The Shortcomings of the Standard Effects Models: How Uses and Gratifications Theory Can Help Us Understand Media Audiences Better

The standard effects model, which draws on uses and gratifications theory, was proposed by Katz and Lazarsfeld in the 1950s to explain how individuals select and consume media content (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955). However, since its inception, the theory has received significant criticisms that call into question its ability to provide accurate explanations of audience behaviour (Cantor & Masket, 2001). For example, uses and gratifications theory assumes that media audiences are passive users who merely respond to messages and do not act upon or influence media content in any way.

Uses and gratifications theory is a framework for understanding how people use media. The theory posits that audiences are not passive consumers of media, but rather active seekers who use different types of media to meet their needs for entertainment, information, social connection, arousal, etc. In short, uses and gratification studies provide an explanation for how people make decisions about which media they use. To summarize, audience research has largely been based on either positivist or post-positivist methods which have long sought explanations in behaviours (e.g., media exposure) as opposed to why those behaviours occur (e.g., why do I watch TV?). With the rise of cultural contexts as a viable explanation for behaviour among other developments in media research, there has been renewed interest in conducting more qualitative audience research through ethnographic approaches to discover meanings of media usage and connections with cultural contexts

-Asking questions like What was your first reaction when you watched this movie? or Why did you watch this particular episode? can reveal rich insights into audiences’ relationships with media

One shortcoming of the standard effects models is that it does not account for audience analysis. While some audience research has been done in relation to these models, this work does not focus on understanding how different audiences understand media content or why they consume different types of content.

Another problem with the standard effects models is that they do not account for cultural context, which can be a significant factor in determining how people use media. The social and cultural contexts surrounding media consumption can influence what type of content an individual consumes, as well as how they feel about it after consuming it.

Anthropology, audience analysis, and cultural studies are all valuable tools that can help us understand media audiences better. All three methods give us a deeper look at how users interact with media in different ways based on their culture. Understanding these differences helps us create more inclusive research for all audiences. Anthropology is important because it offers insight into why people make certain choices about what they consume, what motivates them to do so, and why they have preferences for one type of media over another. Cultural studies offer insights into the importance of language use when consuming content or interacting with others through technology. Both provide detailed analyses into things like race and class in relation to access to media resources or interactions with others through social networking sites. Finally, audience analysis provides insights into individual needs based on various aspects such as age or gender; this kind of information is invaluable when designing culturally sensitive content.