Gratifications of Facebook: A Literature Review

Rahul Gadekar 1 *, Pradeep Krishnatray 2
More Detail
1 MICA, India
2 Johns Hopkins University, India
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 87-103. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2581
OPEN ACCESS   2121 Views   3838 Downloads   Published online: 26 Jan 2017
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study reviews the articles related to gratifications of Facebook use. An analysis of 20 gratifications studies states that mostly target audience of these studies is youth, especially students. The analysis concludes that these studies relied on the literature to develop the gratifications scale. Some of the gratifications factors identified are same and some of them differ. It was observed that there is an overlap among some gratifications factors due to similarities and differences in the operationalization of the gratification factors. Study highlights the need of the development of a gratifications scale exclusively for Facebook. It also emphasizes on a large scale study in Indian context.

CITATION

Gadekar, R., & Krishnatray, P. (2017). Gratifications of Facebook: A Literature Review. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2581

REFERENCES

  • Alam, S. S., Yeow, P., & Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6(1), 9-36.
  • Cantril, H. (1942). Professor quiz: A gratifications study. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1941, (pp. 34–45). New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
  • Clark, N., Lee, S., & Boyer, L. (2007).A Place of Their Own: An Exploratory Study of College Students' Uses of Facebook.Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2007 Annual Meeting, p1-1, 1p.
  • Dicken-Garcia, H. (1998). Internet and continuing historical discourse.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 19-27.
  • Dominick, J. (1999). Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self- presentation on the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 646-658.
  • Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71.
  • Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46, 250-268.
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181.
  • Foregger, S. (2009).The Uses and Gratifications of Facebook.com. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 2009, p1.
  • Hanson, G., Haridakis, P. M., Cunningham, A. W., Sharma, R., & Ponder, J. D. (2010). YouTube. Mass Communication & Society, 13(5), 584-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.513470
  • Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social Interaction and Co-Viewing with YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 317-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150902908270
  • Hou, J. (2010). Uses and Gratifications of Social Games: Blending Social Networking and Game Play. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2010 Annual Meeting, p1, 0p.
  • Joinson, N. A. (2008). ‘Looking at’, ‘Looking up’ or ‘Keeping up with’ People? Motives and uses of Facebook. CHI 2008 Proceedings: 1027-1036.
  • Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the World Wide Web: From couch potato to Web potato. The New Jersey Journal of Communication, 6(1), 21-40.
  • Ko, H., Cho, C., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet Usage and Gratifications. Journal of Advertising, 34, 57-70.
  • Leighton, T., & Soulard, J. (1995). Electronic confidants. Canadian Geographic, 115(6), 64-67.
  • Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51–78.
  • Lin, C. A. (1993). Modeling the gratification-seeking process of television viewing. Human Communication Research, 20, 224-244.
  • Loo, H. S. (2011). An Empirical Study on Online Social Networks Sites Usage: Online Dating Sites Perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 155-161.
  • Matsuba, K. (2006). Searching for self and relationships online. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(3), 275-284.
  • McQuail, D. (1994). The rise of media of mass communication. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Mass communication theory: An introduction (pp. 1–29). London: Sage.
  • Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 75-196.
  • Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.
  • Park, N., Kee, K., & Valenzuela, S. (2009-11-11). Understanding Group Participation in Social Networking Environment: Motivations for Using Facebook Groups and Social Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 95th Annual Convention, Chicago Hilton & Towers, Chicago, IL Online . 2011-06-06 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p320401_index.html
  • Rayburn, J. D. (1996). Uses and gratifications.In Michael B. Salwen and Don W. Stacks (Eds). An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 145–163.
  • Rubin, A. M. (1981). An Examination of Television Viewing Motives. Communication Research, 8, 141-165.
  • Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 524– 548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 3-37.
  • Sheldon, P., & Gevorgyan, G. (2008). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: Gender and Personality Differences Reconfirmed in Virtual Reality. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 2008, p1, 25p.
  • Sheldon, P., & Honeycutt, J. (2009). Unwillingness to Communicate Impact on Motives for Facebook Use. Conference Papers. International Communication Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, p1-27, 27p.
  • Sheldon, P. (2008). Student Favorite: Facebook and Motives for its Use. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 23(2), 39-53.
  • Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. S., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer& J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, consequences (pp. 213-224). Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Song, I., Larose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Lin, C. A. (2004). Internet gratifications and Internet addiction: On the uses and abuses of new media. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 384393.
  • Urista, M. A., Dong, Q., & Day, K. D. (2009). Explaining Why Young Adults Use MySpace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Theory. Human Communication (A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association), 12(2), 215-229.
  • Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyber–place: The rise of networked Individualism. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227-252.
  • Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.