USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Media has evolved exponentially throughout the years. Traditional media products, like newspapers and radio, are now concepts of yesteryears and are lost in the plethora of contemporary media commodities that the ever-growing digital landscape has to offer in the 21st century. As media has changed, developed, and transformed, so has academia surrounding its study. It is imperative for one to understand the function of the media in society, no matter its complexity. Countless theorists have put forward numerous approaches and theories towards an attempt to understand how the media works and its complex relationship with the audience that consumes it.

One such approach is the “Uses and Gratifications Approach” (U&G). This theory posits that the audience “choose and use” the media in order to fulfil particular goals or needs they may have (Sichach, 2024). In this, says Sichach, are further laid out five basic “graitifications” that audience sought – “cognitive”, for seeking “knowledge or information”, “affective”, for seeking “pleasurable experiences”, “personal identification”, for needs of “self-esteem” and establishment of personality, “social interaction”, “networking and connecting” with others to belong, and finally, “escapism”, for seeking “solace” from unwanted negativity in reality.

In this essay, I will place the Uses and Gratifications Approach in the context of contemporary media products to evaluate its evolution, effectiveness, relevancy, and role in digital media of the current era.

Historical Context of U&G

It is important to first understand the background of this theory. It was first developed in the 1940s by some scholars and then further refined and popularized by Elihu Katz and Jay Blumler in the 1970s upon the introduction of television into society. Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1973) drew on Harold Laswell’s typology of the audience and the functions of the media – “surveillance, correlation, entertainment, and cultural transmission” – and incorporated further such aspects from McQuail’s studies that outlined functions like “diversion” or escapism and formation of interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships. This strengthened the approach of the scholars that the media was largely about how the audience used the media products, rather than the effect the media had on the larger audience.

Trowbridge (1976) recaps five assumptions that Katz and Blumler make in their original research on U&G. The first and main assumption is that audience is “active”, wherein they utilise and engage with the product voluntarily and “goal-directed”. The second assumption is that media fulfils a “gratification” of the audience’s choice. Third, the media “competes” with other “sources of satisfaction” and the effect it has on the audience varies. Fourthly, audience is not only active but also “self-aware” to report their activities, choose from options, and convey their needs accordingly. Finally, the academics urge that this approach does not posit “value judgement” on media and only provides a frame on how audience engage with media.

In the past, U&G was considered to be a sub-par theory, primarily due to the fundamental lack of media products to even choose from. The conceptual framework was argued to be “vague”, meaning that U&G was merely an approach than a theory and any framework – whether it be “functionalism”, structuralism, or “action/motivation” based – could be placed, and the findings which are “mutually exclusive” would conflict with the other. Secondly, the definitions for the “variables” like the word “gratifications” or “needs” or “motivations” were insufficient. This rendered them difficult to “measure or quantify” accurately and, consequently, difficult to assess. The approach depended on “self-validity”, and this made it all the more unstable. Finally, while U&G studies audience use of media, its consequences, and the “needs”, it does not account for “perception” and how that affects the outcome (Swanson, 1977).

U&G in the Internet age

The invention of the Internet and new media not only expanded the number of media products available to the general public but also invigorated the U&G approach. The smartphone, the desktop, laptops, and other technological advancements from the traditional newspaper, radio, and television compacted all the functions that an individual needs into a hand-held device or an easily accessible source, whether it be calculator, GPS, radio, news source, or music, among other examples. Due to this, the public has “an increased media presence”, a factor that was absent in traditional media where communication was one-way. Now, audience are also producers and have more leeway in engaging with content. Furthermore, the content is “curated” according to personal preference or “history of usage” (Lev-On, 2017).

The main assumption that set apart U&G from other media theories was that the audience is “active”. With the internet and technological developments, the audience is now truly active, so much so that they are now referred to as “users”. This conveys “volitional action” on consumers’ part rather than a passive response. The “actionable properties” like keyboard, mouse, touch, etc., increase “interactivity” with content, which in turn produces “user-generated content”. The assimilation of interactivity, which is the property by which one can control or make changes to something, in media through movable maps, hyperlinks, audio-visual elements, comment sections, and others, become part of the “gratifications sought and obtained”. This is paired with “navigability” – one can jump from “window” to window to fulfil various “needs” simply and readily. This is also known as “browsing” and can allude to various needs or motivations. This provides an “escapism” and a sense of “exploration” in the interface (Sundar and Limperos, 2013).

Lev-On (2017) also talks about the growth of “social communication”. The formation of communities, and the ease of it, online allows for smoother communication between audience members, the ability to create our own media strengthens our engagement, and eventually, “collaborative projects” can provide a strong variable to measure the U&G approach, now that relevant technology for audience interaction and engagement is so readily available.

This can also be labelled as “demassification”. The user can not only pick from different sources but also different types of mediums. Furthermore, the concept of “asynchroneity”, which means that messages do not heed the rules of immediacy or time as per usual, bridges communications further. A message or content can be “sent, received, saved, or deleted” at the user’s convenience. “Manipulation of media” awards more authority to the audience that was once considered to be homogenous and passive (Ruggiero, 2017).

Stafford, Stafford, and Schkade (2004) classify the reason that people use the internet into two broad categories – “content gratifications”, wherein it is used for the “messages carried by the medium”, and “process gratification”, wherein just playing around with the use of the internet, the source itself, is enjoyed. They also say, however, that these two gratifications are not necessarily exclusive of each other and the Internet can be used for multiple purposes at once due to its ease of access and the convergence of all needs in one, whether it is for “informational, transactional, or communicative” purposes.

U&G and Digital News Consumption

This interactivity and navigability contribute to news consumption among the users. “News presentation” in modern media is saturated with properties of “hypertextuality” and other digital tools outlined above by scholars. This provides an element of “play” in consumption of news which further retains attention and interest. Also, when news is consumed, there has been an inherent “need to communicate” about it. Now that communication has converged into a single device and can also become part of the news itself through the comment section or share feature, this can be added to the “gratifications obtained” in the approach. This is now a “two-order process” wherein the initial consumption of news meets the informational, or cognitive, gratification and the secondary actions following consumption meet the needs of social communication (Anderson, 2016).

Shah, Kwak, and Holbe (2001) labels the users as “Netizens”, or the citizens of the Internet, gesturing to the vast network that is created online. As communication and information gratification is completed on the same platform, the measurement of the “consequence” of the media and its content can be measured in the engagement with it. For the “motivated users” that consume the news online, the authority to “mobilize information” is greater as an active participant in digital democracy. They can choose from not only a “panoply of news media sources” but also official records of the government and other relevant documentation which they can use to fulfil communication. This further can have a domino effect to also fulfil the personal identification gratification as one can produce a political identity through “research” and “networking” with people that are not necessarily known in real-life.

U&G in Social Media

Social media as a media product is widely used, not just for communicating, but for several other reasons. Here, the audience has the power to also produce, react to, and control the content. Here is also where the U&G theory expands.

Abraham Maslow posited a five-tier “Hierarchy of Needs” that outlined and detailed the levels of human needs. The lowest level, and thus the most basic, is “physiological needs” which pertains to things needed to “survive” like food and shelter. Second, “safety” relates to security without which one may suffer “financial, mental, and physical trauma” and is reaffirmed through the anonymity which “Social Networking Sites (SNS)” provide. Third comes “love and belonging” which can be related to social communication or “social needs” where people seek “connections” based in romance, friendship, sex, or familial networks. Fourth, “esteem” connects to “self-esteem” that provides an identity for oneself to associate with. Lastly, “self-actualization” comes from a combined “attainment” of “hedonistic or eudemonic” needs (Ghatak and Singh, 2019).

Cao et al. (2013) found that SNS contributed wholly to all of Maslow’s needs, and in turn, the original gratifications by Katz and Blumler. People continue to use social media, and use it as a preferred medium, because it satisfies their “social needs”, “emotional belonging”, “social presence”, “self-expression”, and “self-actualization”. These satisfactions do not emerge from a single source but SNS, now, hosts a range of different applications or “websites” that satisfy different gratifications or needs.

Facebook, one of the most popular SNS, was researched by Thongmak (2013) who found six “dimensions” of SNS usage – social needs, “shared identities”, content creation and sharing, “investigation”, networking, and “status updating”. Most respondents reported that social needs of belonging in a “community” was the most important gratification obtained from Facebook and other such SNS. On the other hand, Facebook also satisfied “physical needs” through “Facebook Marketplace” or just networking. Audiences were able to source physiological items on the platform while simultaneously establishing connections. Their interactions with “content” like reels, or posts, or even comments from other users, increased their “self-actualization” to “open up new opportunities”. “Social integration” and information gratification are the biggest uses for SNS like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.

Even within the wide selection of SNS apps, audiences have expressed “preferences” and choice over the most viable SNS, even though they fulfil more or less the same functions and aforementioned gratifications. The more the interactivity and navigability and other digital developments, the more likely of being chosen. Many respondents from the audience rejected older SNS models like Twitter (now X) and MySpace as being “outdated and unattractive” and embraced newer options like “Instagram and Snapchat” (Ezumah, 2013). This emphasises the argument that the U&G assumption of “active audiences” is stronger through the clear display of “power of choice” by the modern audience.

Social media is also, increasingly, used to satisfy needs of sexual intimacy and “companionship”. Tinder, a dating application, offers a platform for individuals looking for companionship of their choosing and the users are free to choose and “match” with anyone of their liking to establish a connection immediately. “Motivations” of companionship, “casual sex”, entertainment, and even “surveillance” were found to be fulfilled by dating apps. Each of these motivations, alongside more, alluded to the fulfilment of gratifications of “communication”, self-esteem and “self-confidence”, “love and belonging”, and self-actualization (Bryden, 2017). This, and SNS, also fulfil the gratification of “escapism” or tension-freedom.
“Professional development” is another need that modern social media fulfils. LinkedIn is a website and application that serves a platform for jobseekers and recruiters to advertise employment opportunities and professional skills. Florenthal (2015) found four categories where gratifications were fulfilled. The first is “interpersonal communication” which aided in growing networks between fellow professionals or jobseekers. This enriched their “self-esteem” and “self-actualization”. The formation of “online identity” also fulfilled the same needs by making the user “visible” professionally and “communication” is also met as a gratification. Third, “information” is obtained, not only of available professional openings but also of “expertise to succeed” in the industry. Lastly, the main gratification of “career advancement” met the needs of physiological gratifications by accessing jobs for a steady salary, and the gratification of safety and security of a stable job or a platform of visibility towards identifying as a contributing member of society.

Apps like Tinder and LinkedIn also reaffirm another assumption of the U&G model – the user chooses the media based on their own “pre-existing needs” rather than the fundamentals of the media itself. This means that people have control over what they need, when they need it, which is a notion that was scarce in traditional media with limited options.

U&G and Other Modern Media Products

“E-commerce” is an emerging and rapidly growing trend online. This speaks of shopping digitally and buying items of necessity and luxury alike online, at your fingertips. Physical stores now have a digital interface for online shopping. Luo (2002) emphasises the U&G approach to be highly influential in online shopping as it provides “entertainment”, “information”, and choice. Advertisements for products also serve towards motivation to use the website or app. An advertisement on SNS may drive the user to seek out a product online to shop. However, this also points to audience measurement and its utilisation by big multinationals that advertise. Luo speaks of “web irritation” where “overexposure” to advertisements may dissuade the user to seek out the product as initially intended. Therefore, the initial assumption of U&G being audience-centric rather than media-powered holds weight in the modern era.

Streaming movies and music have also become a big trend within modern media due to its “fluidity” as compared to traditional television with restricted quality and content selection. Users are free to choose from uncountable titles, in any language, and in any quality, whenever, wherever. Netflix, Youtube, Disney+, and other “over-the-top” (OTT) platforms are some examples. “Escapism” was identified as the main gratification that is derived from the usage of these platforms. “Interpersonal interaction”, “information-seeking or cognitive gratification”, and “entertainment” are also met as needs. By extension, people also sought out OTTs in order to fulfil “networking” and social connections by viewing products that are trending, the information of which is also provided by the same platform – a common interest among peers increases self-actualization and interpersonal connections for a stronger sense of belonging (Menon, 2022).

Gaming online fulfils motivations of “social interaction”, cognitive use, and “entertainment or escapism”. Apps like Twitch allow users to produce content of playing games online and even to engage with other users through the interactive interface. The audience can choose various “genres” and are free to control the “timestamps” and “recording” of the content. Twitch then becomes a “third place” where communication is reinforced and users “actively seek division” into fragmented subcultures based on the genre of games they are interested in, further forming groups of like-minded individuals to belong in and network with (Dux, 2018). On these platforms, the audience, who are also producers, have control over how they are perceived and who perceives them.

The Evolution of U&G in the Contemporary World

The above examples highlighted that the Uses and Gratifications Approach is becoming increasingly relevant with the development of media and technology. However, many scholars agree that the original assumptions and guidelines of the approach need to be updated and revised to accommodate the expanding universe of digital media and its selection of products. Palmgreen (1984) suggests an “integrative model” that attempts to bridge the gap in the U&G research that exists currently. This model introduces the concept of “gratifications sought and gratifications obtained” which sets a difference between what a user seeks when looking or engaging in a product and the consequent need that is fulfilled by this engagement.

The academic goes on to suggest, alongside Windahl (1981), that this theory be combined with the “effects theory” that assumes that the audience is influenced directly and passively by the media it is faced with so as to study in-depth the consequence of media interaction by the audience to produce “conseffects”. Palmgreen also goes on to say that, in the integrative model, the perceptions and “social circumstances” of the users will also hold water during their seeking of gratifications from media. This, he says, is imperative as changes in political and social environments are “constant” and “radical alterations” in gratifications stem from these changes and thus the approach also needs to be flexible.
Ruggiero (2017) reports a prognosis that U&G researchers will be “fortuitous” in the 21st century because the digital tools that embody the modern media allow it to be “easily traceable, readily observable, and recorded and copied”. Thus, demographic analysis, measurement of audience engagement will become smoother and “extraordinary research opportunities”.

In conclusion, although the Uses and Gratifications Theory of Media fell short in its traditional years, it has high relevance in the fast-paced and constantly evolving digital landscape of the 21st century civilization. It can be said that the shortcomings of the U&G approach provide a palette to be filled as the media changes over time and through eras. As communication and the audiences are transforming, U&G can be seen to be the most malleable media theory that can be used further developed pertinently by scholars, researchers, and academics.


Bibliography

• Anderson, K.J. (2016) ‘What audiences do with news: A broader definition of news consumption’, Media International Australia, pp. 12–13. doi:10.1177/1329878x241270608.
• Bryden, L. T. (2017), "ONLINE DATING APPLICATIONS AND THE USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORY", EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 453. https://dc.ewu.edu/theses/453
• Cao, H. et al. (2013) ‘A Maslow’s hierarchy of needs analysis of social networking services continuance’, Journal of Service Management, 24(2), pp. 181–182. doi:10.1108/09564231311323953.
• Dux, J. (2018) ‘Social live-streaming : Twitch.tv and uses and Gratification Theory social network analysis’, Computer Science & Information Technology, pp. 49–52. doi:10.5121/csit.2018.80305.
• Ezumah, B.A. (2013) ‘College Students’ Use of Social Media: Site Preferences, Uses and Gratifications Theory Revisited’, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), 2(4), pp. 32–33. doi:10.20525/ijrbs.v2i4.
• Florenthal, B. (2015) ‘Applying uses and gratifications theory to students’ linkedin usage’, Young Consumers, 16(1), pp. 23–27. doi:10.1108/yc-12-2013-00416.
• Ghatak, S. and Singh, S. (2019) ‘Examining Maslow’s hierarchy need theory in the social media adoption’, FIIB Business Review, 8(4), pp. 292–293. doi:10.1177/2319714519882830.
• Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747854
• Lev‐On, A. (2017) ‘Uses and gratifications: Evidence for various media’, The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, pp. 1–9. doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0046.
• Luo, X. (2002) ‘Uses and gratifications theory and E-consumer behaviors’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2(2), pp. 35–36. doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722060.
• Menon, D. (2022) ‘Purchase and continuation intentions of over -the -top (OTT) video streaming platform subscriptions: A uses and gratification theory perspective’, Telematics and Informatics Reports, 5, pp. 2–4. doi:10.1016/j.teler.2022.100006.
• Palmgreen, P. (1984) ‘Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective’, Annals of the International Communication Association, 8(1), pp. 20–46. doi:10.1080/23808985.1984.11678570.
• Ruggiero, T.E. (2017) ‘Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st Century’, Refining Milestone Mass Communications Theories for the 21st Century, pp. 1–29. doi:10.4324/9781315679402-4.
• Sichach, M. (2024) ‘Uses and gratifications theory - background, history and limitations’, SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4729248.
• Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R. and Schkade, L.L. (2004) ‘Determining uses and gratifications for the internet’, Decision Sciences, 35(2), pp. 267–268. doi:10.1111/j.00117315.2004.02524.x.
• Sundar, S.S. and Limperos, A.M. (2013) ‘Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), pp. 504–525. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.845827.
• SWANSON, D.L. (1977) ‘The uses and misuses of uses and gratifications’, Human Communication Research, 3(3), pp. 214–221. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00519.x.
• Thongmak, M. (2013), "Understanding Why Youths Love Facebook: Integrating Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs And Uses And Gratifications" UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2013. 38.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2013/38
• Trowbridge, J. (1976) ‘the uses of mass communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research.jay G. Blumler , Elihu Katz’, American Journal of Sociology, 81(6), pp. 1546–1548. doi:10.1086/226259.
• V. Shah, Nojin Kwak, R. Lance Holbe, D. (2001) ‘“connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital’, Political Communication, 18(2), pp. 143–145. doi:10.1080/105846001750322952.