to ‘gratify their wants and needs, what motivates their behavior [sic] and what are the consequences of their uses of media (Bumgarner 2007).’ I thought this theory was relevant to my research into ‘How beneficial Facebook is?’ as individuals have their own reasons as to why and how they use the social media site. ‘According to the uses and gratification perspective, media use is determined by a group of key elements including “people’s needs and motives to communicate, the psychological and social environment, the mass media, functional alternatives to media use, communication behavior, [sic] and the consequences of such behavior” [sic] (Rubin, 1994, cited in Urista, Dong and Day 2009).’ Katz and Blumler pioneered the ‘sociological approaches’ to media. The audience (in their eyes) can reject or interpret media text in their own ways, and it is the consumers choice to gratify certain needs.
Laursen and Szymanski (2013) focus on location convergence over the phone, and how the ‘where are you?’ occurs in the conversation. This theory could be of some relevance to my research as location is common in convergence and on social media. On an instant message, the sender may ask the receiver about their whereabouts. However, Facebook has modernised this. The ‘check in’ function ‘combines location-sensitive smartphone terminals and social networking software to allow smartphone users to register and explicitly broadcast (‘share’) that they are at a given location at a given time to their networked contacts or ‘friends (Bertel 2014).’ Bertel conducted a study to find out if the ‘check in’ button was used amongst Danish youths and concluded that ‘the practice of checking in has not become a routinized part of everyday life (Bertel 2014).’ Humphreys also researched the ‘check in’ function. The button ‘serves a performative function’ notifying Facebook friends of their location status. ‘In circumstances where someone checks in from a fancy restaurant, an exclusive club, or perhaps while traveling, friends cannot come join the person who checked in (Humphreys 2007).’
Lee & Katz 2014 conducted a study on lack of media interaction over a weekend and ‘how much we currently rely on this small but very crucial gadgetry for our safety and social interactions.’ The study discusses how mobile phones are an integral part of one’s everyday life and how merely looking at a device (during a conversation or when the conversation lulls is a reflex action.) Turkle (cited in Lee and Katz) ‘raised a concern about how younger generations might not be able to appreciate the “authenticity” of in-person human interactions;’ this could be applied to my research study as I am keen to see if responses are instant. Research (conducted by Walther, cited in Lee and Katz) suggests that the younger generation prefer social media as a means of communication because ‘they can be more playful and friendly online.’ If they are, is it like a face-to-face conversation and how is this beneficial? Are people too busy with day-to-day lives for social interaction?
Iz bits 