THEORETICAL FRAME WORK
USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY: (Lazaisfeld and Stanbon (1944)
Uses
and gratification theory has provided a frame work for examining the
satisfaction of needs and interests through different forms of
communications media (Kartz, Blumler and Gvievitch, 1974). If two media
serve similar needs then they can act as functional alternatives.
However, if they are designed to serve different needs then they are
specialized. One type of medium they be preferred to another if it is
better at fulfilling certain needs such as entertainment or socializing
(Peise and Courtright, 1993). Uses and gratifications theory has been
employed in different forms of social communications because of the
goal-directed nature of communications behaviour (Rubin and Rubin,
1985). The motives at play, such as relaxation or the acquisition of
information can be quite different depending on the types of
communication media used such as the television or the internet
(Fergusion and Peise, 2000). Studies also found out that the motives for
being using a computer mediated communication (CMC) were different from
motives for using face-to-face communication was rated higher that the
computer mediated communication (CMC) for all motives, including social
ones like inclusion and affection.
Two forms of media may be so
different that they alter social uses and social communication. At least
in terms of romantic relationships, it has been suggested that
interaction on the internet are different from face-to-face
interactions. The anonymity afforded by the internet allows relationship
to proceed quickly to intimate levels because of the limitations of
other aspects of social contact (Merkle and Richardson, 2000). In some
studies, individuals have been found to communicate less frequently and
closely with internet partners than with non-internet partners. However,
the internet is rated as less useful than face-to-face communication
for maintaining social relationships.
Past research has employed uses
and gratifications theory to examine motives, interest and attitudes
behind face-to-face online communication (Ferguson and Persie, 2000).
Flahertl et al., 1998)/ the theory suggests that if individuals find
face-to-face communication and online communication useful to reach
similar goals, then they will use the two media similarly. One should
expect similar motives at work in the two forms of communication. If,
however the uses of communication over the internet were different form
those of face-to-face communication, then one could expect different
motives as a factor in the two forms of communication.
High
sociability and low shyness have been associated with increased
traditional social behaviour (Asendorpf and Wipers, 1998; Bruch et al.,
1989). Past research also indicates that high sociability would be
associated with increased internet social communication. The greater
anonymity provided by the internet suggests that, the motives maybe
somewhat different in the two forms of social communication. The
internet may also help reduce social anxiety experienced by shy
individuals. This effect may led to somewhat different patterns of use
in the two media for shy individuals. If this is the case, the motives
behind traditional and internet social communication maybe somewhat
different.
THEORY OF NEED AFFILIATION: Mcleiland (1958)
The
need for affiliation by David Mccelland (1958) he says. Describes a
person’s need to feel a sense of involvement and “belonging” within a
social group; according to Murray (1938), people with a high need for
affiliation require warm interpersonal relationships and approval from
those with whom they have regular contact. People who place high
emphasis on affiliation tend to be supportive team members, but may be
less effective in leadership positions.
A research done by Schactee
(1959) shows that fear that comes form anxiety increases the need for
the person to affiliate with others who are going thorough the same
situation or that could help them through the stressful event.
Individuals are motivated to find and create a specific amount of social
interactions. Each individuals desires a different amount of a need for
affiliation and they desire an optimal balance of time to their self
and time spent with others. This particular need concerns the desire to
be associated with specific people and groups, to have a greater sense
of belonging and place. It can play a role in a variety of human
interactions and in the formation of bonds and friendships.
Theory of social interaction: Hannah Humphrey
Social
interaction theory studies the ways that people engage with one
another. Scholars from many disciplines including anthropology,
sociology, psychology, and linguistic are interested in social
interaction and the patterns that can be found in such interactions.
According to Max Weber, social behaviour has two components. The first
is the action or the behaviour itself. The second is the meaning that
the ctor attaches to is or her behaviour. That meaning Weber refereed to
as orientation, is how a person perceives his behaviour in relationship
to other people. It is that knowledge of another who is affected that
makes an action or interaction social.
Another early contribution to
social interaction theory was Geiman- American Kurt Lewin, who developed
the concept of group dynamics. Lewin was concerned with the interaction
not just between individuals but between individuals and the groups
that they belong to. The main contribution of group dynamics to later
theories is that human behaviour results from the interaction between a
person and his or her environment. Lewing wrote this theory as a
mathematical equation, making behaviour equal to the function of
individuals and the environment.
Theories of personality
CARL JUNGS THEORY OF INTROVERSION AND EXTROVERSION (1933)
Carl
Jung (1933). According to his theory I am introvert is s person whose
interest is generally directed inward toward his own feelings and
thoughts, in constant to an extravert, who attention is directed towards
other people and the outside world. Conversely, Jung explains that a
person who is predominantly introverted tends to orient toward the
internal or subjective world, while extroversion refers to an outgoing,
social, accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation,
quickly make friends and often venture forth with careless confidence
into an unknown situation. He viewed introversion as signifying a
hesitating reflective, retering nature that keeps to itself, shrinks
from objects, always slightly in the defensive and prefer to hide behind
mistrustful scrutingy. (Jung, 1964). Jung explained that although a
person may be extraverted at time and introverted at some other times,
he cannot be both introverted and extraverted on the same occasion.
Eysenck: Introversion-Extraversion (1967)
Eysenck
(1967) formulated a theory, which emphasizes introversion-Extraversion
in terms of observed behaviour tendencies and presumed underlying
neurological states. At the behaviour level, the typical extrover6t is
sociable, needs to have people to talk to and does not like reading or
studying by himself (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968).