8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

1/12

HE IMPACT OF THE NEWER TELEVISION

y Elizabeth M . Perse and D ouglas A. FergusonThis study focused on the gratifications of some of the newer televisiontechnologies. Specifically we expected that cable television, videocassetterecorders, and remote control devices would increase the gratificationspeople receive from watching television and the satisfaction they derivefrom television use. Telephone interviews w ere completed with 615respondents in a Midwestern totvn. There was only limited support forour expectations. U se of new technologies had an impact on receiving,pass-the-time, and companionship gratifications from television view-ing. Instrumental viewing motives, television exposure, and receivinginformational gratifications from television viewing were the strongestpredictors of television satisfaction. The discussion relates these findingsto the ambiguous meanings that the new technologies have in U .S.sodety.

Satisfaction is an important concept in consumer research because itts prod uct purch ase and consu mp tion. The concept includes elemen ts pleasure, need fulfillment, and evaluations of produ ct a nd consu mp tionfits.' But, ma inly, satisfaction is an affective reaction to prod uc t use.^This study examined whether the newer television technologies in-ease satisfaction with television view ing. Because cable, videocassette

allow view ers greater control over their exposure, and m ake it easier forto connect their preferences and their program choices, we expectedof new technologies w ould increase the benefits that peop le receiveom television view ing cind their p ercep tions of television view ing

Satisfaction is n imp ortan t variable in m ass com mu nication and Satisfactioner research. Satisfaction has been related to mass media use; e.g. to ^LaRose and Atkin, forple, found that intention to disconnect cable w as related to less satisfac-on with the cable compan y's custom er service.^ Burgoon and Burgoonw ho we re satisfied with the new spa per's cost an d informa-n spent more time reading the new spap er. 'Although several theoretical approa ches con tribute to understandingarea of satisfaction,* most mass comm unication research has considered

to grow ou t of an expectation-confirmation process: wh en media contentconsum ed, if expectations are met, satisfaction results and consu mp tion

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

2/12

continues; if expectations are not m et, dissatisfaction results and u se disctinues.Palmgreen and Raybum tested several variations on the expectatidisconfirmation model of television satisfaction.' They found the strongpredictor of television ne ws satisfaction was gratification obtained, or benefits people reported they derived from television new s vievsring. Dcrepancy scores created between expectations about new s view ing and h

well those expectations were filled accounted for far less of the variancesatisfaction. These results were mirrored in Dobos' study of satisfactiim wcommunication technology use in organizations.* Shefoundthat perceivbenefits (gratifications obtained) of a technology were stronger predictorsatisfaction than expectations and measvires of expectation-outcome discrancies.These researchers su ggested that models of media satisfaction shofocus on outcomes and benefits of media use, rather than expectationExpectations may be less important to imderstanding television satisfactbecause expectations about mass m edia are normative in our society.* Tis , most people share generalized beliefs, or expectations, about the roledifferent mass media sodety in society.This study focused on two major infiuences on satisfaction wtelevision exposure. First, actual use and experience with televisionimportant to satisfaction because consumption may have some rewardSeccmd, the benefits, rewards, or gratifications that people obtain fiexposure affect satisfaction because they represent evaluations of the benederived from use.

New This study focused on the influences of cable television, videocasseTelevision recorders (VCR), and remote control devices (RCD) on satisfaction. W. . anticipated that these newer television technologies wo uld be associatTechnologies .^^ greater television viewing satisfaction because cable, VCR, and RCwould increase perceived benefits from television viewing.In general, there are good reasons to believe that peoplefindcabVCR, and RCD beneficial. These technologies have been wide ly embracedthe audience. Between 1980 and 1990, cable subscription increased from 2of the U.S. population to 59%; VCR ownership increased from 1% to 73%

remote control penetration increased from 18% to 66%.' Qearly, peoadopt these tedvio logies because they fulfill som e needs." These ntechnologies should also increase the benefits from television because thincrease the ease vtiitx which viewers can locate appealing content and apeople greater control over television v iewing.Cable. An early study found that cable subscribers report hightelevision satisfaction tiian nonsubscribers.'^ Cable should increase telesion satisfaction because cable television increases the programming optiavailable to viewers. Subscribers make use of that increased variety. Casubscribers have higher channel repertoires, that is, they watch more diffent channels than noruubscribers." Increased choice can lead to mtelevis ion viewing . Basic cable subscribers watch more television th

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

3/12

f view ing television and satisfaction wid i television viewing becausewiU be more likely to find programs to fill their particular needs .VCR. Videocassette recorders increase viewers' control over televi-n. Use of VCR allows people to select not only what they will watch, butihey will watch it. An important reason people use VCRs, for example,so they don't miss their favorite jwogram s.'' Control means that viewersn make better use of their leisure time."Viewers have found new uses for VCRs that surpass the uses ofvision" and new types of m edia behaviors, such as time-shifting, tapeal, and library building.^ VCRs lead people to be more active in the useevision content. VCR users plan their viewing more and make greater

d from vie wing and satisfaction w itb television.Rem ote control devices. Tw o major uses of RCD are grazing (chang-nels frequently to sam ple television's offerings) and zapping (chang-g channels to avo id commercials). Grazing itself provides its ow n gratifi-The constant shifting im ages and h ighlights of program bits mayual stimulation.Remote control devices should be linked to greater television satisfac-

aluate television programs. * When viewers find themselves watchingsatisfybig, they can instantly change the channel. Jameser has said , "Grazing by definition is a sign of dissatisfaction."^ Theent reasoru for changing channels are to avoid p eople, comm ercials,to reject unwanted information.^ Viewers also use RCDs to get "moret of television.' They access music videos , new s, weather, and shoppingcommercial breaks. In general, RCDs make television more interest-

The goal of this study was to explore the impact of newer television HvPOtheseses on television satisfaction. We focused on tw o infiuences onisfaction: new technology use and perceived benefits of television view -Because cable, VCR, and RCD increase programming options andontrol, we expected that greater use of new technologies w ould beciated with more perceived benefits from television viewing. Thus, therst hypothesis was:

HI: Benefits perceived to be obtained from televisionview ing will be predicted by use of cable, VCR, and RCD.1, because we anticipated that benefits and use would infiuence

H2: Television viewing satisfaction will be predicted by(a) increased use of cable,VCR, and RCD, and (b) more perceivedbenefits obtained from television viewing.

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

4/12

num bers and no answers), there were 615 completions and 198 refusals,a 75 6% completion rate. The sample was 45.1% male and ranged in age f17 - 93 (M = 36.27, SD = 17.01). The average respon den t had completed 1yearsofeducation(rangingfrom8-20years,SD = 2.45). HoU ingshead'stwfactor social position index measured occup ational level and r

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

5/12

TABLE 1Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summary: Regressing Benefits Derivedfrom Television Viewing

Step E' Final E^ Final E' Final E' Final E^ Final E Final E^ FinalEntered Change R Change R Change R Change R Change R Change R Change R

1 .01 .05** .05* .02 .01 .00 .01e

Us e 2 .00Sub scriptionR O wnershipR U seExposureCh anging

.01

.08-.06-.01,05

.01,03-.04-.02,03

0,53

-.02.02-.06.08,06*"

.04-,03-.09.14*.19**.10*"

4.36*"

.18**.02-.04.05.10*** .02

-.06-.05-.10.24***.24***.15*** .04

6.63*** 1

-.11-.00-.08-.11

-.00-.07.03.11.08

.59

.04-.01.11.08.03

.06-.00.08,14*-,01.04

1.43

-.00.01.02,03.03

.03-.00.12*.11.09.03

1.25

-.04-.06-.11-.06.02

-.06-.11-.05.05-.02.03

1.15

Benefit 1: Leam things that can help. Benefit 5: He lps m e relax.Benefit 2: He lps me pass the time. Benefit 6: Entertains m e.Benefit 3: Keeps m e com pany. Benefit 7: Peps me up.Benefit 4: Helps m e forget about work and worries.* * * p

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

6/12

positive predictors.Keeps me company. The dem ograph ics, entered at the first step,counted for 4.7% of the variance (p < .01). Age and occup ation wesignificant, positive contribu tors. The media use variables, ente red at tsecond step , increased the variance 10.3% (p < .001). Oc cupation w as longer significant. The final equa tion explained 15.1% of the variance receiving com pan ionship benefits from television view ing. Age (R = .p < .01), television exposure (R = .24, p < .001), and channel changing = -24, p < .001) w ere all significant con tributo rs to the equ ation .

Helps m e forget about loorkand ivorries. At the fi rs t s tep the dem ograpics accounted for 2.0% of the variance (p = .14). Age w as a significanegative predictor. At the second step, the media use variables increased tvarianct by 2.1 % (p = .21). Age was no longer part of the equation. The finequation accounted for 4.1% of the variance in receiving escapist benefiNo ne of the variables wa s a significant contributor to the equation.Helps me relax. At the first step , the dem ographics accounted for of the variance (p = .50). At the second step , new technology variabl

increased the variance 2.7% (p = .10). The final equation accounted for 3.7of the v ariance in perceiving relaxation from television view ing. Televisioexposure (R = .14, p < .05) w as a significant, positive predic tor.Entertains me. The demo grap hics accoun ted for 0.4% of the varianat the first step (p = .83). At the second step, the new technology variabladded 2.8% to the explained variance (p = .09). The final equation accountfor 3.2% of the variance in perceiving ente rtainm ent benefits from televisioviewing. Time spent w atch ing the VCR (R = .12, p < .05) w as a significanpositive predictor.Peps me up . The dem ograph ics en tered on the first step accounted 1.1% of the variance (p = .46). The use of new technologies increased thvariance 1.9% at the second step (p = .25). In the final analysis, the equatioexplained 3.0% of the variance in perceiv ing excitem ent benefits from televsion view ing. No ne of the variables was a significant contributor to tequation.Television Satisfaction. Once again, hierarchical m ultiple regressiotested the impact of use of new er television technologies on satisfaction witelevision viewing. The regression is sum marized in Table 2.The dem ogra phic s ente red at the first step accoun ted for 1.2% of thvaricince in satisfaction (p = .39). The m edia use v ariables, entered at tsecond step , accoun ted for anothe r 5.6% of the variance (p < .01). Televisioexp osure entered the equation as a significant, positive contributor. At tfinal step, the benefits derived from television viewing from televisio\ iewing added 7.7% to the explained variance . T he final equation accounfor 14 5% of the variance in satisfaction with television viewing. Televisioexp osure (R = .19, p < .01) and receiving leaming benefits from televisioviewing (R = .18, p < .001) were significant, positive con tribu tors to tequ ation . Perceiving c om pan ionship benefits (R = .12, p = .07) was a nesignificant, positive pred ictor of satisfaction. The regression provided nsupport for the second hypothesis.

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

7/12

TABLE 2Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summary: Regressing Satisfaction

"How satisfied are you with the overall job that television does in providingyou w ith the things you are seeking?"

DemographicsA geSexEducationOccupation

Media UseCable S ubscriptionVCR OwnershipVCR UseTV ExposureChannel Changing

BenefitsLeam things that helpPass the timeKeeps me companyForget work & word esHelps me relaxEntertains mePeps me up

StepEntered1

2

3

E^ FinalE^ Change f>.01 .01

-.01.04.01.02.QT" . 0 6 "

.09-.00-.01

. 19".04.15"* . 0 8 "*

. 1 8 " '-.07.12-.02.05.06.08

Note. Step 1: E(4, 333) = 1.03, p = .39Step 2: E(9, 328) = 3.94, p < .01Step 3: E(16, 321) = 4 14, p < .001Final E = 3.42*"" p < .001 * p < .01 p < .05

Of the new technology variables, channel changing had the mostal impact. O ur respo nde nts reported mo re pass-the-time andanionship benefits when they changed chan nels more. Passing timepanion ship are usually considered m ore passive uses of television* These findings reinforce the theoretical am bigu ity of chan nel

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

8/12

benefits m ay not be associated w ith selecting specific prog ram s. Channchanging instead may enhance television exposure that is unplanned owhe n there is nothing specific to watch.These results also reinforce the imp ortan ce of focusing on reasons fochtinging channels. Zap ping is related to commercial avoidanc e, grazing related to boredom, and flipping is related to specific gratifications." Researchers sho uld be aw are of the different types of channel cha nging and thdifferent reasons that motivate it.VCR use ha d only a limited impact on receiving entertainmen t benefits from television. And, contrary to ou r hypo thes is, more VCR use walinked to lower levels of repo rted enterta inm ent benefits. Fu ture researcshould explore whether VCR use g row s out of dissatisfaction with televisionPerhaps VCRs provide other benefits not measured in this studyRubin and Bantz, for example, found that the greatest perceived utilities oVCRs are movie rentals, time shifting, library storage, and for socializingPerhap s benefits from these uses are not seen as related to television viewingIsraeli children, for example, consider VCRs more like cinema than liktelevision.^' Fu ture research should exam ine connections betw een perceptions of VCR and television with a U.S. sam ple.

We found it surp rising that cable television was unrelated to anbenefits of television view ing. We expected that the greater variety offereby cable would allow viewers more opportunity to get what they werlook ing for ou t of television . Pe rha ps cable is not seen as distinct fromtelevision. Perhaps subscribers see the variety of prog ram m ing as whatelevision has to offer. Fu ture research should exam ine whether newetechnologies raise expectations about television so that increased benefitmay no t be so noticed or a ppreciated.Moreover, although cable television offers greater progrtim varietyother aspec ts of cable may be dissatisfying. Some subscribers may feel thacost does not offset the benefits. Other subscribers may be dissatisfied withmana gem ent an d custom er service, and the repetition of program offeringsespecially on more expensive pay channels.*' Fu ture research should continue to exp lore the aspects of the cable expe rience rela ted to satisfaction andisconnection.We found no sup po rt for our second hy poth esis. Television satisfaction was not increased by cable subscription, VCR use, or RCD use. The mo

substantial predicto rs of satisfaction we re higher levels of television exposure and believing that one derives useful knowledge from television. It ihard to accept that technologies that have been so widely accepted by theaud ienc e do not pro vid e benefits or increase television v iewing satisfaction.*There are some possible explana tions for our find ings. First, newtechnologies m ay raise the expectations that peop le have of television, so thaany increases in satisfaction received may simp ly be what is expected. So,migh t be m ore fruitfui to stud y chcinges in television satisfaction over timeTelevision may seem more satisfying to new cable subscribers and newowners of VCRs and RCDs, because they are more aware of increased

benefits associated with the new technologies. Or, research might focus osatisfaction with television viewing when cable is unavailable, the VCR i

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

9/12

ether new technologies increase what pe ople ho pe to get from televisionEquity app roach es might answ er wheth er costs associated withffset b y benefits. And , attribution appro aches migh tve questio ns abo ut wh ether benefits a re attributed to television, to its, or to new er technologies.Lastly, although we used a measure of television satisfaction widelyin mass comm unication research, future research might consider othe rScholars may need to enlarge the concept of television satisfaction.

of the television landscap e: prog ram s soug ht versus prog ram snd w hile seeking others, offensive comm ercials versus en tertaining com -times. Elements of and influences on television satisfac-e with the ado ption and use of different media technologies.

1. R.L. OUver, "Mea surem ent a nd Evaluation of Satisfaction ProcessesJournal of Retailing 57 (1981): 25-48.2. R.L. Oliver, "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Conse-Journal of Marketing Research 17 (1980):0-469; R.A. W estbrook and R.L. Oliver, "Developing Better M easures ofAdvances in Consumered. K.B. Monroe (Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Re-8: 94-99.

3. Judee K.Burgoon and M. Burgoon, "Predictors of New spap er Read-Journalism Quarterly 57 (1980): 589-596; Robert LaRose and Dav idJournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 32 (1988): 403 -

4. LaRose and Atkin, "Predictors of Cable Subscription."5. Burgoon and Burgoon, Predictors of Ne ws pape r Readership."6. Richard L. Oliver and Wayne S. DeSarbo, "Response D eterminants inJournal of Consumer Research 14 (1988): 495-507.7. Philip Palmgreen and J.D. Raybum, "Uses and Gratifications andCommunication6 (1979): 155-180.8. Jean Dobos, "Gratification Models of Satisfaction and Choice ofCommunication Research 1929-51.9.-Allen Lichtenstein and Lawrence Rosenfeld, "Norm ative Expecta-

11 (1984): 393 -413.10 . Lynn S . Gross , Telecommunications: An Introduction to the Electronic

4th ed. (Du buq ue, IA: Wm . C. Brown, 1992).11. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. (NY: Free Press,

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

10/12

McVoy, "Cableviewing Behaviors: An Electronic Assessment ," Cableviewing, eds. C.Heeter and B.S, Gre enbe rg (No rw ood, NJ: Ablex, 151-63.14. Ron Garay, Cable Television: A Reference Guide to InformatioGree nw ood , 1988).15. Ve mon e M. Sparkes and Namjun Kang, "Public Reactions to CabTelevision: Time in the Diffusion Process," Journal of Broadcasting & ElecMedia 30 (1986): 213-229.16. Garay, Cable Television.17. Milton J, Shatzer and Thomas R, Lindolf, "Subjective Differences the Use and Evaluation of the VCR," in The VCR Age: Home Video andCommuniaition, ed, M ark R. Levy (New bury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), 112-118. Kimberly K. Massey and StanleyJ, Baran, "VCR and P eop le's Controf Their Leisure Tim e," in Social & Cultural Aspects of VCR Use, ed. JuDobrow (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1990), 75-92,19. Alan M. Rubin and Charles R, Bantz, "U tility of V ideocassette Recoers," American Behavioral Scientist 30 (1987): 471-485.

20. Mark R. Levy, "The Time-shifting Use of Home Video RecordersJournal of Broadcasting 27 (1983): 263-268.21. Carolyn A. Lin, "Audience Activity and VCR Use," in SociaCultural Aspects of VCR Use, ed . Julie R. Dobrow (HUlsdale, NJ: Erlba1990), 75-92.22. Julie R. Dob row, "The Rerun Ritual: Using VCRs to Review ," In So& Cultural Aspects of VCR Use, ed. Julie R, Dobrow (Hillsda le, NJ: Erlba1990), 181-193.23. Peter Ainslie, "Confronting a Nation of Grazers,'' Channels: Business of Communicators (September 1988), 54-62.24. Carrie Heeter, "Prograim Selection and the Ab und ance of Choice:Process M odel," Human Communication Research 12 (1985): 126-152,25. Janice Cas tro, "View from the Ivy Tower," in How Americans WTV: A Nation of Grazers (NY: C.C. Publishing, 1989), 23,26. Ainslie, "Na tion of Grazers;" JamesR. Walker and Robert V. BellamJr., "Gratifications of Grazing: An Exploratory Study of Remote ControUse," Journalism Quarterly 68 (Auhjmn 1991): 422-431.27. Walker and Bellamy, "Gratifications of Grazing."28. This study was a secondary analysis of data collected for otheresearch regarding television remote controls. See Douglas A. Ferguson anElizabeth M . Perse, "Media a nd Audience Influences on Chan nel Repetoire," journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 37 (1993): 31-47,29. Lower scores indicate higher social position, D.C, Mille"HoUingshead's Two Factor Index of Social Position," in Haruibook of ReseDesign and Social Measurement (NY: Longm an, 1983), 300-308.30. Cable subscribers differed from nonsu bscribe rs. They were olde(M = 37.79) than nonsubscribers (M = 33,12), t(588) = 3,07,p < ,001; subscriers had completed more years of schoolings (M = 14.58) than subscribe(M = 14,05), t(594) = 2.45, p < ,05; subscribers had higher SES (M = 44.8than nonsubscribers (M = 51.03), t(577) = 3.74, p < ,001; subscribers watchmore television (M = 6.32) than nonsubscribers (M = 5,15), t(597) = 3.4

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

11/12

ow ner s (M = 13.85), t(563) = 3.16, p < .01; ow ne rs we re mo re likely tor i b e t o c a b l e ( 7 5. 0% ) t h a n n o n o w n e r s ( 5 1 .9 % ) , c h i - s q u a r e= 571) = 26.07, p < .001; and ow ner s were more l ikely to o w n RC Ds4%) than non ovw iers (54.5%), chi-sq uare (N = 571) = 41.59, p < .001.32. VCRusewascomparabl e to l eve l s foundi notherresearch . SeeDanny33. D ou gla s A. Ferguson, "Channel Repertoire in the Presence of R emo te

Journal cf Broadcasting &Media 36 (1992): 83-91.34. Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Television and the QualityL^: How Viewing Shapes Everyday Experiences (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,35. The satisfaction m easu re wa s drawn from Philip Palmgree n and J. D .um n , "A Com par ison of Gratification M od els of M edia Satisfaction,"Monographs 52 (December 1985): 334-346. The same measures also used b y D ob os, "Gratifications M odels," and by Elizabeth M. Perse

Jourmlism Quarterly 65 (Summer 1988): 368-375.36. Alan M. Rubin, "Ritualized and Instrumental Television Viewing,"of C ommunication 34 (Su mm er 1984): 67-77.37. Heeter, "Program Selection and Abundance of Choice."38. Elizabeth M. Perse, "Audience Selectivity and Involvement in theer M edia Environment,"Communication Research 17 (1990): 675-697.39. Ain slie,"N ation of Grazers;" Ferg uson , "Channel Repertoire;" Walker40. Rubin and Bantz, "Utility of VCRS."41. Akiba A . Coh en , Mark R. Levy, and K. Go lden , (1988), "Children'sfications of H om e VC Rs," Communication Research 15 (1988):42. LaRose and Atkin, "Predictors of Cable Subscription;" Garay, Cable43. According to research on adoption of innovations, if users do notbenefits of so m e kind, use discon tinues. See Everett M. Rogers,cf Innovations, 3rd ed . (NY: Free Press, 1983).44. Oliver and DeSarbo, "Response Determinants."

8/3/2019 1993 jq Impact

12/12