CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Media and Digital CommunicationMedia Studies and CommunicationMultimedia Communication and Technology

The status and future of audience duplication research: An assessment of ratings‐based theories of audience behavior

Cooper, Roger·1996·Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
DOI 10.1080/08838159609364335
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Audience duplication is recognized as a major component of program choice models and a fundamental aspect in understanding television viewing patterns. This study evaluates the utility of a specific set of ratings‐based audience theories developed over the past 25 years, and critiques their future relevance in an increasingly dynamic, complex media environment. An integrated model of audience duplication is presented as a way to assess the ability of current structural theories to explain audience behavior in the future. Recommendations are given for the direction of this research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08838159609364335

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A dichotomy has long prevailed in media and U&G research between studies that underscore the explanatory power of individual characteristics and those that attribute power to structural factors.

    “In the second group are those studies that underscore the explanatory power of individual characteristics and those that attribute power to structural factors (Cooper, 1996).”

    From Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century (2000) · cites this paper as Cooper, 1996

  • Most structural models should be viewed as a set of complex, surrogate variables that can have great predictive power but lack ability to explain the underlying processes.

    “Despite their usefulness, however, most structural models should be viewed as 'a set of complex, surrogate variables that can have great predictive power' (Cooper, 1996, p. 10) but lack ability to explain the underlying processes.”

    From Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century (2000) · cites this paper as Cooper, 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cooper, R.
Affiliations
Texas Christian University (US)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Roger
ORCID
Cooper, Roger
Venue
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1996-01
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
96-111
ISSN
  • 0883-8151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-6878
DOI
10.1080/08838159609364335
OpenAlex
W2017751261
Cited by
59
References
29
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Multimedia Communication and Technology
Keywords
television viewing habits, audience behavior, television ratings, media landscape change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review