- finding out about relevant events and conditions in immediate surroundings, society and the world
seeking advice on practical matters or opinion and decision choices
- satisfying curiosity and general interest
- learning; self-education
- gaining a sense of security through knowledge
- finding reinforcement for personal values - finding models of behaviour - identifying with valued other (in the media) - gaining insight into one's self
Integration and Social Interaction
- gaining insight into circumstances of others; social empathy - identifying with others and gaining a sense of belonging - finding a basis for conversation and social interaction - having a substitute for real-life companionship - helping to carry out social roles - enabling one to connect with family, friends and society
escaping, or being diverted, from problems - relaxing - getting intrinsic cultural or aesthetic enjoyment - filling time - emotional release
Accused of being at the opposite extreme of the behaviourism spectrum, even by theorists who have adopted some of its ideas / assumptions.
criticized for pre-supposing that media can satisfy needs rather than considering the possibility that media use may elude (not solve/ evade) gratifications
For some, this theory simply smacks of a mere defence of the media operators’ oldest argument:
“ We only give the people what they want” (Carey and Kreiling, 1974)
Questions about how we explain what constitutes “needs” of human beings. Are they common to everyone? Unique to individuals?
Is it still possible in our media-saturated world to suggest that people’s needs emerge prior to media use and are not shaped in any way at the point of use? (ie media agendas may at least affect public agendas in some measure)