This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
[log in to unmask] For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************
HABITUAL AND INTENTIONAL
CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA
Running head: Habitual selection of media
Jay Newell, Ph.D.
Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011-1180
[log in to unmask]
And
Robert LaRose, Ph.D.
Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1212
[log in to unmask]
HABITUAL AND INTENTIONAL CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA
ABSTRACT
The possibility of habitual media consumption has long been overlooked and
perhaps misunderstood within the uses and gratifications paradigm that
dominates research about media selection behavior. To examine the role of
habit in the selection of electronic media, surveys of television and
Internet habits and intentions were matched to diaries among a sample of
university students (N=178). Structural equation models that included
habit, intention, media gratifications and future media selection behavior
were tested. The best fit was found for models in which gratifications
preceded both habits and intentions, and where habit and intentions each
were predictors of media use behavior.
Habitual Selection of Media page 6
HABITUAL AND INTENTIONAL CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA
Media habits are a matter of great practical and social significance.
Television programming executives and website developers are among those
who devote a great amount of effort to encouraging repeated media
consumption behavior that is habitual in nature. The business of mass media
can be seen as one in which habitual media use is transformed into
advertising and subscription revenue . In the extreme, media habits may
become harmful social problems, leading to behavioral addictions that
disrupt lives and families.
Yet, habit is a problematic construct within media research. Within the
uses and gratifications paradigm that has dominated much of the scholarly
literature about media consumption, individuals are presumed to be active
agents of their own media choices , perhaps the very antithesis of
automatic, unthinking, habitual behavior. An early formulation of uses and
gratifications identified habit as a distinct construct (Palmgreen, Wenner
& Rosengren, 1985). Yet, despite periodic "rediscoveries" of the concept
(e.g. , habits have usually been (mis)construed as a merely another type of
gratification and empirically confounded with gratification dimensions (cf.
LaRose, 2004). As such, the conflict between the conception of the
audience as active and the observation that much of media behavior is
habitual runs through the uses and gratifications literature.
This paper proposes new theoretical and operational approaches to
understanding media habits that may provide new avenues for understanding
the apparent conflict. Specifically, it explores the extent to which habit,
arising from past media use behavior, is what motivates an individual's
future media selection behavior.
Understanding Habits
Habits are "learned sequences of behavior that have become automatic
responses to specific cues, and are functional in obtaining certain goals
or end-states" . Habits are similar to reflexes in that they are
automatic, but differ from reflexes in that they are learned . According
to Triandis , habits are "situation-behavior sequences that are or have
become automatic, so they occur without self-instruction. The individual
is usually not "conscious of these sequences." Triandis argued that
cognitive scripts activate patterns of behavior that are habitual.
Still, habit is the outcome of the repetition of past behavior that was
originally used to satisfy actively imagined wants and needs . Thus, habit
is reflective of past intentional behavior. In the past, the behavior that
satisfied wants or needs took thought to perform, but repeated over time,
the same behavior no longer requires thought for its execution .
While the habit construct has often been equated with the frequency of
past behavior, past behavior should not be considered to be synonymous with
habit . For the behavior to be habitual it needs to be automatic, in that
it exhibits unintentionality, some degree of uncontrollability, it is
performed with limited awareness, and it is efficient in the use of
cognitive resources . Verplanken and Aarts (1999) argued that habit is a
subset of automatic behavior in that it can be overruled by conscious
effort. Verplanken and Aarts concluded that the most salient components of
automaticity for habit were the lack of awareness and the minimization of
cognitive resources required for the performance of the behavior. In sum,
habit is seen not as the complete automation of behavior, but as a
construct that exhibits some of the primary components of automaticity.
In contrast, intention has been defined as the self-provided instruction
for behavior . Intention is by definition a volitional process, and as
such, occupies the opposite end of the activity continuum from habit
. Intention has been considered to be an index of the motivation of the
individual to behave in a certain way, and contains both the direction of
the behavior (perform the behavior/don't perform the behavior) and the
intensity of the behavior (how much effort is to be expended on its
performance) .
There is an on-going debate about the usefulness of studying habit in
psychology . The theory of planned behavior maintains that behavior is
intentional and is determined by active consideration of the expected
personal (attitudinal) and social (normative) outcomes of the behavior.
Thus, similar to uses and gratifications, the theory of planned behavior
has little theoretical rationale to add non-thinking, automatic processes
such as habit to their models. However, empirical results suggest that
both habit and intention can be direct antecedents of behavior . In a
study of television use , intention and perceived behavioral control
predicted 19% of the variance in television viewing. Adding habit improved
the prediction to 24% of viewing. A meta-analysis found an overall .68
correlation between past and future behavior across behavioral domains.
They argued that past behavior should be considered as moderator of
intention, which in turn is the sole predictor in the model of behavior.
In Conner and Armitage's (1998) review, past behavior was equated with
habit. This circular reasoning, that the frequency of past behavior is the
primary indicator of habit, and habit is the outcome of frequent behavior,
has undermined the habit construct. The dispute centers on the distinction
between habit as simply descriptive of past behavior, in opposition to the
conception of habit as an explanatory force in the understanding of current
behavior. One current argument is that habit should no longer be
considered a "black box" unworthy of study, but as learned responses that
are goal directed . Thus, habit is the end result of goal-oriented
behaviors that have been routinized through practice and triggered within a
stable environment by the intersection of goal orientations and a
environmental stimuli .
Habit in the Uses and Gratifications Paradigm
The theory of planned behavior has important parallels to the uses and
gratifications paradigm , in that they both presume individual behavior to
be the outcome of thoughtful processing of information about the
consequences/gratifications associated with the behavior. In this view,
an individual might engage in repeated media consumption behavior by
actively rethinking the gratifications of the behavior, sought out again
and again.
Working within the uses and gratifications paradigm, Stone and
Stone defined habit as learned behavior that is repeated over time. They
proposed that the repetition of behavior is intrinsically enjoyable and
pleasurable, a contention which may be tenable for the use of media for
entertainment purposes, but perhaps less so for the use of mass media on an
instrumental basis. They also introduced the notion that habits could be
the result of active evaluation of uses and gratifications in the past that
are no longer actively processed in the present.
However, beginning with Greenberg's study of the viewing behavior of
British school children, habit was confounded with measures of
gratifications . Specifically, Greenberg developed two problematic
gratification items, "it's just a habit" and "it's just something I
do." These statements do not bespeak active, self instructed media
selection as the uses and gratifications paradigm demands, but an
automatic, even unconscious, processes associated with habit. Moreover,
Greenberg's "habit" item had only a modest loading (.58) on the habit
factor itself, so the factor may have been misidentified. Or, later factor
analyses incorporating single habit items may have been underidentified,
three or more items are required to compose a single factor . That perhaps
explains why habit items sometimes appear on "entertainment" factors (e.g.,
Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000), lending the impression
that active self instruction is involved. Formulations that compressed
habit and gratification items ("It's an enjoyable habit I like
doing," further confounded the issue. Greenberg's list of gratifications
were the basis for many succeeding studies across years, continents, and
media and so one could argue that the confounding of gratifications and
habits has permeated uses and gratifications research to the present day.
The question of the extent to which habit drives media use and its
subsequent gratifications perhaps has been lost in the newest round of uses
and gratifications research on the Internet . In some of this research it
was assumed that since the computer requires the physical manipulation of
devices such as a computer keyboard and mouse, there must be a
corresponding conscious effort, and therefore computer use is inherently
"active" . However, this conclusion confounds mental activity with
physical operation of a device. It is possible that the decision to select
a computer for a communications task could become habitual, while the
accessing of content on the computer could remain within the realm of
audience activity. In this way computer use could mirror the television
model envisioned by Barwise (1982), in which the selection of a medium was
automatic, but the selection of programming was a taken as evidence of
audience activity. But like television, the possibility exists that the
navigating of the Internet content is also automatic. The inheritance
effects of one program's viewers staying tuned for the following
program is mirrored by the usage patterns of the Internet, in which the
usage of one site is a function of the links to other popular sites
. Internet research that included habit as a distinct component has shown
it to be a powerful predictor of Internet usage .
Hypotheses
Thus, the role of habit is problematic in both the uses and gratifications
paradigm and in the social psychology formulations of behavior. The first
problem is foundational: these approaches are based on the assumption that
the individual is an active thinker and decision maker at all times. To
the extent that a behavior is automatic, habit undercuts the assumption of
an individual's mindful consideration of their behavior.
The second problem is that of specification and measurement, as the
strength of habit has been confounded with its parts: how often a behavior
is conducted, the ease to which is has been conducted, and the extent to
which the behavior is part of a routine. For uses and gratifications, the
habit variable has been assembled from the comments of British
schoolchildren, and then statistically combined, and perhaps confounded
with, actively sought entertainment gratifications. For the theory of
planned behavior and other social psychological investigations, habit has
been equated solely with the frequency of behavior.
Following Bargh , habit was conceptualized as the automatic execution of
learned behavior within a stable environment. As such, habit would be a
predictor of media selection beyond that of the intention to use the
media. Individuals would be expected to select media at a given point in
time based on their habitual prior selection of that specific medium, as
well as their intention to use the media. This research investigated the
hypothesis that the habitual past use of a medium and the intention to use
the medium in the future will combine to cause future media selection.
The first hypothesis addressed the problematic nature of habit: Is it
part of a pass time factor indicating active processing of media uses and
gratifications (Greenberg, 1974; Rubin, 1984) or an automatic behavior
(Verplanken & Orbell, 2003)?
H1: Habit and pass time are distinct constructs.
The second hypothesis addressed the key question of the role of intention
in the selection of electronic media. Three models that included habit as
antecedent to future behavior were tested.
The first model was based on Stone and Stone's suggestion that habit could
be conceived as a psychological reinforcing mechanism within the uses and
gratifications perspective, in that gratifications, repeatedly experienced
over time, would habituate the individual to media use, and in doing so,
reduce the cognitive load of selecting mass media. A possible example
might be daily news programs: an individual watches a news program over
time to obtain gratification, and that gratification reward reinforces the
habitual viewing of news. Habits are thus the residue of past active
thinking about uses and gratifications and are causally preceded by
them. No intention to watch news is now necessary. The intention has been
formed, and made again, in the past. More recent experiences with
gratification from unfamiliar programs would require an intentional
decision to continue to seek out the program. A hypothesized model based on
this view is pictured in figure 1.
The second model (figure 2) is based on an early conception within uses and
gratifications in which habitual media behavior was proposed as distinct
from gratifications. In this model, both habit and gratifications were
drawn upon to develop media use intentions, which were then reflected in
future behavior. This is consistent with the view, proposed intermittently
throughout the uses and gratifications literature, that habit is one of
many gratifications to be obtained from media use. As uses and
gratification theorists considered the audience to be active in their use
of media, a model of the process of media selection could have intention as
the sole antecedent of future media selection, with habit being subsumed by
the gratifications that precede the creation of media selection intentions.
In contrast, Landis et al (1978) theorized that habit and intention are
independent, additive predictors of behavior. Intention is the outcome of
expectations of gratification from the act, while habit is a function of
past behavior. Figure 3 models the process, as it relates to habit,
gratifications, intention and future behavior. This is consistent with the
Eagly and Chaiken proposal that provided, in part, for habit to directly
affect behavior, which added habit alongside of intention as the direct
precursor to behavior (Triandis, 1977). In domains such as the selection
of travel modes and exercise , habit was a predictor of future behavior
that explained additional variance compared to intention alone. Extending
this research to the domain of media selection, both intention and habit
were predicted to cause media selection behavior. This is in opposition to
the research tradition of uses and gratifications, in which all media
choice is active, "self-instructed" behavior . This model is similar to
the theory of planned behavior in the linkage from intention to behavior,
but in the TPB formulations, there is no connection from habit to behavior.
In all, these three competing models provide alternative views to the role
of habit in the selection of electronic media, with model 1 (Stone & Stone
1990) hypothesized as the most appropriate for the understanding of how
habit causes media selection behavior.
H2: Both the habitual use of a medium in the past and the intention to use
the medium in the future will directly cause the medium to be selected.
RESEARCH METHODS
Procedure and Respondents
The research design followed the pattern of previous studies of the
habit/intent versus intent/behavior relationship, in which self reports of
past behavior, usually collected via survey, were matched to self reports
of future behavior, usually collected via diary . The data were collected
over two weeks in June 2002, from undergraduate students attending o
introductory advertising and telecommunications classes at a large
midwestern university. Of the 178 students who completed the survey, 165
also completed the diary, for a mortality rate of 8%. From their
self-report within the survey, 93.3% watched television at home, and 89.9%
reported at-home use of the World Wide Web. The mean age of respondents
was 22 years (SD=1.92), with a range of 19 to 35 years. Of the 172
respondents who reported their sex, 58.7% were male. There were no
significant differences between men and women in the number of years
experience with watching television (t = .707, df = 159, ns.) or using the
Web (t = 1.140, d = 154, ns.). In light of the lack of sex difference,
the data for males and females were combined for all remaining analytic
operations.
Operational Measures
For each target medium (television and the Internet), habit was assessed
using two competing batteries of items. The first was the six habit/pass
time statements previously used in uses and gratifications research
. These were: I watch/use (medium) at home… "just because it's there,"
"just because I like it," "just because it's a habit, it's something I do,"
"because it passes the time," "when I've got nothing else to do," and "when
there's no one else to talk to or be with." The second battery of habit
questions was developed from the Self Reported Habit Index, hereafter
referred to as the SRHI . The 12 items were: Watching/using (medium) at
home is something that… "I do often," "I do automatically," "I do without
having to consciously remember," "makes me feel weird if I don't do it," "I
do without thinking," "belongs in my daily routine," "I start doing before
I realize I'm doing it," "I would find hard not to do," "I have no need of
thinking about doing," "is typically "me,"" and "I have been doing for a
long time." Both the uses and gratifications and the SRHI were measured on
a 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ("Strongly agree") to 7 ("Strongly
disagree").
Ajzen and Fishbein argued that questions of behavioral intent require
four elements in order to establish a high degree of correspondence between
the psychological processes and the subsequent behavior: action, target,
context and time. In the case of media selection, the action is the use of
the media, for example, "watching" or "using." The target is the media
selected, as in "television" or "Internet." The context is the location
of the action and target, such as "at home." Finally, the time is the
temporal dimension of the action, target and context, for example,
"tomorrow night. Sutton (1998) noted most studies in the theory of
reasoned action and theory of planned behavior tradition employ a single
item for intention, as it is difficult to develop multiple items for
intent, given the specificity of the action, location and time recommended
for intention items. However, intentions do exhibit stable test-retest
characteristics . For this research intention was measured by an estimate
of time, in minutes, of use of each medium expected for the following night.
The survey incorporated multiple dimensions of past media choice
behavior. The first dimension of past behavior was the dichotomous
selection of each of the target media, assessed with the item "Do you
watch/use (medium) at home?" This variable was used to develop the media
user groups. The second dimension of past behavior was the duration of
media use under stable conditions, assessed with the item "On a typical
weeknight, approximately how many minutes do you watch/use (medium)?" .
Each individual who completed the media behavior habit and intent survey
was given a pencil and paper diary with instructions to record the
following night's media use. Following the hour-by-hour diary, respondents
estimated the total number of minutes spent using TV and the Web.
Data Analysis
This research first used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and then
structural equation modeling (SEM) as appropriate to test the three sets of
hypotheses. The goodness-of-fit between the underlying factor and its
hypothesized observed indicators functioned as the test of the adequacy of
the measurement scheme. Once the CFA was completed, structural equation
modeling (SEM) allowed the researchers to regress the factors onto a
variable in order to determine causality .
RESULTS
The first hypothesis predicted that habit and the pass time gratification
would be separate constructs. To test this, confirmatory factor analyses
were performed. See table 1 for a summary of the regressions for all
media. Indicators that did not meet the .45 criteria were removed. For
all four media, the 12 items of the SRHI met the criteria and were
retained. The results for the uses and gratifications habit/pass time
measure were mixed. The indicator having the most direct semantic
connection with self-reported habit, "because it's a habit," was
retained. Two other indicators, "Because it's there" and "Because I like
it" failed to meet the criteria and were deleted.
The Pearson product-moment correlations between the SRHI and the uses and
gratifications habit/pass time measure were substantial, at .86 (p<.01) for
television and .78 (p<.01) for Web, indicating that the two measures were
functionally redundant. An examination of the modification indices for the
items showed the most substantial cross-loading between the uses and
gratifications habit/pass time item most conceptually identified with
habit, "because it's a habit," and the first of the SRHI items, "it's
something I do often." The high cross loading suggested that the uses and
gratifications "it's a habit" item would be more appropriate within a habit
factor, and thus was included with the 12 SRHI items in a revised factor,
leaving the three other uses and gratifications habit/pass time items, "it
passes the time," "when there's nothing else to do," and "when there's no
one else to talk to" retained as their own factor. The revised model
exhibited a statistically significant improvement of the C2 statistic for
both media (_C2/DF. TV: 4.16, p<.01, Web: 3.24, p <.01). Thus, the CFA
supported the hypothesis of H1, that habit and the pass time gratification
are distinct constructs.
Habit, Intent, and Media Selection
The second hypothesis contended that both habit and intention directly
predict future behavior. The three theoretical models presented were
adapted for testing using SEM, which generated maximum likelihood estimates
of the paths between variables. Future behavior was operationalized as the
duration of media use during the target time period. Habit was
operationalized as the mean of the SRHI items plus the uses and
gratifications "it's just a habit" item, as tested earlier by a
CFA. Intention was operationalized as the duration of media use planned
for the following evening. Gratifications were a subset of the many
possible choices in the uses and gratifications paradigm: the pass time
measure, also confirmed via a previous CFA.
Comparative fit index (CFI) scores were acceptable for the first model, but
sub-optimum for the second and third model. For a perfect fit, the CFI
scores would approach 1.00. An alternative to the CFI, the goodness of fit
index (GFI) was acceptable for the first model and for television in the
second and third models. The differences in the ?2 statistic were compared
for the three models, and divided by the difference in the degrees of
freedom to indicate which model best fit the data. Model 1 was clearly
superior to the other two models. Of the three models presented, the best
fit to the data with the lowest error was the formulation in which
gratifications caused both intention and habit, which in turn caused future
behavior.
The path models for both television and the Internet consistently
demonstrated a strong relationship between intention and future
behavior. The model specified a path from gratification to both habit and
intention. The gratification-habit link was seen for television and the
Internet, and a gratification-intention link was seen for both media as
well. Thus the data supported the second hypothesis, in that both
intention and habit served to cause future media selection behavior.
However, root mean square errors (RMSEA) were well above the recommended
.08 for all three models, indicating a substantial degree of error in all
three models given the number of parameters and the degrees of freedom. A
review of the modification indices for the models indicated the presence of
a substantial path between habit and intention, consistent with LaRose's
(2004) observation that individuals are aware of their own habits. A
modification of the model suggested by Stone and Stone (1990), with habit
causing a portion of both intention and future behavior was tested. This
revised model (figure 4) exhibited superior fit statistics versus the
previous three models (_C2/DF. TV: 16.1, p<.01, Web: 7.2, p <.01)., with
acceptable RMSEA values for both television and the web.
Discussion
Thus, the first hypothesis tested the validity of the Self Reported Habit
Index and the uses and gratifications habit/pass-time measure . In uses
and gratifications literature habit is often combined with the pass time
gratification into a single factor. H1 provided evidence that habit and
pass time are distinct constructs.
The second hypothesis explored the relationship between habit, intention,
gratifications and behavior in the selection of mass media. Consistent
with Stone and Stone (1992) and other theorists who seek a role for habit
as one of the direct antecedents of behavior , habit and intention served
as direct antecedents of media selection behavior. For the subjects of
this research, their selection of media was partially planned and partially
habitual.
The concept of habit has been overlooked theoretical formulations in
paradigms in which individuals are assumed to act as intentional
decision-makers. The significance of this research is that it has attempted
to re-insert the habit construct into theories of media selection behavior.
There is a substantial empirical support for the connection between
intention and future behavior . To the extent of investigating the
intention-future behavior linkage, this study replicated the significant
paths from intention to behavior for television and the Web.
But where do intentions come from? In expectancy-value formulations, the
seeking of gratification has been proposed as the driver of intentional
media use . People plan to use media when they can predict the benefits of
the outcome. However, in this research, the connection between
gratifications and intentions was not consistent across the two
media. While this research tested only one possible gratification, that of
passing time through media use, the lack of connection provides only
partial support. Instead, gratifications were a substantial and consistent
predictor of habit. This suggested that the rewarded behavior of using
mass media to occupy empty time resulted in a stronger habit, but not
always in higher intention. This is supportive not of uses and
gratifications as much as it is classical conditioning, in that rewarded
behavior is repeated without an intermediate step of forming a conscious
intention.
The final model (figure 4) suggests that intention is also an outcome of
habit. This is consistent with the social cognitive theory conception of
self-regulation as a mechanism by which individuals plan their future
behavior to be in harmony with their past activities . While the execution
of habit may occur with limited awareness, individuals are aware of their
routine behaviors. When asked what they plan to do at a specific time in
the near future, the individuals who foresee a "typical" set of
circumstances would be expected to call upon his or her own past behavior
as a guide to their future behavior. It is in this way that habit guides
intention.
To the extent that habit is the automatic activation of behavior, the
finding of habit directly creating media use is contradictory to the
assertion that the audience is active in its selection of mass media. To
accommodate habit into the uses and gratifications perspective is to
stretch the temporal aspect of audience activity back to the time when
media use habits were first formed by the individual. In other words,
audience activity is not solely an active process occurring at the time of
media consumption, but also can be the previously stored and automatically
activated instructions for media use.
The multiple ways in which people can use electronic media provided an
attractive domain in which to test the theories of the linkage of
intention, habit and behavior. Behaviors performed frequently may be less
under intentional control than behaviors performed infrequently. For
example, brushing one's teeth every morning may be more habitual than
intentional, while going for a yearly dental checkup more intentional than
habitual . Most people can choose to access electronic mass media on a
daily or even minute-to-minute basis, thus placing media use in the domain
of potentially frequently performed behaviors. Perhaps this is the reason
that individuals in this study exhibited both intentional and automatic
selection of mass media. Even the theories of automaticity require that at
some point even the most inconsequential behavior has to be intentional, if
it is to be practiced enough to become automatically activated . In this
way, the occurrences of intentional behavior in the present turn into the
building blocks for future habitual behavior. The intentional behavior is
routinized over time, and becomes so frequent, easy, and efficient in the
use of cognitive resources that is can be activated by environmental
cues. Similar in the way a clock radio is activated in the future by the
intersection of a plan made in the past and the current time, to an extent
future media selection is the intersection of gratifications obtained in
the past and the availability of the same medium in the present.
In sum, the findings of this research advance our knowledge of the process
by which individuals choose from the range of media at their disposal. The
interaction of habit and intention on individual choice was extended to
multiple, simultaneously available media. The single-day time span between
the measurement of intention and the execution of the behavior provided a
test for the proposition that both habit and intention directly influence
behavior.
The Measurement of Habits
This research tested a new measure of habit, the SRHI , that provided the
potential advantages of face and construct validity. There were
substantial and consistent correlations between past media use and a habit
scale based primarily on the SRHI. Hypotheses 1 found a substantial
correlation between past media selection behavior and both the uses and
gratifications habit/pass time measure time and the SRHI, providing
evidence that the SRHI is a valid measures of habitual behavior, while the
uses and gratifications habit/pass time measure is a combination of
competing motivations. The CFA loadings of the 12 items of the SRHI were
consistent from medium to medium, while the uses and gratifications items
for habit/passtime were inconsistent between media. In sum, the SRHI
provided a distinct measure of habit that highlighted the confounded nature
of the habit/pass time "gratification."
Limitations
This research has several limitations. The use of a student sample
prohibits generalizing the degree of connection between habit, intent and
behavior to a general population, although it should not alter the
theoretical relationships. Of special interest is the reduced television
use of students against the general population . College students are
users of multiple media, but use the media at different rates than the
general population. This suggests that replicating the research in a
general population sample might increase the role of habit.
Perhaps a more challenging limitation is the reliance on self-report for
the measurement of the mundane behavior of media choice. Individuals may
not be aware of their behavior, especially those with as little consequence
as watching television and reading e-mails. The diary format may help in
this regard, as it forces the individual to recount his/her behavior on an
hour-by-hour basis. To the extent that individuals are unaware of their
mindless activity, this research would underreport the relationship between
habit and behavior. Alternatively, it is not unusual for individuals to
record in diaries what they intended to do, or what they usually do,
instead of their actual behavior . This could produce an undesirable
inflation of the relationships between the reported behavior and habit, and
reported behavior and intention.
Suggestions for Future Research
Perhaps the most intriguing area for additional research is in the
specification of how habits develop, especially for mass media
use. Diffusion of innovation theory , is often used as a method of
understanding how a new behavior can compete with repetitive past behavior.
That model is strong on how a new idea is first introduced to societies and
individuals, but less so on how the innovation comes to be assimilated and
employed in an ongoing, habitual manner . Perhaps there are opportunities
for cross fertilization between theories of diffusion and theories of
habit. At what point on the diffusion curve does a new technology no
longer require the active processing of its benefits? In other words, could
the process of disadoption be understood as the disruption of habits?
This current research has provided a place for the role of habit in the
execution of intentional behavior. An important next step is to develop a
greater understanding of the development of habit as it applies to media
selection. The process by which habits are initiated, regularized, and
perhaps discarded in the use of mass media is a worthy area of study for
the understanding of the on-going interaction of thinking and thoughtless
activity.
Conclusion
Vast sums of human capital are expended on the consumption of mass media,
with the typical American using over 30 hours per week of television, a
similar amount of radio , and an expanding amount of time spent on the
Internet . In opposition to James' (1898) contention that habit is the
"flywheel of society," habit may not be a blindly spinning mechanism, but
one that works efficiently in tandem with intention, as people work through
the routine and not-so-routine events of their days.
Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for SRHI and Uses and Gratifications
Television
Web
SRHI
I do often
Automatically
Unconsciously
Weird not to
Without thought
Effortless
Routine
No realization
Hard not to
No thinking
Typically "me"
Doing long time
.75*
.86*
.78*
.58*
.80*
.62*
.77*
.67*
.71*
.58*
.74*
.56*
.67*
.81*
.80*
.71*
.86*
.78*
.67*
.79*
.71*
.81*
.77*
.61*
Uses and grat. habit/
pass time
It's there
Because I like it
It's a habit
Passes the time
Nothing to do
No one else
.33
.38
.74*
.59*
.22
.31
.55*
.55*
.79*
.88*
.80*
.81*
n
142
139
* Items retained for SEM
Table 2
Revised Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Habit and Pass Time
Television
Web
Habit
I do often
Automatically
Unconsciously
Weird not to
Without thought
Effortless
Routine
No realization
Hard not to
No thinking
Typically "me"
Doing long time
It's a habit
.72*
.85*
.77*
.58*
.79*
.57*
.74*
.67*
.71*
.56*
.52*
.62*
.61*
.54*
.79*
.79*
.67*
.83*
.76*
.62*
.82*
.68*
.80*
.75*
.75*
.81*
Pass time
Passes the time
Nothing to do
No one else
.81*
.45*
.49*
.90*
.80*
.84*
* Items retained for SEM
Figure 1
Adapted from Stone and Stone (1990)
Note: Television regressions above the line, Web regressions below the line.
Television: C2=17.32, CFI=.86, RMSEA=.23
Web: C2=10.4, CFI=.94, RMSEA=.17
Figure 2
Model Suggested by Palmgreen (1985)
Note: Television regressions above the line, Web regressions below the line.
Television: C2=26.0, CFI=.79, RMSEA=.23
Web: C2=76.2, CFI=.44, RMSEA=.42
Figure 3
Model Suggested by Landis, Triandis, Adamopolous (1978)
Note: Television regressions above the line, Web regressions below the line.
Television: C2=35.4, CFI=.71, RMSEA=.28
Web: C2=78.2, CFI=.43, RMSEA=.43
Figure 4
Final Model
Note: Television regressions above the line, Web regressions below the line.
Television: C2=1.2, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.03
Web: C2=2.8, CFI=.99, RMSEA=.11
References
|
