IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v51y2017i3d10.1007_s11135-016-0461-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do sociodemographic and structural similarities explain viewing pattern similarity by channel type? Insight from a network analytic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Sujin Choi

    (Kookmin University)

Abstract

This study explores audience polarization through a finer-grained approach by using network analysis of people-meter data. We examine how sociodemographic and structural similarities between viewers contribute to similarities in their television viewing patterns in general and by channel type. This study provides a systematic and comprehensive account of audience behavior by integrating sociodemographics, structural factors, and content types that have rarely been examined in a single integrated model. The findings suggest that structural similarities continue to be important even in the highly selective media environment. Although individuals’ latitudes of choice have increased with the multitude of channel options, choices are not scattered over hundreds of channels based on sociodemographic attributes. Certain channels are viewed almost solely by individuals in a specific demographic category; however, many other channels have viewers across gender, age, and occupational categories. De facto polarization due to the number of channels included in viewers’ subscriptions leads to actual polarization only for entertainment content. The findings relate to a broader thesis on the flow of individuals’ attention to certain types of content and the long-term concerns about the creation of cocoons of self-selected content. This study demonstrates how network analysis can contribute to examining audience behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Sujin Choi, 2017. "How do sociodemographic and structural similarities explain viewing pattern similarity by channel type? Insight from a network analytic approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1093-1112, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-016-0461-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-016-0461-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-016-0461-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-016-0461-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanham, Richard A., 2006. "The Economics of Attention," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226468822, January.
    2. Markus Prior, 2005. "News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 577-592, July.
    3. Thomas B. Ksiazek, 2011. "A Network Analytic Approach to Understanding Cross-Platform Audience Behavior," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 237-251, November.
    4. David Dekker & David Krackhardt & Tom Snijders, 2007. "Sensitivity of MRQAP Tests to Collinearity and Autocorrelation Conditions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 563-581, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oriol Barranco & Carlos Lozares & Dafne Muntanyola-Saura, 2019. "Heterophily in social groups formation: a social network analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 599-619, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Dezhong Duan & Qifan Xia, 2022. "From the United States to China? A trade perspective to reveal the structure and dynamics of global electronic‐telecommunications," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 823-847, June.
    3. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni Battista Ramello, 2018. "The market of academic attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 113-133, January.
    4. Dekker, Erwin, 2023. "Smith At 300: The Lure Of Poetry And Profit," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 184-186, June.
    5. de Oliveira Maciel, Cristiano & Netto, Raul Zanon Rocha, 2020. "Architectural agency in intra-organizational networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 489-497.
    6. Bernardo A. Huberman & Fang Wu, 2008. "The Economics Of Attention: Maximizing User Value In Information-Rich Environments," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(04), pages 487-496.
    7. Starling David Hunter & Henrik Bentzen & Jan Taug, 2020. "On the “missing link” between formal organization and informal social structure," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, December.
    8. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    9. Samuele Poy & Simone Schüller, 2016. "Internet and Voting in the Web 2.0 Era: Evidence from a Local Broadband Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 6129, CESifo.
    10. Cagé, Julia, 2017. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation: Evidence from French Local Newspapers and Elections, 1944," CEPR Discussion Papers 12198, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Julia Cagé, 2014. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03602440, HAL.
    12. John V. Duca & Jason L. Saving, 2016. "Income Inequality and Political Polarization: Time Series Evidence Over Nine Decades," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 62(3), pages 445-466, September.
    13. Donati, Dante, 2023. "Mobile Internet access and political outcomes: Evidence from South Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    14. Ruben Durante & Paolo Pinotti & Andrea Tesei, 2019. "The Political Legacy of Entertainment TV," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2497-2530, July.
    15. Stan Hok‐Wui Wong & Mathew Y. H. Wong, 2020. "“Distant Participation” and Youth Political Attitudes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1489-1512, July.
    16. Nina Czernich, 2012. "Broadband Internet and Political Participation: Evidence for G ermany," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 31-52, February.
    17. David K Levine, 2023. "True Myths," Levine's Working Paper Archive 11694000000000123, David K. Levine.
    18. Stefano Ghinoi & Riccardo Vita & Bodo Steiner & Alessandro Sinatra, 2024. "Family firm network strategies in regional clusters: evidence from Italy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 87-103, January.
    19. Vargas Meza Xanat & Ke Jiang & George A. Barnett & Han Woo Park, 2018. "International trade of GMO-related agricultural products," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 565-587, March.
    20. Lin Hu & Anqi Li & Ilya Segal, 2019. "The Politics of Personalized News Aggregation," Papers 1910.11405, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-016-0461-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.