' IIIIIIjIIIIIII HHIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIlTIII

649 4508

I‘: i. ‘

‘J "V , 1';

This i§’t°..e<?€tify Ehat filé'iiffisf ._ ‘

. lhesis entitled 3:: a; T33— ? ~
I;
~Usesa Gratifications and Avo1dances.
Of Political Information In The_ Media ;
By Young, First- -Time, Potential Voters
In A Presidential Election; +~~

presented by p I I
Thomas E. Taylor

 

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for I

M .A . degree in Telecommunication

m
/ Major professor
Date 014/444} me -

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
5
/M~,~“-..-u..-~ " -Mw“ K
I
I. t
a I 'l m.
}? .7" : “F!“ '2
i £:‘}~“f‘.; ’ '9 ‘5 .
I
l "'7 " - 1" ".\| {I n,
. ‘.";}‘ Vie-:39 3%:
i a ‘I‘ "in”?
\ .3 _ ~ ,
i "..JB’J$ \- t‘d‘r‘y I
0
. . I

l

I

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or baton date duo.

- DAIgggE DATE DUE DATE DUE

‘4 r" "9 ‘f‘ ‘fi
.‘f‘.tor " 1/33
, ‘ C A

. I

 

 

{I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cmmut

USES, GRATIFICATIONS AND AVOIDANCES OF
POLITICAL INFORMATION IN THE MEDIA BY
YOUNG, FIRST-TIME, POTENTIAL VOTERS

IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

BY
Thomas E. Taylor

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunication

1983

Accepted by the faculty of the

Department of Telecommunication,

College of Communication Arts and Sciences,
Michigan State University,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Master of Arts degree.

was JW

Drector of Thesis

ABSTRACT
USES, GRATIFICATIONS AND AVOIDANCES OF
POLITICAL INFORMATION IN THE MEDIA BY
YOUNG, FIRST-TIME, POTENTIAL VOTERS
IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY

Thomas E. Taylor

The percentage of citizens in the United States who
exercise their right to vote in general elections is among
the lowest for any country in the world. As a recent
addition to the electoral family in this country, the young,
first-time, potential voter has shown the poorest turn-out
at the polls among all groups in the electoral family.

In an attempt to explain this phenomenon, media use
habits and family communication patterns were examined for
possible relationships to voting behavior.

It was found that neither media use characteristics
nor family communication pattern was predictive of voting
behavior. Family communication pattern did predict the level
of alienation toward political information received from the
media, however, although it did not predict the gratifi~
cations received from such information. In addition, the
level of avoidance of political information which the
individual reported increased for all respondents at the

conclusion of the campaign.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have helped contribute to the completion of
this thesis. Foremost among them is Dr. Gretchen Barbatsis
who guided me throughout the entire process with more
patience than I had a right to expect, and who remained a
good friend in spite of it all. Lonni Moffett, fellow
masters student (and outstanding friend) helped keep my
sanity when things looked bleak, and is extended a grateful
thank you. Dr. John Able and Rick Ducey (PhD Candidate)
of Michigan State U. must be thanked for their invaluable
help in assisting in the writing of the computer program to
analyze the data. As usual, my family provided me with the
moral and financial support so vital to an undertaking of
this magnitude. And finally, a special thanks to my special

friends for being there.

ii

List of
List of
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter

Chapter

Tables
Figure
I:

II:
III:

IV:

VI:

Bibliography

Appendix A: S

Appendix B: S

Appendix C: C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S I O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . .
Literature Review . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Method . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . .
urvey Instrument Wave I

urvey Instrument Wave II

over Letters Wave I . .

iii

iv

vi

24
35
53
70
92
95
100

103

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Proportionate Stratified Sample .

Response Rate to Wave I by Date
and by Strata . . . . . . . . . .

Dependent t-Test for Hypothesis

1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dependent t-Test for Hypothesis

1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Factor Analysis of Media Uses by
Respondents . . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability Analysis (Alpha) of
Gratification and Avoidance
Dimension Scales . . . . . . .

Factor Analysis of Avoidance
DimenSion O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Factor Analysis of Gratification
Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chi-square Analysis of Data for
Hypothesis 2.1 . . . . . . . . .

Chi-square Analysis of Data for
Hypothesis 2.2 . . . . . . . . .

Chi-square Analysis of Data for
Hypothesis 2.3 . . . . . . . .

Chi-square Analysis of Data for
Hypothesis 3.1 (a) . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Test for
the Data of Hypothesis 3.1 (b)

Chi-square Analysis of Data for
Hypothesis 3.1 (c) . . . . . . .

iv

37

44

54

56

56

57

57

58

59

6O

61

62

64

65

Table 5-13

Table 5-14

LIST OF TABLES-CONTINUED

Chi-square Analysis of Data for
Hypothesis 3.2 (a) . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Analysis of Variance Test for the
Data of Hypothesis 3.2 (b) . . . . . . . 67

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 An Illustration of Communication
Theories O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7

Figure 2-2 Family Communication Pattern Breakdown . . 17

vi

CHAPTER I

"One question has tantalized me for years,
Is television implicated in this voter apathy?

It is a fact that these two decades of
increasingly turned-off voters have been two decades
of increasingly turned-on television. Just as election
turn-out was declining, television was becoming the
dominant cultural force in American life and the
principal medium of news and political communication.
It must be more than a coincidence." 1
——Robert MacNeil
"Anyone who says 25 million (first time) votes

isn't a force to be reckoned with is an idiot." 2
-—Ben Wattenberg

INTRODUCTION

Few people in the United States exercise their right
to vote. As recently as the 1980 presidential election,
less than one-half of all the eligible voters turned out at
the polls to participate in the general election.3 While
political philosophers can debate whether or not such an
occurence is good or bad, social scientists must contend
with the 'why?‘ and the 'so what?’ of the problem. What
causes some individuals to vote and others not to vote?
What are the results of such behavior for society and the
individual? Or, as Robert MacNeil has intimated, is there

any causal link between the increase in the use of

2
television in our culture and the decrease in voter turn-out?

As a politically aware and active member of society,
this researcher set out to seek an answer to the 'why's?’
of electoral behavior. Being one who does exercise his
right to vote, my bias needs to be stated at the onset.
Unlike one who may see non-voting as a positive, constructive
means of expression, I view such behavior as deviant from
what I perceive should be the norm in a democratic society.
While every effort was made to be objective in reviewing the
literature, devising a questionnaire and analyzing the
collected data, this researcher was more interested in
exploring the variables affecting those who ggglt vote than
in exploring those associated with those who do.

The young, first-time,potential voter—-that individual
being an American citizen between the ages of 18 and 21-is
a relatively new member of the electoral family. By the
adoption of the 26th amendment to the constitution in 1971,
these individuals received the right of franchise, effective
with the general election in 1972. To date, the young,
first-time, potential voter has been exposed to three
general elections. In line with the overall national
electorate, less than half of these eligible young, first-

4 The

time, potential voters have used their right to vote.
lowest incidence of participation in the presidential
elections by young, first-time, potential voters occured in
1976, when only 38 per cent cast ballots.5

As children of the electronic media, this group may

3
have developed its electoral behavior with influence from
the electronic media: radio and television. Certainly,
given the vast amount of attention paid to the electronic

6 The

media by young people, this looms as a possibility.
question which immediately comes to mind, then, is whether
young, first-time, potential voters (i.e., both those who
will vote and those who won't) differ in terms of why and
how they use the media for political information during the
course of a general election. This was the central question
raised in this research endeavor.

In light of the low incidence of turn-out at the voting
booths by the young, first-time, potential voter, results
from this study can be useful in three ways. First, social
scientists can gain valuable insights into the electoral
behavior of an age group which has been, heretofore,
analyzed only superficially. Secondly, journalists and
others who present political information to the public can
get first-hand, self—reported reasons from the public on the
avoidance and gratifications derived from the political
information presented to them. This, in turn, may help news
disseminators do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.
Finally, candidates and their 'image makers' can gain
insights into what issues are important to the young, first-
time, potential voter, and how to attend to these issues via
the media. Effective communication must result from the

most efficient transmission of information from the candidate

to each member of the electorate. The results of this study

4
can help candidates communicate in an efficient manner with
at least one segment of the electorate: the young, first-
time, potential voter.
Summary

The young, first—time, potential voter is a recent
addition to the electoral family. While little has been
done to research the behavior of this voting block, it is
evident that less than half of all eligible young, first-
time, potential voters exercise their right to vote. Does
the presence of the electronic media in the lives of this
demographic group have any correlation with this voting
statistic? It is the opinion of this researcher that there
is at least the suspicion of such a link, and as such, the
subject merits serious consideration as a research topic.
Further, non-voting is considered by this researcher as the
deviant form of behavior in a democratic nation. It is
hoped that the results of this study can help social
scientists, journalists and politicians understand-—and

rectify-—this problem.

 

CHAPTER I

NOTES

1Robert MacNeil, "TV and the Voter," ijguarterly.
(Winter 1980-81) Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 27. MacNeil is a
popular television commentator on PBS and one of the few
media professionals who has critically discussed the role
members of his profession play in the electoral process.

 

2Ben Wattenberg, in John J. Patrick,The Young Voter.
(Washington: National Council for The Social Sciences, 1972),
p. 88- Wattenberg is currently a PBS commentator and a
former staff member for Sen. Henry Jackson.

 

3Steven V. Roberts, "Non-voters played a key role,"

The New York Times, 5 Nov. 1980, p. A-l.

 

4
p. 12.

"Lagging at the Polls," Parade, 26 October 1980,

5George Comstock, Steven Chaffee, Natan Katzman,
Maxwell McCombs and Donald Roberts, Television and Human
Behavior. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974).
See: especially Chapter 3, "The Audience," for a detailed
analysis of viewership demographics.

 

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

 

Finding a Theory
Many studies dealing with the media and politics have
been in evidence as of late. From local newspapers or 3y
guide to the most serious academic journals, the question
of the present moment seems to be "What effect does the
media have upon political behavior?" However well inten-
tioned such a question may be, from an intuitive sense, it
presents only one perspective to media effects. By basing
a study on such a premise, one pre-supposes that the media
directly effect the individual. That is, the media are
deemed as omni-potent, while the individual is basically
without defenses to counteract any messages. Such a line
of thinking has been the rationale used in many studies;
and while the name may vary, that rationale has been called
the 'direct effects' theory, or the 'hypodermic theory' to
communication effect. McLeod and Becker very succinctly
noted that the hypodermic theory "at its worse...(makes)
media content equal media effects."1

Conversely, by focusing more attention on the

individual through the anlaysis of selective perception and

6

7
retention, the 'limited effects' theory works in reverse:
the individual pulls from the content that which would
induce some subsequent behavior. McLeod and Becker likewise
find fault with this model for its myopic perspective: "any

2 If one were to

effect can be obtained from any message."
visualize these theories, one would notice that with the
hypodermic model, the media works directly on the individual,
while with the limited effects model, the individual draws
from the media in a selective fashion. To solve such a
dilemma, it would be appropriate to analyze both the media
and the individual: how does a particular individual use
themedia, and for what specific reason? “In addition, the”
factors bearing upon the individual are also considered.
“Such is the basis for the theory popularly known as Uses and
Gratifications.
FIGURE 2-1:
AN ILLUSTRATION OF COMMUNICATION THEORIES

Direct Effects Model

 

rmfifia-——————édndiwfikal

Limited Effects Model

uedkié---mhifivhhal

Uses and Gratifications Model

 

 

"*9 individual€—-e outside influence

 

nedfla<

8

Uses and Gratifications Theory

 

The Uses and Gratifications approach to mass media has,
like a pheonix, arisen out of the ashes of the aforementioned
theories. The failure of both the Direct Effects Theory and
the Limited Effects Theory to produce any evidence of
effects on those exposed to the media provided the impetus
for the growth and development of Uses and Gratifications
Theory. Uses and Gratifications Theory was most popular
during.the.late 1960's and—early lB70flsy. At this point, a
flood of research studies attempted to utilize the theory.

Uses and Gratifications Theory is seen as a better
approach to analyzing media effects because, as Katz noted,
it "takes the media consumer rather than the media message

"3 Katz further stated that Uses and

as its starting point.
Gratifications Theory was an approach which put "less
attention on what media do to people, but rather on what

4 He elucidated further that "the

people do with the media."
uses approach assumes that people's values, their interests,
their associations and their social roles are pre-potent,
and that people selectively fashion what they see and hear
to those interests."5

Blumler, Katz and Gurevitch assert that the Uses and
Gratifications approach is concerned with "(1) the social
and psychological origin of (2) needs, which generate
(3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources,

which lead to (5) differentiated patterns of media exposure...

resulting in (6) need gratification."6 Specifically, in

9
applying Uses and Gratifications Theory, five key elements
must be kept in mind:

1. The audience is conceived of as active and goal
directed.

2. In the mass communication process, much initiative
in linking need gratification and media choice
lies with the audience member.

3. The media compete with other sources of need
satisfaction.

4. Methodologically speaking, many of the goals of
mass media use can be derived from data supplied
by individual audience members themselves.

5. Value judgements about the cultural significance
of mass communication should be suspended while
audience orientations are explored on their own
terms.7

Uses and Gratifications Theory, then, presents itself

as the most logical choice as an approach in which to study
the topic of young, first-time, potential voters and the
media. It should be clear that the individual must be
analyzed as to what orientation(s) s/he bring to the
communication setting and how s/he uses the media, and for
what gratifications.

Key findings in previous research

 

 

Having established the theoretical foundation for this
study, it is necessary to turn the attention of the reader

to previous research in the field. The landmark study

10
relating Uses and Gratifications Theory to political
information was conducted by McQuail and Blumler during the

British general election held in 1964.8

Whileithe study
dealtiwith persuasion (not a variable under consideration in
this study), a few key results are applicableiheregw For
example, the authors found that "attitudinal effects
depended both on the type of motive for use and the overall
level of motivation characterizing the viewer."9 Further,
the strength of the motivation (defined as number of reasons
for seeking political information) was positively associated
with the amount of time spent seeking that information,
despite the fact that it was negatively associated with
regular television viewing. Two major outcomes of the study
serve to keep the Uses and Gratifications Theory alive.
First, the study validated the method of obtaining infor-
mation on media use and behavior from self-reported
measures. Such validation is evidenced in the reports of
shifts in party attitudes during the campaign. Secondly,
the study provided a useful and meaningful set of factors
which serve to outline media functions, which lead the
individual to gratifications, or avoidance, from the media's
content. These factors have an intuitive logic and have
formed the basis for subsequent research into media and
politics applying Uses and Gratifications Theory. (It should
be noted that these factors are, by and large, the result of
the work of Charles Wright on media functions for the

individual).10

11
Major factors found by McQuail and Blumler in their
path setting study included gratifications derived by the
individual, as well as aVoidances toward political infor-

mation presented by television. Gratificatignsmigentified M

‘n-bum

 

\includedimfi(l) re-inforcement of pre-existing attitudes,
(2) excitement about the election and the campaign, (3)
anticipated communication with peers about the campaign,
and (4) vote guidance and surveillance of the candidates.11
In termscfi'the avoidances toward political information pre-
sented by television, the researchers found three major
factors: (1) partisanship already existing, (2) the
preference to relax with a particular medium and (3)
alienation from the political system.12
The authors further found that level of exposure and
knowledge of campaign information were positively

13 Because of television's ubiquity in England,

correlated.
the researchers concluded that the consideration of what the
viewer brought with him or her to the program content was of
paramount importance in determining motivations.14

The first attempt to replicate McQuail and Blumler's
landmark study in the United States found similar results.
McLeod and Becker. attempted to compare young, first-time,
potential voters to seasoned voters according to the uses
of television for political information.15 While theirs is
a study more concerned with the validation of the method

(i.e., self-reported scales), several of their findings are

relevant for this study. Foremost,_the_authors found no

12
significant differences between young, first-time, potential
voters and seasoned voters in terms of the reasons each had
for seeking and avoiding political information from the

media.16

Secondly, surveillance of political information
was the predominant reason given for using media for
political information. In addition, avoidance items (as
well as the general factor) were rarely endorsed by the
respondent, and the mean score for each was significantly

17 This

lower than that for the gratifications items factor.
pattern held for both the new and the seasoned voter.
Finally, gratification and avoidance responses were found to
be particularly powerful predictors of probable electoral
behavior. _Most surprising, and contradictory to prior
research, scores for the gratifications and avoidance items
were found to be better predictors of voting behavior than
ordinary levels of exposure to television.18 The authors
found, however, many of the gratification items to be inter-
related and in need of clarification. Although less
significant than gratification and avoidance measures,
specific content measures of media use also proved to be a

19

good predictor of voting behavior. The authors examined

specific content measures along the following classifi-

cations: crime and adventure shows, movies, and situation

comedies.20

Semlak and Williams continued the application of Uses

and Gratifications Theory to political information from the

21

media during the 1976 general election. These researchers

13
were primarily interested in testing the validity of factor
analyzed campaign data over time and did not segregate
respondents as to seasoned or young, first-time, potential
voters. Nonetheless, several results are noteworthy. As
with prior research, Semlak and Williams found avoidance
and gratifications factors to exist (using the same self-
reported measures employed by McLeod and Becker).22 (In
terms of method, these researchers departed from prior
research by administering the survey over the phonerather
than through in-depth,personal interviews. Also, data
collection was done twice during the course of the campaign:
immediately after the nominations of Ford and Carter, and
just prior to the general election in November. While the
level of gratification increased slightly from point one to
point two, no significant change was observed in the
avoidance factor between these two observation points. As
was true in previous research, Semlak andqulliams_foundthe
gratifications and avoidance dimensions to be extremely
powerful predictors of voting intention (well over 76
percent.)23

Faults in prior research

 

The primary fault with prior research in Uses and
Gratifications Theory centers around its lack of attention
120 the individual; As McCombs has noted:

"Consideration of personal characteristics

and interpersonal communication behaviors has often

been relegated to a concern with simple demographic

l4
location variables...we must consider what factors
bring each individual to the mass media."24
Keeping in mind Blumler, Katz and Gurevitch's concern for
the socio-psychological origins of the needs for the
individual, one has to be dismayed with prior studies which
fail to address this crucial variable. Semlak and Williams
fail completely to identify the individual as anything other
than the 'voter'. Likewise, McQuail and Blumler do not
suggest any demographic breakdowns applicable to the United
States. McLeod and Becker fall back on the individuals'
"simple demographic location variables" (e.g., education) as
a probable variable to address the question of socio-
psychological origins of needs. Even here, however, the
researchers admit that it (education) fails to be of any

25 The lack of such a predictive

great predictive value.
variable may well be the weakest part of Uses and
Gratifications Theory.

In an attempt to address the weakness found in previous
research, this study employed a meanswto_relate the origin
of needs to the communication pattern used by the family in
which the individual developed. Intuitively this made sense
on a priori grounds: how a family (the primary agent of
political socialization into the culture for the individual)
controls conversation between members (i.e., who can speak,
when, and on what subject(s)), should influence the

individual's communication pattern concerning politics as

an adult.

15
This is precisely what Chaffee, McLeod and Atkin assert

26 The researchers

in their study of adolescent media use.
examine the role of 'modeling' by parents on their off-
spring. They note that:
"The developing child in modern society

is typically introduced to the mass media in

the home...it is plausible to assume that his

patterns of media use have been shaped by

social influences in the home, particularly
his parents."27
Further, "the patterns of interest and motivations toward
communication that the youth carries into adulthood are...
those that he has learned socially."28

Chaffee, McLeod and Atkin. devised a scale which
measures just such a variable. While used originally to
determine family communication patterns as they relate to
overall media use, these self-administered questions served
this study as well (i.e., the variable remains the same,
only the context of its use changed.)

Two dimensions form the family communication pattern.

. . , . _ . . , . .
The first 15 the \sgc1o orleQEEEAQDNWWhICh examines whether

:HAH.‘

 

or not the family encourages the individual members to avoid
upsetting peaceful and harmonious relations in a group.

The second dimension is the 'conceptforientationl. Here,
the individual within the family is examined to see if he or
she is exposed to controversy and encouraged to discuss his

or her ideas on a variety of subjects. The two orientations

16

yield a four category typology:

1.

Laissez-faire families: Neither type of

 

orientation is stressed. While the individual
is not prohibited from challenging parental
views, neither is s/he exposed to the world of
competing ideas. The individual is seen as
being 'weak' on both dimensions.

Protective families: The individual is

 

encouraged to get along with others. He or she

is prohibited from expressing dissent and given
little chance to encounter information on which
s/he might base his or her own views. The
individual is seen as being 'strong' on the socio-
orientation and 'weak' or the concept-orientation.

Pluralistic families: The individual is encouraged

 

to explore new ideas and s/he can make up his or
her own mind without encurring parental wrath.

The individual is seen as being 'strong' on both
the concept-orientation, and the socio-orientation.

Consensual families: The individual is exposed

 

to controversy and encouraged to enter into it,
and yet, paradoxically, constrained to adopt
parental values and ideas. The individual is
seen as being 'strong' on the concept-orientation

and 'weak' on the socio-orientation.29

Figure 2-2 presents the family communication pattern

visually.

17
FIGURE 2-2

FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERN BREAKDOWN

Socio-Orientation

 

 

 

 

High Low
Concept- High PluralisEic Consensual
Orientation
Low Protective Laissez-faire

 

 

 

 

Another key problem with prior research, as it concerns
this study, was the relative in-attention paid to the young,
first-time, potential voter. Only McLeod and Becker made
any attempt to ascertain responses from this specific demo-
»graphic group. Even here, however, three problems presented
themselves. First, while addressing this group, the
researchers did so with questions which had been applied
only to seasoned voters. By the very nature of being young
and potential first-time voters, this group is different
and may look upon politics and the media differently. By
forcing this group to respond to questionnaires geared
toward older voters, valuable information was overlooked
and, more importantly, misleading responses must be
considered probable. Pre-testing and focus group interviews
were not applied to solicit information from the young,
first-time, potential voter. Secondly, the researchers
surveyed youth from the University of Wisconsin's environs.
One might expect a sample bias of a more affluent, better

educated and-—given that University's history——more

18
politically active and aware group. This makes generali-
zation difficult at best. Finally, (and while seemingly a
minor point) first-time voters in 1972 encompassed all
individuals between the ages of 18 and 24. In 1980, that
group included only those between 18 and 21. Those
additional respondents (i.e., those between 22 and 24) were
conceivably more in tune with the more seasoned voter than
their younger peers, thereby skewing the results.

By their own admissions, all three previously cited
studies dealing with Uses and Gratifications Theory failed
to give proper attention to the avoidance dimension.
Considering that the first—time voter, as a block, has the
lowest incidence of turn-out at the polls, this particular
fault becomes of paramount importance. Through refinement
of the survey instrument and the definition of the sample,
this study attempted to address this weakness.

The questionnaire used in this study was pre-tested and
finalized based on interviews with young, first-time,
potential voters, and was better tailored for this sample
than those used previously. The focus group interviews
gleaned from the interviewees more insight into how to
survey the avoidance dimension than the mere repitition of
the McQuail and Blumler questionnaire.

Another problem with McLeod and Becker's study was the
'sampling frame used. Rather than relying on college
students (as those two had done), the sampling frame in this

study included all 18 to 21 year olds in a specific

l9

geographic location. Two significant factors emerged from
the act. First, those sampled were more representative of
society's young, first-time, potential voter in that workers,
the unemployed, and housewives, as well as students, were
included. Secondly, registered, as well as non-registered,
voters were included in the sample. In prior research, a
voter registration list served as the sampling frame. In
and of itself, those registered to vote show a predisposition
to use their franchise. This predisposition, in turn, could
be expected to influence subsequent behavior and motivations
to seek political information from the media. Such
registered voters are also a minority. As this study con-
cerned itself with non-voters, as well as voters, it was
apparent that a voter registration list would be unacceptable.
To sample a minority and then try to generalize to an entire
age group would be misleading.
Summary

The hypodermic theory and the limited effects theory
have heretofore provided unsatisfactory results to media
effects on human behavior. Uses and Gratifications Theory
tries to correct deficiencies in prior research by analyzing
media use fromfiflxaconsumer's self-reported responses. Uses
and Gratifications Theory is concerned with the socio-
psychological origins of needs which motivate the individual
to seek or avoid the content of the media. McQuail and
Blumler have noted that reinforcement, excitement over a

campaign, anticipation of expected communication with peers,

20
and surveillance form the nucleus of media gratifications.
Also, they found that partisanship, alienation and
relaxation with the media form the nucleus of the avoidance
dimension.

McLeod and Becker found similar results here in the
United States in 1972. Further, they reported that young,
first—time, potential voters and seasoned voters had similar
gratifications and avoidance responses during the general
election. Gratifications were stronger than avoidance items
as reasons for media use, and both were extremely powerful
predictors of electoral behavior. In addition, they found
preference for certain media content to predict voting
behavior.

Semlak and Williams found the avoidance and gratification
factors to hold at two different points in the 1976
presidential election campaign.

Previous research has failed, however, to give serious
consideration to the socio-psychological origin of an
individual's need for gratification from the media. Chaffee,
McLeod and Atkin have devised a scale to measure a family's
communication pattern. These patterns may help explain an
individual's socio-psychological origin of needs for
gratification from the media.

No study to date has examined both the registered and
the non-registered voter. This research project attempted

to correct that oversight.

CHAPTER II

NOTES

1Jack M. McLeod and Lee B. Becker, "Testing the Validity
of Gratification Measures through Political Effects
Analysis," The Uses of Mass Communications. (Beverly Hills:
Sage Publication, 1974) p. 137.

 

21bid.

3Dennis McQuail, Towards a Sociology of Mass
Communication. (London: Random House, 1959) p. 18. Katz's
criticisms are contained in here.

 

41bid.

5Ibid., p. 71.

6Jay G. Blumler, Eliker Katz and Michael Gurevitch,
"Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual,"
The Uses of Mass Communication. (Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, 1974) p. 20.

7Ibid.

8Dennis McQuail and Jay G. Blumler, Television in
Politics. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

 

91bid.

10Charles R. Wright, Mass Communications. (New York:
Random House, 1959). McQuail and Blumler themselves give
reference to this path setting work.

 

11McQuail and Blumler, op. cit., p. 27 ff.

12rbid.

lBIbid.

21

CHAPTER II

NOTES

l4Ibid.

15McLeod and Becker, op. cit., p. 138.

161bid., pl 151 ff.

l71bid., p. 147.

181bid., p. 151.

191bid., p. 160.

201bid., p. 143.

21William Semlak and Wenmouth Williams, Jr., "Uses,
Gratifications and Avoidances and Voting Decisions in the
1976 Presidential Campaign." Paper presented to the I.C.A.,
April 1978.

221bid., p. 3.

231bid., p. 10.

24Maxwell McCombs, "Mass Communication in Political
Campaigns: Information, Gratification and Persuasion," in
The Effects of Mass Communication, ed., Charles Atkin
(Michigan State University Department of Communication,
1978), p. 24.

25McLeod and Becker, op. cit., p. 158ff.

26Steven H. Chaffee, Jack M. McLeod and Charles K.
Atkin, "Parental Influences on Adolescent Media Use,"
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 14 (1971), p. 323.

22

CHAPTER II

NOTES

27Ibid.

28Ibid.

291bid., p. 333.

23

CHAPTER III

HYPOTHESES

 

Previous research has found both avoidances and
gratifications to exist in media use during the presidential
campaign by the general voting public. McLeod and Becker
found this same pattern in the 1972 general election to hold
for a specific sub-group of voters, namely the 18-24 year
old.1 This study anticipated similar findings among the
young, first-time, potential voter (here 18-21 years of age)
in the 1980 general election. As such, the first general
hypothesis of this study posited that:

H 1.0 Mass Media use in the 1980 Presidential

Campaign by young, first-time, potential
voters will be characterized by
gratifications and avoidances.

The gratifications and avoidances resulting from
exposure to political information in the media must be
examined individually as they relate to the young, first-
time, potential voter. Semlak and Williams found that the
level of gratification reported by the respondents in
their study increased from the first sampling point to the
second.2 While their study encompassed the entire general
electorate, there is no reason to expect any deviancy from

24

25
that result even in this sub-group of the general electorate.
Given the level of excitement that naturally unfolds over a
campaign's duration, along with the natural excitement many
young, first-time, potential voters experience in their
first election, this makes intuitive sense. As such, the
first sub-hypothesis to the general hypothesis was proposed:

H 1.1 The level of gratification experienced from

the media by young, first-time, potential
voters will be higher at the second data
collection point than at the first.
It may be wise to remind the reader that point one of data
collection occurred just after the Labor Day holiday,
traditionally viewed as the start of the campaign. The
second data collection point occurred within a week after
the election.

Semlak and Williams also found, however, that the level
of avoidance of political information from the media
remained relatively fixed at both data collection points
during the campaign.3 These mixed results were interpreted
by the researchers as due to the increased attention focused
on the election process by the media. In the first case,
those interested in the campaign (the gratified) sought to
have their fill of political information from the media, and
their appetites for such fill increased over the course of
the campaign. The very nature of the gratifications indicated
this (i.e., surveillance, vote-guidance, etc.). On the

other hand, those who had little interest in the campaign

26
from the outset (the avoiders) were disinterested at the
start, as well as the conclusion, of the campaign. This,
too, can be seen from the avoidance factors themselves (i.e.,
no desire to vote, candidates already selected, etc.).

Given the strength of their reasoning, and having little
evidence to suggest that the young, first-time, potential
voter would be different from the general electorate, the
second sub—hypothesis was offered:

H 1.2 The level of avoidance experienced from

the media by young, first-time, potential
voters will remain constant, both at the
first data collection point, and at the
second.

In the study conducted by McLeod and Becker, it was
found that the media use variable was an adequate predictor
of voting behavior.4 While they found that this variable
explained less of the variance than both the avoidance and
the gratification measures, their results are valuable and
statistically significant. Based on these findings, the
second general hypothesis was stated:

H 2.0 Media use will serve as a predictor of

the voting behavior of young, first-time,
potential voters.
Again, there is no reason to believe that this specific sub-
group of voters would differ significantly from the general
electorate or any other sub-group in this regard.

McLeod and Becker found that the media use variable

27
could conveniently be classified along two dimensions.5
First, there was the measure of simple exposure to the
media (that is, cumulative time spent watching television,
listening to the radio, and/or reading newspapers and
magazines.) This classification of media use yielded the
least significant result in terms of predictive power.6
Secondly, there was the measure of media use along the
specific content found in a particular exposure, (e.g., the
general nature of the television program viewed: a movie,
the news, situation comedy, etc.). The authors found, for
example, that those respondents who were heavy viewers of
news and public affairs programming were more likely to vote
than those who either did not view such programming or

7 This same pattern held true for those

viewed it lightly.
who viewed entertainment programming: heavy users of such
content were more likely to vote than light viewers of such
content.8 This general selective exposure classification
approach to media use yielded the most significant results
in terms of predictive power.9 These results were true for
both seasoned and first time voters. Since nothing
presented itself as offering contradictory evidence, the
following sub-hypotheses were advanced:
H 2.1 Heavy consumers of the media will be more
likely to vote than light consumers of the
media.

H 2.2 Heavy consumers of news and public affairs

content will be more likely to vote than

28
light users of news and public affairs
content.
H 2.3 Heavy consumers of entertainment content
will be more likely to vote than light
users of entertainment content.
Since Katz, as well as McCombs and others, have
stressed the need to examine the socio-psychological origins
of the needs for gratifications and avoidances from the

10 Using

media, this study attempted to address the issue.
the model of family communication patterns offered through
the research of Chaffee, McLeod and Atkin, it was hoped to
explain away part of the variance in media use.11 It was
reasoned a convenient starting point in addressing this need.
In the electoral process, one deals heavily with issues
and concepts. Given this perspective, one could expect to
separate the members from pluralistic and consensual type
families (i.e., those who stress the concept-orientation in
the family communication model) from the members of
protective and laissez-faire type families. With the former
two family communication models, the individual is
encouraged to explore different ideas and concepts. Such is
not the case with the latter two family communication models.
Indeed, laissez-faire and protective type families are more
concerned with avoiding concepts and different ideas. The
individual is usually not allowed to challenge parental

views.

Given the nature of these families, then, one can

29

foresee differences in terms of discussion of, and
participation in, the electoral process. While no prior
research has been done on the topic of family communication
patterns and voting behavior, it can be reasoned that those
who comeikcm families stressing concept-orientation in the
family communication pattern will differ from those who do
not in terms of their media use habits, their voting
behavior and the degree of avoidance and gratification
received from the media. Thus, the following general
hypothesis is proposed:

H 3.0 Family communication patterns, along the

concept-orientation, will predict the
voting behavior, the media use habits,
and the degree of gratification and
avoidance received from the media by the
young, first-time, potential voter.

It makes intuitive sense that those who are more likely
to vote are those who come from families which stress and
encourage participation in the world of competing ideas and
concepts. Likewise, those individuals from families
stressing the concept-orientation in their family communi-
cation habits will be more likely to use the media for
seeking concepts and ideas (i.e., news and public affairs).
In so seeking these ideas and concepts, the individual from
the concept-oriented family will achieve more gratification
in his or her media use. As such, the following sub-

hypotheses were offered:

30
H 3.1 Young, first-time, potential voters

from families characterized as stressing

the concept-orientation in their family

communication pattern will:

(a) Use the media for news and public
affairs more than individuals from
families which do not stress the
concept-orientation.

(b) Score higher on the level of gratification
received from the media for political
information than those individuals
from families which do not stress the
concept-orientation.

(c) Be more likely to vote than those
individuals from families which do
not stress the concept-orientation.

Conversely, the members of families which do not stress
the concept-orientation in family communication patterns will
have characteristics of their own. In avoiding ideas and
concepts or, in placing less emphasis on concepts, these
individuals will be less likely to seek out news and public
affairs programming. And, as McLeod and Becker found, those
who use less news and public affairs content can be expected
also to use less of the media for gratification.12 Here,
too, it can be reasoned that with less exposure to news and
public affairs content, these individuals will avoid

political information from the media, rather than seek

31

gratification from it. As such, the following sub-hypotheses
were advanced:
H 3.2 Young, first-time, potential voters

from families characterized by not

stressing the concept-orientation will:

(a) Use the media less than those
individuals from families which do
stress the concept-orientation.

(b) Score higher on the level of avoidance
from the media for political information
than those individuals from families
which do stress the concept-orientation.

Summary

Media use for political information has been
characterized in the past by gratifications and avoidances
among the general electorate. Similar findings were
expected in this study among young, first-time, potential
voters. In addition, it was suggested by prior research
that the level of gratification received from the media for
political information during the campaign rose from the
first data collection point to the second data collection
point. Also, the level of avoidance of political information
from the media remained fixed over the course of the
campaign.

Exposure to the media has been found to be a powerful
predictor of voting behavior. The specific content of the

media used, as well as the amount of time spent with the

32
media, served as two separate media use variables to predict
voting behavior in the general electorate. Again similar
results were anticipated in this study.

The communication pattern which exists in a family was
presented as a possible, logical explanation for the origin
of needs which motivate the individual to use the media. As
such, this variable was expected to predict media use
habits, the level of gratification and avoidance received
from the media for political information, and, finally, the

voting behavior of the individual.

CHAPTER I I I
NOTES

1Jack M. McLeod and Lee B. Becker, "Testing the

Validity of Gratification Measures through Political
Effects Analysis," The Uses of Mass Communication.
(Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974) p. 147.

2William Semlak and Wenmouth Williams, Jr., "The Uses,
Gratifications and Avoidances and Voting Decisions in the
1976 Presidential Campaign?, Paper presented in the I.C.A.,
April 1978, p. 17.

31bid.

4McLeod and Becker, op. cit., p. 159.

51bid., p. 143.

6Ibid. The reader should be aware that these authors
found the link between selective exposure and political
effects in general to be weak, regardless of content.

7rbid.

81bid. 1
91bid. \

l i

0The reader may refer to either——or both-—Dennis

McQuail, Toward a Sociology of Mass Communication. (London:
Random House, 1959) or, MaxweIl‘MCCombs,‘“Mass Communication
in Political Campaigns: Information, Gratification and
Persuasion," The Effects of Mass Communication, (ed.,
Charles Atkin, Michigan State University, 1978), for a clear
elucidation of the problem.

33

CHAPTER III

NOTES

11Steven H. Chaffee, Jack M. McLeod and Charles K.
Atkin, "Parental Influences on Adolescent Media Use,"
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 14, 1971.

 

12McLeod and Becker, op. cit., p. 149.

34

CHAPTER IV

METHOD

The Universe

 

“The sample for this study was drawnfrom thepopulation
~of_Skaneateles, New York._ Skaneateles is a small, rural
community in Upstate New York, located about thirty miles
southwest of the city of Syracuse. There are five thousand
residents of the town, and though more affluent than most,
the town and its residents can be considered fairly repre-
sentative of middle class America. Although agriculture is
a vital industry, the vast majority of the population is
employed in white collar and professional occupations.
White descendants of European immigrants comprise well over
ninety per cent of the populace, with few minorities
represented. The town is overwhelmingly Christian, being

1

split equally between Protestant and Catholic. In previous

elections (1968, 1972, 1976), Skaneateles residents voted
Republican by a margin of nearly three to two.2
While Skaneateles may not be the most ideal location in
which to do a study of American voting behavior, neither is
it so unfeasible as to make the results of the study
meaningless. The turnout at the polls by the voting populace

of Skaneateles parallels the national statistic of

35

36

approximately fifty per cent. So while the demographics may
not be totally representative of the national average,
Skaneateles can be seen as a microcosm of the nation's
electorate, and surely representative of the nation's
biggest demographic block-—the middle class, suburban white
voter.

Skaneateles was chosen as the site from which to sample
for two reasons. First, it was the home town of the
researcher. The researcher attended high school there, and
was a life-long resident. He knows the area well. Secondly,
due to recent privacy laws protecting the individual,
compiling a list of first-time voters (along with the address
and phone number of each) proved to be extremely difficult.
One viable solution to the problem was to use past high
school yearbooks and the town's only newspaper for a list of
high school graduates. Using individuals familiar with the
pOpulation, addresses and phone numbers of the sampling
frame were ascertained.

The Sample

 

The members from the classes of 1977, 1978, 1979, and
1980 were selected for sampling. Those graduates were
between the ages of 18 and 21, and, thus, met the criterion
for status as a young, first-time, potential voter. Some
members of the class of 1980 may not have been 18 years old
by November 7, 1980 (election day) and thus not eligible to
vote in New York State. A few respondents duly noted this

on the item in the questionnaire asking the respondent's

37
voting intention. These responses were not included in the

analysis.

__._ "IF--

w '

From this samplingfiframelwampropgytignatemstratified -
random samplewasdrawn. Since there was an unequal number
of individuals from each class, and as those who graduated
in the class of 1977 were more scarce than any other, it was
reasoned that to assure proper representation, a propor-
tionate stratified random sample would yield the best and

most equitable results.

TABLE 4-1

 

PROPORTIONATE STRATIFIED SAMPLE

121.7. 1.92.9. 1.9.7.9. 1.922
Number per strata 125 150 129 150
Weight .226 .271 .233 .271
Number selected 68 82 70 82

The Instrument

 

Content. Based on prior research with Uses and
Gratifications Theory related to media use for political
information, questionnaires were developed to serve as the

instruments used to collect the data for this research.

Fourdggperalyyariables were relevant to the piece of research.

 

4»... Hug.-.“ .I ”—3"

Foremost among the variables to be studied were the dimensions
of avoidance and gratification from media use during the
presidential campaign. Specifically, the instrument sought

to measure gratification in terms of surveillance, campaign
excitement, and voter guidance.3 Similarly, the instrument

attempted to measure avoidances in terms of political

38

alienation, political impotence, and partisanship.4

An open
ended question was provided for the respondent to supply his
or her own comments pertaining to his or her gratification

5 The

and avoidance of political information from the media.
work of McQuail and Blumler was used as a basis for these
questions.6

Also based on previous research, the study surveyed the
communication pattern which existed in the family setting.
Both the concept-orientation (which measured the degree to
which ideas were encouraged and expressed) and the socio-
orientation (which measured the degree to which harmonious
relations were maintained by the individual toward others)
were ascertained. These items were used verbatim from the
study done by Chaffee, McLeod and Atkin.7

Media use was measured in two ways. First, the
instrument contained items designed to discover how much
time was spent with both the electronic and the print media.
Secondly, media content to which the individual attended was
analyzed. The idea for these questions was derived from the
work of McLeod and Becker, but re-worded for simplicity and
clarity.8

Finally, a question gauging the voting intention was
included in the instrument. All four variables were
queried” during the first point of data collection. Only
the voting intention of the respondent and his or her
gratification and avoidance of political information from

the media were asked at the second data collection point.9

39

Development. The majority of the items on the instru-

 

ment used in this study were a replication of questionnaires
reported in prior research. Only the avoidance and gratifi-
cation dimension measures were altered significantly.

A focus group of students at Michigan State University
discussed their feelings on uses and gratificatuxu;from the
media for political information with the author. The author
first read items relating to gratification and avoidance
used in prior research to the group. Measured by
conversation stimulation, several of the items drew either
no significant reaction, or a negative reaction from the
subjects. Items of this sort were deleted from the
questionnaire- {9 addition. an_9pen ended-¢onver99F%99.
period was allowed in which members discussed their personal

reasons for using the media during a presidential campaign.

. -_.._.— ‘7‘ 1

Many of their comments were incorporated into the design of
items for the instrument.

A second focus group of students associated with basic
video production classes at Michigan State University
discussed possible avoidance factors influencing non-use of
the media for political information. Many of their responses

were incorporated into the instrument as well.

 

 

 

,prgr letters accompanying the questionnaire (one for
the first mailing and one for the follow-up mailing for the
first data collection point) were drafted by the author and
edited by the thesis adviser. The cover letters and

questionnaire were pre-tested on selected high school

40
students on the Michigan State University campus in early
July 1980. No problems were discovered with the cover
letters, although a few items on the questionnaire were
found to be ambiguous. Most of these items were refined for
the final questionnaire.

To avoid contaminating the sample, both the focus group,
and the pre-test.gnmmh consisted of students from the state
of Michigan.

Data Collection Procedures

The instruments developed for this study were employed
at two different points during the campaign. The first wave
was conducted following the nominating conventions of the
two major American political parties. Labor Day was
considered to be the traditional starting point for the
campaign, and for this reason, it was the target date for
receipt of the mailed questionnaire. This date was
attractive not only because it was the unofficial starting
point for the campaign, but also because summer was ending
and people were settling into their normal autumn media use
habits.

The second data collection point was immediately after
the general election in November. It was reasoned that this
point in time would best reflect any change in diSposition
toward political information from the media as compared to
the start of the campaign. This study was concerned with who
voted and who did not, and how media presentation of

political information may have influenced electoral behavior.

41

It seemed intuitively obvious that post election collection
of data would yield the best results. Only those
respondents who could be reached within a week after the
election were included in the data analysis. In addition,
world events at the time (Iranian hostages, etc.) were
having an unusual bearing on the campaign, and many were
expecting major political developments on election eve.
This may have thrown television viewing and reading habits
off from the norm. Thus, waiting until after the election
seemed the best choice for the timing of the second data
collection point.
m1

A pre-campaign questionnaire measuring the individual's
family communication pattern, his or her media use habits
and his or her use and/or avoidance of political information
from the media was mailed to 302 randomly selected
individuals. Two weeks later, a second mailing was under-
taken to provide a chance for those who had not responded to
do so. Accompanying the questionnaire were three enclosures.

First, an introductory letter explaining the purpose of
the study outlined the nature of the sampling procedure
(random) and the variables being studied (media, politics
and family communication patterns). The letter was brief and
non-threatening. It stressed the~need for a prompt response
and enticed the potential respondent to answer all of the
questions as quickly as possible. A phone number was

provided for any questions regarding the nature of the

42
questionnaire or the study, and one call was received from
a respondent asking how his name had been selected. The
thesis adviser responded that his name had been one of many
compiled from a high school graduation list.

The second item mailed with the questionnaire was a
sharpened pencil with Michigan State University printed on
it. Many respondents wrote complimentary notes on the
returned questionnaire regarding the pencil: 'nice touch',
'good idea' and 'got me to respond'. Many researchers have
written that some sort of 'freebie' will help in increasing
the return rate response, and evidently it worked in this
study as well.10

The third item with the questionnaire was a postage
paid, return envelope. The researcher openeda business reply
permit account with the U.S. Postal Service in East Lansing,
Michigan which allowed for postage-free, return envelopes.
Despite advice from other scholars, the researcher did not
opt to place stamps on envelopes for two reasons. Foremost,
the postage free envelopes looked more professional, were
easier to code and could be used pply_for the return of the
questionnaire (had a stamp been placed on the envelope, it
could be steamed off and used for other purposes. This way,
it deprived the respondent one opportunity not to respond).
Secondly, the cost differential was not significant between
the two. With the business permit, the researcher paid a
minimal cost for the permit and a surcharge for each returned

questionnaire. Had the option to place stamps on each return

43
envelope been chosen, the researcher would pay for the
stamps whether the questionnaire was returned or not.

Each return envelope was coded so as to identify in
which year the respondent graduated. The questionnaire
itself had an identifying number. An envelope returned with
lines on the right side, for example, identified the
respondent as from the class of 1977. The questionnaire
itself had a period-point within certain numbered questions
for identification (e.g., a period after the number of the
question-—say number l-—and a period at the end of the
sentence-—say number 8-would identify the respondent as
number 18 from the class of 1977.). It should be emphasized
at this point that the confidentiality of all responses was
maintained. No name was associated or matched with any
questionnaire in WAVE I. When a questionnaire was received
and coded, it was checked against the sampling frame code for
purposes of response rate and date, and to avoid mailing that
respondent a second, follow-up questionnaire. Only for the
second Wave was it necessary to identify respondents.

Table two provides a breakdown of responses by date.
True to form for mail surveys,the heaviest responses were
received shortly after the mailing. By the end, a completion
rate of nearly 52 percent was attained, an 'adequate'
response rate, according to Earl Babbie.11
33.1.3.1;

To determine if there was a difference in the variables

being studied at the close of the campaign, as compared to

44

TABLE 4-2

 

RESPONSE RATE TO WAVE I BY DATE AND STRATA

 

DATE 1222 .1212 1212 1211 12121
8/26 0 1 o 1 2
8/27 3 2 2 1 8
8/28 16 14 11 9 50
8/29 3 5 6 4 18
9/2 5 2 2 2 11
9/3 2 6 4 o 12
9/4 1 0 o o 1
9/5 4 1 1 o 6
9/8 3 6 4 o 13
9/9 2 o 2 o 4
9/10 0 1 o o 1
9/11 2 1 2 o 5
9/12 4 2 o o 6
9/13 0 o o 1 1
9/15 1 1 o 1 3
9/16 0 1 o o 1
9/17 0 o o 1 1
9/18 2 o 1 o 3
9/19 0 o 1 o 1
9/22 2 1 o o 3
9/23 1 o o o 1
9/25 0 o 1 1 2
9/26 0 o o 1 1
10/1 0 o 3

51 44 38 24 157

45
the beginning, a second questionnaire was administered the
week immediately following the election. Unlike the first
questionnaire, this one was done via the telephone. (It
should be remembered that McLeod and Becker validated the
method of personal, written response in their work, and that
Semlak and Williams validated the method of over-the-phone
responses in terms of media use.) One reason for using the
telephone was the brevity of the questionnaire. It was much
easier to answer than the instrument used in Wave I, and could
most efficiently be given personally over-the-phone rather
than through the mail. Time was critical at this stage
since the researcher did not want the respondents to forget
their feelings and attitudes, which could have been a distinct
possibility had a mail questionnaire been used.

The researcher and three trained telephone interviewers
conducted the second wave of this research between November 8
and November 15, 1980. Ninety-eight (98) respondents
completed the second instrument, accounting for over 62
percent of the 157 first wave respondents, and just over 32
percent of the originally sampled individuals.

The cover letters for Wave I, as well as the question-
naires used in both waves are included in the Appendix.

DATA ANALYSIS

 

Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS). Responses from the questionnaire
were professionally keypunched on batch input cards and are

available from the author.

46

Data Reduction. The first step in analyzing the

 

collected data was to develop the family communication
pattern typology. First, the five items relating to
concept-orientation were summed (see item 9, a, c, e, g, i).
The median response for these questions was used to separate
the 'high' concept-oriented members from the 'low' concept-
oriented members. The same procedure was used for the five
questions pertaining to the socio-orientation of the
respondents (see Item 9 b, d, f, h and j). Those who scored
above the median on both orientations were classified as
coming from homes with a consensual communication pattern.
Those scoring at or below the median on both orientations
were classified as coming from homes with a laissez-faire
communication pattern. Those scoring above the median in
concept-orientation, but at or below the median in the socio-
orientation, were classified as coming from homes with a
pluralistic family communication pattern. Finally, those
scoring above the median in the socio-orientation, but at or
below the median in concept-orientation were classified as
coming from homes with a protective communication pattern.
The next step in analyzing the data was to factor
analyze the gratification and avoidance dimensions. As each
dimension was determined a priori to consist of three
factors, the items were analyzed to a terminal solution
using the varimax rotation. Items with a loading of at least
i .25 were considered to load on a particular factor (item 7

for gratifications and item 8 for avoidances).

47
Two measures of media use were ascertained. First,
questions dealing with time spent with all of the media were
summed (time was given in terms of minutes per day spent

with the media). Those scoring above the median were

classified as 'heavy' consumers of the media, and those

‘ -M...Ary....—f.wwu-r ¢_M~.—.- 9....
‘x ,_ ,- ,N g _“ .. ...> 714- < fi—— ~—... -- -..4.. W‘" ~3me
‘5...—

W...—
»quh. -— ~'

scoring at or below the median were classified as 'light'

1 qua—Wm r
——.- fl.“ .I rm‘ ‘3..-
—.‘._.._ .__._......_ ‘wk .umWW "q-r.&—n—‘p~ _
-———o—-——. _' H... HM
Mud-«fl h‘ ‘“ F... __._ '_ _,_,,

consumers of the media (items 2 through 5).

r.-... .77_ SWH'W

....‘..’—-- .—

Respondents also indicated forms of media content to

._._..._.. I... .... may-.4 .nu
‘M .. «a. ..._
o—a "'"""'

which they attended. If a respondent attended to a
particular form of content s/he was given a point. If not,
s/he received a zero. Totals were then added up and summed
for a particular content. Again, those who scored above the
median were considered 'heavy' users of news or enter-
tainment, and those scoring at or below the median were
classified as 'light' users of the content (item 1).

The item concerning voting intention did not require
reduction or transformation.
Hypothesis Testing

To test the first hypothesis, a_dependent t- testm_

 

 

 

_diffp£§pce of meappjfigyptiligpdp First, the mean for the
gratification dimension resulting from Wave I was pitted
against the mean obtained for the gratification dimension
from Wave II. A dependent t-test was needed since the
sample for the second data collection point was the same
(i.e., dependent upon) as the first sample. An Alpha level
of .05 was used. This same procedure was used to test the

second sub-hypothesis.

48
The second hypothesis was tested by performing a chi-

square test of difference between the voter/non-voter and

W ..
~~v~—~--cso‘w.._‘m W '_“‘

 

 

 

-~.- I“... .1.--—

 

-M
h~ om.

 

 

—_._.._~v-—-

the heavy/light consumer of Mmedia.fi Similarly, a chi-square
test was performed to test thefsignificance of differences
between the voter/non-voter and the heavy/light user of

(1) news and (2) entertainment. Chi-square was the only
logical test given the level of data analyzed. Here, too,

an Alpha level of .05 was used.

_ The third hypothesis encompassed different tests. To

examine the relationship between an individual's voting

 

 

 

 

 

 

M
‘m-M

intention and his or her family communication pattern,ma chi-

._ “w”. “—5.--

m—v—
,—
.. t - u- '9—
“ "Mfi-w- I-r‘u".

square test of difference was employed. Similarly, the
MMHu.mwo-* ”fiance-“fl" —‘
relationship between content use of the media and the family

 

communication pattern was scrutinized by a chi-square test of
difference. Given the level of the data, this was the most
appropriate, and the strongest,statistical tool available.
Finally, the relationship between the family communication
pattern and the avoidance and gratification dimensions was
tested for meaningful differences by a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA), contrasting the laissez-faire and
protective type family members against the pluralistic and
consensual type family members. In all three cases, an Alpha
level of .05 was used.
Summary

Graduates from a small upstate New York high school
served as the sampling frame for this study. A proportionate
stratified sample was selected from this population of young,

first-time, potential voters.

49

Respondents were asked at the beginning of the
presidential campaign for their voting intention, media use
habits, family communication pattern, and reasons for both
seeking gratification or avoiding political information from
the media. Except for family communication patterns and media
use habits, respondents were asked for this information at
both data collection points. The first point of data
collection was done by mail and a phone interview was used
for the second. The instrument used for this research borrowed
heavily from previous research in the field, although, through
focus group interviews and pre-testing, some modifications
were made.

The data underwent two stages of analysis. First, much
of the data was reduced to meaningful variables. Many of
the raw item data were brought together to form variables
such as the family communication pattern typology. Media use
items were summed to provide an overall composite of time
spent with the media,as well as use of specific content.
Factor analysis reduced the numerous items dealing with
avoidances and gratifications into meaningful variables.

The second step in data analysis was to test the
hypotheses for significant results. For the first set of
hypotheses, a t-test difference of means was employed to
monitor any change between the two data collection points in
terms of avoidances or gratifications received by young,
first-time, potential voters from the media. The second set
of hypotheses used a chi-square to test for an association

between media use (both time and content) and voting

50
intention. Finally, the third hypothesis used two statistical
tests. First, a chi-square test of difference was used to
check for the relationship between family communication
pattern, voting intention, and use of the media. Secondly,
an ANOVA was used to test differences between family communi-

cation pattern and the gratification and avoidance dimensions.

CHAPTER IV

NOTES

1Taken from the 1970 Census Tract for the Syracuse
Metropolitan Area. Preliminary data from the 1980 census
tract indicate only a decline in the population, but no
shift in demographics.

ZInterview with Kay Benedict, Board of Elections,
Onondaga County, State of New York, 12 March 1981.

3See Jack M. McLeod and Lee B. Becker, "Testing the
Validity of Gratification Measures through Political Effects
Analysis," The Uses of Mass Communication. (Beverly Hills:
Sage Publication, 1974) for a lucid discussion on each of
these items.

 

41bid.

5While such an opportunity was provided to the
respondents, very few chose to comment. Of those that did
(five), the comments were merely elaborations upon one of
the already provided items.

6Dennis McQuail and Jay G. Blumler, Television in
Politics. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

 

7Steven H. Chaffee, Jack M. McLeod and Charles K.
Atkin, "Parental Influences on Adolescent Media Use,"
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 14, 1971, pp. 332-333.

 

8McLeod and Becker, op. cit., p. 143.

9The results were identical at the second data
collection point as compared to the first. An abnormally
high (88%) amount of respondents indicated an intent to
vote. The possible issuance of a 'socially responsible'
answer to the first instrument may have led to actual
behavior for the second.

51

CHAPTER IV

NOTES

10Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research.
(Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1979). See
pages 331-337 for an easy introduction to mail survey
questionnaires. In addition to a profound discussion on
the pros and cons of the method, Babbie points out many,
often times over-looked, details such as the ones applicable
here.

 

llIbid., p. 335.

52

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

Despite confirmation from previous research, relation-
ships among the variables studied were generally not
supported by the data. These findings may have been due to
the relatively small sample size, the nature of the universe
studied, or the nature of the 1980 presidential campaign.

In any event, the evidence did not lend support to the
predicted relationships.

The relationships among the variables studied were
tested by the most powerful statistical tests that could
appropriately be applied. In all cases, an Alpha level of
.05 was used to test for significance. Responses of "Don't
Know" or "Not Sure" were excluded from the analysis, as were
any non-responses. The number of such responses was small,
and is reported in each specific case.

The first hypothesis tested the assumption that there
were strong feelings toward the political campaign. These
feelings could best be seen through manifestations in
attention paid to the political information presented by
the media.

H 1.0 Mass Media use in the 1980 Presidential

53

54
Campaign by young, first-time, potential
voters will be characterized by
gratifications and avoidances.

Specifically, the assumption gleaned from previous
research on the general electorate indicated that the level
of gratification obtained from political information in the
media would increase from the start of the campaign to the
campaign's conclusion.1

H 1.1 The level of gratification experienced

from the media by young, first-time,
potential voters will be higher at the
second data collection point than at the
first.

The data did not support the hypothesis generated from
these assumptions. A dependent t-test of means was used to
measure this difference between data collection points among
the respondents. As the respondents from Wave II were
dependent upon the respondents of Wave I (i.e., one had to
participate in Wave I to be included in Wave II), the
dependent t-test of means was the only logical, and powerful,
test appropriate.

Table 5-1

 

DEPENDENT t-TEST FOR HYPOTHESIS 1.1

 

formula t = Gratification mean of Wave I minus the
Gratification mean of Wave II
*
Si plus 5% / N minus one
t = 8.204-8.673

 

(2.738)2 plus (2.515)2 / 97

55
t = 1.2424704

*N, here, equals the number of pairs

At the .05 level of significance, there was no
appreciable difference between the level of gratification
at the beginning of the campaign than at the end of the
campaign.

The second sub-hypothesis was generated from research
suggesting that those alienated at the beginning of the
campaign would be similarly so minded at the end of the
campaign, with no significant difference in the level of
this alienation over the campaign's duration.2 While based
on positive findings in the general electorate in past
elections, the data here do not confirm this reasoning among
the young, first-time, potential voter. Conversely, it was
found that by the campaign's conclusion, more of these young,
first-time, potential voters were avoiding political
information from the media than were at the campaign's
commencement.

H 1.2 The level of avoidance experienced from

the media by young, first-time, potential
voters will remain constant, both at the
first data collection point, and at the
second.

A dependent t-test of means was employed to test for a
difference with a .05 Alpha level. It can be seen that the

difference was significant (Table 5-2).

56

Table 5-2

 

DEPENDENT t-TEST FOR HYPOTHESIS 1.2

 

t = 5.14286-6.77551
(2.606)2 plus (2.603)2 / 97
t = 4.365555

It should be noted that the items used to ascertain the
gratifications and avoidances received from the media for
political information underwent two separate statistical
analyses. The first was to validate that there were two
distinct factors among the items given the respondents.
While the results of this factor analysis (with a varimax
rotation) did identify two separate factors, the loadings

were often weak.

Table 5-3

 

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF MEDIA USES BY RESPONDENTS

 

 

lggg FACTOR I FACTOR II
1 -.08 .51
2 .03 .50
3 -.10 .25
4 -.07 .44
5 —.18 .47
6 .05 .31
7 .03 .56
8 .60 .07
9 .59 .20
10 .64 —.19
11 .42 .01
12 .66 -.08
13 .25 -.11

This weak loading condition found through the factor

S7
analysis could be due, in part, to the relatively large
number of items for so small an N (N=157). From this per-
spective, a reliability scale check was performed on each
of the variables derived from the factor analysis. The
results did indicate that the items did measure what each
was intended to measure.

Table 5—4

 

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS (ALPHA) OF GRATIFICATION

AND AVOIDANCE DIMENSION SCALES

SCALE WAVE I WAVE II
Gratification .80342 .66
Avoidance .82656 .77086

In addition, the items loading on each particular
factor were factor analyzed themselves to discern particular
gratifications or avoidances (Table 5-5).

Table 5-5

 

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF AVOIDANCE DIMENSION

 

 

 

Avoidance Items Factor I Factor II Factor III
1 .86699 .10880 -.05513
2 .20730 .79693 -.07707
3 .54945 .22944 .20267
4 .14421 .41519 .20044
5 .52107 .31230 .18861
6 .10068 .06446 .82409

Similarly,1ie gratification items were subjected to
factor analysis to discern particular attitudes among the

responses (Table 5-6).

58

Table 5-6

 

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF GRATIFICATION DIMENSION

 

 

 

Gratification Items Factor I Factor II Factor III
1 .15716 .42739 .29340
2 .04083 .26885 .73555
3 .20789 .06478 .05336
4 .32282 .57025 .03379
5 .08394 .61389 .20047
6 .69555 .08892 -.08990
7 .46469 .12751 .30421

In factor analyzing both the avoidance and the gratifi-
cation dimensions of media use, a varimax rotation to a
terminal solution identified three distinct factors. The
loadings on each were relatively strong, with only item three
of the gratification dimension failing to load significantly
onto any factor. As with McQuail and Blumler; McLeod and
Becker; and Semlak and Williams, both an avoidance and a

3 Further, each

gratification dimension were found to exist.
of these dimensions was found to contain three distinct factors
in itself.

Previous research has consistently found media use to
be a powerful predictor of voting patterns. The second
hypothesis assumed that this pattern would hold even for a
specific sub-group of the general electorate, meaning the
young, first-time, potential voter.

H.2.0 Media use will serve as a predictor of

the voting behavior of young, first-time

potential voters.

59
Based on prior research relating media use to voting
behavior among the general electorate, three sub-hypotheses
were offered for consideration.4 While all three have
uniformly been found to net significant results, each was
rejected in this study by the data (Tables 5-7, 5-8, 5-9).
The first sub-hypothesis predicted a relationship
between media use and voting behavior:
H 2.1 Heavy consumers of the media are more
likely to vote than are light consumers
of the media.
A chi-square test for difference did not indicate a
singificant difference (Table 5-7).

Table 5-7

 

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYPOTHESIS 2.1

 

 

 

CONSUMPTION OF MEDIA VOTING INTENTION
Vote Don't Vote
Heavy 67 9
Light 62 9
N = 147
Frequency Frequency FO-FE (PO-FE)2 (F0-FE)2/FE
Observed Expected
67 66.693878 .306122 .09371068 .00140509
9 9.306122 -.306122 .09371068 .01006979
62 62.306122 -.306122 .09371068 .00150404
9 8.693878 .306122 .09371068 .01077893

 

X = .02375785
The second sub-hypothesis stated that:5

H. 2.2. Heavy consumers of news and public

60
affairs content are more likely to
vote than light consumers of news
and public affairs content.
While similar results were anticipated for the specific
age group being studied, the data failed to confirm such
logic (Table 5-8).

Table 5-8

 

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYPOTHESIS 2.2

NEWS CONSUMPTION VOTING INTENTION

 

 

 

 

Vote Don't Vote
Heavy 67 6
Light 62 12
N = 147
Frequency Frequency FO-FE (FO-FE)2 (FO-FE)2/FE
Observed Expected
67 64.061224 2.938776 8.6364044 .13481485
6 8.9387755 -2.938776 8.6364044 .9661731
62 64.938776 -2.938776 8.6364044 .13299303
12 9.061224 2.938776 8.6364044 .9531167
X = 2.1870977

The third sub-hypothesis predicted a relationship

between level of use of specific media content and voting

behavior:

H 2.3 Heavy consumers of entertainment content

are more likely to vote than are light

consumers of entertainment content.

A chi-square test for difference found no significant

relationship among the variables (Table 5-9).

61

Table 5-9

 

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYPOTHESIS 2.3

 

 

 

ENTERTAINMENT CONSUMPTION VOTING INTENTION
Vote Don't Vote
Heavy 64 7
Light 65 11
N = 147
Frequency Frequency FO-FE (PO-FE)2 (FO-FE)2/FE
Observed Expected
64 62.3061224 1.6938776 2.8692212 .04605039
7 8.6938776 -1.6938776 2.8692212 .33002778
65 66.6938776 -l.6938776 2.8692212 .30831543
11 9.3061224 1.6938776 2.8692212 .43032076

 

X = .72741436

The third general hypothesis reflected the major thrust
of this research. Trying to explain the socio-psychological
reasons behind the motivation for gratification from the
media has been a major "Achilles Heel" in the practice of
prior research with Uses and Gratifications Theory. While
addressing this flaw was no easy task, prior research
suggested that linking the family communication pattern with
Uses and Gratifications Theory might account for such
motivations. Based on this suggestion, the third general
hypothesis was generated:

H 3.0 Family communication patterns, along the
concept-orientation, will predict the voting
behavior, the media use habits, and the degree of
gratification and avoidance received from the media

by the young, first-time, potential voter.

62
It appeared logical both from an intuitive standpoint,
and from the research by Chaffee, et al., that subjects
from pluralistic and consensual ammmnhxuion pattern families
would be more associated with concepts and, therefore, more
associated with politics than their laissez-faire and

6 As

protective family communication pattern counterparts.
such, they would be more prone to expose themselves to news
content in the media. Thus, sub~hypothesis H 3.1 (a) was
generated.
H 3.1 (a) Young, first—time, potential voters
from families characterized by stressing
the concept-orientation in their family
communication pattern will use the media
for news and public affairs more than
individuals from families which do not
stress the concept-orientation.
A chi-square test showed no significant difference

(Table 5-10).

Table 5-10

 

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYPOTHESIS 3.1 (a)

 

 

 

 

NEWS CONSUMPTION FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERN
L-F/Prot. P1./Cons.

Heavy 4O 36

Light 43 38

N = 157

63

Table 5-10 (Continued)

 

 

Frequency Frequency FO-FE (FO-FE)2 (FO-FE)2/FE
Observed Expected
40 40.178344 —.l78344 .0318658 .00079163
36 35.821656 .178344 .0318658 .00088791
43 42.821656 .178344 .0318658 .00074277
38 38.178344 -.l78344 .0318658 .00083311

 

X = .00325541
The second sub-hypothesis suggested that those from
families stressing the concept-orientation in family
communication patterns would receive more gratification from
political information in the media than their counterparts.”

H 3.1 (b) Young, first-time, potential voters from
families characterized by stressing the concept—
orientation in their family communication
pattern will score higher on the level of
gratification received from the media for
political information than those individuals
from families which do not stress the concept-
orientation.

The results, however, failed to confirm the expected relation-
ships. A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to
measure the difference of raw scores<mithe gratification
measure. As presented in Table 5-11, herein, there was no
significant difference between any of the groups, nor was there
a significant difference in contrasting the concept-oriented
family members with the socio -oriented family members

(Contrast 1).

64

Table 5-11

 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST FOR THE DATA OF HYPOTHESIS 3.1 (b)

 

Source D.F. Sum of Sg;i Mean Sq. F-ratio Prob.
Between group 3 20.9366 6.9789 .930 .4280
Within group 153 1148.5411 7.5068

TOTAL 156 1169.4777

Contrast l: probability = .10
Whether alienated or gratified by political information
in the media, the practical question remained: will the
individual translate such feelings and attitudes into action?
Chaffee et al., indicated that members from a pluralistic
and consensual family communication pattern were more likely
to be exposed to the marketplace of ideas and concepts.7
Given this characteristic, it was reasoned that these
individuals wouldlxzmore likely to vote than would their
counterparts who avoided controversy, ideas and concepts.
Thus sub-hypothesis H 3.1 (c) was generated.
H 3.1 (c) Young, first-time, potential, voters
from families characterized by stressing
the concept-orientation in their family
communication pattern will be more likely
to vote than those individuals from
families which do not stress the concept-
orientation.

Using a Chi-square test for significance of differences,

this predicted relationship was not supported (Table 5-12).

65

Table 5-12

 

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYPOTHESIS 3.1 (C)

 

 

 

VOTING INTENTION FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERN
Pl./Cons. L-F/Prot.
Vote 67 62
Don't Vote 5 13
N = 147
Frequency Frequency FO-FE (FO-FE)2 (FO-FE)2/FE
Observed Expected
67 63.183673 3.8163265 14.564348 .2305081
62 65.816327 -3.8163265 14.564348 .22128777
5 8.816327 -3.8163265 14.564348 1.6519747
13 9.183673 3.8163265 14.564348 1.5858957

 

X = 3.6896663
For members from families which did not stress the
concept dimension and behaviors, the following sub-hypotheses
were proposed:
H 3.2 Young, first-time, potential, voters from
families characterized by not stressing
the concept-orientation will:
(a) Use the media less than those
individuals from families which
do stress the concept-orientation.
(b) Score higher on the level of
avoidance from the media for
political information than those
individuals from families which do

stress the concept-orientation.

66

In the case of H 3.2 (a), the data failed to support

the expected relationship

Table 5-13

 

(Table 5-13).

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR HYPOTHESIS 3.2 (a)

MEDIA CONSUMPTION

FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERN

 

 

 

 

P1./Cons. L-F/Prot.
Heavy 41 43
Light 33 40
N =
Frequency Frequency FO-FE (FO-FE)2 (FO-FE)2/FE
Observed Expected
41 39.592357 1.4076433 1.9814597 .05004652
43 44.407643 -1.4076433 1.9814597 .04461979
33 34.407643 -1.4076433 1.9814597 .05758778
40 38.592357 1.4076433 1.9814597 .05134332
.20359741

 

The predicted relationship proposed in H 3.2 (b) was

supported by the data.

the concept-orientation in their family communication pattern

Those from families which do not stress

axned higher on the avoidance dimension than their counter-

parts.

A One—way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed a

significant difference between concept-oriented and non

concept-oriented.

(Table 5-14).

(Contrast 1) family communication patterns

67
Table 5-14

 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST FOR THE DATA OF HYPOTHESIS 3.2 (b)

 

Source D.F. Sum of S9. Mean Sq. F-ratio Prob.
Between groups 3 36.3638 12.1213 1.813 .1471
Within groups 153 1022.7572 6.6847

TOTAL 156 1059.1210

Contrast 1, t-probability = .023
Summary

The majority of hypotheses presented for study were not
confirmed by the data. While the predicted patterns have
been found to exist in the general electorate, they did not
apply to a specific sub-group: the young, first-time,
potential voter.

It was found that the level of gratification received
from the media for political information did not differ
greatly between the first data collection point and the
second. However, the level of avoidance among all the
respondents did differ significantly between the two points.
The respondents were avoiding political information in the
media more at the campaign's conclusion than they were at
the beginning. Both the gratification and the avoidance
dimension were found to contain three distinct factors.

Although media use habits have been quite powerful in
predicting voting behavior in previous research, the young,
first-time, potential voter in this study did not fall in
line with that pattern. The amount of time spent with the
media failed to give any clue to voting intention, as did

the amount of time spent with news and public affairs

68
content in the media. Finally, the amount of time spent
with entertainment in the media failed to be of any
predictive value toward voting behavior.

In an attempt to shed light on the motivation for
seeking gratification from the media, this study tried to
link family communication pattern to Uses and Gratifications
Theory. It was found. that the concept-orientation of
family communication pattern did not predict either the
voting intentions or the media use habits of an individual.
Interestingly enough, however, it did predict the level of
avoidance from political information in the media. It did
not predict the level of gratification from such information.

In all cases, the most powerful statistical tools

available were employed to test the data.

CHAPTER V

NOTES

lWilliam Semlak and Wenmouth Williams, Jr., "The Uses,
Gratifications and Avoidances and Voting Decisions in the
1976 Presidential Campaign," Paper presented to the I.C.A.,
April 1978, p. 17.

2Ibid.

3The reader is encouraged to read, Semlak and Williams,
op. cit., Jack M. McLeod and Lee B. Becker, Testing the
Validity of Gratification Measures through Political Effects
Analysis," The Uses of Mass Communication. (Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications, 1974) and Dennis McQuail and Jay G.
Blumler, Television in Politics. (London: Random House,
1959).

 

 

4See McLeod and Becker, op. cit., p. 143., for a
discussion of media use variables and their possible uses
in determining relationships to various political effects.

5Ibid., p. 149. It was reasoned that news viewing-
co-related to gratification-—would similarly predict
political effects.

6Steven H. Chaffee, Jack M. McLeod and Charles K.
Atkin, "Parental Influences on Adolescent Media Use,"
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 14, 1971, p. 332.

 

7Ibid.

69

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

 

Introduction

 

This study incorporated family communication pattern
with Uses and Gratifications Theory of Communication to
explain the voting behavior and media use habits of young,
first-time, potential voters in a general election. The
study postulated family communication pattern as a variable
related to the socio-psychological origin of the motivation
(gratification and avoidance dimension) for receiving
political information from the media.

While this study failed in its attempt to identify
family communication pattern as a variable related to
motivation, it can not be dismissed entirely. In fact, it
did prove to be of utility in discerning levels of
alienation from political information in the media. A
number of factors may have caused this pattern, including
the limitations of the sample universe, the sample size and
statistical imprecision. Each hypothesis will be examined in
the context of these limitations. In addition, implications
of the results for politicians, journalists and social

scientists will be discussed.

70

71

Design Limitations

 

 

From a technical standpoint, there were many short—
comings to the study. Prime among the flaws was the
relatively small sample size. Statistically, the sample
size (N = 157) may have caused a lack of precision in that
the results obtained in analysis leave too much room for
error. This imprecision can best be detailed with the
following example. If the respondents had given an average
answer to a hypothetical question of, say, '50' along a 0 to
100 point parameter, it would only be safe to say that, with
95 percent certainty, the true response of the universe
could actually range between '38' and '62'. Viewed in this
light, the results must be used cautiously.1

A second point for consideration involves the sampling
frame. The results would have been more generalizable had a
broader sampling universe been employed. As it stood, the
frame represented a white, middle class, suburban, young,
first-time, potential voter. This demographic represents
the majority of young, first-time, potential voters who g9
vote. Ironically, however, more knowledge would have been
generated from a group at the other end of the spectrum;
those who do not vote. It is this p0pulation whose behavior
may be viewed as deviant.

The most positive result of the method used was its
success in finding respondents, obtaining results and
obtaining validity. First, while prior research has used

the in-depth, personal interview to gain responses, this

72
study combined the self-report (through the mail) and the
telephone solicitation mode of response to gain data.
Nonetheless, there was an excellent response rate in both
Wave I and Wave II. Secondly, the response mechanism was
validated in terms of its ability to discern variables which,
until now, were discovered only through other methods. As an
example, the dimensions of avoidance and gratification were
found to exist after statistical analysis. Although using a
different method, Ufis confirmed the findings of prior
research.
Hypothesis Examination
Hypothesis l.l suggested that:

The level of gratification experienced from

the media by young, first-time, potential

voters will be higher at the second data

collection point than at the first.

How can the rejection of this hypothesis by the data be
explained? Of course, the design limitations discussed above
may pertain here. Subjectively, however, it is plausible to
assume that, given the high level of voting participation
experienced in this sample group (an abnormally high 88%),
along with the high mean on the degree of gratification,
there was a reciprocal high level of interest throughout the
campaign. In other words, with so much at stake in the
election for this demographic group (e.g., the military
draft reintroduction, a potential decrease in college aid to

students, and a possible cut in job training programs),

73
interest ran high. Perhaps this level of interest did not
subside over the course of the campaign because of the day-
to—day intensity of the campaign. While the final voting
tally indicated otherwise, the election was promoted as a
horse race. The young, first-time, potential voter, with
so much at stake, refused to miss out on the chance to be
gratified from the media from day one of the campaign to the
end. That is, there was a strong impetus to bring the
young, first-time, potential voter to the media and to keep
him or her there. It is important to remember that these
results do not mean the individual was gratified-—on1y that
s/he:§gght gratification from the media. The answer to that
paradox may, in part, be explained, below.
Hypothesis 1.2 suggested that:

The level of avoidance experienced from

the media by young, first-time, potential,

voters will remain constant, both at the

first data collection point, and at the

second.

This hypothesis was supported by the data. How can

this result be explained in light of the finding in H 1.1?
That is, given the constant, and high, level of gratifi-
cation reported by the respondents, what explains the
increased level of avoidance? One must always be careful in
research to realize the limitations of any variable. Here,
avoidance is a variable measuring the reasons for feeling

alienated—-or turned-off-—by political information in the

74
media. It is not an either/or proposition between gratifi-
cation and avoidances. In other words, due to the saliency
of the issues for the young, first-time, potential voter in
the campaign, the respondents went to the media to be
gratified, as is confirmed by the results in H 1.1. However,
some variable caused the individuals concerned to become
alienated by that information, as is witnessed by the results
here. Although the data convincingly indicate widespread
dissatisfaction, the reason for this dissatisfaction remains
unclear: Is it the manner in which the political information
is presented by the media? Is it the politicians and what
each has to say and offer? Is it a combination of the two?
Further research in this area clearly is warranted.

The data likewise rejected the supposition that heavy
consumers of the media are more likely to vote than are light
consumers of the media (H 2.1). Certainly, because the chi—
square performed on the sample size (N = 157) was powerful
enough to detect significance, the interpretation must be
obtained by observing the sample group itself. While less
than fifty per cent of the young, first-time, potential
voters cast ballots nationwide, more than eighty per cent
did so in this sample. This difference is, in itself,
significant. In spite of anonymous questionnaires, the
possibility of "socially responsible" answers given by the
sample may have skewed the results higher than was actually
the case.

Another possible explanation is the intensity of the

75

1980 campaign among these particular respondents. While
significantly fewer young, first-time, potential voters
actually turned out at the polls than in this sample, these
respondents, by the mere fact of being exposed to a
questionnaire ascertaining their feelings, may have felt
some 'stake' in the election. Similar findings in different
research are instructive. Festinger and Carlsmith found
that, when paid one dollar to espouse a particular opinion,
the experimental group actually adopted the view so as to
rationalize their enumeration.2 Still, public opinion polls
have consistently proven to be remarkably accurate, and these
results must be viewed cautiously.

No result further perplexed the researcher than the
failure of the data to confirm the relationship between
heavy users of news and public affairs and voting behavior
(H 2.2). Prior research has again and again supported this
supposition. Trying to explain this deviation among a sub-
group of the general electorate is particularly hard here
when it defies both common sense (i.e., it stands to reason
that those more informed are more likely to vote than those
who are not) and statistical precision (i.e., the test
performed-—a chi-square-—was powerful enough for the data
provided). Again, as in H 2.1, only (1) the attempt by the
respondents to give 'socially responsible' feedback and/or
(2) the conditioning by the instrument itself to create an
interest in the campaign and voting where none had existed

before can be given as possible explanations for the skewed

76
responses obtained here.
The only positive light that can be shed on the
rejection of the hypothesis predicting a relationship
between use of entertainment content and voting behavior
(H 2.3) is that it is consistent with the findings of the
other two hypotheses dealing with media use habits and
voting behavior. Unfortunately, however, it does not conform
to prior research in the field with the general electorate.3
Again, socially responsible answers by the respondents
(truthful or not), conditioning by the instrument, and/or
the nature of this particular campaign may explain the
results obtained here. Further research should explore
whether the findings reported here relating media use habits
to the voting behavior of the young, first-time, potential
voter are duplicated or prove this research to be deviant.
While it is true that this particular age group has tradi—
tionally had less time to attend to the media (due to jobs,
college or a more active social life), the degree of
deviancy from prior research reported here should not be
excused lightly.4
Hypothesis 3.1 (a) suggested that:

Young, first-time, potential voters from

families characterized by stressing

the concept-orientation in their family

communication pattern will use the media

for news and public affairs more than

individuals from families which do not

77
stress the concept-orientation.

The results fail to verify the hypothesis. To explain
this outcome is, indeed, difficult given the nature of the
family communication pattern split (i.e., the concept-
orientation). Research findings by Chaffee, et al., that
those members from families which stress the concept-
orientation in their family communication pattern were more
likely to be exposed to the world of competing ideas and
concepts gave rise to this hypothesis. It seemed intuitively
obvious Hum subjects of this type would naturally seek ideas
from the news and public affairs content within the media.
Results of this study, however, reject this notion. Given
the high level of alienation which was found to exist among
the respondents, it is, perhaps in retrospect, logical to
expect this result. After all, to score high on the level
of alienation, the individual needed a source: and this
demonstrates one such source. That is, even those
respondents from families which did not stress the concept-
orientation went to the news and public affairs content
within the media. Whether or not they felt comfortable with
the different ideas presented, or even noticed them, is an
entirely different question.

Hypothesis 3.1 (b) suggested that:

Young, first-time, potential voters
from families characterized by stressing
the concept-orientation in their family

communication pattern will score higher

78

on the level of gratification received

from the media for political information
than those individuals from families

which do not stress the concept-orientation.

The data fails to confirm the reasoning in this
hypothesis. To reiterate a point made earlier, the small
sample size may have hindered the statistical precision of
the results. However, the one way Analysis of Variance test
(ANOVA) used was particularly powerful. Even with a small
sample size, it should have indicated a direction toward the
logic of the hypothesis. That is, the results are not off
slightly from what might have been expected, but rather the
results are largely off from what might have been expected.
In statistical analysis, the former case can often be of use
in that when the data fails to be proven significant by a
slight margin, slight manipulations in the statistic can shed
light on a particular variable (e.g., extreme cases can be
made to prove the point). Here, however, the data fails to
give any reason for manipulations-—the data convincingly
show no significance. In any event, the findings point out
that the level of gratification——that is, reasons for
seeking political information in the media-—was not dependent
upon family communication patterns. This is in line with the
findings of H 1.1, which demonstrated an unusually high level
of gratification among all respondents. The explanation for
this can possibly be that, with all the issues salient to

this particular demographic discussed in the campaign,

79
gratification seeking was the natural outcome.

Whether alienated or gratified by political information
in the media, the practical question remains: did the
individual translate such feelings and attitudes into overt
behavioral acts?

The results, once more, failed to support the predic-
tion that young, first-time, potential voters from families
characterized by stressing the concept-orientation in their
family communication pattern will be more likely to vote
than those individuals from families which do not stress the
concept-orientation (H 3.1 (c)). Again, there is always the
chance thatthe individual responded in a manner to appear
'socially responsible'. More likely, however, is the chance
that the individual did, indeed, cast his or her ballot.
Perhaps that would be a result of exposure to the instrument.
The respondents were made aware that they were being
questioned because they were 'first-time' voters, and may
have been more sensitive and aware than usual of their civic
opportunity.

Another possible explanation is the nature of the
campaign itself. By most accounts, the presidential
campaign of 1980 was indeed salient to the young. Unlike
many elections of the past, the choices were not 'twiddle-
dum' against 'twiddle-dee', but solid choices between issues
salient to this demographic group.

It was found, however, that there was an alienated

group in those members from families which did not stress

80

the concept-orientation. One might expect this alienation

to manifest itself in voting behavior, through non-voting.
This, unexpectedly, was not the case. This mixed result
points to a potential problem which calls for further investi-
gation. In this sample, the degree of alienation was not

high enough to predict behavior; however. alienated those

from families not stressing the concept-orientation were,

it was not strong enough to keep them from voting.

There is no immediate explanation for the finding that
young, first-time, potential voters from families charac-
terized by not stressing the concept-orientation used the
media more than those individuals from families which do
stress the concept-orientation based on prior research
(H 3.2 (a)). By conjecture, however, it can be seen as the
effects of the first generation to be brought up in the
unparalleled ubiquity of the electronic media. Unlike those
older than themselves, this age group has grown up with, and
has accepted as ordinary, the explosion of specialized
magazines as well as superflous amounts of television and
radio. Still, even accepting this possible explanation, one
would expect the more concept-oriented individuals to fall
in line with the pattern established by their older peers,
namely, to be heavier users of the media.

Hypothesis 3.2 (b) suggested that:

Young, first-time, potential voters from
families characterized by not stressing

the concept-orientation will score higher

81
on the level of avoidance from the
media for political information than
those individuals from families which
do stress the concept-orientation.
Unlike the previous hypothesis, the results did
support the predicted relationships between family communication
pattern and levels of avoidance from political information
in the media. It was shown earlier that the level of avoidance
among all the respondents was higher at the second data
collection point than at the first. Here, the family commun-
ication pattern aides in predicting the level of aVoidance
with political information in the media.
The primary fault with Uses and Gratifications Theory
of Communication application in the past has been the
'missing link' between any socio-psychological orgin of a
need variable and media use. In this one instance, the
communication pattern(representative of family socialization)
as one possible socio-psychological variable predicted media
use-—or at least one aspect of it. As was shown above,
however, it did not predict the level of gratification or
voting behavior.
Increasing the turn-out at the polls of the young,
first-time, potential voter depends, in part, on reducing
the alienation received from political information in the
media. These results can be enlightening in that regard.

However, while it has been shown that the roots of alienation

82
run deeper among those from families characterized by not
stressing the concept-orientation, it has not been shown
that there is any behavioral difference between the two.

Ramifications for Politicians, Journalists and Social

 

 

Scientists

 

In any piece of research, the author tries to find a
relationship with some relevance and meaning. Underlying the
research reported here is a conviction that voting in an
election is an important civic responsibility. To fail to
vote-—as most young, first-time, potential voters do-—should
be a cause for concern. The motivation for the research,
then, was an attempt to explain the lack of enthusiasm and
the low incidence of franchise among the young, first-time,
potential voter. It was hoped that media professionals and
politicians running for office could benefit from these
results. Increasing the voter turn-out ought to be a
priority based on the very concept of democracy. Certainly
it is to the benefit of politicians to increase the pool of
voters, and thus the chance for victory; as well, the media can
by attracting a larger audience, and thus more revenue.

This issue seems especially salient in light of the fact
that the United States has the worst voting turnout of any
democracy in the world.5 A number of patterns revealed by
the data suggest insights that might be useful to politi-
cians, media professionals charged with carrying out
information dissemination, and social scientists concerned

with the problem.

83

If one were a politician going after the young, first-
time, potential voter, several results are of interest. First,
it is to be noted that there is a great interest among this
demographic group in the campaign and its outcome. The results
point positively and unquestionably in this direction. For
instance, it was shown that the young, first-time, potential
voter came to the media seeking gratification from the political
information presented. The degree of this seeking was high-—
both at the start of the campaign and at the conclusion.
Unfortunately, however, it was also shown that the young, first-
time, potential voter was increasingly alienated by what s/he
saw and heard. This was evidenced by the data as reported in
H 1.2. Clearly, the new voters in our country, while seeking
gratification, were disappointed and frustrated with their search.

The manifestation of this alienation was found to consist
of three factors. Factor analysis of the alienation scale
shows one of the three factors to be particularly relevant.
Identified was a feeling by the young, first-time,
potential voter that candidates were less concerned with
addressing issues salient to them than with achieving their
own personal success (i.e., election). Ironically, if this
was the case, one would anticipate a candidate striving to
obtain office to court the young, first-time, potential voter
to increase his or her chance of election. Realistically,
however, the candidate may write off this voting block after
discovering the traditionally low voting turn-out which

characterizes the block. In turn, he or she will focus his

84
or her limited resources to garnering the more numerically
rich, middle class, middle age voting block. It certainly
presents a 'catch-22', in that, to get the attention they
want, the young, first-time, potential voter must exercise
the franchise to be deemed worthy of attention. Before
doing so, however, this population appears to want to be
addressed directly by the candidate. It appears incumbent
on the person running for office to attempt to rectify this
situation. Given the problems of limited time and resources
in a campaign, one must concede that this is not to be
realized soon. Nonetheless, it is disadvantageous for two
reasons: (1) it flies in the face of the democratic process
by alienating electoral blocks such as the young, first-time,
potential voter, and (2) in an age of close elections,every
vote counts: *ewazthe vote of the young, first—time,
potential voter.

This first factor, a feeling by the young, first-time,
potential voter that candidates are striving for personal
success over the discussion of issues, may have given rise
to the second factor-—the feeling of 'impotence' in an
election. The items which formed this factor indicate that
the young, first-time, potential voter felt no control over
the outcome of the election. That is, without being
addressed by the candidate, the individual felt meaningless
in the system. This factor is of note to media peeple as
well, for it goes beyond pointing the finger at the

politicians-—the media have an obligation to make the new

85
voter aware. The third factor indicated a pre-campaign
decision. The direction of this decision, however, was not
identified. That is, the individual may have either decided
not to vote, or already have made up his or her mind for
whom to vote.

Factor analysis of the gratification scale identified
three factors. The first of these factors indicated that
the young, first-time voter came to the media seeking grati-
fication in the form of experiencing the 'excitement' of the
campaign. Being new to the electoral family, the individual
wanted to be wrapped up in all the 'hoopla' surrounding the
campaign. The second factor was less theatrical and more
practical. The individual, here, came to the media seeking
information on the issues involved in the campaign: "who
stands where, on what, and why?" The third factor, weak as
it was, indicates that the individual wanted to inspect the
candidate, according to personal traits and characteristics.

While the data does indicate that the young, first-time,
potential voter is alienated with the way in which the
campaign and the candidates conduct the process, the presence
and power of the media in modern life must assume some
responsibility. That is, given the brief amount of time
candidates usually get (less than five minutes on the
nightly news per night), the candidate may, indeed, overlook
the needs and issues of those on the fringe while concen—
trating on the largest single block attending to the media-

the middle age, middle class. In discussing the issues, the

86
media naturally must edit out some material. Could it be
they fail to present the issues salient to the young? After
all, from a business stand point, media professionals know
that the young consume less of the media-—and spend less
money-—than their middle age counterparts.

In any event, both politicians and media professionals
should be concerned over the results reported herein. The
young, first-time, potential voter sought gratification, but
was "turned-off" by what s/he saw and heard to the point of
becoming alienated. While this alienation was widespread,
however, it was not strong enough along family communication
patterns to predict voting behavior. Further research is
definitely merited into exploring the alienation levels among
the young, first-time, potential voters.

Suggestions

 

It would be irresponsible not to suggest how to improve
upon one's own work. It would be irresistable not to
redesign the original research in an effort to do so.

Foremost among the considerations is design limitations.
A broader sampling frame and a larger sampling size were
needed. To generalize to all young, first-time, potential
voters requires the former; the ability to generalize with
some degree of accuracy requires the latter.

Finding an explanation for the socio-psychological
origin for the motivation behind seeking gratification from
the media has haunted prior research using Uses and

Gratifications Theory of Communication. Despite the failure

87

to help explain that oversight with the family communication
pattern variable, it remains the opinion of the researcher
that the theory is sound; after all, it did predict levels
of alienation among young, first-time, potential voters.
More attention needs to be paid to possible origins of the
need for gratification. It was disheartening in reviewing
the literature to see a lack of communication research linked
with psychological and social research in this area. It is
certainly an area deserving attention by researchers in the
future.

Pinner has shown how feelings of power and influence can

6 Linked with levels

effect behavior in the political realm.
of education and family communication pattern, this may help
explain origins of motivation for seeking gratification.
Certainly it makes intuitive sense.

While this study revealed general areas of gratification
and avoidances, more attention needs to be focused on these
dimensions. In particular, why did avoidance increase over
the campaign's duration? Is the 'blame' for this to rest on
the media professionals, or the politicians, or on both? Or,
is it a function of the 'newness' of the campaign wearing
off? A cross analysis with another fringe electoral block
with a low voter turn-out rate (senior citizens come
immediately to mind) might prove enlightening. Also, as
those from families characterized by not stressing the

concept-orientation in communication patterns were more

alienated, does the newness of the first election wear off

88
leaving these individuals forever disgruntled with the
electoral process? How much alienation requires electoral
behavior to differ from their counterparts?

Media use habits exhibited by the young, first-time,
potential voter differed radically from that found in
previous research of the general electorate. Is this a fluke
due to the design limitations discussed earlier, or is it
indicative of the fact that this age group spends less time
with the media, and spends what time it does on the new
technologies present in society?

If voting is the ultimate behavioral act in a democracy,
it seems imperative that the role of the media in affecting
such behavior be studied. In light of the fact that the
United States of America has the worst turn-out at the polls
of any democracy today, this type of study seems especially
crucial. This study found deep rooted alienation in one
segment of the electorate. What remains for future research
is to discover what socio-psychological origins of need
prompt this behavior, and then, how to rectify it.

Summary

Several design limitations may have hampered this study.
The sampling frame was found to be too narrow and the
sampling size too small. In turn, this may have caused
imprecision in the statistics used. However, the method
used to obtain the data was found to be successful in its
mission and valid in terms of its conformity with prior

research results.

89

The majority of the hypotheses were rejected by the
data. Several patterns were detected which may have influ-
enced many-—if not all-—of the results. First, the sampling
problems and the associated statistical problems may have
led to weak results. Secondly, the nature of the campaign
of 1980 may have caused abnormal behavior among this age
group. While previous campaigns may have dealt with tradi-
tional issues, many of the issues in the 1980 campaign were
of direct saliency to the young, first-time, potential
voter. Finally, the issuance of 'socially responsible'
answers by those surveyed, along with a possible conditioning
by the instrument,may have skewed the results.

Several implications for media professionals and
candidates are seen. While interest in the campaign was
shown to be high, the level of alienation with the whole
process rose during the duration of the campaign. After
factor analyzing the data, it was argued that politicians
need to spend more time addressing the needs of this age
group and that media professionals need to be more sensitive
to the information needs of the young.

Several suggestions were presented for further research.
In addition to improving upon the design, the results suggest
the need to study if, in fact, the patternshold over time.
More attention needs to be focused on finding the socio-
psychological origin of the motivation for seeking gratifi-
cation in the media by this age group. Also, more detailed

analysis as to exactly what the alienations and gratifications

90
arelmafits attention. Specifically, the question of "what
alienations produce what behavior" needs to be addressed.
In addition, which, if any, gratifications or avoidances
produce different voting behavior among the young, first-

time, potential voter, remains unanswered.

CHAPTER VI

NOTES

1Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research.

(Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1979), p. 172.

2Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
(Stanford: University of Stanford Press, 1959).

3See Jack M. McLeod and Lee B. Becker, "Testing the
Validity of Gratification Measures through Political Effects
Analysis," The Uses of Mass Communication. (Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications, 1974), for a complete look at media use
variables as they relate to political effects.

4George Comstock, et al., Television and Human Behavior.
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1974). See Chapter-3,
"The Audience" for a complete discussion of time spent with
the media-—and reasons for it-—by all demographic blocks.

5"Lagging at the Polls," Parade Magazine, October 26,
1980, p. 12.

See Pinner, "The Individual's Social and Political
World," (Mimeograph, Michigan State University, Department
of Psychology) for a discussion of this possible variable.

91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atkin, Charles, "Communication and Political Science." In
The Effects of Mass Communication. Ed. Charles Atkin.
Michigan State University, Department of
Communication, 1978.

 

Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1979.

 

Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw
Hill Co., 1960.

 

31Umler, Jay G., Elihu Katz and Michael Gurevitch,
"Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual,"
The Uses of Mass Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publication, 1979.

 

Chaffee, Steven, Jack J. McLeod and Charles Atkin, "Parental
Influences on Adolescent Media Use," American
Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 14, 1971, pp. 323-340.

 

Comstock, George, Steven Chaffe, Natan Katzman, Maxwell
McCombs and Donald Roberts. Television and Human
Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.

Crotty, William J. Political Reform and the American
Experiment. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1977.

 

 

deSola Pool, Ithiel, "Why Don't Peeple Vote?," The New York
Times, 19 October 1976, p. 36.

Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissoncance.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959.

 

Flanigan, William H. and Nancy H. Zingale. Political
Behavior of the American Electorate. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, Inc., 1975.

 

 

"Lagging at the Polls," Parade Magazine, 26 October, 1980,
p. 12.

Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang. Politics and Television,
Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968.

 

92

93

MacNeil, Robert. "TV and the Voter," TV Quarterly, Winter
1980/81, Vol. 17, No. 4.

McCombs, Maxwell, "Mass Communication in Political Campaigns:
Information, Gratification and Persuasion." The
Effects of Mass Communication. Edited by Charles
Atkin. Michigan State University, Department of

Communication, 1978.

McLeod, Jack M. and Lee B. Becker. "Testing the Validity
of Gratification Measures through Political Effects
Analysis." The Uses of Mass Communication. Beverly

Hills: Sage Publications, 1974.

McQuail, Dennis. Towards a Sociology of Mass Communication.
London: Random House, 1959.

McQuail, Dennis and Jay G. Blumler. Television in Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Nie, Norman H., Hadlai C. Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin
Steinbrenner and Dale H. Bent. Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill

Book Co., 1970.

O'Keefe, Garrett J. and Harold Mendelsohn. "Nonvoting, the
Media's Role," Deviance and Mass Media. Edited by

Charles Winich. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1978.

Patrick, John J. The Young Voter: A Guide to Instruction
About Voter Behavior and Elections. Washington:
National Council for the Social Sciences, 1972.

Patterson, Thomas E. and Robert D. McClure. The Unseeing
Eye. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976.

Pinner, Frank. "The Individual's Social and Political
World." Unpublished paper, Department of Political
Science, Michigan State University, 1981.

Roberts, Steven V. "Nonvoters Played a Key Role," The New
York Times, 5 November, 1980.

The Process and

Schramm, Wilber and Donald Roberts, eds.
University

Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana:
of Illinois Press, 1974.

Semlak, William and Wenmouth Williams, "Uses, Gratifications
and Avoidances and Voting Decisions in the 1976
Presidential Campaign," paper presented to the I.C.A.,

April 1978.

94

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Tracts, Syracuse, New
York Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. 1970.

Washington, Bureau of the Census, 1970.

Wenner, Lawrence A. "Political News on Television: A

Closer Look at Audience Use and Avoidance
Orientations." Paper presented to the S.C.A. in

New York City. November, 1980.

Wright, Charles. Mass Communications. New York: Random

House, 1959.

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

WAVE I

95

SURVEY INSTRUMENT WAVE I

 

It's quite simple! Just read each question and check or

circle the appropriate answer!

1. Are the following statements true about you?

When I turn on the radio, I like to listen to:

 

Egg E9 NO OPINION
the commercials . . . . . . (___) (___) (___)
the weather . . . . . . . . (___) (___) (___)
the news . . . . . . . . . L___) (___) (___)
the music . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

When I turn on the television, I like to watch:

 

Egg EQ NO OPINION
the commercials . . . . . . (___) (___) (___)
soap operas . . . . . . . . (___) (___) (___)
sports . . . . . . . . . . (___) (___) (___)
movies . . . . . . . . . . L__J (___) (___)
news/documentaries . . . . (___) L___) (___)
comdey shows . . . . . . . (___) (___) (___)
police/detective . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

When I pick up a magazine, I like to read:

 

Z§§ E9 NO OPINION
personality profiles . . . (___) (___) (___)
sports information . . . . (___) (___) (___)
news articles . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

beauty/fashion . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

hobby interests . . .

advertisements . . .

When I pick up a newspaper,

business section
local news . . .
national news

comics . . . . . . .
sports . . . . .
features . . . . .

advertisements . . .

How many hours, on the

radio each day?

(0) (0 to 1 hour) (1

(3 or more hours)

How many hours, on the

each day?

(0) (0 to 1 hour) (1

(3 or more hours)

96

 

YES & NO OPINION
( ) ( ) ( )
. ( ) ( ) ( )
I like to read:
YES NO NO OPINION

 

average, do you listen to the

(2 to 3 hours)

to 2 hours)

average, do you watch television

to 2 hours) (2 to 3 hours)

How much time, on the average, do you spend reading a

newspaper each day?

(0) (0 to 15 minutes)

(30 to 60 minutes) (1

(15 to 30 minutes)

hour or more)

97
How much time, on the average, do you spend reading a

magazine each day?

(0) (0 to 15 minutes) (15 to 30 minutes)

(30 to 60 minutes) (1 hour or more)

When you want information on a candidate or issue in an

election, to which source do you first turn?

(TV) (Radio) (Magazines) (Newspapers) (Friends)

(Family) (other )

 

Here are some reasons people have given for getting news
on candidates from the media. Please tell us how each of
these statements pertains to you: a lot, a little, or
not at all.

A LOT A LITTLE NOT AT ALL

 

to judge what a candidate
is like . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

to see what a candidate
would do if elected . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

to see who is likely to
win . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

to remind me of my
candidate's position . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

to help me make up my mind
how to vote . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

to enjoy the excitement of
the campaign . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

to see what candidates have
to say to young people like
myself . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

other

 

To

98
Now, here are some reasons people have given for 22E
getting information on candidates from the media. Again,
please tell us if each of these applies to you:

a lot, a little, or not at all.

A LOT A LITTLE NOT AT ALL

 

my vote won't really
affect the outcome of the
election . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

candidates are interested
only in special interest

groups . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

how young people feel
doesn't matter in a
presidential election . . ( ) ( ) ( )

candidates will say
anything to get elected . ( ) ( ) ( )

it doesn't matter what I
think, life will go on
anyway . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

I've already made up my
mind . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ( ) ( )

other

 

Finally, please read the following and tell us if the
statement applies to your family: all the time, most of

the time, sometimes, not always, or never.

 

All Nbst

the of the Net

time time Sometimes .Always Never
ny'parents encourage:me to
challenge their ideals and
beliefs ........ . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

my parents urge me to give
in on arguments rather than
risk antagonizing others . . (___) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

99

All Most
the of the Not
thma thme Ekmethmx; Ahays rkwer

 

c. my parents ask.my Opinion

when the family is discussing

samfijfing .......... L__) L__) (__j L__) L__)
d. my parents answer my

arguments with statements

like, "You'll know better

when you're older." ..... (___) (___) (___) L__) L__)
e. nylxueHUSamiIImnewUflks

on things like politics where

we may chose different sides. (___) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

f. my parents tell me I should
mtshowangerinagroup..(_)( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

g. my parents think I should
always look at both sides of
an argument before making a
cjmfice .u.. .. . .. . .. -( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

h. :my parents stress that there
are some things in life that
arelfightammlwnmx; . .. . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

in nurpements discuss things

like politics when visiting

friends, even when I'm

present .......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
j. my parents feel the best way

to stay out of trouble is to
avokiit .......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

It may be too early to tell for sure yet, but right now, how
likely is it that you will vote in the upcoming presidential

election? I will:

( ) definitely vote ( ) probably vote ( ) not sure
( ) definitely not vote ( ) probably not vote
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION! YOU MAY MAIL THE

' QUESTIONNAIRE BACK TO US IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE-—NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY! HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

WAVE II

100

SURVEY INSTRUMENT WAVE II

 

I.D.# COLS

 

PHONE # 1-3

 

COMPLETED

REFUSED

CALLBACK # l 2 3 4 5

Hello, I'm calling for Michigan State University, may I

speak to ?

 

IF NOT AT HOME: When would be a good time to call back

please?

 

IF NOT LIVING AT HOME: Do you have a number where s/he can
be reached? S/he completed a questionnaire for us earlier,
and we have just a few more questions to ask to complete this

interview. Phone # ( )

 

Refused

 

UPON REACHING RESPONDENT: Hello, as you may recall, we mailed

you a questionnaire earlier this summer. Now, to complete our

study we need just a little more information.

1. First, did you vote on Tuesday in the general Presidential
election?

Yes No No Comment 4

 

2. Finally, we've asked you these questions before, but we'd
like your opinion again. I'm going to list some reasons
people give for getting information on candidates from the
media. Please tell me if each statement applies to you

a lot, a little, or not at all.

 

 

101

A LOT A LITTLE

to judge what a candidate is
like .............. ( )

to see what a candidate would
do if elected ......... ( )

to see who is likely to win . . ( )

to remind.me of my candidate's
position ............ ( )

tolmflprmamdmzuprmrmhxihad
toxmme ............ ( )

to enjoy the excitement of the
camxflgn ............ ( )

to see what candidates have to
say to young people ...... ( )

Are there any reasons you'd
like to give?

 

NOT AT ALL
(___) 5
(__j 6
(__j 7
(__J 8
(___) 9
(__) 10
(__) 11

12

 

 

 

Some people prefer not to get news on candidates. I

will read some reasons peOple give for not getting news

on candidates. Please tell me if each statement applies

to you a lot, a little, or not at all.

 

A LOT A LITTLE

:my vote won't really affect
the outcome of the election .. . ( )

candidates are interested only
in special interest groups . . . ( )

hanymmmggxbphafbelckesnfl:

‘matter in a presidential

election ............ ( )

candidates will say anything to
get elected . . . ....... ( )

 

NOT AT ALL
(_) 13
(___) 14
(___) 15
( ) 16

102

 

 

 

 

A LOT A LITTLE NOT AT ALL
5. it doesnft matter what I
think, life will go on anyway . . ( ) ( ) ( ) l7
6. I've already made up my mind . . ( ) ( ) ( 1‘ 18
7. Are there any other reasons why
you don't get information on
candidates from media?
19
4. SEX: MALE FEMALE 20

Thank you very much for your help! Good bye!

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTERS

103

COVER LETTER I

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

Department of Telecommunication - Union Building
East Lansing - Michigan 48824

Why, you may be saying to yourself, is there a pencil
enclosed with this letter? Simple-we don't want you to
waste any time in answering the questionnaire that's also
in the envelope!

No, this letter isn't an appeal for money or an appeal
by a candidate for help. This is simply an appeal for you
to help with some research we are doing at Michigan State
University. We're interested in learning how young people,
like yourself, use TV, radio, newspapers and magazines in a
presidential campaign. You've no doubt heard of the Neilsen
Ratings and the Gallup Poll-—well, we're doing what they do-—
asking certain peeple certain questions. Lucky you! You've
been chosen at random to help us!

It is very important that we hear from you. To be
successful, we desperately need your response. Your answers,
of course, will be completely confidential. If you have any
questions, please call us at (517) 355-6558.

Sincerely,

Gretchen Barbatsis, Ph.D.
Research Adviser

Michigan State University
E. Lansing, MI 48824

104

COVER LETTER II

 

Michigan State University

 

lkxarthKLQETbLaxmmmnhxuion-UnnxmBuikfing
East Lansing - Michigan - 48824

A short while ago, we sent you a questionnaire. Well,
we haven't heard from you yet and we're worried!

In case you didn't receive our first letter, we've
enclosed a questionnaire for you to complete along with an
envelope - no postage necessary!

We're interested in learning how young people use TV,
radio, newspapers and magazines. And like the Neilsen ratings
and the Gallop poll, we've selected your name at random to
help us figure it out.

We really do need to hear from you, so please take 2
or 3 minutes to fill out the questionnaire and return it to
us -— we will even pay the postage!

Of course, if you have sent us the questionnaire already,
disregard this message - and thank you!

Have a nice day, and we hope you've had an enjoyable
summer!

Sincerely,

Gretchen Barbatsis, Ph.D.
Research Adviser

MSU

(517) 355-6558