The purpose of this paper is to look at how and why people watch television to provide a realistic basis for thinking about the future of the projected interactive television environment.The study began with 18 focus groups which served as a basis for a national probability sample survey of 1,872 viewers. An analysis of patterns of viewing and viewing gratifications suggests that interactivity could fit into but not displace the functions television serves best.For example, the image that is so often summoned up in talking about interactive television is of a viewer intently engaged with the television set. Yet, as study results show, this is only one possible way of watching. People have different intensity levels of viewing which vary with the content of what they are watching, what else they are doing, their motivation for viewing, etc.Similarly, an analysis of viewing motivations shows that one of the factors highly important to viewers is “mood elevation”—a desire to relieve stress, relax, and escape from everyday worries and cares—TV as a kind of Valium. This desire would not mesh well with activities that require intentness, alertness, or heavy demands. Another factor, which we call “social grease,” points to a pleasure in talking about a shared television experience with others—a satisfaction that could not be gained if everyone was watching their own individualized programming.Also working against an approach that is predicated on a one-on-one experience tailored to the individual’s needs and interests is that television viewing, particularly in prime time, is more often a family affair than a solitary activity. Despite the availability of multiple sets, watching television still occurs most often in a social context.While engaging types of entertainment and information services and commercials and infomercials that make strong use of interactive capabilities can be developed, interactive television is likely to be most successful to the extent that it takes into account the behavior patterns and gratifications already closely associated with this enormously successful medium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: