CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 260Media and Digital CommunicationDigital Platforms and EconomicsICT Impact and Policies

Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems

Fulk, Janet, Flanagin, Andrew J., Kalman, Michael E., Monge, Peter R., Ryan, Timothy·1996·Communication Theory
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00120.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper extends theories of public goods to interactive communication systems. Two key public communication goods are identified. Connectivity provides point-to-point communication, and communality links members through commonly held information, such as that often found in databases. These extensions are important, we argue, because communication public goods operate differently from traditional material public goods. These differences have important implications for costs, benefits, and the realization of a critical mass of users that is necessary for realization of the good. We also explore multifunctional goods that combine various features and hybrid goods that link private goods to public ones. We examine the applicability of two key assumptions of public goods theory to interactive communication systems. First, jointness of supply specifies that consumption of a public good does not diminish its availability to others. Second, impossibility of exclusion stipulates that all members of the public have access to the good. We conclude with suggestions for further theoretical development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00120.x

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Communication literature reflects six user-oriented dimensions of interactivity that should be useful for the U&G approach: threats, benefits, sociability, isolation, involvement, and inconvenience.

    “Communication literature reflects six user-oriented dimensions of interactivity that should be useful for the U&G approach: threats (Markus, 1994), benefits (S. Ang & Cummings, 1994), sociability (Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge, & Ryan, 1996), isolation (Dorsher, 1996), involvement (Trevino & Webster, 1992), and inconvenience (Stolz, 1995; Thomas, 1995).”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R., & Ryan, T.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
ORCID
Venue
Communication Theory
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1996-02
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
60-87
ISSN
  • 1050-3293 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2885
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00120.x
OpenAlex
W2066470266
Cited by
260
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 7152 d)
Locations
Communication Theory (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › ICT Impact and Policies
Keywords
public goods, connectivity, communality, point-to-point communication, databases, critical mass, non-excludability, private goods

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