Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 1093–1112 | Cite as

How do sociodemographic and structural similarities explain viewing pattern similarity by channel type? Insight from a network analytic approach

  • Sujin ChoiEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study explores audience polarization through a finer-grained approach by using network analysis of people-meter data. We examine how sociodemographic and structural similarities between viewers contribute to similarities in their television viewing patterns in general and by channel type. This study provides a systematic and comprehensive account of audience behavior by integrating sociodemographics, structural factors, and content types that have rarely been examined in a single integrated model. The findings suggest that structural similarities continue to be important even in the highly selective media environment. Although individuals’ latitudes of choice have increased with the multitude of channel options, choices are not scattered over hundreds of channels based on sociodemographic attributes. Certain channels are viewed almost solely by individuals in a specific demographic category; however, many other channels have viewers across gender, age, and occupational categories. De facto polarization due to the number of channels included in viewers’ subscriptions leads to actual polarization only for entertainment content. The findings relate to a broader thesis on the flow of individuals’ attention to certain types of content and the long-term concerns about the creation of cocoons of self-selected content. This study demonstrates how network analysis can contribute to examining audience behavior.

Keywords

Audience behavior Audience polarization Channel type Viewer availability Sociodemographics Network analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Republic of Korea’s Foundation for Broadcast Culture (http://www.fbc.or.kr) in 2014. In addition, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Kookmin University, Republic of Korea approved this study as exempt from review (KMU-201406-HR-023).

References

  1. Al-Hammadany, F.H., Heshmati, A.: Determinants of Internet use in Iraq. Int. J. Commun. 5, 1967–1989 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. Bondad-Brown, B.A., Rice, R.E., Pearce, K.E.: Influences on TV viewing and online user-shared video use: demographics, generations, contextual age, media use, motivations, and audience activity. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 56(4), 471–493 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti, S.P.: NetDraw Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies, Harvard (2002)Google Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C.: Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard (2002)Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Johnson, J.C.: Analyzing Social Networks. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  6. Burris, V.: Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. Am. J. Sociol. 111, 249–283 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaffee, S.H., Metzger, M.J.: The end of mass communication? Mass Commun. Soc. 4(4), 365–379 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, W., Park, H.W.: The network structure of the Korean blogosphere. J. Comput.-Med. Commun. 17(2), 216–230 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, S., Kang, N.: Audience polarization. Korean. Journal of Broadcasting 22(5), 323–360 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. Choi, S.: TV audience flow and channel dynamics: analysis of audience duplication with panel data of 2009 and 2012. Korean J. Broadcast. 27(5), 285–318 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, R., Tang, T.: Predicting audience exposure to television in today’s media environment: an empirical integration of active-audience and structural theories. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 53(3), 400–418 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dekker, D., Krackhardt, D., Snijders, T.A.B.: Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika 72, 563–581 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson, D.A.: Profile: channel repertoire in the presence of remote control devices, VCRs and cable television. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 36, 83–91 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerbner, G., Gross, L.: Living with television: the violence profile. J. Commun. 26(2), 172–194 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hale, S.A.: Net increase? Cross-lingual linking in the blogosphere. J. Comput.-Med. Commun. 17(2), 135–151 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hara, Y., Tomomune, Y., Shigemori, A.: Categorization of Japanese TV viewers based on program genres they watch. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 14, 87–117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heaney, M.T., Masket, S.E., Miller, J.M., Strolovitch, D.Z.: Polarized networks: The organizational affiliations of national party convention delegates. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764212463354. (2012)Google Scholar
  18. Heeter, C.: Program selection with abundance of choice: A process model. Hum. Commun. Res. 12, 126–152 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hindman, D.B., Wiegand, K.: The big three’s prime-time decline: a technological and social context. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 52(1), 119–135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollway, J., Koskinen, J.: Multilevel embeddedness: the case of the global fisheries governance complex. Soc. Netw. 44, 281–294 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu, C.L., Park, S.J., Park, H.W.: Political discourse among key Twitter users: the case of Sejong city in South Korea. J. Contemp. East. Asia 12(1), 65–79 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz, E.: And deliver us from segmentation. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 546, 22–33 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M.: Uses and gratifications research. Public Opin. Quart. 37(4), 509–523 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, S.J., Webster, J.G.: The impact of a multichannel environment on television news viewing: a longitudinal study of news audience polarization in South Korea. Int. J. Commun. 6, 838–856 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. Krackardt, D.: QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness. Soc. Netw. 9(2), 171–186 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ksiazek, T.B.: A network analytic approach to understanding cross-platform audience behavior. J. Media Econ. 24(4), 237–251 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ksiazek, T.B., Malthouse, E.C., Webster, J.G.: News-seekers and avoiders: exploring patterns of total news consumption across media and the relationship to civic participation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 54(4), 551–568 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ksiazek, T.B., Webster, J.G.: Cultural proximity and audience behavior: the role of language in patterns of polarization and multicultural fluency. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 52(3), 485–503 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lanham, R.A.: The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2006)Google Scholar
  30. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Merton, R.K.: Friendship as a social process: a substantive and method- ological analysis. In: Berger, M. (ed.) Freedom and Control in Modern Society, pp. 18–66. Van Nostrand, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  31. Lee, A.M.: News audiences revisited: theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 57(3), 300–317 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, H., Yang, J.: Political knowledge gaps among news consumers with different news media repertoires across multiple platforms. Int. J. Commun. 8, 597–617 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. Li, L., Tian, G., Yan, W.: The network of interlocking directorates and firm performance in transition economies: evidence from China. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 29(2), 607–620 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mares, M.L., Woodard IV, E.H.: In search of the older audience: adult age differences in television viewing. J. Broadcast. Electron Media. 50(4), 595–614 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCarty, J.A., Shrum, L.J.: The role of personal values and demographics in predicting television viewing behavior: implications for theory and application. J. Advert. 22(4), 77–101 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McQuail, D.: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, 6th edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  38. Napoli, P.M.: Deconstructing the diversity principle. J. Commun. 49(4), 7–34 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neuendorf, K.A., Atkin, D.J., Jeffres, L.W.: Reconceptualizing channel repertoire in the urban cable environment. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 45(3), 464–482 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’keefe, G.J., Boyd, H.H., Brown, M.R.: Who learns preventive health care information from where: cross-channel and repertoire comparisons. Health Commun. 10(1), 25–36 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’keefe, G.J., Ward, H.J., Shepard, R.: A repertoire approach to environmental information channels. Sci. Commun. 23(4), 392–409 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson, R.A.: Problems in comparative research: the example of omnivorousness. Poetics 33(5), 257–282 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prior, M.: News vs. entertainment: how increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 49(3), 577–592 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prior, M.: The immensely inflated news audience: assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opin. Quart. 73(1), 893–908 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shim, M.: A study on the television genre-using patterns of media users in converging age. Korean J. Broadcast. Res. 65, 175–220 (2007)Google Scholar
  46. Taneja, H., Webster, J.G., Malthouse, E.C., Ksiazek, T.B.: Media consumption across platforms: identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media Soc. 14(6), 951–968 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trilling, D., Schoenbach, K.: Patterns of news consumption in Austria: how fragmented are they? Int. J. Commun. 7, 929–953 (2013)Google Scholar
  48. Webster, J.G.: Audience behavior in the new media environment. J. Commun. 36(3), 77–91 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Webster, J.G.: Beneath the veneer of fragmentation: television audience polarization in a multichannel world. J. Commun. 55(2), 366–382 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Webster, J.G.: The duality of media: a structurational theory of public attention. Commun. Theory 21(1), 43–66 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webster, J.G., Ksiazek, T.B.: The dynamics of audience fragmentation: public attention in an age of digital media. J. Commun. 62(1), 39–56 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webster, J.G., Phalen, P.F., Lichty, L.W.: Ratings Analysis: Audience Measurement and Analytics, 4th edn. Routledge, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  53. Webster, J.G., Wakshlag, J.J.: A theory of television program choice. Commun. Res. 10(4), 430–446 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang, H., Jung, W.A.: Assessing knowledge structures for public research institutes. J. Contemp. Eastern Asia 15(1), 27–40 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Youn, S.: Profile: program type preference and program choice in a multichannel situation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 38(4), 465–475 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yuan, E.J.: Measuring diversity of exposure in Guangzhou’s television market. Asian J. Commun. 18(2), 155–171 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yuan, E., Ksiazek, T.: A network analytic approach to audience behavior and market structure: the case of China and the US. Mass Commun. Soc. 18, 58–78 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yuan, E.J., Webster, J.G.: Channel repertoires: using peoplemeter data in Beijing. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 50(3), 524–536 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationKookmin UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations