How We Use the Media : Strategies, Modes and Styles [1st ed.] 9783030413125, 9783030413132

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xiii
Strategies, Modes and Styles of Media Use and Reception: An Introduction (Felix Frey, Benjamin Krämer)....Pages 1-18
The Praxeology of Media Use (Ralph Weiß)....Pages 19-41
Strategies of Media Use: Linking Television Use and Life, Social Structure and Practice (Benjamin Krämer)....Pages 43-70
The Effects of Withholding Information in Movies: Explorations into Cinema Beyond Hollywood (Monika Suckfüll)....Pages 71-91
Modes of Multi-screening: A Qualitative Approach to Practices of Combining Various Screens (Uwe Hasebrink, Anouk Siebenaler)....Pages 93-114
Interdisciplinary Research on Modes of Listening to Music and Sound (Steffen Lepa)....Pages 115-131
Socially Shared Television Viewing: Preconditions, Processes and Effects of Co-viewing and Social TV (Arne Freya Zillich)....Pages 133-156
The Nano Level of Media Use: Situational Influences on (Mobile) Media Use (Veronika Karnowski)....Pages 157-168
Media Use in Media Change: From Mass Press Take-Off to the 1920s Plurimedialisation. Demarcation of a Research Field (Erik Koenen)....Pages 169-185
The Methodological Intricacies of Researching Strategies, Modes, and Styles of Media Use and Reception (Felix Frey, Benjamin Krämer)....Pages 187-206
Towards a Common Theoretical Framework—And Some Remarks on the Politics of Innerlichkeit (Benjamin Krämer, Felix Frey)....Pages 207-223
Back Matter ....Pages 225-229

Citation preview

TRANSFORMING COMMUNICATIONS – STUDIES IN CROSS–MEDIA RESEARCH

How We Use the Media

Strategies, Modes and Styles Edited by Benjamin Krämer Felix Frey

Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-­Media Research Series Editors Uwe Hasebrink Leibniz Institute for Media Research Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) Hamburg, Germany Andreas Hepp ZeMKI University of Bremen Bremen, Germany

We live in times that are characterised by a multiplicity of media: Traditional media like television, radio and newspapers remain important, but have all undergone fundamental change in the wake of digitalization. New media have been emerging with an increasing speed: Internet platforms, mobile media and the many different software-based communication media we are recently confronted with as ‘apps’. This process is experiencing yet another boost from the ongoing and increasingly fast sequence of technological media innovations. In our modern social world, communication processes take place across a variety of media. As a consequence, we can no longer explain the influences of media by focusing on any one single medium, its content and possible effects. In order to explain how media changes are related to transformations in culture and society we have to take into account the cross-media character of communications. In view of this, the book series ‘Transforming Communications’ is dedicated to cross-media communication research. It aims to support all kinds of research that are interested in processes of communication taking place across different kinds of media and that subsequently make media’s transformative potential accessible. With this profile, the series addresses a wide range of different areas of study: media production, representation and appropriation as well as media technologies and their use, all from a current as well as a a historical perspective. The series ‘Transforming Communications’ lends itself to different kinds of publication within a wide range of theoretical and methodological backgrounds. The idea is to stimulate academic engagement in cross-media issues by supporting the publication of rigorous scholarly work, text books, and thematically-­ focused volumes, whether theoretically or empirically oriented. Editorial Board Nick Couldry, LSE, UK Kim Christian Schrøder, University of Roskilde, Denmark Maren Hartmann, University of Arts Berlin, Germany Knut Lundby, University of Oslo, Norway Klaus Bruhn Jensen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Peter Lunt, University of Leicester, UK Mirca Madianou, Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK Silvio Waisbord, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15351

Benjamin Krämer  •  Felix Frey Editors

How We Use the Media Strategies, Modes and Styles

Editors Benjamin Krämer Department of Media and Communication LMU Munich Munich, Germany

Felix Frey Institute of Communication and Media Studies Leipzig University Leipzig, Germany

ISSN 2730-9320        ISSN 2730-9339 (electronic) Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research ISBN 978-3-030-41312-5    ISBN 978-3-030-41313-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41313-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Strategies, Modes and Styles of Media Use and Reception: An Introduction  1 Felix Frey and Benjamin Krämer 2 The Praxeology of Media Use 19 Ralph Weiß 3 Strategies of Media Use: Linking Television Use and Life, Social Structure and Practice 43 Benjamin Krämer 4 The Effects of Withholding Information in Movies: Explorations into Cinema Beyond Hollywood 71 Monika Suckfüll 5 Modes of Multi-screening: A Qualitative Approach to Practices of Combining Various Screens 93 Uwe Hasebrink and Anouk Siebenaler 6 Interdisciplinary Research on Modes of Listening to Music and Sound115 Steffen Lepa

v

vi 

Contents

7 Socially Shared Television Viewing: Preconditions, Processes and Effects of Co-viewing and Social TV133 Arne Freya Zillich 8 The Nano Level of Media Use: Situational Influences on (Mobile) Media Use157 Veronika Karnowski 9 Media Use in Media Change: From Mass Press Take-Off to the 1920s Plurimedialisation. Demarcation of a Research Field169 Erik Koenen 10 The Methodological Intricacies of Researching Strategies, Modes, and Styles of Media Use and Reception187 Felix Frey and Benjamin Krämer 11 Towards a Common Theoretical Framework— And Some Remarks on the Politics of Innerlichkeit207 Benjamin Krämer and Felix Frey Index225

Notes on Contributors

Felix Frey  is a postdoctoral researcher at the Leipzig University, Germany, since April 2017. He studied Communication and Cultural Studies/ Humanities at the Leipzig University (2001–2007, M.A.). From 2008 to 2014, he was graduate researcher and teaching assistant and doctoral candidate at the Institute of Communication and Media Studies, Leipzig University. From 2014 to 2017, he held the position of a research associate at the Department of Communication Studies and Media Research, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. He received a Ph.D. (2015) from Leipzig University. His research interests include research methodology, media reception, and media effects, with a focus on reception modes, genre-specific processing and experience, and social and cultural influences as well as consequences of media use. His doctoral thesis explicates and empirically validates an “experiential reception mode,” thereby also discussing core conceptual and methodological issues concerning the framework concept “reception mode.” Results of the Ph.D. thesis as well as other research relevant to this projected volume have been presented at several conferences (ICA, Fukuoka, 2016; ECREA, Prague, 2016; Methods section of the DGPuK, Amsterdam, 2016). Uwe Hasebrink  is director of the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) in Hamburg, Germany. He also holds Professorship for Empirical Communication Research at the Institute for Media and Communication, Universität Hamburg. His main research interests are in three fields: (a) audience research with a p ­ articular focus on media repertoires and communication modes; (b) children and media vii

viii 

Notes on Contributors

with a particular focus on online risks and opportunities—in this respect he is the coordinator of the European research network “EU Kids Online”; and (c) public service media and their contribution to society. Veronika Karnowski  received her Ph.D. from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, in 2008 and her Habilitation from Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich in 2018. She works in the Department of Media and Communication at LMU Munich, Germany. Since 2013 she co-edits Mobile Media & Communication; from 2015 to 2017 she served as Chair for the International Communication Association’s IG Mobile Communication. Her research interests include (mobile) media use, mHealth, and news in social media. Erik  Koenen is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Media, Communication and Information Research (ZeMKI) at the University of Bremen, Germany. He received his PhD at the Leipzig University, Germany, with a study on knowledge transformations between German newspaper science and journalism in the Weimar Republic (2016 dissertation award of the Communication History Division of the German Communication Association). One focus of his research is historical media use in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In 2018, he was an international visiting scholar at the Department of Communication and Media Research at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Since 2019, he temporarily represents the junior professorship for communication history at the Leipzig University. Benjamin Krämer is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Media and Communication at LMU Munich, Germany. He received his Ph.D. at LMU Munich with a dissertation on media socialization (2014 biannual dissertation award of the German Communication Association) and developed a theoretical framework on strategies of media use (2013 in Studies in Communication | Media). From 2015 to 2016, he served as Interim Professor of Empirical Methods of Communication Research at Friedrich-Schiller University Jena, Germany, and during spring term 2016, he was a Junior Researcher in Residence at LMU’s Center for Advanced Studies.

  Notes on Contributors 

ix

Steffen Lepa  is a postdoc researcher at Audio Communication Group, Technische Universität (TU) Berlin, Germany. After finishing his M.A. studies in Media, Psychology, Computer Science, and Communication at TU/ Hochschule für Bildende Künste (HBK) Braunschweig and Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien (HMTM) Hannover, he received his Ph.D. in 2009 from the Faculty of Educational and Social Sciences at Oldenburg University, Germany. He holds teaching appointments for digital media change, social research methodology, and applied sound design at different German universities. His current key research areas are mediatization research, digital media change, media reception (with a special focus on sound and music), and empirical research methods. Anouk  Siebenaler  works as a journalist at RTL in Luxembourg. After her Bachelor’s in Sociology and Language & Communication at Rheinisch-­ Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen, Germany, she studied Journalism and Communications at the University of Hamburg and wrote her Master’s thesis about modes of multi-screening in 2015. Monika  Suckfüll has been Professor of Media and Communication Studies at the Berlin University of the Arts, Germany, since 2005. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology in 1997. In 2004, she introduced her research program “Modes of Reception,” which is comprehensively described in Suckfüll, M. (2013). Emotion Regulation by Switching Between Modes of Reception. In A. P. Shimamura (Ed.), Psychocinematics: Exploring Cognition at the Movies (pp. 314–336). New York, NJ. She is head of the Cinebox, a laboratory for reception studies, in which different methods are combined to investigate emotional processes during the reception of movies. Ralph  Weiß is Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany. His main research interests include the praxeology of media use, political communication, media performance, and democracy. Selected publications: Weiß, R. (2014). Alltag und Routinen, in: C. Wünsch, H. Schramm, V. Gehrau, and H.  Bilandzic (Eds.), Handbuch Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung (pp.  99–112). Baden-Baden: Nomos; Weiß, R. (2009). Politisch-­ kommunikative Milieus. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 57 (1), 1–22; and Weiß, R. (2001). Fern-Sehen im Alltag. Zur Sozialpsychologie der Medienrezeption. Opladen, Wiesbaden: VS.

x 

Notes on Contributors

Arne Freya Zillich  is a postdoctoral research associate at the Institute of Communication Research, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany. She received her Master’s in Media Studies, Psychology, and Political Science in 2006 and her Doctorate in 2012 at Friedrich-Schiller University Jena. In 2018 she was holding Interim Professorship for Communication Studies at Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich. She is head of the scientific network “Values and Norms as Research Objects and Guiding Principles in Communication Research.” Her research interests include media use and effects, socially shared television viewing, norms of users in online communication, and methods of media reception.

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

Factor loadings for the dimensions of strategies of television use. Note: Principal component analysis with varimax rotation Heart rate decelerations for the uncertainty scene (above) and for the omission scene (below) Corrugator activity for the uncertainty scene (above) and for the omission scene (below) Communication services and communication modes as interrelated concepts. (Source: Hasebrink and Hölig, 2013, p. 198) Relevant dimensions and specifications for the classification of multi-screening Overview of modes of multi-screening Situational model of new media use (Zhang & Zhang, 2012) Niches structuring the use of metamedia (Humphreys et al., 2018, p. 2802)

58 84 86 98 104 109 159 161

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Example of the formation of a practical point of view Table 2.2 Tableau of practical sense—generative principles of practice Table 3.1 Linear regression models of the influence of recipients’ structural position on their strategies of television use

24 26 61

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Strategies, Modes and Styles of Media Use and Reception: An Introduction Felix Frey and Benjamin Krämer

The structure of the field of communication studies is often described by referring to a number of very broad research questions: Who uses which media to communicate what or to inform themselves, to entertain themselves and so on? How often or how long is some media channel or content being used? What are the causes and motives to use certain media or some type of media content? What are the effects of this exposure? and so on. In contrast, the question of how the media are being used by individuals has not really entered the canon of traditional research interests and is not commonly used to characterize an established field of research in the discipline. We think this is worth changing. Therefore, the primary aim of this volume is to make a contribution to the formation and further

F. Frey (*) Institute of Communication and Media Studies, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany e-mail: [email protected] B. Krämer Department of Media and Communication, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 B. Krämer, F. Frey (eds.), How We Use the Media, Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41313-2_1

1

2 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

development of a field of research that considers the qualities, modalities and dynamics of the act or process of media use itself—especially against the background assumption of different possible ways of using the same media—as a worthwhile object sui generis.

Why the ‘How’ Matters Why do we think this question and research that strives to answer it to be relevant in the first place? We can openly admit that more or less data-­ driven applied research on media use does not necessarily have to take into consideration the different modes, strategies or styles of media use, in particular if it is merely interested in market shares or commercially relevant audience data that can be gathered efficiently by automatically storing behavioral traces. The very aim of such research is to make media use comparable, abstracting from differences between individual practices, and to quantify it in terms of a common “currency” (minutes, clicks, likes etc.) that is converted into other currencies such as money when marketing the “audience commodity” (Smythe, 1981). However, even technically recorded data on behavioral patterns can already reveal not only preferences and other attitudes but also formal features of practices of media use which we may describe as styles, repertoires, habits and so on, that is, aspects of how the media are being used instead of only what and when (see Frey & Krämer, in this volume, and Krämer & Frey, 2019, discussing different methodological approaches). And if producers and platform providers seek to optimize the experience of their users or the effects of advertising, it may also be relevant to analyze how content is being selected, processed and appropriated. Much beyond the effects of advertising, media effects research in general should also consider the different ways users approach media content and has already done so to a certain degree. However, many studies only compare effects of a small number of modalities of processing or experience (such as heuristic vs. systematic processing or a stronger or weaker sense of transportation) while effects research still has to take the broad variety of modes of reception that have been theorized and investigated elsewhere into consideration. Apart from these applications in other fields, the study of how we use the media constitutes basic research into some of the most common practices in everyday life. Not only what we do but how we do it is part of our personality, way of living, interactions and of the pleasures or displeasures

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

3

of everyday life. If mediated worlds are part of the overall world we live in, the way we approach these worlds shapes our experiences and our image of the world as a whole. How we select the media channels and content we use (or whether we let others or technical systems decide), how much attention we devote to them, whether we maintain a distanced or highly involved attitude and so on can affect our emotional experiences, our sense of entertainment, what we learn from the media and many other aspects of our experiences and a wide range of outcomes. The analysis of how we actually perform practices of media use makes implicit knowledge explicit and open to (critical) reflection and intervention. Such knowledge can then be discussed, taught, used for positive purposes or no longer put to use if it produces problematic consequences (in the postface, we shortly reflect on the political implications of the analysis of how we use the media). We may become more mindful in our everyday media use and aware of alternatives to our practices. However, the expectation that our doings should constantly be critically reflected should itself be critically reflected because, paradoxically, this expectation can contribute to an overly strict and generalized norm of self-reflection and self-optimization. Some practices of media use can actually be problematic, but we often also feel guilty about some practices due to questionable norms and expectations. Our personal but socially structured way of doing things is also a factor in the overall impression we leave on others and on which they base their social judgments. Furthermore, how we use the media is discussed normatively in everyday conversations and is a topic of discourses on, among others, parenting, education and media literacy. For example, we may ask ourselves or others: At what age should children be allowed to choose what they watch on TV or online, and how should they do it? When is it acceptable to look at one’s smartphone during conversations? Should we allow our children to listen to music while learning for school? Is it okay to binge-watch whole seasons of series? Do we read news differently on websites or in apps than in printed newspapers and, if so, which way of reading is better? and so on. Such discourses may also be a relevant object of study by themselves. However, the contributions in this volume do not analyze discourses on ways of using the media or attempt to answer such normative questions but study these practices themselves. This volume brings together a number of contributions that represent different perspectives, theoretical foundations and methodological approaches on this topic. In their entirety (and together with some

4 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

omissions explained below) they provide an overview of the work already done in the field so far and at the same time further develop it. Nevertheless, our selection—and the omission—of approaches also reflects our personal view of this topic, which is why we would like to explain our considerations when compiling this volume in the following. In a first step, we would like to attempt a rough overview of the relevant branches of research in order to then present the composition of the volume in a second step. It goes without saying that we have to characterize the research areas addressed in a very general way and cannot do justice to every single study in the areas mentioned.

A Sketch of the Research Field Audience research and uses and effects approaches that pursue the research questions mentioned at the beginning consider research on media use predominantly as the determination of market shares or the measurement of a dose of media content assumed to lead to some effect in question. If media use is examined as a dependent variable, it is mostly media selection and the extent of usage that are to be explained by sociodemographic variables (including social class membership), individual motives or attitudes. The actual act or process of media use on the other hand is of little interest in this type of research. This also applies to large parts of the Cultural Studies tradition in media research. Although these approaches put readers’ or viewers’ interpretive activity conceptually in the center, they are primarily concerned with the result of this activity and largely remain silent on the actual subjective processes during a media encounter that bring about the positioned individual’s particular decoding or interpretation of a media text (Wilson, 2009, p. 36). In contrast, various lines of research have contributed to our understanding of the processes taking place during media use: The cognitive processes involved in understanding and interpreting media messages have been illuminated by cognitive psychological (e.g., Branigan, 1992; Kintsch, 1998; Loschky, Hutson, Smith, Smith, & Magliano, 2018; McNamara & Magliano, 2009; Zwaan, 2004) and philosophical-­ phenomenological approaches (e.g., Wilson, 2009). In the last few decades, media psychology has also turned toward the dynamics of emotional experiences during media use in general (e.g., for an overview Döveling, Scheve, & Konijn, 2011; Konijn, 2013; Wirth & Schramm,

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

5

2005) and the entertainment experience in particular (e.g., Bartsch & Schneider, 2014; Klimmt & Vorderer, 2010). In the same field of entertainment research, several concepts have been developed to describe specific users’ perceptions and experiences as well as forms of engagement when using particular types of media. The specific type of processing and experience during the reception of narrative messages has been characterized by concepts like transportation (Gerrig, 1993; Green & Brock, 2000, 2002), suspension of disbelief (Böcking, 2008), deictic shift (Segal, 1995), narrative engagement (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008, 2009) and identification with characters (Cohen, 2001). Concepts like immersion (Nilsson, Nordahl, & Serafin, 2016), spatial presence (Lee, 2004; Schubert, 2009; Wirth et al., 2007) and the illusion of non-mediation (Lombard & Ditton, 1997) predominantly aim at describing the experience of virtual reality environments but have been also applied to other types of media. A different dimension of individuals’ engagement with and utilization of media is addressed by a line of research examining how individuals use media for self-presentation and identity work (e.g., Cunningham, 2013; Poletti & Rak, 2014). Even though these lines of research undoubtedly deal with the process of media use and reception, the perspective in this volume is still somewhat narrower and already hinted at in the plural forms in the volume’s subtitle. We are particularly interested in approaches that are more or less explicitly differential, that is, based on the assumption that there is a plurality of ways of using the media and the particular mode of use varies across individuals, situations and content. This perspective is most pronounced in research that develops typologies of different strategies, modes and styles of media use or proposes conceptual frameworks and theoretical dimensions that might form the basis of such a typology. But it is also present in research which describes only certain aspects of media use or particular ways of selecting, processing or experiencing media without at the same time conveying the impression that these are universal characteristics of media use and reception. One eminent line of research of this kind has emerged in Cultural and Television studies; it is devoted to the question of which types, modes or strategies individuals use when ‘reading’, that is, make meaning of media texts. The probably most prominent and indeed foundational typology in this area has been proposed by Hall (1980) who differentiates between a ‘dominant-hegemonic’, an ‘negotiated’ and a ‘oppositional’ decoding position that viewers or readers can take in relation to a meaningful

6 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

discourse, especially its ideological meanings encoded on the connotative level. The “most celebrated” (Michelle, 2007, p. 187) empirical application of this distinction, which also illustrates its limitations, is Morley’s (1980) study of readings of different audience groups of BBC’s Nationwide. Other typologies focus less on the readers’ position in relation to the ideological meaning of the text, but nevertheless address different degrees of proximity or distance of the recipients to the message. For example, Worth and Gross (1974) describe two interpretive strategies: ‘attribution’ and ‘communicational inference’. In his post-reception interview study, Neuman (1982) classifies the cognitive responses of the interviewees to a television program into the categories ‘analytical’ versus ‘interpretative’, with three sub-categories each. Similarly, Liebes and Katz (1986) categorize statements of participants in group discussions about the TV series Dallas as indicative of ‘referential’ versus ‘critical’ involvement or readings, whereas Richardson and Corner (1986) differentiate between ‘transparency’ and ‘mediation’ readings of a BBC 2 documentary in their interview study. Even though these distinctions seem also plausible as modes of involvement during reception, these studies strictly speaking only observe different ways of talking about, reflecting on and relating to media texts after reception. This methodological reservation applies to Schrøder’s (1988) typology at least to a lesser extent, because the interviews analyzed by him were at least partially conducted during reception of one episode of Dynasty. He presents a conceptual framework for describing viewers’ experiences of this program with ‘involvement’ versus ‘distance’ as the two main categories, subdivided into ‘subjunctive’ and ‘indicative involvement’ as subtypes of ‘involvement’, and ‘predictability’, ‘implausibility’, and ‘aesthetic intrusion’ as subtypes of ‘distance’. Similar distinctions also have been proposed outside of the Cultural Studies approach, for example, by theater sociologist Rapp (1973), who distinguishes between the two reception modes ‘in-­lusion’ and ‘illusion’. This distinction has later been transferred to media reception, for example, by Charlton and Borcsa (1997) and by Vorderer (1992, p.  73–87; 1993), who differentiates an ‘involved’ from an ‘analytical’ mode of (TV) reception. Most of these analytical distinctions were synthesized by Michelle (2007) into her “composite multi-dimensional model of audience reception”. The model proposes four ‘primary’ reception modes differing in the degree of the recipient’s distance from the text on the one hand and

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

7

regarding the viewer’s focus on the denotative versus connotative level of meaning on the other hand. In the transparent mode of reception, with its focus on the denotative level and the closest relationship between viewer and text, “viewers assess and comment on persons and events depicted in media texts as though encountering them firsthand, rather than through the mediations of narrative construction, writing and editing, and textual/generic form” (Michelle, 2007, p. 196). In the referential mode, the viewer takes a more detached position and recognizes the text as a separate entity from the real world ‘out there’, allowing him or her to compare and relate text and extra-textual reality. The most distanced mode of reception focusing on the denotative level is the mediated mode of reception, in which the viewer treats and analyzes the text as an artifact constructed by human producers using media technology and professional conventions and codes. Finally, in the discursive reception mode, the viewer focuses on the connotative, and thus ideological, level of the text’s meaning. He or she analyzes the ideological message inscribed in the text and positions himself or herself to it. Michelle assumes that viewers can switch between different modes during reception, but at the same time might be predisposed, due to their social position and (sub) cultural affiliation, to adopt certain modes in the face of certain types of texts. This framework has been applied and refined in further work (Michelle, 2009; Michelle, Davis, & Vladica, 2012). Another typology of reception modes which applies to film reception has been proposed by Suckfüll (Suckfüll, 2004; Suckfüll & Scharkow, 2009). She defines reception modes of reception as “qualitatively different forms of involvement applied during the reception process” (Suckfüll & Scharkow, 2009, p. 368) which includes both automated and controlled cognitive and emotional processes during film reception. Unlike Michelle’s model (2007), Suckfüll’s typology is a result of both theoretical and empirical-explorative work based on self-report data in several stages. Its most recent version incorporates four reception modes, two of which have two subdimensions each. The hierarchical factor Identity work describes forms of involvement which contribute to the formation and/or stabilization of the individual’s identity by comparing his or her own life with the film’s content (subdimension Ego-Involvement) or by comparing his or her self with the characters depicted in the film (subdimension Socio-­ Involvement). The second hierarchical factor, In-Emotion, describes the recipient’s peculiar experience of being present in a fictional world while

8 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

remaining in control of the situation (subdimension Diegetic Involvement), this control also being a precondition and catalyst for acting out his or her feelings (subdimension Emotional Involvement). In the reception mode Production, recipients treat the film as an artifact and think about aspects and circumstances of its production (cf. the mediated mode in Michelle’s model). Finally, the reception mode Imagination describes a form of cognitive involvement in which viewers imagine alternative plot lines during film reception (Suckfüll & Scharkow, 2009). Recipients usually have several reception modes at their disposal and can switch between them during reception depending on their fit with the viewers’ motives and characteristics of the film (Suckfüll & Scharkow, 2009, p. 366). However, it can be assumed that each individual has dominant, that is, often used and preferred, reception modes (Suckfüll & Scharkow, 2009, p. 370). Against the background of the decoupling of technological devices, communication services and forms of usage, Hasebrink (2004) proposes the concept of communication modes. A communication mode describes what individuals are doing with a device and communication service in a specific situation of media use according to their own subjective definition of the situation; it comprises the specific pattern of expectations and practices with which the users try to realize one of the service’s potential communicative functions. So, in contrast to Suckfüll’s concept of reception mode, which also encompasses the more automated and unconscious aspects of cognitive and emotional processing, media users are, at least implicitly, aware of the communication mode they are in. At the current stage of media technological development, various and different communication modes can be realized using the same device, although the range of possible modes is limited by the technological capabilities of the device. Just as with the two frameworks mentioned before, users can switch communication modes if they experience a mismatch between the mode and the communicative service. In his first explication of the concept, Hasebrink (2004) mentions several possible criteria for distinguishing communication modes, for example, the perceived structure of the communicative situation (‘one to many’ vs. ‘many to many’ vs. ‘one to one’), the up-to-dateness and degree of relevance of the media content, the perceived degree of interactivity, and the individual’s conception of the audience (Hasebrink, 2004, p.  77–81). He also sketches two ideal-typical communication modes—public and private communication. On this basis, the concept was empirically elaborated in later studies. For example, in his application to information-oriented internet use, Hölig (2014) identifies

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

9

four communication modes: journalistic mass communication, public expert communication, private expert communication and personal communication. In another framework, Weiß (2001, 2005) understands reception modalities as modalities of everyday practical meaning, in which particular attitudes of consciousness are combined with a set of subjective orientations (Weiß, 2005, p. 59f.). They constitute a “specific pattern of perception, imagination, feeling and mental processing”, that is, a “specific form in which recipients attune to some media content” (Weiß, 2005, p. 59f.). Like Suckfüll, Weiß includes both emotional and cognitive processes during reception in his concept, regardless of their subjective perception by the recipient. Like Hasebrink, however, Weiß adds a functional dimension by including the subjective meaning the recipient attaches to the media experience (Weiß, 2005, p. 59–62). This subjective meaning is configured by various everyday subjective orientations and forms of everyday action, which Weiß takes from Habermas’ theory of communicative action (Weiß, 2005, p. 62f.). Weiß (2001, 2005) thus pursues a theory-based strategy in determining concrete reception modalities: He obtains his typology by deriving four attitudes (perceiving and tuning in, imagining and feeling, deciphering and enjoying, perceptive conception) from Hegel’s psychology and crossing them with a classification of types of everyday action from Habermas’ (1984) theory of communicative action (teleological action, normatively regulated action, dramaturgical action), which ultimately results in a matrix with twelve reception modalities (Weiß, 2005, pp. 61–71). Like Weiß, Frey (2017, 2018) uses a theory-based approach for his explication of a prototypical ‘experiential’ reception mode. In contrast to the aforementioned models, Frey focuses on the elaboration of only one reception mode and sketches its counterpart, the ‘thinking’ or ‘reflective’ mode, only as a foil for the explication of the experiential mode. In his framework, a reception mode is “a prototypical configuration of the individual’s cognitive, emotional, evaluative, motivational, and motor states and processes during media reception, which are systematically interconnected to form a meaningful whole” (Frey, 2018, p.  490). As an ideal type, the experiential mode describes a media reception episode which is processed, cognitively controlled and experienced by the recipient like a non-mediated primary experience of the everyday world. The ‘experiential’ and ‘thinking’ modes are explicated on three levels: on a first level, a procedural schema controls and configures cognitive and

10 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

emotional processes; the second level (processing) contains these cognitive and emotional processes; and the third level (experience) consists of particular cognitive feelings as a result of automatic feedback processes from the processing level. The characteristics of the two reception modes are elaborated drawing on psychological and phenomenological descriptions of everyday primary human experience and the processes and experience of thinking, respectively, which were then adapted to media reception. Particular media reception episodes can be more or less ‘experiential’ or ‘thinking-like’, depending on the degree in which they realize or come close to the respective ideal type. Similar to the models described so far, the relationship between the media text and the reception mode is assumed to be non-deterministic but systematic, that is, characteristics of the media message, the reception situation and the recipient’s personality affect the probability with which a particular reception mode is selected in a reception situation. Compared to the models described so far, Krämer’s (2013) praxeological concept of “strategies of media use” strategies brings two notable extensions: First, strategies of media use also encompass activities before and after the reception phase, most importantly the stage of media selection. And secondly, building on Bourdieu, it explicitly encompasses and accentuates the socio-structural dimension of media use (which is also considered in models in the Cultural Studies tradition): on the one hand, the concept considers strategies of media use to be dependent on the social position of the media user and, on the other hand, it takes into account the long-term social and cultural consequences of certain media use strategies, for example, for the (re-)distribution of resources and the value system of the respective society. Strategies of media use are conceptualized as specific combinations of elements characterizing the form of media use on several dimensions: First, a strategy encompasses a certain style of media use, that is, a certain formal pattern of how the selection of media, the user’s interaction with the selected media and the processing and appropriation of its content are organized. For example, the selection of media and other decisions during reception can be more or less habitualized; individuals might revise or stay with their selection of a medium; and they can use one medium at a time or several in parallel. Second, a strategy of media use includes individuals’ media repertoires (Hasebrink & Popp, 2006). And third, individuals can set up and arrange technical devices (e.g., a video projector), other objects (e.g., a sofa, nachos and cheese) and themselves and other persons in a particular way in the

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

11

reception situation (situational arrangement). Additionally, a strategy comprises a particular way of how users relate to and experience the media content: They can perceive it as more or less real and factual (modality); they can take up an affirmative, a skeptical or an ironic attitude toward it; and they can focus on different aspects of the media text or of the world depicted by it (focus of attention). In a media reception episode, a particular combination of elements is selected by users based on their (mostly implicit) anticipation and assessment of gratifications and costs, that is, based on their incorporated ‘practical sense’; this way, their media practice is adapted to the structure of the situation, media technologies and content. Although the models described so far acknowledge individual differences in the availability of and preferences for certain reception modes, communication modes or media use strategies, they all consider it a normal case that media users have several of those modes or strategies at their disposal and use them more or less variably in different media use situations (and even in the course of one media use episode). Schweiger’s (2005, 2006) concept of trans-media use styles, in contrast, focuses on individual differences in the way people use media both across situations and across different types of media. Thus, it posits that there are formal similarities in the way an individual uses different media, for example, the frequency of switching channels when using television and radio. A person’s particular pattern of media selection and reception is assumed to emerge in the course of this individual’s media socialization as an abstraction of many episodes of media use. Trans-media styles of media use encompass both the selection and reception phases and can be characterized using every dimension of audience activity that is not specific to a particular type of content or medium. Schweiger considers his list of relevant dimensions to be incomplete but mentions and empirically investigates dimensions like the frequency of selection, the type of evaluation people use when deciding about the available options, the inclination to drop out of reception, the inclination to use media in parallel and the degree of habituality in media use.

The Contributions in This Volume Based on this sketch of the research field: What were our considerations in the conception of the present volume? A common and useful step in the formation of a research field is the ‘codification’ of relevant work and

12 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

insights in the form of a handbook that systematically traces, reviews, aggregates, contextualizes and discusses all relevant theoretical and empirical contributions to the field in question. This type of publication would in principle be an option to achieve our goal of consolidating and promoting the field of strategies, types and styles of media use and reception. However, we believe that this field as a whole is not yet sufficiently developed for such a step. Instead, we have decided to bring together contributions of very different kinds, depending on the state of research in the respective area of investigation. Thus, in addition to handbook-like chapters and reviews of individual aspects of the subject matter that already justify such treatment, there are also theoretical contributions that (further) develop their own perspectives, as well as empirical studies using a variety of methodological approaches and, finally, articles that combine some of these ingredients in varying proportions. With regard to the selection of topics and approaches to be covered in the volume, we decided to concentrate on the differential perspectives sketched above and on authors, perspectives and aspects of the topic that have so far gained little attention in the international scholarly discourse or have been published in an overly dispersed manner, which is certainly not the case for the Cultural Studies and TV studies approaches to this topic. As we hope, the resulting collection of nine original contributions in the present volume represents a large part of the methodological and theoretical perspectives, research questions and relevant aspects of the research object and at the same time illustrates the remarkable diversity of the field. In Chap. 2 following this introduction, Ralph Weiß outlines a praxeological approach to media use based on Bourdieu’s theory of practice and Habermas’ theory of communicative action. It emphasizes the fundamental principles that shape individuals’ perception and actions. He illustrates the potential of such a framework by reviewing findings on how such principles behind practices of media use vary according to different social milieus. Then, Benjamin Krämer in Chap. 3 presents an empirical study based on his conception of strategies of media use that emphasizes the influence of social status and one’s life course on how we use the media. Based on a quantitative survey, he analyzes how different ways of watching television can be explained in terms of people’s social background, current social position and experiences during socialization and in the workplace. Using psychophysiological methods, Monika Suckfüll in Chap. 4 investigates how the audience reacts to movies that withhold relevant

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

13

information, thus studying the interplay between modes of reception and features of films. She demonstrates that information gaps can defy viewers’ expectations but also increase attention and do not necessarily seem to diminish narrative understanding and emotional engagement. Next, in Chap. 5 Uwe Hasebrink and Anouk Siebenaler apply Hasebrink’s concept of communication modes to multi-screen media use. Based on qualitative interviews, they develop a typology of modes of practices of multi-screening, show that recipients combine devices in very different ways and discuss why certain patterns of their use are conspicuously absent from their data. In his review article (Chap. 6), Steffen Lepa synthesizes the literature from the long tradition of research into modes of listening to music or sound. He compares different approaches and shows how empirical findings have accumulated and how the different strands of research seem to converge. Finally, he discusses how communication research and other fields may profit from an interdisciplinary exchange on practices of media use and reception. Then, Arne Zillich in Chap. 7 presents a conceptual framework that describes the social arrangements, motives, selection decisions and interactions during socially shared television viewing. She presents findings from a field study of groups of friends watching an episode of a crime show and examines the effects of these features of co-viewing on viewers’ enjoyment. She also draws conclusions regarding the commonalities and differences between co-viewing and Social TV. In her contribution (Chap. 8), Veronika Karnowski reviews and analyzes the situational context of mobile media use. To this end, she also synthesizes earlier conceptualizations of situational dimensions that have been developed and applied in the study of traditional mass media use and discusses methodological approaches to capture situational aspects of media use. Erik Koenen in Chap. 9 addresses the problem of how historical media use can be investigated and understood as an aspect of media and social change. He reconstructs how media use has been discussed in the early days of communication studies around 1900 and what we know about the repertoires, habits, motives, lifeworld context and so on of media use in the era of the ‘take-off’ of the mass press to the 1920s first wave of plurimedialization. Complementing the theoretical and empirical approaches, in Chap. 10 we discuss methodological challenges that researchers face when studying

14 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

how we use the media: the inaccessibility of certain elements of strategies, modes and styles; how to cover coherent sets of elements comprehensively and the problem of observing or manipulating patterns of reception without eliciting unwanted reactivity and thus distorting the very phenomenon one attempts to study. To conclude the volume, we reflect on the state of the field of research on strategies, modes and styles, and speculate about factors that may have shaped its emergence in Chap. 11. We present a number of desiderata, both empirical and theoretical, and discuss the political implications and critical potential of research on how we use the media. We hope that the contributions in this volume will inspire a wide audience to reflect and fellow scholars to conduct further research on the question of how we use the media.

References Bartsch, A., & Schneider, F. M. (2014). Entertainment and politics revisited: How non-escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 369–396. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcom.12095 Böcking, S. (2008). Suspension of disbelief. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 11, pp. 4913–4915). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Branigan, E. (1992). Narrative comprehension and film. London: Routledge. Busselle, R.  W., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18, 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682885.2008.00322.x Busselle, R. W., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259 Charlton, M., & Borcsa, M. (1997). Thematische Voreingenommenheit, involvement und Formen der Identifikation [thematic bias, involvement and forms of identification]. In M.  Charlton & S.  Schneider (Eds.), Rezeptionsforschung [reception research] (pp.  254–267). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-08111-1_14 Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01 Cunningham, C. (Ed.). (2013). Social networking and impression management: Self-presentation in the digital age. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

15

Döveling, K., Scheve, C. v., & Konijn, E. A. (Eds.). (2011). The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media. London: Routledge. Frey, F. (2017). Medienrezeption als Erfahrung: Theorie und empirische Validierung eines integrativen Rezeptionsmodus [media reception as experience. Theory and empirical validation of an integrative reception mode]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Frey, F. (2018). The experiential mode of media reception: A holistic framework concept. Communication Theory, 28, 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ct/qty010 Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701 Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp.  315–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies 1972–79 (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson. Hasebrink, U. (2004). Konvergenz aus Nutzerperspektive: Das Konzept der Kommunikationsmodi [convergence from the user’s perspective. The concept of communication modes]. In U. Hasebrink, L. Mikos, & E. Prommer (Eds.), Mediennutzung in konvergierenden Medienumgebungen [Media use in converging media environments] (pp. 67–86). München: Fischer. Hasebrink, U., & Popp, J. (2006). Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure. Communications, 31(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN. 2006.023 Hölig, S. (2014). Informationsorientierte Kommunikationsmodi zwischen Massenund interpersonaler Kommunikation [information-oriented communication modes between mass and interpersonal communication]. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2010). Media entertainment. In C.  R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 345–361). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Konijn, E. A. (2013). The role of emotion in media use and effects. In K. E. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp.  186–211). New  York: Oxford University Press. Krämer, B. (2013). Strategies of media use. Studies in Communication/Media, 2, 199–222.

16 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

Krämer, B., & Frey, F. (2019). Measuring strategies of media use: Methodological approaches and the ‘techno-phenomenological gap’. In C. Peter, T. Naab, & R. Kühne (Eds.), Measuring media use and exposure: Recent developments and challenges (pp. 15–37). Köln: Herbert von Halem. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1986). Patterns of involvement in television fiction: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Communication, 1(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323186001002004 Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 0. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x Loschky, L. C., Hutson, J. P., Smith, M. E., Smith, T. J., & Magliano, J. P. (2018). Viewing static visual narratives through the lens of the scene perception and event comprehension theory (SPECT). In A.  Dunst, J.  Laubrock, & J. Wildfeuer (Eds.), Empirical comics research: Digital, multimodal, and cognitive methods (pp. 217–238). New York, NY: Routledge. McNamara, D.  S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Michelle, C. (2007). Modes of reception: A consolidated analytical framework. The Communication Review, 10(3), 181–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10714420701528057 Michelle, C. (2009). (Re)contextualising audience receptions of reality TV. Participations, 6(1), 137–170. Michelle, C., Davis, C. H., & Vladica, F. (2012). Understanding variation in audience engagement and response: An application of the composite model to receptions of Avatar (2009). The Communication Review, 15(2), 106–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2012.674467 Morley, D. (1980). The “Nationwide” audience. London: BFI. Neuman, W. R. (1982). Television and American culture: The mass medium and the pluralist audience. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 471–487. Nilsson, N. C., Nordahl, R., & Serafin, S. (2016). Immersion revisited: A review of existing definitions of immersion and their relation to different theories of presence. Human Technology, 12(2), 108–134. https://doi.org/10.17011/ ht/urn.201611174652 Poletti, A., & Rak, J. (Eds.). (2014). Identity technologies: Constructing the self online. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Rapp, U. (1973). Handeln und Zuschauen: Untersuchungen über den theatersoziologischen Aspekt in der menschlichen Interaktion [acting and watching. Studies on the theater sociological aspect in human interaction]. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.

1  STRATEGIES, MODES AND STYLES OF MEDIA USE AND RECEPTION… 

17

Richardson, K., & Corner, J. (1986). Reading reception: Mediation and transparency in viewers’ accounts of a TV programme. Media, Culture & Society, 8(4), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443786008004007 Schrøder, K. C. (1988). The pleasure of ‘dynasty’: The weekly reconstruction of self-confidence. In P. Drummond & R. Paterson (Eds.), Television and its audience: International research perspectives (pp. 61–88). London: BFI. Schubert, T. (2009). A new conception of spatial presence: Once again, with feeling. Communication Theory, 19(2), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2885.2009.01340.x Schweiger, W. (2005). Gibt es einen transmedialen Nutzungsstil? Theoretische Überlegungen und empirische Hinweise [Transmedia use patterns – Do they exist? Theory and empirical evidence]. Publizistik, 50(2), 173–200. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11616-005-0125-5 Schweiger, W. (2006). Transmedialer Nutzungsstil und Rezipientenpersönlichkeit. Heoretische Überlegungen und empirische Hinweise [trans-media use-styles and recipient’s personality. Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence]. Publizistik, 51(3), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-006-0108-1 Segal, E. M. (1995). Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smythe, D. W. (1981). Dependency road. Communications, capitalism, consciousness and Canada. Norwood: Ablex. Suckfüll, M. (2004). Rezeptionsmodalitäten. Ein integratives Konstrukt für die Medienwirkungsforschung [Reception modes: An integrative construct for media effects research]. München: Fischer. Suckfüll, M., & Scharkow, M. (2009). Modes of reception for fictional films. Communications, 34(4), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM. 2009.023 Vorderer, P. (1992). Fernsehen als Handlung: Fernsehfilmrezeption aus motivationspsychologischer Perspektive [watching TV as action. TV movie reception form a motivation psychological perspective]. Berlin: Ed. Sigma. Weiß, R. (2001). Fern-Sehen im Alltag: Zur Sozialpsychologie der Medienrezeption [Tele-vision in everyday life: On the social psychology of media reception]. Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl. Weiß, R. (2005). Sinn und form: Rezeptionsmodalitäten als Bewusstseinsein stellungen [meaning and form  – Reception modes as attitudes of consciousness]. In V. Gehrau, H. Bilandzic, & J. Woelke (Eds.), Rezeptionsstrategien und Rezeptionsmodalitäten [reception strategies and modalities] (pp.  59–76). München: Verl. Reinhard Fischer. Wilson, T. (2009). Understanding media users. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

18 

F. FREY AND B. KRÄMER

Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., et al. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260 701283079 Wirth, W., & Schramm, H. (2005). Media and emotions. Communication Research Trends, 24(3), 3–39. Worth, S., & Gross, L. (1974). Symbolic strategies. Journal of Communication, 24(4), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00405.x Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer. Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation vol. 44 (pp. 35–62). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

CHAPTER 2

The Praxeology of Media Use Ralph Weiß

The Usefulness of a Theory of Practice Media use matters. Media supply people with ideas and images from which they form a worldview, and this in turn guides their actions. Media help with the decision of what is useful and what is right. With their stories, media provide emotional experiences with which people assure themselves of their identities. Moreover, media provide the experience of beauty. Communication studies aim at determining the rules governing the use of media—from the selective approach to media content, through the divergent modes of processing during the reception, and to the consequences in thinking and feeling and in attitudes and actions. Scientific research is thus differentiated into research fields, each of which uses its own models and theoretical approaches. Across different approaches, research has focused on the fact that the patterns of media use differ significantly between individuals. This heterogeneity begins with the different media content that people select. However, even when people utilize the same media content, they can do so in very different ways and with different consequences. People use media in a way that suits them personally.

R. Weiß (*) Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 B. Krämer, F. Frey (eds.), How We Use the Media, Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41313-2_2

19

20 

R. WEIß

Approaches such as selective exposure research deal with the question of how the use of media is shaped by the effort to achieve consistency with existing views and preferences (e.g., Knobloch-Westerwick, 2015). For this, these preferences must be validly identified and systematically distinguished. Therefore, audience research is interested in the extent to which media preferences can be traced back to “taste cultures,” which originate in social classes (Crane, 2008). Analyses of political communication seek to trace the heterogeneity back to “civic cultures,” that is, to understand and fill in the role of a citizen in various ways (Dahlgren, 2005). Then, these patterns must be explained as well as the origin of their differentiation. Authors of cultural studies (e.g., Morley, 1980) and scholars of “cultural citizenship” (Murru & Stehling, 2016, p.  411) argue that the reception and processing of media content is characterized by the lifeworld context of “interpretative communities.” Scholars must then determine what constitutes the commonly shared methods of interpretation and how they are developed. In addition, in the analysis of entertainment experiences, it is known that to provide enjoyment media content must generate “thematic affinity” for users; that is, they must find the content to be interesting and significant in the context of their own lives (Zillmann, 2004; Zillmann & Bryant, 1985). The analysis of media use therefore has the task of identifying the subjective principles by which individuals classify what is significant, right, or beautiful—in short, what they consider suitable. This obviously shapes media use from selection through reception up to its consequences. These principles are not revealed through media use but rather precede it. They are rooted in the everyday lives of people. The task of determining the subjective principles of classification is not complete if—as usual—characteristics such as age, education, gender, and status are taken into account. While these characteristics can indicate what position an individual occupies in the stratified structure of a society, they do not provide information about the principles of classification, according to which individuals decide what suits them. If, for example, one finding is that people with different educational statuses also differ in their genre preferences, it has yet to be determined why this difference exists, or more precisely, why different preferences make sense for people with different educational qualifications. It is not even certain that the educational status itself (and not another property associated with it) is the decisive factor for media preference. Socio-demographic factors do not give clues about which subjective maxims guide people in their everyday lives. However,

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

21

these maxims need to be brought to light because only then is it possible to understand how people decide what they consider suitable (Weiß, 2009a, pp. 4–10; Wiedemann, 2014, p. 85). To explain why people use media the way they do, audience research and reception analysis must be able to understand the subjective principles of lifeworld practice. In this context, practice refers to the totality of actions that lend coherence to a way of life. What is needed is a social theory that can characterize and systematically differentiate the sense of practical action. “Praxeology” is such a theory of practice. It explains how actors are guided by their subjective orientations and, at the same time, reproduce objective structures of practice. It also helps to explain the extent to which they are adjusted in their orientations to the rules and imperatives of these structures. The “practical sense” of the actors ensures that their actions are coordinated with what is possible and necessary in their respective social places. They do not simply obey commandments; rather, they follow their sense of reason. Praxeology is a social theory that, in this way, describes and explains the interaction of living conditions and resources, life orientation and practice (Krämer, 2013, p.  202; Lindell, 2015, p. 364; Weiß, 2009a, p. 9; Wiedemann, 2014, p. 88).1 In the following, the concept of praxeological analysis is outlined. The starting point is the distinction between elementary “types of action” in Habermas (1988), which are introduced in Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1997a). This can be used to develop a matrix of comprehensive principles that organize the practical sense (Bourdieu, 1997a) for the appropriate action. The principles also shape the perception of social reality as well as the classification, which is suitable to the subject. A second step deals with how the social differentiation of the general principles of practical sense can be described. For this purpose, milieu research is used, and its analytical potential is discussed. In a third step, the example of a study on political communication shows how the practical sense of what is right, which is typical of a political milieu, determines the communicative behavior of this milieu. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the theoretical use of a praxeological perspective for the communication sciences.

22 

R. WEIß

Praxeology: The Basic Principles of Practice2 In the course of the development of his theory of communicative action, Habermas (1988, pp. 369–452) summarizes the broad discussion of sociological action theories for distinguishing three elementary “types of action”: –– an “instrumental-strategic” type of action, whose aim is to satisfy individual interests; these interests are pursued in a society of competition as “self-interest” against others under instrumental and opportunistic references to the “conditions” (i.e., in particular, individually available resources and social rules); –– a “norm-regulated” type of action with which the actor establishes and claims to belong to a (political) community; as the core of the community, the shared recognition of common standards applies; –– a “dramaturgical” action type in which the practice is put into service of expressive articulation and the realization of individual identity. The types of action characterize the orientation of practice, the relevant perspective that the agent adopts. These analytically differentiated perspectives can overlap, combine, or collide in action. They become the guidelines of the practice through application in a social field according to its structures and rules. The category of the social field stems from Bourdieu’s (1979, 1997a) theory of practice.3 Bourdieu understands this as a social sphere in which, according to own rules, the struggle for social rank in hierarchically ordered relations is carried out. The rules of the respective field determine which action objectives are necessary and possible, which resources can be used effectively (money, education and expertise, social relations), and which patterns of action are “in place” for which actors (Bourdieu, 1989, p.  194, 1997b, p.  46–47). The following large social spheres can be distinguished4: –– the working life, in which material success is achieved by means of disposition of one’s own labor force or possession of money, real estate, or production means—resources that are effective in various markets depending on the situation;

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

23

–– the sphere of politics and law, in which the transformation of interests into norms of general validity is fought for; –– the private life, which the agents together and in some cases in opposition to one another treat as the preferred retreat of their self-realization.5 The projection of an action type on a social field constitutes a generative principle of practice. It indicates which maxims the action follows and how the social situation is classified and interpreted under the sign of this maxim. The idea of generative principles of practice is based on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. Bourdieu always determines habitus in a duplicate manner. On the one hand, the habitus defines a “generating principle” (modus operandi), which regulatorily structures perceptions and the actions. In this respect, Bourdieu emphasizes the creative achievements of the habitus (Bourdieu, 1989, p.  277–278, 1997a, p.  105–106, 1997b, p.  62). On the other hand, Bourdieu understands habitus as a product (opus operatum) of objectively imposed conditions as well as unequally allocated resources of action, which determine what actions are even within reach. In this respect, habitus is the transformation of “having,” that is, the disposition of resources, into the “being” of preferences and orientations. Habitus is the product of the internalization of the imperatives of social fields and social media (such as money and power). “The structure that created it dominates the habitus” (Bourdieu, 1997a, p.  102). It differs depending on the economic, cultural, and social resources (Bourdieu speaks of “capital” of different types) that are available to the agent. In this way, the agents are adjusted to the structures and rules of practice in their subjective perceptions, preferences, and actions. Habitus is the “sens pratique” (Bourdieu, 1997a), the practical reason, the practical sense of what action is appropriate and what suits the very place in society. Bourdieu calls it the “sense of one’s place” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 728). As a kind of grammar of practice, the habitus provides for a variety of actions that are adapted to the social position.6 In the sense of Bourdieu’s habitus concept, the task is to determine the generative principles that characterize practice in different social spheres and the corresponding modes of perception. The basic structure of this grammar of practice is first explained by an example. Then, a general matrix of generative principles of practice is presented.

24 

R. WEIß

Table 2.1  Example of the formation of a practical point of view Type of action

Social field

Maxims of action and corresponding interpretations

Self-awareness and self-determination

“Instrumental-­ strategic”: Interest as selfishness

Professional life: Work, reward, property

“Use chances”

“Efficiency”

The example (see Table 2.1) is known from daily life. In professional life, people evaluate the “opportunities” to satisfy their self-interest and seek to realize these opportunities. But what turns this everyday practices into an organizing principle of practice? First, the orientation toward the individual self-interest leads to a specific perspective, which constitutes a particular perception of the requirements of working life and the laws of the market. These are then inspected in relation to the subjective success project. The intellectual movement follows the pattern of an appraisal. That is, the daily thinking does not aim to explain what is going on with the “circumstances” themselves, with which the agent has to interact. The telos of everyday thinking is not enlightenment but usefulness. It searches for clues that can be used for their own success. The practical perspective is both self-centered and affirmative. It adapts to the circumstances because they are to be used.7 The breadth of own skills, social relations, and economic means are also appraised for what they extrapolate regarding the profile of found requirements for “opportunities.” The instrumental view of the agent is also directed to himself, to what he can muster to succeed according to established rules. In his practical pursuit of individual success, the agent appraises what constitutes his life, his property, his knowledge and skills, and his social relationships as more or less suitable instruments. Bourdieu speaks of this relation metaphorically, referring to “capital,” cultural, social, and economic “possessions.” The subjectively available capital determines which project the individual can aspire to with a chance of success. The agents differ in their disposition of resources. This objective social inequality becomes the heterogeneity of subjective orientations. The assessment of own achievement of social, cultural, and economic capital is part of the design of individual success projects. The senior manager in a middle management position may see himself as well prepared for a

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

25

further social rise. Possessing exclusive qualifications, acquired through a cleverly planned educational career and refined and socially acknowledged by previous professional success, supported by a network of similar agents, he acts with certainty, believing that he has everything to become a member of a small social elite. He is quite the opposite, for example, of a single-­ parent cashier working in a supermarket, who has no means to improve her precarious social situation and who, at best, maintains the defiant will to not be subdued. These examples are intended to illustrate: The instrumental perspective of the practical sense transforms the resources the agents possess into preferences and lifestyle orientations, transforming having into being. The individual targets the success, which—according to the situation—seems to be attainable. Then, he puts forward a practical action in an attempt to realize through the power of his “capital” his “chances” of achieving the particular social place. In this example, three general observations on the nature of generative principles of practice can be made: 1. Looking at them in terms of their origin, principles of practice prove to be an internalization of the objective structure of social action conditions. The rules of the competition for money, educational certificates, or social recognition dictate the orientations for practical action, which adjust to these rules to use them instrumentally. 2. Principles of practice function in two ways as generative principles. They are principles for the design and realization of modes of action, and they organize modes of perception, which are patterns of perception and classification of social reality that are necessary for action. In this double sense, Bourdieu defines habitus as an ensemble of generative principles for the patterns of practice and for corresponding patterns of views. Bourdieu uses the notion of “practical sense” to characterize this close interrelation between practice and the conceptions of action. It serves to remember that the logic of practice enters into a specific practical reason and is reproduced from it. 3. The orientation of action on individual self-interest leads to an appraising estimation. The agent bends to these practical–instrumental reflections. He appraises himself to determine which “subjective resources” he can summon to open up “opportunities” and make them come true. Therefore, along the action patterns of perception of social reality also occurs a corresponding pattern of self-­ awareness: competence and efficiency become central dimensions of

26 

R. WEIß

self-awareness. The agent wants to learn skills, with which he himself can become the instrument of his social success—at work, in public roles, or in his personal relationships. Conversely, he views his social success or lack thereof as a sign of his (lack of) skills—thus, for what he is.8 The action patterns of practical sense form corresponding dimensions of social identity; praxeology, that is, the system of practical sense, creates its characterology. On the basis of Bourdieu’s analyses of the sociology of taste (1989), the theory of practice (1979), and the practical sense (1997a), a system of generative principles in practice can be sketched.9 The tableau (Table 2.2) gives an overview of the generative principles of the practical sense on the basis of conceptual ciphers. It is arranged as a matrix, and thus it is intended to illustrate the cohesion of the principles of practice. The tableau also clarifies that the elementary types of social action are field-specific. The pragmatic–instrumental orientation of professional life differs from that of private life. The allocation in a social field reveals the origin of orientation patterns, that is, their rooting in the objective structure of a sphere of life. However, the system thus constituted is only the starting point for the ability of the agent to create action drafts from the elements of the system. The field-specific patterns can be linked to one another. This puts the system of generative principles of practical sense in motion. Table 2.2  Tableau of practical sense—generative principles of practice Social fields Action types

Professional life

Social life/politics

Private life

Instrumental: Self-interest Norm-regulated: Authorization

Take the chance, to be successful To acquire claims through merits, to fulfill duties To give proof of competence, to distinguish oneself, to create and demonstrate superiority

Claim rights

Secure private happiness neatly To award and claim happiness

Expressive: Self-realization

To create or demand a just order, to acquire and assign social recognition To show conscientiousness, to live out values, to live out sense of honor

To live authentically

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

27

This combinatorics of the practical sense can be explained by an example: The logic of the “merit” leads to the right of the agent to “compensation” in professional life. Transferred to the field of relationships, it changes the ideal of mutual happiness. The basis from which its realization is aspired is then no longer the promise of reciprocity but rather the one-­ sided reclaimable right to attention from the other. The practical sense thus forms practical analogies across the fields. The example intends to make plausible: The combinatorics of the practical sense, its ability to produce “practical analogies” as well as to link or reciprocally substitute orientation patterns give the system of guiding orientation patterns so much flexibility that it is capable of practically classifying and managing a multitude of situations in a generally consistent manner. In this sense, the tableau arranges the elements from which two configurations are joined: 1. The worldview: In it, the practical orientations are combined into a more or less consistent overall interpretation. The individuals differ in which and how many patterns they involve in the process of making sense of their experiences. The tableau outlines the reservoir for constructing a worldview. 2. The identity-form: It denotes abstract dimensions of social identity (efficiency, conscientiousness, etc.). Individuals are distinguished by the way in which they enroll themselves into the preshaped positions of the form, which positions they count as strengths and which as weaknesses, and what they want to highlight. Both elements taken together define the rules the practical sense uses to decide what suits him. This provides the first basis for an answer to the question of which subjective rules people follow to choose how they use media. What they consider thematically relevant, useful, correct, or beautiful can be traced back to the habitual classifications of the practical sense, which, in turn, is attuned to the imperatives of a specific social position. Media use thus becomes explicable as a product and element of everyday practice. However, it is still necessary to describe how the basic principles of the practical sense are socially differentiated. This differentiation is inherent to the concept of practical sense.

28 

R. WEIß

Milieus: The Social Differentiation of Typical Patterns of the “Practical Sense” The “practical sense” is the ensemble of generative principles of perception and action that is adapted to the structures and rules of a social place. The social differentiation of circumstances therefore produces the heterogeneous diversity in the formation of the practical sense. Milieu research analyzes this interplay of social circumstances, life orientations, and practices. Its focus is on describing the social differentiation of society not only by means of indicators of the social situation (such as income or education) but also through consideration of the importance of “mentalities” for the differentiation of forms of life. Where milieu research is not only empirical-inductive, but also theoretically guided, it refers to Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and in particular to the concept of habitus, as this theory not only determines the connection between circumstances and forms of life but also explains it (Otte, 2004, p. 83; see also Hradil, 2006; Vester, 2003; Vester, Von Oertzen, Geiling, Hermann, & Müller, 2001). In part, milieu research implicitly follows Bourdieu’s heuristics. In its analysis of social heterogeneity, milieu research uses mentalities, that is, typical patterns of values and interpretations of the world that guide practical action. Bourdieu would probably attribute this to the classificatory performance of the habitus. According to Hradil (2006), in recent research, “social milieus” are usually understood as groups of like-minded persons, each with similar values, principles of ways of life, relationships with fellow human beings, and mentalities. Basically, they are defined by “psychologically deeply rooted” dispositions. Therefore, those who belong to the same social milieu interpret and shape their environment in a similar way and thus differ from other milieus (Hradil, 2006, p. 4). The “principles of ways of life” are related to resources. Therefore, the social situation plays an important role in the formation of mentalities, even if it does not completely determine them. There are other factors that also shape mentalities. The affiliation to a cohort is accompanied by shared experiences with political claims of validity and socially effective material conditions. Such experiences shape the idea of what is necessary and what is right. For example, for generations who have experienced war themselves, the security of an intact governmental order is of far greater significance than it is for generations who have never been confronted with such an existential crisis. Thus, the cohort affiliation is, apart from the shared social situation, the second dimension influencing milieus. Similar to

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

29

Hradil’s milieu theory, Otte (2004, pp.  70–77), in his new conceptual approach to lifestyle research, also takes two main dimensions, constituting lifestyles: the “level of equipment” in the “disposition over economic and cultural capital” and the “modernity” of mentalities. On the one hand, this modernity is determined by historically predominant value orientations characteristic of a cohort. Otte further considers the “biographical perspective” as another dimension for which, depending on the phase of the life cycle (education, early professional life and family foundations, advanced professional life, change in the family structure, life as a retiree) and the previous curriculum vitae, prospects of action open up or close. Thus, the life plan of young adults is typically pretentious. They treat their lives as unfinished, still open projects that provide room for aspirations— with regard to the social status that can be acquired and the private form of life that can be tested and established. On the other hand, the agents “age” by embracing the fact that, in advanced stages of their lives, options for social ascent are finally closed, and past settings of direction keep their private life forms on a fixed track. In this respect, the biographical perspective also becomes a factor guiding the way of action. Milieu research seeks to explain how, by dealing with resources determined by the social situation and affected by the value orientations prevailing in cohorts—and additionally put into perspective by the biographical position—a “logic of action” is formed, giving way of living coherence as well as its typical imprint. This similar interest in analysis justifies the strong attention that Bourdieu’s theory of practice finds in milieu research. Conversely, the method and empirical findings of milieu research can be used to gain a contemporary picture of the social differentiation of the practical sense.10

Milieu, Habitus, and Communicative Action Begenat (2016) published such a study, describing the use of media with regard to the background of affiliation to milieus. It is therefore a good example to show how, with the help of a milieu-based theoretical approach, it is possible to identify the differences between the use of media and the processing of its content in heterogeneous segments of society.11 The focus of Begenat’s study is on identifying and explaining different forms of participation in public discourse.12 Coming from the theory of democracy, he assumes that a representative democracy can only succeed if the heterogeneous milieus of a society see their problem perceptions and policy

30 

R. WEIß

expectations represented in the sphere of public discourse and if they are also ready to participate in the public debate about good governance (Begenat, 2016, pp. 15–88). To explore how this participation is realized and what underlies the differences in political communication, Begenat distinguishes political milieus. As is customary in the field of milieu research, he assumes mentalities, that is, patterns of basic political attitudes that are systematically linked and in which the members of society differ. Begenat determines and differentiates these mentalities by means of individual orientation with regard to two political conflict axes: on the socioeconomic conflict axis, market liberalism is on one side and social-state positions is on the other; on the sociocultural conflict axis, liberalists compete with authoritarian concepts of social order. As a third dimension, Begenat considers whether agents perceive politics as a sphere in which they can participate and exert. In his exploratory, qualitative study, Begenat (2016, pp. 133–166) establishes a total of five distinct milieus. He gives a detailed description of all the milieus (2016, pp. 167–221): market-oriented elite, socially committed, social-authoritarians, moderate market authoritarians, and annoyed-distant ones. In the following, based on the characterization of mainly two different milieus, the work of the practical sense in terms of the diversity of the processing of media contents shall be explained. The milieu of the “market-oriented elite” is composed of people who occupy leading positions in economic enterprises (Begenat, 2016, pp.  169–181). The high social status of the members of this milieu is based on successful careers, first in education and then in professional competition. They have a network of personal relationships with people in similarly high and influential positions. Due to their outstanding resources and “capital,” they hold social positions in which they are responsible for the economic success of (international) companies. This characterizes both their personal life projects and their notions regarding the rules that apply in society—and therefore also their ideas of good politics. To be successful, self-interest is a primary goal in their lives. Members of the market-oriented elite trace their success back to their own capabilities and commitment. To excel in these qualities before others is of utmost importance for their self-understanding. In this way, members of the market-­oriented elite make the rules of the field of economic competition their subjective maxim, the decisive reference point of their practice and their identity.

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

31

This corresponds with the conceptions of this milieu of legitimate norms. The intellectual position on the laws of the markets is affirmative. The members of the market-oriented elite demand that the “success” achieved in the market must be valid without restrictions. They criticize all attempts to moderate the laws of market activity through welfare state measures. With this socio-political agenda, they advocate the safeguarding of the rules to which they owe their higher social position. In Bourdieu’s terms, one could say that the logic of their capital structure shapes their ideas about what is legitimate and socially correct. In addition, they use the economic success for which they are responsible in their professional lives as a benchmark for assessing politics. This milieu extends the imperatives of its professional position into guidelines for the perception and evaluation of politics.13 The members of this elite milieu deal intensively with politics. Their self-confidence that they have the necessary competence to do this derives from their social success. Based on their prominent status, they feel that they are challenged to participate in the political debate because their position requires it; they also believe that they can rely on the prevailing power of their ideas. The habitus of this milieu is active and demanding based on its social success. Relating to politics and to politicians, the members of the market-­ oriented elite take a confident examinatory position—along with their market-oriented and performance-oriented basic conceptions. This explains which media they use as a source to get a picture of political events. In addition to specialized economic services, conservative media such as the Handelsblatt, the Financial Times, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are their preferred sources of information. In these publications, the market-oriented elites find a world interpreted according to their ideals, and their political interests and evaluations are articulated. The typical milieu ideology determines which topics are given relevance. The market-oriented elites are above all concerned with the political questions that affect the conditions of market success (such as fiscal policy). For this milieu, in the classification and interpretation of political questions, (economic) efficiency forms the dominant frame across different policy areas. This selective approach to media and topics as well as the reception and processing of the intensively used media information results stringently from the ideological position of the milieu, which in turn is adapted to the social position of its members.

32 

R. WEIß

In contrast, the milieu of the “socially committed” (Begenat, 2016, pp. 181–193) differs in all respects. Members of this milieu are intensively using a multitude of predominantly national media from the left-wing spectrum. They deal with a wide range of topics that they judge based on their view that democratic society has not adequately kept its promise of solidarity and freedom. The milieu is also formed by highly qualified people in professions in which they are responsible for the care and support of clients (education, cultural institutions, etc.). The “socially committed,” like the “market-oriented elite,” have high educational qualifications, high incomes, and high social status. This shows that these characteristics seem to be incapable of indicating what determines media use. This becomes apparent only when the milieu-specific mentalities that people cultivate in their social place in society are discovered. The milieu of the “social-authoritarians” is composed of people who work in skilled trade and occupy medium positions within highly hierarchical organizations (Begenat, 2016, pp. 193–203). The members of this milieu receive instructions and pass them on, are strictly controlled in their activities, and are liable for their mistakes and omissions. Their professional biographies also include experiences of failure and a lack of resources. The social-authoritarians adjust their ideas about their personal lives based on what is within their reach. They are modest with what they have, and they experience their social status as unsecured. Their experience denies them the confidence to ensure their social success by virtue of their personal competence within the framework of the applicable social rules themselves. Therefore, social-authoritarians expect that welfare state security mechanisms should be designed to consolidate their position, which they cannot guarantee by means of their “capital resources.” Nevertheless, the social-authoritarians are not adherents of solidarity. In their professional lives, they deal with the rule that each income must be earned by fulfilling the requirements determined by the superordinate authorities, which control the terms of adherence. This milieu is not only subject to this rule; it also executes it. Moreover, it takes this rule as a guideline for the idea of a legitimate social order. Only the one who fulfills his duties is entitled to claim support. In this sense, social-authoritarians are suspicious of the fact that the welfare state services that they claim and need for themselves are claimed by people who are not entitled to do so— “slackers” and “social refugees.” Even in political questions, social-authoritarians make the notion of “merit,” which they experience in their social position, the basis of their

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

33

classifications—only those who adhere to the order are entitled to respect and approval. For this milieu, the combination of welfare state and basic anti-liberal and authoritarian attitudes is typical. Moreover, this can be understood as the product of the imperatives of the specific social situations of the members of this milieu, which they are attached to with their habitus. The milieu of social-authoritarians is highly interested in politics.14 This is logical, as it depends on the proper performance of policies. However, this spirit of dependence, in contrast to the confident position of the market-­ oriented elite, does not assume that its ideas of a just order also apply. On the contrary, from their mediocre position, social-authoritarians see a world is not as ordered as they need it to be. They do not believe that the government represents their position. The forces that represent their position—such as the right-wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland— are seen as marginalized in politics and media. As long as no successful political movement breaks this image of the inaccessibility of the sphere of politics, the social-authoritarians draw the conclusion that they should withdraw from a public confrontation with politics. This attitude dominates the nature of their media use. Political content is perceived rather casually and is often obtained from tabloids, with a skeptical attitude toward the integrity and reliability of the media. Despite this, social-authoritarians develop decided opinions on controversial political questions, which they categorically represent irrespective of their contradictory nature. These opinions are reaffirmed in ideologically homogenous social networks. They are presented with an undertone of indignation over the supposedly disregarded sense of the social-­ authoritarians for what is right. Social-authoritarians refuse to deal with opposing positions. Their habitual ideology shapes their opinion formation process with regard to the mode of the reception and the processing of information. Social-authoritarians turn their practical sense for social realities into a communication practice in which the contours of a hermetically closed space of opinion becomes apparent; the media arenas are, at best, used as a source for keywords and episodical evidence to certify the milieu’s points of view. This milieu is hardly accessible from the public discourse.

34 

R. WEIß

Conclusion: The Analysis of Communication as Practice The social structure governs the habitus. The habitus governs the media use. The habitual modes of perception and classification, which members of a milieu have cultivated in their respective social situations, result in selective access to media content and dictate the way in which that content is interpreted. The principles of the milieu-specific practical sense operate in the selectivity of attention and in the reception modes. Conversely, the practical sense, which guides the social action of the agents, also preserves and renews itself in this formative communicative action. Perceived through the filters of the habitual modes of perception and classification, the media-mediated world seems to prove the necessity and the justification of the meaningful principles of one’s own milieu. Theory and empirical findings of milieu research can reveal these subjective principles, which constitute the practical sense of the agents for the useful, the beautiful, and what is right. Consideration of these principles promises further insights into many aspects of the process of media use. In conclusion, this is to be explained for the following approaches to the analysis of media use and reception. –– The user-focused analysis of media and information repertoires (see, e.g., Hasebrink & Domeyer, 2012; Hasebrink & Hölig, 2014; Hovden & Moe, 2017; Stark, 2014) seeks to determine what regulates the turning to media and particular media content. Begenat’s milieu study draws the following conclusions: It is easy to explain whether and which media are used based on the political worldview as well as which topics are considered relevant and how media information is gathered and processed. These worldviews are rooted in a specific social position. The practical sense of what is right that is being trained is the subjective principle that determines what kind of media use makes sense for the agents (Begenat, 2016, p. 300–301). Presumably, the practical sense will also shape what kinds of emotional experiences people are looking for in media and which stories and figures suit their needs. Indeed, with regard to children and adolescents, Paus-Hasebrink and Bichler (2008) demonstrate that media use is purposefully embedded in the coping with “life challenges” that arise from the liberties and limitations of the circumstances of their families.

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

35

–– Agenda-setting research aims to determine whether and under which conditions the media is able to raise awareness of issues and their relevance (e.g., Bulkow & Schweiger, 2013; D’Angelo, 2002). Framing research investigates the power of media presentations on users’ interpretations of issues (e.g., Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Begenat’s study highlights that the milieu-­specific practical sense of what is right directs attention to media-­related issues. The perception of topic relevance is adjusted to the specific worldview of a milieu (see also Mahrt & Begenat, 2013). Additionally, it is clear that the guiding principles of the milieu-­typical ideology shape the interpretation of themes. Thus, members of the market-oriented elite also consider socio-political issues such as educational policy from a cost–benefit or competition perspective (Begenat, 2016, p. 306–307). It is obvious that such milieu-specific differences in the sensitivity to topics and in the nature of their pre-medial framing play a role in the media’s potential to make an impact on users. The influence of media presentations can only be adequately described if the way in which they are perceived and processed by humans is understood according to the ideological classification principles of their habitus. –– The selective exposure approach aims to determine the extent to which agents turn to media and particular media content in accordance with their attitudes—and under which circumstances this is the case (e.g., Knobloch-Westerwick, 2007, 2015). The milieu-­ typical classification systems describe the principles according to which the agents want to produce consistency (Begenat, 2016, p. 303, 305). Such topics and positions, which correspond to and update the milieu-specific value orientations, are taken note of. Begenat also identifies which milieus deal with opposing positions and take their arguments into account (such as the “market-­oriented elite” and the “socially committed”) and which milieus refuse such arguments and limit their communication to ideologically homogeneous networks in which the indignation is reciprocally ratified (as in the case of the “social-authoritarian” and the “annoyed-distant”). This is relevant to research on the public sphere that seeks to determine the extent to which the public can ensure political integration through conflict communication (Imhof 2011; Stark 2013; Wessler and Rinke 2014). In addition, the extent to which personal and medial communication leads to political mobilization or demobilization is

36 

R. WEIß

determined by the milieu-specific mode of opinion formation (Boomgarden and Schmitt-Beck, 2016; Partheymüller and SchmittBeck, 2013). The analysis of the communicative practice in milieus reveals in which segments of society the phenomena of fragmentation can be recognized and to which classification systems of practice this traces back (Begenat, 2016, p. 301–302, 311–312). Analyzing communication as a practice offers several potential advantages: the subjective principles of the “practical sense” make it possible to better explain the differences in media use. A praxeological approach can better understand the meaning of communication as a component of everyday practice. From a praxeological perspective, communication research also finds a better connection to social theory; it can show what the analysis of communication contributes to the theory of practice.

Notes 1. Krämer (2013) gives an overview of how the various areas and approaches of research on media use can be classified and at the same time systematized into an analysis of media use as a practice. 2. For a detailed derivation and presentation of the principles, see Weiß (2001). 3. For a short overview, see Weiß (2009b) and Wiedemann (2014). 4. Bourdieu examines more strongly focused fields, but here we are dealing with the basic principles of a theory of practice. 5. This differentiation follows a sketch offered by Habermas in his “Conclusion” (1988, p. 473). It coincides in principle with the one that is carried out in theories about everyday life (Heller, 1981). 6. For a more detailed discussion of Bourdieu‘s habitus concept, see Weiß (2009b). 7. Berger and Luckmann in their sociology of knowledge speak of the “paradox” that “man is capable of producing a world which he then experiences differently from a human product” (1969/1996, p. 65). This paradox is due to the optics of instrumental taxation. Concern for individual self-­ interest treats the structure of social relations as a pre-established condition; their recognition is a comparative assessment of what they contribute to the subjective success project. With this perspective subjectivism, action occurs in the present structures and reproduces them as if they were objectively imposed circumstances and not created by action. 8. This self-perception is also characterized by a particular perspective. This is illustrated, for example, by the circumstance described by Bourdieu where

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

37

holders of higher social positions seem inclined to perceive the potencies, which they owe to the power of their position or property, as the expression of particular subjective merits. Conversely, agents sometimes blame a failure on themselves, as a lack of abilities, if they do not have the means to fully control the outcome of their undertakings (as, for example, in examinations). 9. For a detailed derivation and presentation, see Weiß (2001). 10. Bourdieu’s (1989) study on “Distinction” refers to the French society in 1967/68 (Bourdieu, 1989, p.  784–785). The homology between the space of life and the space of lifestyles, which he investigated, further concentrates on the expressive dimension of everyday practice. 11. A recent study provides an up-to-date overview of the interplay between political value orientations and communication practices that is representative of Germany. This supplies a comprehensive tableau of political-­ communicative milieus, which can be used as a basis for the analysis of the role of media (Kösters & Jandura, 2019). 12. On the basis of his findings, principles are discussed that relate to the spheres of professional life and politics. The subjective orientations in private life do not occur in his study because of the questions. 13. What Begenat finds here corresponds largely with the analyses by Kitschelt (1994) on the role of professional positions for basic political attitudes. 14. It shares this property with the milieu of the market-oriented elite. But, all basics separate the milieus: standards for the assessment of politics, the perceived representation of one’s own position in political space and in the media (which the elite considers guaranteed but social-authoritarians miss), and subsequently the practice of media-mediated communication participation. Even this singular feature, political interest, cannot determine what regulates media use.

References Begenat, M. (2016). Öffentlichkeit – für alle? Themen und Informationsrepertoires in politischen milieus. [Public sphere  – for all? Issues and information repertoires in political milieus]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-11286-8 Berger, P.  L., & Luckmann, T. (1996). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie [the social construction of reality]. Frankfurt a. M: Fischer. (Original work published 1969). Boomgarden, H. G., & Schmitt-Beck, R. (2016). Media and campaign effects on vote choice at national elections in Europe: A review of a multilingual research landscape. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 5(2), 129–172. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2016-2-129

38 

R. WEIß

Bourdieu, P. (1979). Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis: Auf der ethnologischen Grundlage der kabylischen Gesellschaft [Outline of a theory of practice]. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft (3rd ed.) [Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Bourdieu, P. (1997a). Sozialer Sinn: Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft (2nd ed.) [The logic of practice]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Bourdieu, P. (1997b). Zur Genese der Begriffe habitus und Feld [about the genesis of the concepts habitus and field]. In M. Steinrücke (Ed.), Der Tote packt den Lebenden. Schriften zu Politik und Kultur 2 (pp. 59–78). Hamburg: VSA. Bulkow, K., & Schweiger, W. (2013). Agenda Setting – Zwischen gesellschaftlichem Phänomen und individuellem Prozess [Agenda setting – between societal phenomenon and individual process]. In W.  Schweiger & A.  Fahr (Eds.), Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung (pp.  171–190). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18967-3_8 Crane, D. (2008). Taste culture. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Oxford: Blackwell Reference Online. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiect004 D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 870–888. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460-466.2002.tb02578.x Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160 Habermas, J. (1988). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [The theory of communicative action] (4th Rev. ed. reprint, 2. Vol.). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices. A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9(2), 757–779. Hasebrink, U., & Hölig, S. (2014). Topografie der Öffentlichkeit [topography of the public sphere]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 22–23, 16–22. Heller, A. (1981). Das Alltagsleben: Versuch der Erklärung der individuellen Reproduktion [Everyday life]. (2nd ed.) (H. Joas Ed.; P. Kain, Trans.). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Hovden, J. F., & Moe, H. (2017). A sociocultural approach to study public connection across and beyond media: The example of Norway. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 391–408. Hradil, S. (2006). Soziale milieus: Eine praxisorientierte Forschungsperspektive [social milieus. A perspective for applied research]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 44–45, 3–10.

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

39

Imhof, K. (2011). Die Krise der Öffentlichkeit: Kommunikation und Medien als Faktoren des sozialen Wandels [The crisis of the public sphere. Communication and media as determinants of social change]. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. Kitschelt, H. (1994). The transformation of European social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2007). Kognitive Dissonanz “revisited”: Selektive Zuwendung zu einstellungskonsistenten und -inkonsistenten politischen Informationen [cognitive dissonance revisited. Selective exposure to attitude-­ consistent and attitude-inconsistent political information]. Publizistik, 52(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-007-0005-2 Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective exposure theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge. Kösters, R., & Jandura, O. (2019). A Stratified and Segmented Citizenry? Identification of Political Milieus and Conditions for their Communicative Integration. JAVNOST–The Public, 26(1), 33–53. Krämer, B. (2013). Strategies of media use. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 2(2), 199–222. Lindell, J. (2015). Bourdieusian media studies: Returning social theory to old and new media. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 16(3), 362–377. https://doi. org/10.1080/1600910X.2015.1040427 Mahrt, M., & Begenat, M. (2013). Von Lebenswelten und Horizonten: Mediennutzung und Themenwahrnehmung in politischen milieus [individual life-worlds and their horizons. Media use and issue perception in political milieus]. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(1), 21–37. https://doi. org/10.5771/1615-634x-2013-1-21 Morley, D. (1980). The “nationwide” audience: Structure and decoding. London: British Film Institute. Murru, M. F., & Stehling, M. (2016). The civic value of being an audience: The intersection between media and citizenship in audience research. Participations Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 402–421. Otte, G. (2004). Sozialstrukturanalysen mit Lebensstilen: Eine Studie zur theoretischen und methodischen Neuorientierung der Lebensstilforschung [Analysis of social structure with lifestyles]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Partheymüller, J., & Schmitt-Beck, R. (2013). Eine “soziale Logik” der Demobilisierung: Einflüsse politischer Gesprächspartner auf Wahlbeteiligung und -enthaltung bei der Bundestagswahl 2009 [a “social logic” of demobilization. Influences of partners in political conversations on the voter participation during the election of the German Bundestag in 2009]. In B.  Weßels, H.  Schoen, & O.  W. Gabriel (Eds.), Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2009 (pp.  496–513). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01328-8_22

40 

R. WEIß

Paus-Hasebrink, I., & Bichler, M. (2008). Mediensozialisationsforschung: Theoretische Fundierung und Fallbeispiel sozial benachteiligter Kinder. [Research on media socialization. Theoretical foundation and case studies of socially disadvantaged children.] Innsbruck: Studienverlag. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x Stark, B. (2013). Fragmentierung revisited: Eine theoretische und methodische Evaluation im Internetzeitalter [fragmentation revisited. A theoretical and methodological evaluation in the era of the internet.]. In W. Seufert & F. Sattelberger (Eds.), Langfristiger Wandel von Medienstrukturen. Theorie, Methoden, Befunde (pp. 199–220). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi. org/10.5771/9783845249278-199 Stark, B. (2014). Informationsverhalten im 21. Jahrhundert – Eine repertoireorientierte Analyse veränderter Nutzungsmuster [information behavior in the 21. Century. An analysis of changing patterns of media use referring to media repertoires]. In K. Kleinen von Königslöw & K. Förster (Eds.), Medienkonvergenz und Medienkomplementarität aus Rezeptions – und Wirkungsperspektive (pp. 37–58). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi. org/10.5771/9783845255613_37 Vester, M. (2003). Class and culture in Germany. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 42, 25–64. Vester, M., Von Oertzen, P., Geiling, H., Hermann, T., & Müller, D. (2001). Soziale Milieus im gesellschaftlichen Strukturwandel: Zwischen Integration und Ausgrenzung [Social milieus within social change. Between integration and social exclusion]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Weiß, R. (2001). Fern-Sehen im Alltag: Zur Sozialpsychologie der Medienrezeption [Television in everyday life. About the social psychology of media reception]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Weiß, R. (2009a). Politisch-kommunikative Milieus: Notwendigkeit und Nutzen einer milieutheoretischen Analyse politischer Kommunikation [political-communicative milieus. Necessity and usefulness of a milieu theoretical analysis of political communication]. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 57(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2009-1-3 Weiß, R. (2009b). Pierre Bourdieu: Habitus und Alltagshandeln [Pierre Bourdieu: habitus and everyday practice]. In A.  Hepp, F.  Krotz, & T.  Thomas (Eds.), Schlüsselwerke der Cultural Studies (pp.  31–46). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91839-6_3 Wessler, H., & Rinke, E. M. (2014). Deliberative performance of television news in three types of democracy: Insights from the United States, Germany, and Russia. Journal of Communication, 64(5), 827–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcom.12115

2  THE PRAXEOLOGY OF MEDIA USE 

41

Wiedemann, T. (2014). Pierre Bourdieu: Ein internationaler Klassiker der Sozialwissenschaft mit Nutzen für die Kommunikationswissenschaft [Pierre Bourdieu – An international classic in social sciences beneficial for communication studies]. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2014-1-83 Zillmann, D. (2004). Emotionspsychologische Grundlagen [principles of emotional psychology]. In R. Mangold, P. Vorderer, & G. Bente (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Medienpsychologie (pp. 101–128). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Affect, mood, and emotion as determinants of selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 157–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

CHAPTER 3

Strategies of Media Use: Linking Television Use and Life, Social Structure and Practice Benjamin Krämer

Thanks to increasingly refined conceptualizations and cumulative research, we have learned a great deal about media use: why persons feel entertained, what kinds of gratifications they obtain from informative media content, how media choices can be explained, how media content is interpreted by different individuals and groups, and so on. But maybe in the process we have lost sight of some central questions: How is media reception related to a person’s life in general (their way of life and their life course)? Can we explain, within a comprehensive framework, how they use media in terms of their social positions and everyday experience? Or more generally: How can we describe media use as a practice and experience that is linked to situations and to social structure? A solution could be to bring in social theory that combines phenomenological and structural perspectives into a praxeological perspective. What is it like to use the media the way a particular person does, and how is this particular way of using the media related to the resources a person commands? Based on

B. Krämer (*) Department of Media and Communication, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 B. Krämer, F. Frey (eds.), How We Use the Media, Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41313-2_3

43

44 

B. KRÄMER

Pierre Bourdieu’s (1972) theory of practice and the practical sense (for applications to media see Meyen, 2007; Weiß, 2000, and in this volume), the theoretical framework of “strategies of media use” has been proposed in order to integrate a broad variety of concepts, theses, and findings from audience research (see Krämer, 2013b1). The present study aims to demonstrate that the framework leads to fruitful research questions and hypotheses and can be operationalized, that it is empirically plausible, and that it contributes to explain media use.

Media Use as Strategic Action According to Bourdieuian practice theory which forms the basis of the framework of strategies of media use, recipients intuitively judge alternative courses of action available in a situation and their respective outcomes, using practical knowledge (i.e., implicit schemata of action). These actions are then adjusted to the situation and yield subjectively valuable outcomes if the acquired schemata are well adapted. Strategies of media use originate with feelings that a situation is suboptimal, with some form of diffusely anticipated gratification (cf. Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rayburn, 1980) or with occasions triggering pleasurable or dutiful routines, for example, the perceived duty to be informed. Pursuing a strategy of media use is subjectively costly in terms of time, effort, and possibly money (Scherer & Naab, 2009) and it implies further stakes—other resources that are implicitly used, such as cultural competences or cultural capital (Lamont & Lamont, 1988). But strategies also lead to gratifications such as enjoyment and appreciation (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010) and accumulated resources (profits) such as cultural competences, prestige attributed to ways of using the media, or sometimes even economic advantages in a narrow sense. A strategy’s complete set of consequences (its reach) is thus usually not recognized by an agent whose perception is restricted to some aspects (the scope). Strategies of media use are intimately linked to social structure, that is, those “rules, resources that constitute the stakes and profits of strategies, and/or the opportunities, chances, threats, and burdens in life that define one’s position in the stratified and otherwise differentiated social space and in the life-course” (Krämer, 2013b, p. 203). In homology to these objective structures—a subjective, internalized structure—the habitus as a “structured structure” constitutes the basis of the practical sense (Bourdieu, 1979, p. 191). The habitus can be defined as a (more or less consistent) set of schemata for the interpretation and evaluation of

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

45

situations, actions, and objects, and of generative schemata for actions (Bourdieu, 1979, p. 191). Thus, strategic action links the structure of a situation to one’s position in society, and ranges from everyday life and short-term goals to biographical reflection and questions of the good and beautiful life (that are dealt with, among others, in the media and during episodes of media use). Some agents, mainly those who have already acquired a larger volume of resources, are able to secure the profits of their strategies over time and to accumulate them as a form of capital (economic, cultural, or others). Their actions can be called strategies sensu stricto as opposed to tactics (de Certeau, 1990). The former contribute to define the rules of social “games” or at least “play” virtuously, for example by using the media in ways defined as particularly “cultivated” and leading to the further acquisition of cultural capital, or by uttering authoritative interpretations and criticism of media content. Tactics, in contrast, make use of opportunities, and seek compensation of disadvantages, some small subversion, or short-­ term pleasures. They use or divert resources provided by others, such as cultural goods, in often creative but less consequential ways without challenging overall structures and without accumulating larger quantities of resources. (We can only summarily refer to the analysis of oppositional or at least manifold and pleasurable readings in cultural studies although some “populist” approaches have been criticized for its romanticized view of audience activity—Morley, 1992—and we would adhere to a rather Bourdieuian interpretation of de Certeau’s distinction.) Recipients can choose elements of strategies (sensu lato) that they have acquired during socialization, such as emotional attitudes or a focus of attention during receptions. With certain restrictions, those elements can be permuted to adapt to concrete situation. Both an interpretation of the situation and the elements are chosen and evaluated on the basis of the habitus as to whether the situation and the outcomes of a strategy are desirable or how one’s implicit aims could be achieved. However, elements probably belong to strategic schemata (organized wholes remaining flexible by assimilation and accommodation; Piaget, 1967) and are used if the schemata as a whole are activated.

46 

B. KRÄMER

Research Questions and Hypotheses Before deducing a number of complexes of hypotheses, we have to clarify which media, dimensions of strategies, and aspects of social structure we selected for our present analysis. The subsequent discussion refers to social structure in modern Western society (empirical findings from Germany will be presented later). Television is used, first, as an exemplary medium that offers a wide variety of strategies, given its different informative and entertaining uses and the variety of genres with their cultural legitimacy and their references to different types of worlds (both real and fictional) that can be experienced in different ways. Second, while watching television as such already carries social-structural connotations and correlates with social status, its use is not confined to lower classes. Important social differences will therefore be located on the level of specific practices. Third, essential dimensions of TV-strategies could also pertain to new forms of reception of audio-visual content. We pose two main research questions which will be specified subsequently: What are the typical empirical structures of strategies of television use (the elements that are typically combined to form strategies)? (RQ1) How are strategies of television use linked to social structure? (RQ2)

In the following, some structures or elements of strategies of media use will be mentioned in more specific hypotheses. Some of the elements can be identified straightforwardly. In other cases, hypotheses can only be tested if the empirical dimensional structure of strategies fits the dimensions mentioned in the hypotheses. We can neither survey all kinds of elements and strategies nor consider all aspects of social structure. Strategies of media use are analyzed here with two foci because social structure affects individuals in (at least) two important ways: stratification and functional differentiation. Social stratification is homologous to cultural hierarchies (Bourdieu, 1979): the higher a person’s social status, the stronger his or her affinity with legitimate culture, that is, those goods and ways of cultural consumption that have come to be defined as the normative standards whereby persons and institutions can rightfully be judged, that are seen as “cultivated,” “good style,” “good education,” and so on. Elements of strategies that are related

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

47

to legitimate culture and the overall cultural legitimacy of strategies of elements will therefore receive particular attention in the present study, relating them with social status. Although agents consume (in the widest sense) “outputs” from the most diverse social systems or fields (from food products to political ideologies), work is probably one of the most consequential ways people experience functional differentiation and the resulting social differences. While the relationship between media use and emotions has mainly been studied from psychological perspectives, we consider how people’s occupations (as an element of social differentiation) require a systematic management of emotions. In situations outside the workplace, one has to deal with these experiences and the consequences for one’s identity, for example by choosing particular strategies of media use. Therefore, their relationship with occupations will also be analyzed here. Social Stratification and Legitimate Culture Social stratification as the unequal distribution of social resources and life situations has been prominently theorized by Pierre Bourdieu (see particularly Bourdieu, 1979) whose description of the social classes will be summarized shortly and followed throughout this study with small adjustments. His model combines two axes of differentiation that are interrelated but not congruent in modern society. There is certainly a main vertical dimension of social inequality according to the overall volume of useful resources or capital and according to social and cultural dominance. In a tripartite scheme, the grand and petty bourgeoisie differ from the working class according to the ascribed distinctiveness of their respective lifestyles, from absolute distinction in the grand bourgeoisie to pretension in the petty bourgeoisie and finally to pragmatic necessity or compensation in the working class. Yet within these classes, another important distinction can be made as to the prevalence of one of the main types of capital (cultural and economic). Contrary to Bourdieu’s description, not only the grand and petty bourgeoisie but also today’s working class can be differentiated according to the preponderance of cultural or economic capital (albeit on a very low level, Blasius & Friedrichs, 2008). The traditional working class, where manufacturing jobs prevail, exhibits an ethos of modesty and harmony (cf. Schulze’s, 1992, “harmony milieu”), sometimes combined with a certain tactical subversiveness (Willis, 1977). The newer faction is dominated by occupations in a subordinate sector of the service economy

48 

B. KRÄMER

and its lifestyle is characterized by (rather materialist) hedonism. In the new working class, essential forms of cultivated appearance are essential in customer contact, but familiarity with high culture is not. In general, class factions with a preponderance of cultural capital set or adopt the more recent cultural trends and work or otherwise participate in the social fields that have evolved more recently: The grand bourgeoisie ranges from owners of larger established firms at its traditional pole to notable professionals and leaders in the cultural field (also including research and education, the media, etc.) at the newer pole, and the petty bourgeoisie ranges from traditional craftspeople and traders to the remaining majority of professionals in the cultural field as well as social workers and similar professionals. The ethos of members of newer class factions is less traditional and their lifestyles are modernized versions of those in the older parts of the respective classes. In the more traditional class factions (and also in typically “male” occupations, Lizardo, 2006), “business culture” is often even more important than legitimate culture. Strategic knowledge and familiarity with topics such as sports—which fosters connections across levels of hierarchy—are more useful (Erickson, 1996). Finally, it is plausible that a class habitus and more dispositions toward the media are transmitted from one generation to the next, that people are influenced by their social trajectories, adapt to their current social position and environment, and even anticipate their foreseeable or desired positions (on the intergenerational transmission of television genre preferences see, for example, Notten, Kraaykamp, & Konig, 2012, and Vettehen et al. 2012, also on current influences; see van Eijck, 1999, on the influence of current and parental status on different forms of cultural consumption). Therefore, both the personal and parental social status of media users are mentioned in the hypotheses. Beyond intergenerational transmission by imitation, people’s dispositions are probably also shaped by their parents’ educational strategies and more indirect effects of parenting styles, as well as by school experiences (the perceived school climate; see Anderson, 1982 for a review). For example, parents of higher status tend to engage in “concerted cultivation” as a style of parenting, leading to a large degree of autonomy and proximity to high culture (Lareau, 2003). Their children will perceive school and its curricula as familiar instead of strange and hostile (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970), but if schools themselves value high culture, this may additionally encourage culturally legitimate practices. Therefore, these

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

49

conditions of socialization will also be included in the hypotheses and it will be tested whether they exert an independent influence on strategies of media use. We can now introduce the dimensions of strategies that will be relevant to the hypotheses on stratification and cultural legitimacy. Analyses on media use from a Bourdieuian perspective have mainly focused on what would be called repertoires in the present approach (see Hasebrink & Popp, 2006)—that is, the categories of media and content that are usually considered in situations of choice: what is used instead of how it is used—and on genres in particular (e.g., Konig, Rebers, & Westerik, 2006; van Rees & van Eijck, 2003; see also Bennett et al., 2009, ch. 8, but with a some findings on culturally legitimate ways of watching television: selectively, with serious purposes, and attentively). However, beyond the repertoire, there are further dimensions where elements of strategies can be chosen, in particular those that define users’ relationship to worlds inside and outside the media. When watching TV, recipients can shift their focus of attention (cf. the social-phenomenological approach by Schütz, 1945) to different worlds (their life-world, a world represented in a show, or on its formal properties, symbolic meanings, etc.) and on different parts of these worlds (Suckfüll, 2004). In particular, users can relate the worlds created by a media text to their personal problems or tactically avoid dealing with them in an escapist disposition (Charlton, Pette, & Burbaum, 2004; Katz & Foulkes, 1962). The focus can also be diffuse, using the television only as a background noise without watching attentively. An attitude is defined as “the way one relates to the worlds represented in media texts, how one experiences them and oneself in relation to them, and the degree and mode of control over these experiences” (Krämer, 2013b; the concept is again taken from the social-phenomenological literature, see Schütz, 1993, as opposed to the definition prevalent in psychology or political communication). We will not discuss cognitive attitudes such as belief, disbelief, and suspensions of disbelief (Böcking, 2008), but only refer to types of moral and emotional involvement. Attitudes can resemble “natural” ones in the real world, but users can also, for example, be particularly empathic when appreciating tragedies (Mangold, 2008) or take a relaxed or “regressive” attitude where conscious and more complex mechanisms of control are relaxed, for example in favor of moral sentiments such as the enjoyment of severe punishments (see Raney, 2005).

50 

B. KRÄMER

It can then be hypothesized that certain elements of strategies (repertoires, attitudes, and foci) are typically used together in strategies that we would interpret as more cultivated according to the dominant standards (high-cultural repertoires, and “cultivated” attitudes and foci, for example, analytic, that is, centered on form and meaning, instead of escapist or diffuse, and relaxed or regressive). Those strategies will typically be employed among persons with a higher cultural capital and a socialization that emphasized high culture. With such a background, these strategies are not only subjectively rewarding and relatively effortless, but also objectively profitable and therefore strategic sensu strictu. H1: Among persons with • a higher volume of cultural capital or with parents with a higher volume of cultural capital, and • with an education (both parental and academic) valued high culture “strategic,” “cultivated” strategies sensu stricto are more likely and easily pursued, and are more rewarding and profitable.

According to Bourdieu, owners of small businesses and clerical workers belong to the traditional petty bourgeoisie with a habitus that values security, conventionality, and respectability. In contrast, self-fulfillment and cultural goodwill or pretension characterize the culture of the new petty bourgeoisie; members of this class work in the fields of cultural intermediation, education, and social services. The position of the new petty bourgeoisie confers a certain autonomy, yet it is bound to the framework of existing cultural hierarchies and institutions. High culture is accessible to the new petty bourgeoisie and seen as valuable in the traditional faction as well, even if both mix it with popular culture. However, high culture is partly appropriated in an instrumental, school-like, and laborious manner. An education at school and in the family that emphasizes achievement could foster the same approach to cultural practices. H2: Persons with • a medium amount of cultural capital or with parents with a medium amount (i.e., from the petty bourgeoisie) and • an achievement-oriented education

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

51

will • strive for what they see as “culturally valuable” television use (a high-­ cultural repertoire), but with a “bad cultural consciousness” if they partially fail to do so, and • with instrumental aims (media use as “work” and statusenhancement).

Emotion and Identity In “emotional capitalism” (Illouz, 2008, ch. 3), certain types of personality and certain emotional styles are more adaptive (Gerhards, 1988; Neckel, 2005): strategic management of the self, “emotion work” (Hochschild, 1990), a cultivated appearance, cooperation, and trust are demanded, in particular in the insecure labor markets of the service economy. Control of one’s own and others’ emotions, to feel in proper ways, and to express this toward others are particularly important in fields with predominantly female employees. The fields range from middle-class representative, therapeutic, educational, and similar occupations down to the “emotional proletariat” (Macdonald & Merrill, 2009). This culture of permanent self-control and concealment of emotions can lead to an estrangement from one’s feelings and calls for compensation in private life. The relatively, but not absolutely dominated position of the new petty bourgeoisie can lead to inner conflicts that are often dealt with in a mode of individual, “psychologized” identity work. Therefore, the more a person is involved with emotion work and is in a dominated position in the cultural field or even in a subordinate position in the service sector (i.e., situated in the newer factions of the petty bourgeoisie or working class, as are women more frequently than men), the more relevant are strategies that deal with the conflicts and strains resulting from everyday situations in these occupations and that compensate for permanent self-control. Such strategies may include attitudes of heightened emotionality and empathy, or escapism by transportation (phenomenologically, transportation can be defined as the feeling of being in a world as presented via a medium, a combination of an exclusive focus on that world and a natural, “believing” attitude toward it; see Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008; Green & Brock, 2002; Schubert, 2009). These strategies could also be fostered or enabled by parental socialization. Identity work, empathy, and attention to one’s own emotions could

52 

B. KRÄMER

be related to certain parenting styles (and similar school climates): Those styles would encourage autonomy by authoritativeness and dialogic communication, as opposed to authoritarian styles, avoidance of conflicts or to permissive or laisser-faire attitudes (Baumrind, 1978; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kohn, 1969; Ritchie, 1991). Those parenting styles are also characterized by emotional openness and “coaching” instead of being dismissive when confronted with adolescents’ expression of feelings (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996). H3: People from the petty bourgeoisie (among persons from the petty bourgeoisie or with parents from the petty bourgeoisie) and educated in a way that emphasizes self-fulfillment and (communicative and particularly emotional) openness will use strategies with • aims of identity work and relief from emotion work, • an attitude of heightened emotionality, • a focus on emotional involvement with one’s life or with the characters (including the appreciation of tragedy and negative emotions), or experiences of escapist transportation.

Other types of self-discipline, such as required in manufacturing occupations (in the traditional working class), other generally disadvantaged situations (including social decline and de-traditionalization), or an everyday life that is perceived as burdensome, complex, insecure, and so on, also demand tactical compensation. Unstructured time has to be filled without much effort and with positive gratifications. Strategies could be based on a repertoire and attitudes aiming at joy or harmonious moods or moral attitudes of subversion and regression (consistent with different descriptions of the working class habitus), on escapism, and on habitualized styles that reduce the subjective costs of selection (styles are defined as formal ways recipients select media and media content—Schweiger, 2005; Bilandzic, 2005—such as the degree of routinization or habitualization, Koch, 2010; LaRose, 2010). H4: Among • persons from the traditional working class or with parents from the working class and • among persons educated in a harmonious but authoritarian manner,

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

53

strategies of television use will be tactical and compensatory: • aiming toward positive emotions such as enjoyment and harmony or filling unstructured time, • with foci and attitudes of escapist transportation, but also • attitudes of tactical moral subversion and regression, and • with a habitualized style.

Method There is no single method that would allow an optimal operationalization of all the dimensions that can be used to characterize media use within the present framework. Ethnographic and auto-ethnographic studies of media reception, in-depth interviews, observations, thinking-aloud, and other introspective methods could be used to study the subjective, biographical, and situational aspects of strategies (Bilandzic, 2009; Moores, 1993; Woelke, 2005), while an investigation of their structural correlates requires information on the distribution of social positions and resources. Analyzing strategies of media use by means of self-reports and standardized questionnaires is a compromise between the phenomenological and the structural perspective; it is an attempt to reconcile the analysis of subjective experiences and the need to relate patterns of media use to typical social situations, to global patterns of social inequality, and to large societal groups. Still, there are several levels at which strategies can be investigated and that imply different designs (see Frey & Krämer, in this volume). As a first and less complex approach, we use items that measure the inclination to use different elements across different episodes of reception and analyze the correlations among them. The generalizations made by the participants may be biased, but could also come closer to their repertoire of schemata of strategies. If items are correlated, this may indicate typical strategies on the aggregate level of the sample. However, frequently used elements could also belong to different schemata of strategies or different concrete strategies that are often applied by the same persons (but the correlated elements are not necessarily used together in one situation). Furthermore, these strategies could include elements that have not been measured. Finally, actual strategies could consist in the different possible combinations of groups of elements (a first strategy could use one set of elements, a second one another group of elements, a third one both sets, etc.). For the sake of

54 

B. KRÄMER

simplicity, we will refer to the items as “elements” and to a set of correlated items (or more precisely: factors extracted from the correlation matrix) as “strategies” and shortly discuss other interpretations of the data in the light of the above alternatives. This approach permits to analyze persons’ affinity to typical strategies (expressed in individual factor scores). Further studies could then proceed to analyses of more individual strategies. The variables in the research questions and hypotheses require that persons recollect their personal experiences of media use and rate statements on the respective phenomenological qualities; activate biographical memories; and reveal their social position. To avoid effects of social desirability and time pressure, a self-administered online questionnaire was used. However, a structural analysis also requires that all important social groups have to be represented in the sample, at least to a sufficient degree if not in proportion to their actual size in the population (in the present case, all members of the German resident population who are able to understand and answer the questionnaire). Therefore, participants were recruited offline, that is, contacted personally and invited to complete the online questionnaire (they were asked for their e-mail addresses and then sent a link to the questionnaire). Two methods of recruitment were combined: A sample of persons was contacted by phone, using random-last-digit dialing. They were asked to complete the online questionnaire. This sample was pooled with persons recruited by students from their own social environments and personal networks, and based on combined quotas by age, sex, and educational attainment, also providing them a link to the questionnaire. To enlarge the sample, potential participants contacted by phone were also instructed to ask as many persons as possible in their household to participate. The number of participants per household is too small to allow for a systematic analysis of interrelated cases, but on the other hand, the bias introduced by the slight clustering was judged unimportant (it only concerns a small proportion of the overall sample), so it was accepted in exchange for some additional cases. Among the private households where one of eight calls was answered, 15% provided an e-mail address and in 7% of the households, at least one person began to answer the questionnaire (this corresponds to 10% of the contactable households eligible for participation, that is, with sufficient competences and access to the Internet). In these 130 households, on average 1.72 persons participated (the average

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

55

size of the households in the sample is 2.6; the additional recruitment within the household contributed 94 cases or 12% of the overall sample). In total, the telephone sample contributed 244 questionnaires of which 183 (75%) were completed; the quota sample accounts for 539 cases (440 or 82% completed). Incomplete questionnaires (n = 160) did not significantly differ from complete ones (n  =  623) in terms of age, gender, income, and education (if the respective questions were answered), so some of the subsequent analyses include incomplete questionnaires in which the necessary values are not missing. Despite the use of quotas that were adjusted to census data and the use of a method traditionally used for random sampling, the resulting overall sample should not be considered representative, but as a convenience sample that represents the most important social groups with a sufficient number of cases. It includes persons from all six class factions in the modified Bourdieuian scheme, with the petty bourgeoisie as the largest group (233 and 89 persons for the more traditional and the newer faction, respectively), followed by the working class (68 and 38 cases) and the grand bourgeoisie (23 and 51 cases). Participants were 13–83 years old, with a median age of 45 years. Persons older than 60 years are under-represented in comparison to the general population. While the quota sample is almost unbiased in terms of gender, the telephone sample comprises 59% women. Persons with higher education are prevalent in both samples, with a larger bias in the telephone sample (73 and 43% of persons with Abitur, that is, 12–13 years of schooling, versus 26% in the general population).

Measurements An individual’s structural position was measured in two ways: as the amount of capital (with the two dimensions of cultural and economic capital) and as a person’s social class according to his or her occupation (further documentation of the measurements, including items and coefficients from reliability or principal component analyses, can be obtained from the author). Respondent’s social background (i.e., their parents’ position) was measured using the same items with participants being asked to remember the typical circumstances that prevailed most of the time when they lived with their parents or equivalent persons. The amount of the two types of capital was measured with indices of five and six items per type respectively. Respondents were asked to indicate whether certain indicators of wealth pertained to their own and their

56 

B. KRÄMER

parents’ households (e.g., a dishwasher or a car; see Kraaykamp, 2001, for a similar measurement of parents’ wealth), whether both generations own(ed) cultural goods and pursue(d) certain high-cultural activities. Respondents were also asked to classify their present or last occupation in one of 19 categories (with some additional categories for those who never had been involved in paid employment). The categories were then recoded into the six class factions of the scheme described above; the initial categories cover typical combinations of autonomy in the workplace, qualification and hierarchical position, economic and social sectors such as manufacturing, social work, culture and education, and so on (see Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, 2003, for a similar classification adapted to the German labor market). Furthermore, participants were also asked to classify their father’s predominant occupation during their childhood (or their mother’s if they had little contact with their father, or that of any equivalent persons). The subsequent analyses use a six-fold class scheme as described in the previous section, with the exception of parents from the working class: there were few who could be classified as members of the newer faction, so only one category was used for the whole class. Experiences of education were measured very selectively, using items that were most relevant to the above hypotheses from, or similar to existing operationalizations. Parental strategies of education were measured with six items concerning styles of interaction (aiming at communicative understanding, emotionally open, negligent, laisser-faire, authoritarian, harmonic) and six items verbalizing overarching aims of education (children living in good circumstances, open-mindedness, self-fulfillment, taking opportunities, and having fun in life, parents that lacked future perspectives). These strategies as perceived by the respondents can be reduced to three factors in a principal component analysis. The first factor comprises items focusing on understanding and openness; the second combines status-orientation with an authoritarian understanding of harmony; and the third corresponds to an attitude of laisser-faire without strong rules and aims for the future. Factor scores for these three dimensions are used in subsequent analyses. Experience at school was measured with eight items regarding a vivid exchange of opinions, cognitive stimulation, competition, interest in the adolescents’ emotions and personality, and the pupils’ feelings toward the curricula and legitimate culture. A principal component analysis shows that these experiences can essentially be described by one dimension of cognitive stimulation and openness (with a negative pole of estrangement

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

57

from school, its curricula and forms of discipline), except for one item on achievement orientation and one that verbalizes the impression that school has successfully conveyed the idea that a good educational background requires verbal skills and knowledge of art and literature. These items are used as separate variables in further analyses, together with the factor scores of the main dimension. To measure strategies of media use, participants were asked to indicate their agreement with 18 items that contained generalizations about the television use. Each item referred to an element of strategies that users may typically employ and that has been mentioned in one of the hypotheses (see Fig. 3.1 for item wordings).

Results Dimensions of Strategies First, the empirical dimensionality of the elements of strategies is analyzed, that is, their typical combination into strategies (cf. RQ1). A principal component analysis with varimax rotation of the 18 items reveals two main factors explaining 33% of the item variance. The resulting factors are interpretable and allow for a parsimonious analysis of the most important strategies in our domains of interest. Many of the items are not distinctly associated with either of the factors, so a graphical representation of the loadings may help to understand the strength of association between the items and the factors (see Fig. 3.1). As discussed above, the factors may roughly be equated with ideal-typical strategies on the aggregate level of the sample while individuals can combine elements differently. Therefore, lower eigenvalues of the factors and lower or less distinct factor loading do not point to a suboptimal measurement of some constructs that would be assumed to be universal, consistent, and distinct. Instead, they reflect the fact that elements are not combined at random, but that their use is structured to a considerable but still limited degree (for a similar use of factor analyses see van Rees & van Eijck, 2003, on media repertoires). Four groups of items can be distinguished. In the left quadrant above the x-axis, we find an item referring to high-cultural and informative content as a “natural” part of the media repertoire, while this negative range of the first factor is also slightly correlated with formal analysis and the acquisition of knowledge that can be useful in professional contexts. The opposite extreme of the first axis shows that this “strategic” strategy of

Fig. 3.1  Factor loadings for the dimensions of strategies of television use. Note: Principal component analysis with varimax rotation

58  B. KRÄMER

3  STRATEGIES OF MEDIA USE: LINKING TELEVISION USE AND LIFE, SOCIAL… 

59

self-cultivation and legitimate uses is negatively correlated with a tactic of recreation and enjoyment as the main purpose of watching television, where recipients seek relief from daily routine with its stress, burdens, and self-control (an attitude of emotional relaxation). Television is also sometimes used as a background noise or “electronic wallpaper,” that is, with a diffuse focus. In sum, this strategy can be labeled “recreation by enjoyment” (or more abstractly: “tactical-hedonist reproduction”). The second dimension is constituted by items that stress emotional involvement and transportation into plots, thus an “immanent” focus on the televised world. However, there are also “transcendent” aspects relating the televised and one’s own life-world: emotional exploration of the self (including negative feelings) and coming to terms with emotional stress during work. Possibly, this dimension combines two different strategies with different foci and aims that are typically used alternately, or persons quickly switch between these elements during the same episodes of television use in order to combine the gratifications from an involvement with their own and other persons’ emotions. This dimension could be interpreted as “emotional exploration” (or, considering the relationship to emotional well-being and identity work, a “eudaimonic strategy”; Oliver & Bartsch, 2010). A fourth group of items, lying in the right quadrant above the x-axis, is ambivalent in terms of its affinity to one of the dimensions. They include elements of style such as habitualization and filling time but also a deviation from a morally natural attitude: In a kind of moral regression, recipients enjoy moral sentiments that go beyond more complex cognitive judgments, and deviant actions of characters, of bad boys and girls. Among these elements, we also find strategies that strive for harmony (an escape from a hostile world toward more harmonious fictitious worlds) and feelings of a bad cultural conscience (a self-critical attitude that one should watch more “valuable” TV shows). The Relationship Between Strategies of Media Use and Social Structure A central assumption of the present approach is the relationship between strategies of media use and social structure. We will therefore analyze how the dimensions just identified can be explained by the dimensions of social inequality. In a number of stepwise nested models of linear regression, aspects of social structure will be used to predict the tactical-hedonist and

60 

B. KRÄMER

the eudaimonic dimension of strategies. First, variables pertaining to the respondents’ parents will be used together with participants’ age and gender, then including information on the respondents’ status, and finally adding the specific experiences of parental education and schooling (for the sake of comparability, all of these models include the same number of n = 365 cases without missing values in any of the variables that are used in any of the models) (see Table 3.1). The parental social position (parents’ volume of capital and education, and the father’s occupation) hardly explains the strategy of tactical reproduction, R2 = 0.04, F(10,354) = 1.39, p = 0.18. A model including the respondents’ own social position performs significantly better, F(9,345) = 5.90, p