Uses and Gratifications Theory
in the 21st Century
Thomas E. Ruggiero
Communications Department
University of Texas at El Paso
Some mass communications scholars have contended that uses and gratifications is
not a rigorous social science theory. In this article, I argue just the opposite, and any
attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication theory must seri-
ously include the uses and gratifications approach. In this article, I assert that the
emergence ofcomputer-mediated communication has revived the significance of uses
and gratifications. In fact, uses and gratifications has always provided a cutting-edge
theoretical approach in the initial stages of each new mass communications medium:
newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet. Although scientists are likely
to continue using traditional tools and typologies to answer questions about media
use, we must also be prepared to expand our current theoretical models of uses and
gratifications. Contemporary and future models must include concepts such as
interactivity, demassification, hypertextuality, and asynchroneity. Researchers must
also be willing to explore interpersonal and qualitative aspects of mediated commu-
nication in a more holistic methodology.
What mass communication scholars today refer to as the uses and gratifications
(U&G) approach is generally recognized to be a subtradition of media effects re-
search (McQuail, 1994). Early in the history of communications research, an ap-
proach was developed to study the gratifications that attract and hold audiences to
the kinds of media and the types of content that satisfy their social and psychologi-
cal needs (Cantril, 1942). Much early effects research adopted the experimental or
quasi-experimental approach, in which communication conditions were manipu-
latedinsearchofgeneral lessons about how better to communicate, orabout the un-
intended consequences of messages (Klapper, 1960).
MASS COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2000, 3(1), 3–37
Requests for reprints should be sent to Tom Ruggiero, Print Journalism, 102–B Cotton Memorial
Communication Department, University of Texas, El Paso, TX 79968. E-mail: truggier@miners.
utep.edu
Other media effects research sought to discover motives and selection patterns
of audiences for the new mass media. Examples include Cantril and Allport (1935)
on the radio audience; Waples,Berelson, andBradshaw (1940) on reading; Herzog
(1940, 1944) on quiz programs and the gratifications from radio daytime serials;
Suchman (1942) on the motives for listening to serious music; Wolfe and Fiske
(1949) on children’s interest in comics; Berelson (1949) on the functions of news-
paper reading; and Lazarsfeld and Stanton (1942, 1944, 1949) on different media
genres. Each of these studies formulated a list of functions served either by some
specific content or by the medium itself:
To match one’s wits against others, to get information and advice for daily living, to
provide a framework for one’s day, to prepare oneself culturally for the demands of
upward mobility, or to be reassured about the dignity and usefulness of one’s role.
(Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974, p. 20)
This latter focus of research, conducted in a social-psychological mode, and audi-
ence based, crystallized into the U&G approach (McQuail, 1994).
Some mass communication scholars cited “moral panic” and the Payne Fund
Studies as the progenitor of U&G theory. Undertaken by the U.S. Motion Picture
Research Council, the Payne Fund Studies were carried out in the late 1920s.
Leading sociologists and psychologists including Herbert Blumer, Philip Hauser,
and L. L. Thurstone sought to understand how movie viewing was affecting the
youthofAmerica (Lowery & DeFleur,1983).Rosengren,Johnsson-Smaragdi,and
Sonesson (1994), however, argued that the Payne Fund Studies were primarily ef-
fects-oriented propaganda studies, as opposed to theU&G tradition,which focuses
on research of individual use of the media. Likewise, Cantril’s (1940) study of
Orson Welles’s “Warof the Worlds”radio broadcast wasmore narrowly interested
insociologicalandpsychologicalfactors associated with panic behavior than in de-
veloping a theory about the effects of mass communication (Lowery & DeFleur,
1983).
Wimmer and Dominick (1994) proposed that U&G began in the 1940s when re-
searchers became interested in why audiences engaged in various forms of media
behavior, such as listening to the radio or reading the newspaper. Still others credit
the U&G perspective with Schramm’s (1949) immediate reward and delayed re-
ward model of media gratifications (Dozier & Rice, 1984).
Regardless, early U&G studies were primarily descriptive, seeking to classify
the responses of audience members into meaningful categories (Berelson,
Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, &
Gaudet, 1948; Merton, 1949).
Most scholars agree that early research had little theoretical coherence and was
primarily behaviorist and individualist in its methodological tendencies (McQuail,
1994).Theresearchers shared aqualitativeapproachbyattemptingto group gratifi-
4
RUGGIERO
cation statements into labeledcategories, largely ignoring their frequency distribu-
tion in the population. The earliest researchers for the most part did not attempt to
explore the links between the gratifications detected and the psychological or so-
ciologicaloriginsoftheneeds satisfied. They often failedtosearchfortheinterrela-
tions among the variousmedia functions, either quantitatively or conceptually, ina
mannerthatmighthaveledtothe detectionofthelatent structureofmediagratifica-
tions.
Criticisms of early U&G research focus on the fact that it (a) relied heavily on
self-reports, (b) was unsophisticated about the social origin of the needs that audi-
ences bring to the media, (c) was too uncritical of the possible dysfunction both for
self and societyof certain kindsof audience satisfaction,and (d) was too captivated
bytheinventive diversity of audiences usedto payattentiontotheconstraintsof the
text (Katz, 1987). Despite severe limitations, early researchers, especially those at
theBureau of Applied SocialResearchof Columbia University, persevered,partic-
ularly in examining the effects of the mass media on political behavior. They stud-
ied voters in Erie County, Ohio, during the 1940 election between Roosevelt and
Wilkie (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948) and voters in Elmira, New York, during the 1948
Truman–Dewey election (Berelson et al., 1954). Both studies suggested that the
mass media played a weak role in election decisions compared with personal influ-
enceand influence ofother people. As aresult, Berelson et al.began amplifying the
two-step flow theory, moving away from the concept of an “atomized” audience
and toward the impact of personal influence (Katz, 1960).
1950S AND 1960S RESEARCH
Despite disagreement by communication scholars as to the precise roots of the ap-
proach,inthenextphase of U&G research, duringthe1950sand1960s,researchers
identified and operationalized many social and psychological variables that were
presumed to be theprecursors of differentpatterns of consumptionof gratifications
(Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). Accordingly, Schramm, Lyle, and Parker (1961)
concluded that children’s use of television was influenced by individual mental
abilityandrelationshipswithparentsandpeers.KatzandFoulkes(1962)conceptu-
alizedmassmedia use as escape.Klapper(1963)stressed the importance of analyz-
ing the consequences of use rather than simply labeling the use as earlier research-
ers had done. Mendelsohn (1964) identified several generalized functions of radio
listening: companionship, bracketing the day, changing mood, counteracting lone-
liness or boredom, providing useful news and information, allowing vicarious par-
ticipation in events, and aiding social interaction. Gerson (1966) introduced the
variable of race and suggested that race was important in predicting how adoles-
cents used the media. Greenberg and Dominick (1969) concluded that race and so-
cialclasspredicted howteenagersusedtelevisionas aninformalsourceoflearning.
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORY 5
These studies and others conducted during this period reflected a shift from the
traditional effects model of mass media research to a more functionalist perspec-
tive. Klapper (1963) called for a more functional analysis of U&G studies that
would restore the audience member to “his rightful place in the dynamic, rather
than leaving him in the passive, almost inert, role to which many older studies rele-
gated him” (p. 527). Markedly, Geiger and Newhagen (1993) credited Klapper
with ushering in the “cognitive revolution” in the communication field. From the
1950s forward, cross-disciplinary work between U&G researchers and psycholo-
gists has produced abundant research on the ways human beings interact with the
media.
1970S RESEARCH
Until the 1970s, U&G research concentrated on gratifications sought, excluding
outcomes, or gratifications obtained (Rayburn, 1996). During the 1970s, U&G re-
searchers intently examined audience motivations and developed additional
typologies ofthe uses people made of the media to gratify social and psychological
needs. This may partially have been in response to a strong tide of criticism from
other mass communication scholars. Critics such as Elliott (1974), Swanson
(1977), and Lometti, Reeves, and Bybee (1977) stressed that U&G continued to be
challenged by four serious conceptual problems: (a) a vague conceptual frame-
work, (b) a lack of precision in major concepts, (c) a confused explanatory appara-
tus, and (d) a failure to consider audiences’ perceptions of media content.
U&G researchers produced multiple responses. Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas
(1973) assembled a comprehensive listof social and psychological needs said tobe
satisfied by exposure to mass media. Rosengren(1974), attemptingto theoretically
refine U&G, suggested that certain basic needs interact with personal characteris-
ticsandthe socialenvironmentoftheindividual toproduceperceivedproblemsand
perceived solutions. Those problems and solutions constitute different motives for
gratification behavior that can come from using the media or other activities. To-
gether media use or other behaviors produce gratification (or nongratification) that
has an impact on the individual or society, thereby starting the process anew.
Seeking to more closely define the relation between psychological motives and
communicationgratifications,Palmgreenand Rayburn (1979)studiedviewers’ex-
posure to public television and concluded that the U&G approach served well as a
complement to other determinant factors such as media availability, work sched-
ules, and social constraints. Palmgreen and Rayburn argued that the primary task
facing media researchers was to “integrate the roles played by gratifications and
other factors into a general theory of media consumption” (p. 177). Essentially,
Palmgreen and Rayburn wereresponding to earlier researchers’ (Greenberg, 1974;
Lometti et al., 1977) call to investigate gratification sought and gratifications re-
6
RUGGIERO
ceived. Blumler (1979) identified three primary social origins of media gratifica-
tions: normative influences, socially distributed life changes,and thesubjective re-
action of the individual to the social situation. Also, in response, McLeod, Bybee,
and Durall (1982) theoretically clarified audience satisfaction by concluding that
gratifications sought and gratifications received were two different conceptual en-
tities that deserved independent treatment in any future U&G research.
Another related theoretical development was the recognition that different cog-
nitive or affective states facilitate the use of media for various reasons, as predicted
by the U&G approach. Blumler (1979) proposed that cognitive motivation facili-
tated information gain and that diversion or escape motivation facilitated audience
perceptions of the accuracy of social portrayals in entertainment programming. In
relatedresearch,McLeod andBecker(1981)foundthat individualsgivenadvanced
notice that they would be tested made greater use of public affairs magazines than
didacontrolgroup.BryantandZillmann(1984)discoveredthatstressedindividuals
watchedmoretranquilprogramsandboredparticipantsoptedformoreexcitingfare.
1980S AND 1990S RESEARCH
Rubin (1983) noted that gratifications researchers were beginning to generate a
valid response to critics. He concluded that his colleagues were making a system-
atic attempt to (a) conduct modified replications or extensions of studies, (b) refine
methodology, (c) comparatively analyze the findings of separate investigations,
and (d) treat mass media use as an integrated communication and social phenome-
non. Examples include Eastman’s (1979) analysis of the multivariate interactions
among television viewing functions and lifestyle attributes, Ostman and Jeffers’s
(1980) examination of the associations among television viewing motivations and
potential for lifestyle traits and television attitudes to predict viewing motivations,
Bantz’s(1982)explorationof the differences betweengeneralmediumandspecific
program television viewing motivations and the comparability of research find-
ings, Rubin’s (1981) consideration of viewing motivations scale validity and the
comparability of research results in U&G research, and Palmgreen and Rayburn’s
(1985) empirical comparison of alternative gratification models.
Likewise, Windahl (1981) also sought to advance U&G theoretically. In his
“Uses and Gratifications at the Crossroads,” he argued that the primary difference
between the traditional effects approach and the U&G approach is that a media ef-
fects researcher usually examines mass communication fromthe perspectiveof the
communicator, whereas the U&G researcher uses the audience as a point of depar-
ture. Believing it was more beneficial to emphasize similarities than differences,
Windahl coined the term conseffects and argued for a synthesis of the two ap-
proaches. Thus, he suggested, observations that are partly results of content use in
itselfandpartly resultsofcontentmediatedby usewouldserveasa moreusefulper-
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORY 7