Content uploaded by Virginia Beal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Virginia Beal on Jun 27, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2019-024 June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 1
INTRODUCTION
A big challenge for advertisers and others is to
make sense of the fast-changing and increasingly
complex media ecosystem—the “evolving land-
scape of martech and advertising” (Marketing
-
audience needs do they meet? How will media con-
sumption evolve in the future?
Since 1990, the Internet has driven large, continu-
ing shifts in both media and marketing. Throughout
this time, however, television and video produc-
tion, consumption, and advertising—including for
traditional television—have remained remarkably
resilient. Other media, especially print media, have
seen large declines in consumption and revenue.
This article reviews the evidence on the underly-
ing reasons why, even in today’s fast-moving, frag-
mented, and competitive media market, television
and video viewing remain so popular, starting with
the question:
RQ1: Why do people watch so much television
and video?
By reviewing the historical evidence on the
underlying reasons why people watch so much,
the authors aim to provide insights into the likely
Why Do People Watch
So Much Television and Video?
Implications for the Future
Of Viewing and Advertising
PATRICK BARWISE
London Business School
pbarwise@london.edu
STEVEN BELLMAN
University of South
Australia
Steven.Bellman@
marketingscience.info
VIRGINIA BEAL
University of South
Australia
Virginia.Beal@
marketingscience.info
Television and video watching over the past 25 years has increased while other media
consumption has declined. Research suggests that viewing helps people relax and escape
their worries. In the current research, electroencephalography (EEG) and reaction-time
studies conrmed these ndings. Watching TV and video generated brainwaves associated
with pleasant, wakeful relaxation and absorbed cognitive capacity, taking viewers’ minds
off other things. These ndings need further testing and renement for today’s increasingly
complex television and video environment, but evidence shows new types of viewing
meet broadly similar needs to those met by traditional television viewing and likely are
processed similarly.
Total television and video viewing is increasing because it meets basic human needs, especially
for relaxation and escape, while new technology offers increasing viewing opportunities and the
population continues to age.
The challenge for advertisers is not that people will stop viewing but that reaching them efficiently
across different types of viewing increasingly will require integrated measurement and technology
to optimize a combination of traditional television, targeted television, and online video.
Television and video advertising creative content should aim to minimize advertisement avoidance
by matching viewers’ needs for relaxation and escape, entertaining them rather than trying to
communicate complex information.
Text variables
heads and running feet
here)
NB use forced line break not return to create
line break
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
Enter publication month here
June 2019
Enter DOI here
DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2019-024
Enter special feature theme here
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT
Submitted February 8, 2018;
revised July 6, 2018;
accepted November 8, 2018.
2 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
future evolution of television and video,
-
Live television on a television set
Time-shifted television on a television
set with an offline recording device
(VCR or DVR)
Prerecorded television and video on
removable storage media (VCR tapes,
DVDs, and Blu-ray disks) viewed on a
television, PC, or laptop
Online viewing on a television set: tele-
vision and video streamed or down-
loaded through a television-connected
online device; this includes both paid-for
(by separate or bundled subscriptions,
short-term rentals, or download-to-own
payments) and free content (online or
catch-up television and short-form vid-
eos—e.g., YouTube)
Viewing on other online devices: online
television and video viewed on a PC,
laptop, tablet, or smartphone.
The evidence on what drives viewing is
-
the authors aim to answer Research Ques-
tion 1 as well as possible using the existing
evidence, but they also recommend areas
they document the behavior they seek to
explain. Using Nielsen data, they show
how total U.S. television and video view-
ing has evolved over the last 25 years.
In the second section, they review the
literature on the psychological reasons
why people watch so much, conclud-
ing that television and video viewing is
especially good at helping them relax
and escape—that is, avoid thinking about
other things. This conclusion leads to two
other research questions:
RQ2: Why is watching television and
video so good at helping people
relax?
RQ3: Why is watching television and
video so good at helping people
escape?
In the third part of this article, the
authors address Research Questions 2 and
3 by drawing on the results of lab-based
studies of people’s responses (electro-
encephalography (EEG) measures and
secondary-task reaction times) during
viewing. They then summarize and dis-
cuss the results as well as their possible
implications, their limitations, and some
areas for further research.
HOW TOTAL TELEVISION AND VIDEO
VIEWING EVOLVED FROM 1992 TO 2017
U.S. adult (age 18 or older) in a television
household watched 34.9 hours per week
of television and video—just less than
live television. The other 5 percent used
a VCR—either time-shifted television or
bought or rented video tapes.
Since that time, terrestrial, cable, and
satellite television have gone digital,
-
home. DVRs, DVDs, and Blu-ray disks
have replaced VCRs, and the Internet
has brought many new ways of watch-
ing online, anywhere and anytime.
of 2017, total viewing among U.S. adults
18 and older in television households had
increased by 17.5 percent, to an average of
41.0 hours per week—nearly six hours per
day (See Table 1).
The 2017 data are from a Nielsen Media
Research custom analysis drawing on
its national people-meter panel (12,600
households);
the viewing of actively tagged and
measured online page views and video
streams by its National Online panel
(more than 180,000 panelists); and
video viewing by its Electronic Mobile
Measurement passive-metering panel,
with 9,000 smartphone and 1,300 tablet
panelists (Nielsen Media Research, 2017).
The online viewing data are for sites
and apps whose main role is video dis-
and so forth. It excludes video viewing
on other sites or apps (e.g., Facebook) and
therefore likely slightly underestimates
total online viewing.
Despite much talk of the death of tradi-
tional television, 84 percent of this view-
ing was still of so-called “linear” broadcast
programs on a television set, either live (74
percent) or time shifted with a DVR (10 per-
cent). When the authors added in the view-
viewing was 35.1 hours per week—virtu-
ally unchanged from 1992, when all view-
in total viewing was driven by online con-
sumption through smart television sets;
television-connected online devices, such
as Roku, Chromecast, Amazon Fire, and
video-game consoles used to watch televi-
sion (about one-third of total video-game
console use); and other online devices (PCs,
laptops, tablets, and smartphones).
Of all viewing, 92 percent was on a tele-
-
ing experience in terms of screen size and
other factors. Much of the other 8 percent,
on other devices, likely is incremental
rather than a substitute for viewing on a
television. For instance, smartphone view-
ing during the daily commute may replace
reading or listening to music.
Demographic Changes and the Increase
In Online-Only Homes
Bear in mind that these figures might
overstate the increase in viewing among
all U.S. adults of a given age because of
June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 3
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO? THEARF.ORG
demographic changes (more heavy-viewing
older people) and the increase in people liv-
ing in online-only homes with no television
set, who likely watch less, on average, than
those in television households (See Table
1). The aging population has increased the
proportion of heavy-viewing older people.
Among working-age adults in the narrower
age range 35–54 years, changes in the per-
centage age distribution should be much
viewing were 33.3 hours per week in 1992
and 38.8 hours per week in 2017 (See Table
2)—an almost identical 16.5 percent increase
as for all adults 18 and older in television
households. Demographic changes there-
long-term increase in viewing (as depicted
in Table 1).
The proportion of U.S. adults 18 and older
living in television households did decrease
between 1992 and 2017, but only margin-
ally—from about 98 percent to just under
97 percent (Nielsen Media Research, 2017).
Even if one assumed zero online viewing by
those living without a television—clearly an
underestimate—the impact on the increase
in average viewing across the whole adult
population would be minimal.
Media Usage by Millennials
increased total viewing is younger adults,
millennials, whose media usage is chang-
adults 18–34 years old in television house-
holds watched an average of 30.2 hours per
week (4.3 hours per day). The equivalent
hours per week, a 3.6 percent reduction
(See Table 3). Viewing of live television
within this age group was down dramati-
percent), but the increase in other viewing,
mainly online, made up for most of this
reduction in traditional viewing.
The proportion of 18–34-year-olds liv-
ing in television households also has
fallen more than for all adults 18 and
older, from about 98 percent in 1992
to 94.3 percent in 2017 (Nielsen Media
Research, 2017). The authors have no
data on the viewing of the 5.7 percent of
18–34-year-olds now living in nontelevi-
sion homes and so cannot quantify the
impact of this change on average viewing
among all U.S. 18–34-year-olds. At most,
however, this information would reduce
average viewing by only about 3.7 percent
3.6 percent reduction in viewing by those
living in television households.
Overall, 18–34-year-olds’ viewing dif-
fers markedly from and is changing much
faster than that of older adults, with much
less live and much more online viewing.
Millennials still watch television and video
for more than four hours per day, how-
ever—almost as much as those in the same
age range 25 years earlier—and the major-
No Change in Live
And Time-Shifted TV Viewing
In summary, U.S. adults watch television
hours per day—around 30 percent of their
waking hours and at least 15 percent more
-
ing on a television screen (live and time-
shifted television and prerecorded tapes
or disks) has been virtually unchanged
adults and still accounts for more than 85
percent of their viewing. Even younger
adults (ages 18–34) still watch more than
four hours per day, only marginally less
than 25 years ago, although more than one-
third of this is now online.
One factor driving television’s continu-
ing popularity is its low cost, especially
at the margin. Almost everyone has one
or more television sets, with or without a
TABLE 1
Total Viewing (Average Hours per Week): U.S. Adults
18 Years and Older in Television Households
Average Hours % of Viewing
Type of Viewing 1992 (Q1) 2017 (Q1) 1992 (Q1) 2017 (Q1)
Offline
Live television 33.2 30.3 95 74
Time-shifted television (VCR/DVR) 0.9 4.0 3 10
Prerecorded (VCR/DVD/Blu-ray) 0.8 0.8 2 2
All offline television and video 34.9 35.1 100 86
Online
Television-connected online devices 2.6 6
Other online devices 3.3 8
All online television and video 5.9 14
Total 34.9 41.0 100 100
Note: Data are from Nielsen Media Research (2017). Q = quarter.
4 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
subscription, or access to online television
television. The marginal cost of most view-
ing is therefore close to zero. The same is
true, however, of radio listening, most
recreational Internet use, and many other
leisure activities, although some, such as
eating out or going to a movie, cost more.
The question therefore is: What are the
psychological needs that people meet by
watching television and video so much
more than by engaging in other low-cost
leisure activities? The second section
reviews the evidence on this question.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS WHY
PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION
AND VIDEO
Two complementary media-research
strands provide insights into why—apart
from its low marginal cost—people watch
so much television and video:
Survey-based uses and gratifications
theory (UGT) studies that directly ask
respondents about the motivations
behind their media usage, and
studies of viewing behavior and related
-
pret the results as implying certain
underlying motivations.
UGT Studies
UGT studies represent a large body of
work that started in the 1940s (Blumler
in research collections and graduate text-
books (Bryant, Thompson, and Finklea,
These studies explore people’s stated
motivations for their media choices. Ini-
tially, researchers treated these as active
and deliberate but, by the mid-1980s, it
was generally accepted that everyday
strongly by habits and routines (“well-
practiced behaviors that recur in constant
contexts”; Ouellette and Wood, 1998,
p. 54). One author (Rubin, 1984) distin-
guished between habitual (“ritualized”)
and intentional (“instrumental”) televi-
sion viewing. Although the UGT perspec-
tive implies some active choice (whether
to watch and what to watch), this usually
happens within viewers’ regular habits
and routines, plus situational factors, such
as other household members’ preferences.
A 1974 study (Greenberg, 1974) elicited
27 potential motivations for television
consumption. Later work (Rubin, 1983)
reduced these to nine a priori factors, listed
in order of the average respondent agree-
point scale:
Entertainment (e.g., “Because it entertains
me”): 3.71
Relaxation (e.g., “Because it relaxes me”):
3.25
Pass time (e.g., “When I have nothing bet-
ter to do”): 2.89
Information (e.g., “Because it helps me
learn things about myself and others”):
2.71
Habit (e.g., “Because I like to watch”): 2.68
Companionship (e.g., “When there is no
one else to talk to or be with”): 2.45
Escape (e.g., “So I can forget about school
or other things”): 2.41
Social interaction (e.g., “So I can be with
other family members or friends who are
watching”): 2.39
Arousal (e.g., “Because it’s exciting”):
2.29.
The Companionship factor relates to
vicarious (“parasocial”) relationships with
people on screen, such as soap characters
(Rubin, 1983). The items used to measure
real-world social interaction did not form
a reliable factor, nor was companionship
substantially associated with television
usage, which suggests that companionship
and social interaction are not major drivers
of most people’s viewing.
More recent UGT studies have identi-
TABLE 2
Total Viewing (Average Hours per Week): U.S. Adults
35–54 Years in Television Households
Average Hours % of Viewing
Type of Viewing 1992 (Q1) 2017 (Q1) 1992 (Q1) 2017 (Q1)
Offline
Live television 31.4 27.7 94 71
Time-shifted television (VCR/DVR) 1.0 4.4 3 11
Prerecorded (VCR/DVD/Blu-ray) 0.9 0.8 3 2
All offline television and video 33.3 32.9 100 85
Online
Online television-connected devices 2.6 7
Other online devices 3.3 8
All online television and video 5.9 15
Total 33.3 38.8 100 100
Note: Data are from Nielsen Media Research (2017). Q = quarter.
June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 5
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO? THEARF.ORG
enjoyment, information-seeking, and
relaxation/escape (Courtois, Mechant,
De Marez, and Verleye, 2009; Kaufmann,
Buckner, and Ledbetter, 2017; Krause,
North, and Heritage, 2014; Ledbetter,
Taylor, and Mazer, 2016; Whiting and
Williams, 2013). Of course, these are not
mutually exclusive: A program can be
both enjoyable and informative while
simultaneously helping the viewer relax
and escape.
As with all surveys asking people to
explain their behavior, researchers must
interpret UGT data with caution (Zillmann,
some cognitive dissonance (Festinger,
1957) and self-presentation bias (Baumeis-
-
tional study of screen use in 2009 found
similar biases: Respondents’ self-reports
greatly overstated their use of new media,
such as online—especially mobile—video
traditional media (Council for Research
Excellence, 2009). Similarly, one might
expect UGT data to overstate respondents’
rational and socially acceptable viewing
motivations (learning, information, and
perhaps entertainment) and understate
those suggesting a less positive self-image
(out of habit or to pass the time, for escape,
and for vicarious companionship).
An emerging issue is the extent to which
television. It has been argued that the pas-
sive audience has been replaced by active
users whose viewing is more instrumental
and less habitual (Ruggiero, 2000; Shade,
Limperos, 2013). The initial evidence,
however, suggests that online viewing is
still largely driven by traditional uses and
-
ation (Steiner and Xu, 2018) and has
been explained through traditional
television-addiction theory (Schweidel
and Moe, 2016).
People watch short-form YouTube
videos for entertainment and escape
(Haridakis and Hanson, 2009; Shao,
2009), except when they are clearly
goal directed, such as when looking for
health information (Park and Goering,
2016).
Viewers at home choose to watch on
other online devices when someone else
is using the main television set; a par-
ticular show is not available on televi-
sion; or they are watching away from
the main living room, such as in bed.
Otherwise, they prefer to watch on the
big screen, especially for movies and
sport (Nguyen, Bellman, Beal, Nguyen-
Tsoutouras, et al., 2018).
When viewers migrate to or multitask
with another medium, this is usually to
access content directly related to the pro-
gram they are watching. The main moti-
vations are the same as those driving
television viewing (Shade et al., 2015).
Overall, UGT studies suggest that the
main motivations for watching television
and video are individual, despite also
home: to relax (pass the time and be enter-
tained, often as part of a routine), escape
from the rest of life, learn about things, and
keep in touch with what is going on. Other
drivers may be viewers’ needs for real or
vicarious companionship and social inter-
action and for excitement.
Interpreting Audience Behaviors
And Attitudes
Almost 40 years ago, a pioneering study
of people’s real-time activities and feel-
ings used a pager to prompt 104 factory
workers at random intervals during their
waking hours at home to record what they
were doing and feeling at that moment
(Csikszentmihalyi and Kubey, 1981).
TABLE 3
Total Viewing (Average Hours per Week): U.S. Adults
18–34 Years in Television Households
Average Hours % of Viewing
Type of Viewing 1992 (Q1) 2017 (Q1) 1992 (Q1) 2017 (Q1)
Offline
Live television 28.1 16.1 94 55
Time-shifted television (VCR/DVR) 1.1 2.4 3 8
Prerecorded (VCR/DVD/Blu-ray) 1.0 0.7 3 2
All offline television and video 30.2 19.2 100 66
Online
Online television-connected devices 4.4 15
Other online devices 5.5 19
All online television and video 9.9 34
Total 30.2 29.1 100 100
Note: Data are from Nielsen Media Research (2017). Q = quarter.
6 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
Typical activities included working, eat-
ing, reading, and watching television. The
subjective responses suggested that tele-
vision viewing was “a relatively unchal-
investment and consistently tied to feel-
ings of relaxation, passivity and drowsi-
ness [that] may frequently be chosen for
the very reason that it is unchallenging,
relaxing and relatively uninvolving” (Csik-
szentmihalyi and Kubey, 1981, p. 317). In
the researchers’ view, even with the advent
of new, more interactive technology, much
“these same needs for escape and relax-
ation” (p. 326).
Separately, in the 1970s and 1980s,
another group established several empiri-
total television viewing, audience duplica-
tion between programs within and between
genres and channels, repeat viewing of dif-
ferent episodes of the same program, and
channel reach and average hours per viewer
(Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1988; Goodhardt,
Ehrenberg, and Collins, 1975). Twenty years
program ratings as a result of channel pro-
might have been stable over time, at least
until the 2000s (Sharp, Beal, and Collins,
2009). One study (Barwise and Ehrenberg,
1988) also found a two-way relationship
between what people watched and how
much they liked what they watched (how
“interesting and/or enjoyable” viewers of
each program found it). For the general run
of entertainment shows, on average, view-
ers of popular programs liked the programs
somewhat more than viewers of less popu-
with the well-established double jeopardy
only are chosen by more people in a given
time period but also are chosen more often
and liked more by those who choose them
(Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, and Barwise, 1990;
McPhee, 1963).
More relevant to the current study was
-
tionally demanding programs, with more
viewers saying such programs “made
them think” than said they “helped them
relax” (Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1988).
Other things being equal (channel and
time of day), these more demanding pro-
grams tended to have smaller audiences
than average but somewhat higher appre-
ciation scores for a given audience size—a
partial exception to the double jeopardy
that “the audience of a demanding pro-
gram tends to exclude those people who
-
thing easier to watch on another channel”
(Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1988, p. 54).
The suggestion that viewers avoid these
more demanding programs unless they
or enjoyable reinforces the idea that most
viewing is about relaxing and passing
the time without being “made to think”
too much.
Conclusions
Taken together, these results suggest
that television and video viewing appear
to be especially good at helping people
relax (i.e., enjoyably pass the time with-
i.e., taking
to the two further questions underlying
Research Question 1:
RQ2: Why is watching television and
video so good at helping people
relax?
RQ3: Why is watching television and
video so good at helping people
escape?
As already noted, much viewing is
habitual (Ouellette and Wood, 1998).
Viewers’ automatic psychophysiologi-
cal responses to it therefore may provide
answers to these questions, as now dis-
cussed in the following section.
EVIDENCE FROM LAB-BASED STUDIES
Theoretical Background
Much of the lab-based research on psy-
chophysiological responses to media uses
the theoretical framework of the Limited
Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated
Message Processing (Lang, 2000, 2017).
This model assumes the following:
People are information processors: Dur-
ing media consumption, they simul-
taneously encode a proportion of the
-
tion, including media content; store a
proportion of the encoded information,
linking it with old information in long-
term memory; and retrieve a proportion
of previously stored information (e.g., to
make plot connections).
Most of this processing is automatic (i.e.,
fast, involuntary, and unconscious),
although some is controlled consciously
People have limited information-
processing capacity, partly depending
on the extent to which they are alert and
concentrating second by second.
The nature of “motivated mediated
-
-
tent. For instance, reading a magazine is
largely a self-paced activity, requiring at
-
wanders or is switched elsewhere, content
processing stops.
In contrast, television viewing (once the
set is turned on and a program selected)
June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 7
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO? THEARF.ORG
is mainly stimulus driven—controlled and
images and sounds. These automatically
-
cially if they include, e.g., movement and
sudden changes) because, perceptually,
they resemble real life. Simply encoding
-
ity, reducing the residual capacity avail-
able for storage and retrieval. This is why
what they have watched, even imme-
diately afterward. With this theoretical
background, what is the evidence from
lab-based studies on Research Question 2:
"Why is watching television and video so
good at helping people relax?"
Evidence on Research Question 2:
Brain-Wave Activity in EEG Studies
One indicator of people’s mental state is
-
quencies, measured with an EEG. Low-
frequency alpha waves dominate when
people are awake with their eyes closed,
indicating a relaxed mental state. Higher
frequency beta waves dominate when the
eyes are open, indicating active informa-
tion processing (Karbowski, 2002; Reeves
et al., 1985).
The strongest evidence on Research
Question 2 comes from EEG studies that
compared the same participants’ brain
waves during television viewing and other
in sampling, experimental conditions, and
literature review found four such within-
subject studies. Three were from 1980 or
earlier; studies since then have reported
second-by-second EEG measures rather
than a single summary number (e.g.,
Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, and Choro-
manska, 2009; Rothschild et al., 1986).
An exploratory study found that active
beta waves predominated during reading
and relaxed alpha waves predominated
during television viewing (Krugman,
1971). That study, however, was based on
only one participant viewing one maga-
zine advertisement (once) and three tele-
vision advertisements (three exposures
each). A recent direct replication (Daugh-
also with only one participant, found that
relaxed, slower waves again dominated
during each viewing of each television
commercial, although the results for the
single print exposure did not replicate the
previous study’s (Krugman, 1971) results.
The other two within-subject studies,
again looking at advertisements, were
more robust, with bigger samples and
observations from both the left and the
right brain hemispheres (See Table 4). Both,
like the original study (Krugman, 1971),
found a lower percentage of beta waves
during television viewing than during
reading, similarly suggesting that watch-
ing television is more relaxing. When the
current authors combined these results
using Cohen’s d, which normalizes the
dependent variables using their standard
Zp < .001).
The limited but consistent EEG evidence
on Research Question 2 confirms that
watching television and video induces a
relatively high proportion of alpha waves.
The amount of brain activity is more than
in pure wakeful relaxation with the eyes
closed or looking at a blank screen, and
prolonged viewing does not send people
to sleep unless they are already very tired
(Chen, Li, Wu, Wang, et al., 2013)—if it did,
they could not watch for nearly six hours a
day (See Table 1). Instead, the proportions
of alpha and beta waves rise and fall some-
what in response to changing content on
the screen but with no overall trend.
The previous section also highlighted
“escape” as an important motivation for
television viewing. What is the evidence
from lab-based studies on Research Ques-
tion 3, “Why is watching television and
video so good at helping people escape?”
Evidence on Research Question 3:
Secondary Task Reaction Times (STRTs)
The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated
Mediated Message Processing assumes
that television viewing automatically con-
amount of unused capacity available for
other tasks can be measured by STRTs (e.g.,
response to a randomly occurring cue, e.g.,
a sound; Thorson, Reeves, and Schleuder,
1985). As more capacity is used to process
more complex video content (the primary
task), less is available for the secondary
task, which increases the STRT (Lang
and Basil, 1998). Beyond a certain point,
however, the primary content becomes
-
TABLE 4
Beta-Wave Activity (Television versus Reading)
Article NSite Television Reading d
Weinstein, Appel, and
Weinstein (1980)
30 Left 54.5% 63.7% −0.68
Right 54.8% 62.0% −0.63
Walker (1980) 18 Left 584.4 621.9 −0.25
Right 587.7 638.8 −0.35
Weighted average 48 −0.52
8 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
diverts to the easier secondary task, and
STRTs become very fast (Lang, 2017; Lang,
Bradley, Park, Shin, et al., 2006; Lang, Park,
Sanders-Jackson, Wilson, et al., 2007).
The authors explored Research Ques-
tion 3 using a meta-analysis of previous
research on whether watching television
and video leads to longer STRTs, con-
leaving less capacity for thinking about
other things—including viewers’ worries.
A literature review returned 15 studies
(See Table 5). All were lab studies with
student participants and video or audio
messages—mostly commercials—as the
stimuli. Most were from 1999 or earlier,
because more recent research has focused
on the second-by-second impact of vary-
ing video content rather than on whether
watching television and video in general
drains cognitive resources. STRTs also are
presented for simple tasks, such as press-
no distractions (See Table 5).
A meta-analysis typically controls for
sample-weighted average. A homogeneity
15 studies (p < .001), however, so a random-
STRTs were significantly faster for the
simple tasks than for watching television
(p < .05), even when the authors ignored the
outlying study (Lang, Geiger, Strickwerda,
and Sumner, 1993). This suggests that tele-
vision viewing does indeed drain cognitive
resources more than simple tasks, such as
Radio’s mean STRT was also less than
the average for television viewing, which
suggests that listening to radio, even as a
primary task, may be slightly less men-
tally absorbing than watching television.
With only three radio studies, however,
-
cant. More important is the fact that, as
discussed shortly, most real-world radio
listening is a secondary activity, which
reduces the practical relevance of lab stud-
ies that treat it as the primary one.
An earlier study found that listening
to talk radio during driving had no sig-
times (PTRTs), even though participants
were told to concentrate on the message in
preparation for some questions on it (Col-
let, Clarion, Morel, Chapon, et al., 2009). In
contrast, conducting a conversation does
increase PTRTs, slightly more for talk-
ing on a hands-free phone than for in-car
conversations (Caird, Willness, Steel, and
Scialfa, 2008; Collet et al., 2009).
These results suggest that, in answer to
Research Question 3, watching television
and video is good at helping people escape
from their worries because it literally takes
cognitive capacity, leaving less residual
capacity for thinking about their problems.
DISCUSSION
on average, U.S. adults watch almost six
hours per day of television and video, at
least 15 percent more than 25 years ago.
to the growing proportion of either heavy-
viewing older people or those in online-
only homes. The authors next reviewed
previous media research, concluding that
two of the main reasons why people watch
so much television and video are that it is
especially good at helping them relax and
escape. These are not the only motiva-
tions, however, and television and video
viewing is also mediated by habits and
situational factors. The next section then
found evidence of two corresponding psy-
television and video may help viewers
relax by automatically inducing a pleas-
a relatively high incidence of alpha waves
(Research Question 2), and escape, by lit-
reflected in longer STRTs (Research
Question 3).
When, Where, and How People
Consume Television versus Radio
These conclusions are consistent with the
people consume television and radio, sug-
gesting that they meet complementary
needs:
When: The daily weekday pattern of
television viewing, dominated by the
from—and largely complements—the
daily pattern of radio listening. The
peaks around 7 a.m.–8 a.m., at midday,
and in the mid- to late afternoon. It then
declines rapidly from around 5 p.m. as
television viewing builds up (Nielsen
Media Research, 2014).
Where: More than 95 percent of televi-
sion and video viewing still happens at
home, mostly on the main living room
television (Nielsen Media Research,
2018a; adults 18–49 years old). In con-
trast, more than 70 percent of radio
listening happens out of the home,
mostly in cars and work spaces. It rises
to 77 percent during weekday working
hours (i.e., 6 a.m.–7 p.m.; Nielsen Media
Research, 2018b; adults 18–64 years old).
How: Most television viewing is a pri-
mary activity because it requires viewers
to watch and reduces cognitive perfor-
mance on other activities. In contrast, 90
percent of radio listening is a secondary
activity (Link, 2009, p. 33).
In short, people mostly listen to the
radio as background while they drive, do
repetitive work, or eat, without reducing
their performance of the primary task. In
contrast, they usually watch television as
June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 9
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO? THEARF.ORG
a primary activity, mainly to unwind after
the day’s work. People use radio mostly
things they are not doing and would prefer
not to think about.
Evolution, Not Revolution
The explosion in television and video dis-
tribution technologies since the 1970s has
the changes so far have been evolution-
ary, not revolutionary. More than half of
even millennials’ viewing is still of live
television on a television set, although
they also watch in many other ways,
mainly online (See Table 3). Recent UGT
studies also suggest evolution, not revo-
lution, with online viewing still largely
-
tions and habits (see “The Psychological
Reasons Why People Watch So Much Tele-
vision and Video” section).
At every point, however, some commen-
tators have argued that viewing is under-
going or about to undergo revolutionary
change:
With the growth of multichannel televi-
sion in the 1970s, one author (Wenham,
1982) wrote of the supposedly emerg-
ing “Third Age of Broadcasting” (after
radio and television). This author envi-
sioned the mass television audience
fragmenting into many narrowcast
audiences, akin to the readerships of
highly targeted print media (implying
that some small channels would simi-
larly enjoy a premium cost per thousand
people).
By the 1980s, many thought VCRs would
revolutionize television by liberating
viewers from the tyranny of the sched-
ule (Gelman, Huck, Leslie et al., 1984)
In 1992, however, with 75 percent VCR
penetration (Brown, 2006), live televi-
sion still accounted for 95 percent of
viewing and time shifting for only 3
percent (See Table 1).
With the Internet, one author went
even further, apocalyptically writing,
TABLE 5
Secondary Task Reaction Times (Milliseconds) for Television, Radio, and Simple Tasks
Article NTelevision Radio Simple
Lang, Geiger, Strickwerda, and Sumner (1993) 36 1,196
Lang, Bolls, Potter, and Kawahara (1999) 126 823
Lang, Dhillon, and Dong (1995) 48 720
Lang, Newhagen, and Reeves (1996) 135 696
Thorson, Reeves, and Schleuder (1985) television 20 440
Miller and Leshner (2007) 66 309
Leshner and Cheng (2009) 72 298
Lang, Gao, Potter, Lee, et al. (2015) 95 590
Bolls and Lang (2003) 46 589
Thorson, Reeves, and Schleuder (1985) audio 20 413
Filion, Dawson, Schell, and Hazlett (1991) 93 559
Van Den Hout, Engelhard, Smeets, Hornsveld, et al. (2010) 32 400
Anderson (1999) 24 398
Verhaeghen, Steitz, Sliwinski, and Cerella (2003) 61 366
Troyer, Winocur, Craik, and Moscovitch (2009) 53 278
Total N927
Sample-weighted average 648 568 424
Modeled average 639 548 406
10 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
“Television is a tool of tyrants. Its over-
throw is at hand” (Gilder, 1990, p. 49).
Similarly, Nicholas Negroponte, head
of the MIT Media Lab, wrote, “What
will happen to broadcast television
i.e., 1995–2000]
comprehend” (Negroponte, 1995, p.
54). In Negroponte’s vision, by the
early 2000s most viewing would be
online, personalized, asynchronous,
and interactive.
The actual pace and extent of change
have been consistently much less than in
these visions. Of U.S. adult viewing, 86
percent was still live on a television set
(See Table 1).
Some commentators still foresee the
imminent death of traditional television
(Strangelove, 2015), but most now paint a
2014; Wolk, 2015). One author, however,
positively exults in the “unexpected tri-
umph of old media in the digital age”
people say that “television” has become
a meaningless term: Even tech giants
now use “TV” in their product and ser-
vice branding, as in Apple TV, Google’s
Android TV and YouTube TV, and Face-
book’s Instagram TV.
Online viewing is growing relentlessly,
however, and online players such as Net-
-
lions in original television production. No
to see a dramatic acceleration in the rate
of change in television and video produc-
tion, distribution, and consumption. What
Possible Implications for the Future
Evolution of Viewing and Advertising
First, total television and video consump-
tion seems most unlikely to fall. Over
the last 25 years, it has dropped by only
an hour a week even for busy millenni-
viewers aged 35 and older. In another
25 years (2044), today’s 15-year-olds—
so-called “digital natives”—will be 40
years old. They surely will have much
the same needs for relaxation and escape
and much the same psychophysiology as
today’s 40-year-olds. Watching television
and video (most likely online) almost cer-
tainly still will be the main way they meet
these needs. New technology, reinforced
by a continuously aging population, if
anything, will further increase total view-
ing by making it even more immersive
(picture and sound quality, perhaps with
augmented reality) and ubiquitous. Self-
driving cars, for example, may lead to in-
car video replacing in-car audio.
Second, unlike the technology, the pat-
tern of people’s everyday lives and the
underlying economics of television (Bar-
wise and Picard, 2012) seem unlikely to
change dramatically. Despite the continu-
ing likely growth of out-of-home view-
ing—from a very low base—most of the
whom people watch will change rather
the Internet plus cheap video cameras
and editing would “democratize” televi-
sion (Gilder, 1990; Levine, Locke, Searls,
and Weinberger, 2000; Negroponte,
1995), for instance, has proved greatly
overstated: Vloggers, cat videos, and the
like still account for only a small—albeit
growing—proportion of viewing. The
technology companies’ huge investment
in premium, professionally produced
television content—especially drama—
seems likely to increase its production
and consumption.
What is changing more, however, is
how television and video content is reach-
ing people, especially younger viewers
(See Table 3). The shift to online deliv-
ery even may accelerate with 5G mobile
broadband and continuing online rev-
enue growth, generating further funding
for premium online-only content. The
challenge for advertisers therefore is not
that people will watch less television and
video but that their viewing likely will
be even more fragmented and have more
opportunities for advertisement avoid-
ance, including through commercial-free
online services, especially among valuable
upscale, younger audiences.
The most urgent need is for technology
to measure and optimize a combination of
traditional television, targeted television,
and online video in this challenging envi-
ronment, maximizing reach and minimiz-
ing advertisement avoidance. An ad hoc
2017 U.K. study found that allocating 20
percent of the television budget to broad-
casters’ video-on-demand (VoD) services
increased reach among 16–34-year-olds to
the same level as with a 100 percent tradi-
tional television campaign with the same
budget in 2007 (Institute of Practitio-
ners in Advertising, 2017). There remain
significant measurement challenges,
To minimize advertisement avoidance, companies
should aim to entertain viewers with television and
video advertising creative content, rather than
trying to communicate complex information.
June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 11
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO? THEARF.ORG
however, such as ensuring that VoD
viewability matches that of traditional
television (Nelson-Field and Riebe, 2018).
Advertisers’ concerns around viewabil-
ity, third-party measurement, agency
contract transparency, advertising fraud,
and brand safety have been reviewed
well (Pritchard, 2017). As well as address-
ing these concerns, advertisers and their
agencies also need programmatic buying
systems that can optimize campaign reach
and frequency rather than just maximiz-
ing the number of exposures within the
target market.
Limitations and Areas
For Further Research
The evidence reviewed here paints a very
consistent picture, and the explanatory
results in the sections on evidence from
-
cant (p < .001 for television versus read-
ing on Research Question 2, and p < .05 for
television versus simple tasks on Research
Question 3). Much of this evidence, how-
ever, is from many years ago, before the
growth of online viewing, and none is
UGT studies rely on self-reports, with
their inherent limitations.
The results of one key article were based
-
ple (104 workers at the same plant; Csik-
szentmihalyi and Kubey, 1981).
The conclusions of another team of
of the reasons underlying the observed
results, rather than direct evidence (Bar-
wise and Ehrenberg, 1988).
The lab studies mainly used student
participants in lab conditions, which
raises questions about how well the
results generalize.
The number of relevant lab studies,
especially within-subject studies, is
limited.
There may be other explanations for
the differences between the every-
day patterns of television and radio
consumption.
this article’s conclusions, especially
through more within-subject lab studies
addressing Research Questions 2 and 3,
ideally in the same (EEG + STRT) study.
Because people watch mainly to relax and
escape, it seems likely that the way they
process television and video advertise-
-
tion, as researchers have conjectured for
more than 50 years (Heath, 2000; Krug-
man, 1965; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986).
This suggests that, to minimize advertise-
ment avoidance, companies should aim
to entertain viewers with television and
video advertising creative content, further
helping them relax and escape, rather than
trying to communicate complex informa-
tion. The ideal should be to match the
audience’s need state seamlessly.
Other lab-based research is starting to
reveal these processes at a deeper neuro-
physiological level (Varan, Lang, Barwise,
Weber, et al., 2015). The preliminary evi-
dence is that advertisement avoidance is
-
phones than on television sets (Nguyen et
al., 2018). Much more research is needed,
however, especially on the newer types of
viewing.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Patrick Barwise is emeritus professor of management and
marketing at London Business School. His books include
Television and Its Audience, with Andrew Ehrenberg
(Sage, 1988); Simply Better, winner of the 2005 Berry–
AMA Book Prize, with Sean Meehan (Harvard Business
School, 2004); and The 12 Powers of a Marketing
Leader, with Thomas Barta (McGraw Hill, 2016). He also
has published in leading journals such as the Journal of
Marketing and Journal of Consumer Research.
steven Bellman is a research professor at the
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute. His research on media and
advertising responses is funded by the Beyond:30
project, sponsors of which include television networks
and advertisers worldwide. His research has appeared
in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Journal of Advertising Research
(JAR) among others, and he is on the editorial
boards of the Journal of Advertising, JAR, and Journal of
Interactive Marketing.
virginia Beal is a senior marketing scientist at the
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute. Her research focuses on
advertising effectiveness, media use, and scheduling
and has been published in the Journal of Advertising
Research (JAR), Journal of Business Research, and
International Journal of Advertising. She is on the
editorial board of JAR and presents internationally to
executives in house and at conferences.
REFERENCES
of Encoding and Retrieval in Younger and
Older Adults: 2. Evidence from Secondary Task
Reaction Time Distributions.” Psychology and
Aging 14, 4 (1999): 645–655.
and Television and
Its Audience. London: Sage, 1988.
and (2012). “The
Economics of Television in a Digital World:
What Economics Tells Us for Future Policy
Debates.” Retrieved from the Reuters Institute
reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/
-
and “Self-
Presentation Theory: Self Construction and
Audience Pleasing.” In Theories of Group Behav-
ior, B. Mullen and G. S. Koch, Jr., eds. New
York: Springer, 1987.
12 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
and The Uses of
Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on
. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
1974.
and “I Saw It on the
Imagery Radio Advertisements.” Media Psy-
chology 5, 1 (2003): 33–55.
“Communication Technology
Timeline.” In Communication Technology Update,
10th ed., A. E. Grant and J. H. Meadows, eds.
Burlington, MA: Focal Press, 2006.
and
. Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press, 2012.
and C.
Cell Phones on Driver Performance.” Accident
Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008): 1282–1293.
. “EEG-
Based Detection and Evaluation of Fatigue
Caused by Watching 3DTV.” Displays 34, 2
(2013): 81–88.
Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum, 1988.
. “Physiological and Behavioural
Changes Associated to the Management of Sec-
ondary Tasks While Driving.” Applied Ergonom-
ics 40, 6 (2009): 1041–1046.
Video
Consumer Mapping Study. New York: Nielsen
Media Research, 2009.
and
Behavior of Online Adolescents.” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2009):
109–137.
and “Televi-
sion and the Rest of Life: A Systematic Compar-
ison of Subjective Experience.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 45, 3 (1981): 317–328.
and
“Measuring Consumer Neural
-
ing of Advertising: Revisiting Krugman.” Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing 52, 1–2 (2018): 182–198.
and
“Double Jeopardy Revisited.”
Journal of Marketing 54, 3 (1990): 82–91.
“Meta-Analysis in Advertising
Research.” Journal of Advertising 46, 1 (2017):
21–35.
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957.
and “The Relationship between
Skin Conductance Orienting and the Allocation
of Processing Resources.” Psychophysiology 28,
4 (1991): 410–424.
. “The
Video Revolution.” Newsweek, August 6, 1984,
50–57.
Life after Television: The Coming
Transformation of Media and American Life. Knox-
and
Viewing. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower, 1975.
-
sion Viewing and their Correlates for British
Children.” In The Uses of Mass Communication:
, J.
Sage, 1974.
and A
First Look at Communication Theory, 9th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
and “Social
Interaction and Co-Viewing with YouTube:
Blending Mass Communication Reception and
Social Connection.” Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media 53 (2009): 317–335.
“Low Involvement Processing:
A New Model of Brands and Advertising.”
International Journal of Advertising 19, 3 (2000):
287–298.
Touchpoints 2017. London: IPA, 2017.
“Hans Berger (1873–1941).”
Journal of Neurology 249, 8 (2002): 1130–1131.
and A. M.
“Having Fun on Facebook? Moth-
ers’ Enjoyment as a Moderator of Mental
Health and Facebook Use.” Health Communica-
tion 32, 8 (2017): 1014–1023.
and
-
book Music Listening Applications.” Computers
in Human Behavior 39 (2014): 71–77.
“The Impact of Television
Advertising: Learning without Involvement.”
Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (1965): 349–356.
“Brain Wave Measures of
Media Involvement.” Journal of Advertising
11, 1 (1971): 3–9.
“The Limited Capacity Model of
Mediated Message Processing.” Journal of Com-
munication 50, 1 (2000): 46–70.
“Limited Capacity Model of Moti-
vated Mediated Message Processing (LC4MP).”
In ,
June 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 13
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO? THEARF.ORG
eds. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
and “Attention,
Resource Allocation, and Communication
Research: What Do Secondary Task Reaction
Times Measure, Anyway?” Annals of the Inter-
national Communication Association 21, 1 (1998):
443–458.
and-
Arousing Content on the Information Process-
ing of Television Messages.” Journal of Broad-
casting & Electronic Media 43, 4 (1999): 451–475.
“Parsing the Resource Pie: Using STRTs
Media Psychology 8, 4 (2006): 369–394.
and “The
Television Viewers’ Cognitive Capacity and
Memory.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media 39 (1995): 313–327.
and J.
-
ing Capacity, and Memory.” Communication
20, 1 (1993): 4–29.
“Conceptualizing Audio Message Complexity
as Available Processing Resources.” Communi-
42, 6 (2015): 759–778.
and “Nega-
Capacity, and Memory.” Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media 40 (1996): 460–477.
“Cognition and Emo-
tion in TV Message Processing: How Valence,
Arousing Content, Structural Complexity, and
Cognitive Resources.” Media Psychology 10, 3
(2007): 317–338.
and J. P.
“Enjoyment Fosters Media Uses
Frequency and Determines Its Relational
Outcomes: Toward a Synthesis of Uses and
-
ity Theory.” Computers in Human Behavior 54
(2016): 149–157.
and
of Frame, Appeal, and Outcome Extremity
of Antismoking Messages on Cognitive Pro-
cessing.” Health Communication 24, 3 (2009):
219–227.
and-
The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of
Business as Usual. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Books, 2000.
Study. New York: Nielsen Media Research,
2009.
-
ized, 2nd ed. New York: New York University
Press, 2014.
2018–2020
. Cambridge, MA: Marketing
Science Institute, 2018.
Formal Theories of Mass Behav-
ior. New York: Free Press, 1963.
and “How Viewers
Process Live, Breaking, and Emotional Tele-
vision News.” Media Psychology 10, 1 (2007):
23–40.
Being Digital. New York:
Knopf, 1995.
and "How Advert-
Admap, September,
2018, 18–21. Retrieved from the WARC website:
. “Comparing Advertising
Avoidance across Television Devices” (working
paper). Adelaide, Australia: Ehrenberg-Bass
Institute for Marketing Science, 2018.
Listening Habits. New York: Nielsen, 2014.
Custom Analysis
. New
York, Nielsen, 2017.
OOH Fusion, Janu-
ary–December 2017. New York: Nielsen, 2018a.
2018. New York: Nielsen, 2018b.
and A.
“Analysis of Neurophysiologi-
cal Reactions to Advertising Stimuli by Means
of EEG and Galvanic Skin Response Measures.”
Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Econom-
ics 2, 1 (2009): 21–31.
and “Habit and
Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Pro-
cesses by Which Past Behavior Predicts Future
Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin 124, 1 (1998):
54–74.
and “The Health-
Motive, Cognitive Involvement, Online Activ-
ity, and Sense of Empowerment.” Journal of
Consumer Health on the Internet 20, 1–2 (2016):
52–70.
14 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2019
WHY DO PEOPLE WATCH SO MUCH TELEVISION AND VIDEO?
and Communica-
. New York: Springer, 1986.
and Psychophysi-
ological Measurement and Meaning: Cognitive and
Emotional Processing of Media. London: Rout-
ledge, 2012.
Media Transparency.” Paper presented at the
meeting of the Interactive Advertising Bureau,
Hollywood, FL, January 29, 2017.
.
Changes on Alpha Variation over Time.” Inter-
national Journal of Neuroscience 27, 3–4 (1985):
241–255.
. “EEG Activity and the Process-
ing of Television Commercials.” Communication
13, 2 (1986): 182–220.
-
and Motivations.” Journal of Broadcasting 27, 1
(1983): 37–51.
“Ritualized and Instrumental
Television Viewing.” Journal of Communication
34, 3 (1984): 67–77.
-
ory in the 21st Century.” Mass Communication
and Society 3, 1 (2000): 3–37.
and “Binge
Watching and Advertising.” Journal of Market-
ing 80, 5 (2016): 1–19.
and
-
tion: Investigating the Activities, Motivations,
and Predictors of Migration Behaviors Origi-
nating in Entertainment Television.” Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59, 2 (2015):
318–341.
“Understanding the Appeal of User-
-
spective.” 19, 1 (2009): 7–25.
and “Televi-
sion: Back to the Future.” Journal of Advertising
49, 2 (2009): 211–219.
and “Con-
trolled and Automatic Human Information
Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic
Psychologi-
84, 2 (1977): 127–190.
and “Binge-Watching
Streaming Video Viewers Challenge Tradi-
tional TV Research.” Convergence: The Inter-
Technologies (2018). Published online ahead of
and the Future of Television. Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto Press, 2015.
and “Uses and
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57, 4
(2013): 504–525.
and
-
vision.” 12, 4 (1985):
427–454.
and “Source Memory and
and Secondary Tasks.” Neuropsychology 13, 4
(2009): 467–474.
. “Counting
During Recall: Taxing of Working Memory and
Reduced Vividness and Emotionality of Nega-
tive Memories.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 24,
3 (2010): 303–311.
. “How Reliable Are Neuromarketers’ Mea-
Journal of
55, 2 (2015): 176–191.
and “Aging and Dual-Task Perfor-
mance: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychology and Aging
18, 3 (2003): 443–460.
“Changes in EEG Rhythms dur-
ing Television Viewing: Preliminary Compari-
sons with Reading and Other Tasks.” Perceptual
and Motor Skills 51, 1 (1980): 255–261.
and
“Brain-Activity Responses to Magazine and
Television Advertising.” Journal of Advertising
20, 3 (1980): 57–63.
The Third Age of Broadcasting.
London: Faber, 1982.
and “Why People
Approach.”
International Journal 16, 4 (2013): 362–369.
Television Is the New Television: The
Age. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2015.
Over the Top: How the Internet Is
(Slowly but Surely) Changing the Television Indus-
try
“The Experimental Explora-
-
ment.” In
Perspectives, K. Rosengren, L. Wenner, and P.
Palmgreen, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.
