Individual differences in in-person and social media television coviewing: The role of emotional contagion, need to belong, and coviewing orientation

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 512-518

  Cohen, Elizabeth L ^a   Lancaster, Alexander L ^a  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EMOTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INDIVIDUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; SOCIAL MEDIA; TELEVISION;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; SOCIAL MEDIA; TELEVISION;

EID: 84905438455     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0484     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Highfield T, Harrington S, Bruns A. Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom. Information, Communication & Society 2013; 16:315-339.
2. Norman M. Saturday night's alright for Tweeting: cultural citizenship, collective discussion, and the new media consumption/production of Hockey Day in Canada. Sociology of Sport Journal 2012; 29:306-324.
3. Wohn D, Eun-Kyung N. Tweeting about TV: sharing television viewing experiences via social media message streams. First Monday 2011; 16:1.
4. Smith A. (2012) The rise of the "connected viewer." http://pewinternet.org/*/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP-Connected-Viewers. pdf (accessed November 29, 2012).
5. Nielsen. (2012) Social media report. www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2012/ state-of-the-media-the-social-media-report- 2012.html (accessed August 2, 2013).
6. Alberts JK, Yoshimura CG, Rabby M, et al. Mapping the topography of couples' daily conversation. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 2005; 22:299-322.
7. Fallis SF, Fitzpatrick MA, Friestad MS. Spouses' discussion of television portrayals of close relationships. Communication Research 1985; 12:59-81.
8. Finucane MO, Horvath CW. Lazy leisure: a qualitative investigation of the relational uses of television in marriage. Communication Quarterly 2000; 48:311-321.
9. Gantz W. Exploring the role of television in married life. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 1985; 29: 65-78.
10. Lull J. The social uses of television. Human Communication Research 1980; 6:197-209.
11. Buijzen M, Walma Van Der Molen, JH, Sondij P. Parental mediation of children's emotional responses to a violent news event. Communication Research 2007; 34:212-230.
12. Zillmann D, Weaver JB, Mundorf N, et al. Effects of an opposite-gender companion's affect to horror on distress, delight, and attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1986; 51:586-594.
13. Brody GH, Stoneman Z, Sanders AK. Effects of television viewing on family interactions: an observational study. Family Relations 1980; 29:216-220.
14. Kubey R. (1990) Television and family harmony among children, adolescents, and adults: results from the experience sampling method. In Bryant J, ed. Television and the American family. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 73-88.
15. Huijnen C, IJsselsteijn W, Markopoulos P, et al. Social presence and group attraction: exploring the effects of awareness systems in the home. Cognition, Technology & Work 2004; 6:41-44.
16. Markopoulos P, Ijsselsteijn W, Huijnen C, et al. Sharing experiences through awareness systems in the home. Interacting with Computers 2005; 17:506-521.
17. Rubin AM. An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research 1981; 8:141.
18. Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1993; 2:96-99.
19. Hocking JE. Sports and spectators: intra-audience effects. Journal of Communication 1982; 32;100-108.
20. Wenner LA, Gantz W. (1998) Watching sports on television: audiences, experiences, gender, fanship, and marriage. In: Wenner LA, ed. Media Sport. New York: Routledge, pp. 233-251.
21. Denham, B. Toward an explication of media enjoyment: The synergy of social norms, viewing situations, and program content. Communication Theory 2004; 14:370-387.
22. Lin S, McDonald DG. (2006) Emotional contagion as a function of individual responses and emotional contagion. Paper presented to the Information System Division of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.
23. Lin S, McDonald G. (2007) Peer coviewing and individual difference effects on comedy viewing. Paper presented to the Mass Communication Division of the International Communication Association.
24. Walther JB. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research 1992; 19:52-90.
25. Gardner WL, Pickett CL, Brewer MB. Social exclusion and selective memory: how the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality 7 Social Psychology Bulletin 2000; 26:486-496.
26. Baumeister R, Leary M. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 1995; 117:497-529.
27. Pickett CL, Gardner WL, Knowles M. Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality & Social Psychological Bulletin 2004; 30: 1095-1107.
28. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 1995; 117:497-529.
29. Nadkarni A, Hofmann SG. Why do people use Facebook? Personality & Individual Differences 2012; 52:243-249.
30. Sun T, Wu G. Traits, predictors, and consequences of Facebook self-presentation. Social Science Computer Review 2012; 30:419-433.
31. Walsh SP, White KM, Cox S, et al. Keeping in constant touch: the predictors of young Australians' mobile phone involvement. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27: 333-342.
32. O'Sullivan PB. (2003). Mass personal communication: Communication technology and transcendent theoretical frameworks. Presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
33. Wang Z, Tchernev JM. The "myth" of media multitasking: reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication 2012; 62: 493-513.
34. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2011; 6:3-5.
35. Gardner RM, Brown DL, Boice R. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk website to measure accuracy of body size estimation and body dissatisfaction. Body Image 2012; 9:532-534.
36. Holden CJ, Dennie T, Hicks AD. Assessing the reliability of the M5-120 on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:1749-1754.
37. Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 2012; 44:1-23.
38. Rand DG. The promise of Mechanical Turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2012; 299:172-179.
39. Sprouse J. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 2011; 43:155-167.
40. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Common (mis)beliefs about memory: a replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk survey methods. Plos ONE 2012; 7:1-5.
41. Doherty RW. The emotional contagion scale: a measure of individual differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1997; 21:131-154.
42. Leary MR, Kelly KM, Cottrell CA, et al. Individual differences in the need to belong: mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University, 2007.
43. Mitra A. Creating a presence on social networks via narbs. Global Media Journal: American Edition 2012; 9:1-18.
44. Nielsen. 2013 Advertising and audiences: the state of the media. www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2013%20Reports/ Advertising-Audiences-Report-April-2013.pdf (accessed April 27, 2014).