Content uploaded by Hamza Shahab
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hamza Shahab on Aug 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contemporary Management Research
Pages 1-33, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2022
doi:10.7903/cmr.21583
A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda for
the Gratification Discrepancies Approach
Hamza Shahab
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Department of Management Sciences, University of Wah, Pakistan
hamzashahab@ymail.com
Ezlika Ghazali
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
ezlika@um.edu.my
Mozard Mohtar
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
mozardt@um.edu.my
ABSTRACT
Uses and gratifications theory helps in studying the underlying needs for using
media that lead to positive behavioral intention and satisfaction. One of its approaches is
gratification discrepancies (i.e., the difference between gratifications obtained and
gratifications sought [GO-GS]) helps to explore the gratifications of using media and the
results obtained after using media. The GO-GS approach provides an opportunity to collect
the data two times, both before and after the usage of media. Several researchers have
suggested this approach as a suitable method for investigating attitudinal change, beliefs,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Despite the importance of the GO-GS approach,
there is a lack of systematic literature review to summarize the developments in academic
literature related to GO-GS. Therefore, this review addresses this gap by assessing the
articles using the GO-GS approach published from 1979–2020. A research string was
developed using Boolean operators to search the literature. A total of 4,184 articles were
considered for the initial screening, but only 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. These
articles were critically analyzed, and seven main realms are proposed, grounded in
2 Contemporary Management Research
developments in the literature, such as research context, regions of research, media,
gratifications, consumer behavior, other theories or models, and different
conceptualizations to study gratification discrepancies.
Keywords: Gratifications sought and obtained (GO-GS), uses and gratifications theory
(U&G), systematic literature review (SLR), theory-based review.
INTRODUCTION
Uses and gratifications (U&G) theory is a widely used theory in consumer
technology and media contexts (Kamboj, 2020; Whiting & Williams, 2013), answering the
fundamental question of why people use them (Whiting & Williams, 2013). Katz et al.
(1974) provided in-depth details regarding the U&G theory, including key concepts,
theoretical background, and explained the three main sources of audience gratification: (i)
content of media, (ii) exposure to media, and (iii) social context. The reason for introducing
U&G theory was the lack of a theory dealing with the social and psychological needs of
users for using mass media (Ruggiero, 2000). Hence, Katz et al. (1974) proposed a theory
to understand the users’ needs and motivations for using mass media. Prior to U&G theory,
the literature predominantly focused on the effects of media on users (Katz et al., 1974).
Subsequently, researchers started to use U&G theory to understand the influence of
different technologies on users, such as television (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1979), radio
(Houghton-Larsen, 1982), printed media (Garramone, 1984), mobile phones (Wang &
Tchernev, 2012), social media (Bae, 2018; Gibbs et al., 2014), augmented reality (AR)
(Rauschnabel, 2018), and virtual reality (VR) (Kim et al., 2020).
An important approach of the U&G theory is gratification discrepancies (GO-GS),
which provide an opportunity to examine the gratifications sought (GS), and gratifications
obtained (GO), thus identifying the expectations and fulfillment gained from using media.
This discrepancy in GO and GS provides an exact idea about the successful function of
media in meeting the user’s expectations (Rokito et al., 2019). It is also evident from past
research that comparing the results of pre- and post-media usage reflects actual attitudinal
change and beliefs (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004), satisfaction, and continued use
intentions (Bae, 2018). Despite the importance of the GO-GS approach in studying
consumer behavior, there is a lack of research summarizing the developments in academic
literature related to GO-GS. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic literature review
paper is to explore the answers to the following research questions:
Contemporary Management Research 3
RQ1- What are the developments in academic literature related to the GO-GS approach in
terms of the (i) research context, (ii) regions of research, (iii) media, (iv)
gratifications, (v) consumer behavior, (vi) other theories or models, and (vii)
different conceptualizations?
RQ2- What are the prospects for the GO-GS approach?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Uses and Gratifications Theory
According to Katz et al. (1974), U&G theory deals with “(1) the social and
psychological origins of (2) needs, which generate (3) expectations from (4) the mass
media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential patterns of media exposure (or
engagement in other activities), resulting in (6) need gratifications and (7) other
consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones” (p. 20). The basic premise of U&G theory
is “active audience” technology users select media and interact with it to fulfill their needs,
which leads to satisfaction (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1985). This theory assumes that
audience members are not passive consumers of media (Katz et al., 1974; Lariscy et al.,
2011). For example, social media can fulfill social needs; hence, people seeking
socialisation may prefer to use social media (Basilisco & Jin, 2015; Ha et al., 2015; Korhan
& Ersoy, 2016). U&G theory is being studied in relation to different technologies to
understand the consumer behavior, such as usage behavior with AR (Lin & Chen, 2017),
media migration behaviors in entertainment television (Shade et al., 2015), purchase
intentions formed through websites (Ko et al., 2005), satisfaction from e-commerce (Luo,
2002), social media usage behavior (Whiting & Williams, 2013), and behavioral intention
with VR (Kim et al., 2020).
Initially, U&G theory was used to measure gratification by collecting data only after
media usage, which prevented the comparison of pre- and post-usage gratification (see
Katz et al., 1974). To address this gap, Palmgreen and Rayburn (1979) introduced the GO-
GS approach. Specifically, the attraction towards reusing a type of media depends on the
gratifications obtained against the gratifications sought. The obtained outcome of a
technology or media experience must exceed the expectation (i.e., GO > GS) in order to
engage the user and elicit positive behavior towards the adoption of a technological
medium (Ko et al., 2005; Lin & Chen, 2017; Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1979).
4 Contemporary Management Research
GO-GS
Gratifications sought mainly relates to the desire of a person to use a technological
medium, and gratifications obtained relates to the outcome received by a person from using
the media (Bae, 2018). This GO-GS approach explains that the gratifications sought from
using the media is not always the same as that obtained after the use (Palmgreen & Rayburn,
1985). On occasion, the expected gratifications are not obtained, or the obtained
gratifications may not have been expected by the user.
A technological medium must fulfill GS (GO=GS), and it is ideal for the medium
to over-fulfill GS, meaning GO is higher in comparison to GS (i.e., GO > GS; Palmgreen
& Rayburn, 1979). Indeed, the over-fulfillment of GS results in the adoption of a medium,
frequent usage, and greater dependency (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1979). Conversely, under-
fulfillment occurs when a medium cannot fulfill the GS and performs poorly in comparison
to the individual’s expectations (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1979; Wenner, 1986). This
discrepancy is also directly linked with the satisfaction from using media (Palmgreen &
Rayburn, 1985) and continuance usage behavior (Rokito et al., 2019). Several scholars
have suggested that the method of studying pre- and post-media usage is a suitable way to
measure attitudinal change, beliefs, continued use intentions, and satisfaction (Bae, 2018;
Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004). This approach has been used by researchers with
several media, such as radio and magazines (Houghton-Larsen, 1982), written memos
(Dobos, 1992), television (Barton, 2009), social media (Bae, 2018), and video games
(Palomba, 2018).
METHODOLOGY
There are several ways to conduct a systematic literature review, such as a structured
review, framework-based review, bibliometric review, hybrid review, theory-based review,
and meta-analysis review (Paul & Criado, 2020). A theory-based review was used in this
research by adopting the research methodology from extant research (Gilal et al., 2019;
Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019) to review a specific theory in order to extend its application
to new technologies (Shahab et al., 2021). We searched databases including Emerald,
SAGE, Taylor & Francis, Science Direct, Wiley, and also Google Scholar to retrieve all
the relevant published articles. There are two ways to search the literature, for instance,
through keywords or a research string using Boolean operators (Boland et al., 2017). We
adopted Boolean operators in a research string to identify the articles from databases
(Boland et al., 2017) that had the following key terms in their title, abstract, or keywords:
Contemporary Management Research 5
(gratificatio* sought) AND (gratificatio* obtained) AND (gratification discrepanc*)
In this string, the word “and” indicates that all three terms must be available in the
text. In contrast, the symbol “*” denotes that multiple terms can be searched with the same
stem, such as “gratification” and “gratifications” or “discrepancy” and “discrepancies”.
Palmgreen and Rayburn introduced the GO-GS approach in 1979; hence, the time frame
of 1979 to 2020 was selected to search the databases. In order to increase the efficiency of
the search process, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) framework was adopted (Moher et al., 2010), which is presented in
figure 1.
The search across all databases provided 4,176 research articles, and a careful search
of google scholar presented eight more research articles. Therefore, a total of 4,184 articles
were considered for the initial screening. The initial screening of these articles was
conducted based on the following criteria:
(i) Articles published in peer-reviewed journals
(ii) Articles having (gratificatio* sought), (gratificatio* obtained) and
(gratification discrepanc*) key terms in the article’s title, abstract, or
keywords
After an extensive screening of these articles, only 29 met the initial screening
criteria, excluding a total of 4,155 articles. The primary reason for exclusion was that most
of the articles did not study the GO-GS approach.
The remaining 29 articles were evaluated comprehensively by applying the
succeeding criteria:
(i) Articles published in a peer-reviewed journal
(ii) Articles written in the English language
(iii) Articles used the GO-GS approach
(iv) Articles using a quantitative research design
A total of six articles were further removed, and only 23 research articles met the
outlined criteria (see figure 1).
6 Contemporary Management Research
Figure 1 PRISMA Framework
OVERVIEW OF ARTICLES
This sub-section discusses the journals that had published these 23 research articles
and the research methodologies used in them.
Publication Outlets
The list of all articles published by the journals is given in Table 1. The
Communication Research journal published six articles, while Computers in Human
Behavior disseminated three articles. Journalism Quarterly and Communication
Monographs published two articles each, and the journals that published one article are
listed in Table 1. The number of published research documents relating to the GO-GS
approach has decreased over time (see Table 2). A total of 13 articles were published from
1979–1999, whereas only 10 articles were published from 2000–2020.
Contemporary Management Research 7
Table 1 Journals disseminating GO-GS research
Journals
#
References
Communication Research
6
Dobos (1992), Levy and Windahl (1984),
Palmgreen et al. (1980, 1981), Palmgreen and
Rayburn (1979), Wenner (1982)
Computers in Human Behavior
3
Bae (2018), Palomba (2018), Rokito et al. (2019)
Journalism Quarterly
2
McLeod et al. (1982), Rayburn et al. (1984)
Communication Monographs
2
Palmgreen and Rayburn (1985), Wenner (1986)
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media
1
Barton (2009)
Communication Quarterly
1
Barton (2013)
Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly
1
Garramone (1984)
International Journal of Sport
Communication
1
Gibbs et al. (2014)
Canadian Journal of Communication
1
Houghton-Larsen (1982)
Information discovery and delivery
1
Hussain et al. (2020)
Contemporary Educational
Technology
1
Karimi et al. (2014)
Human Communication Research
1
Lin (1993)
Journal of Communication
1
Wang and Tchernev (2012)
Communication Theory
1
Yoo (2011)
Table 2 Publishing trends 1979–2020
Year
Number of articles
1979
1
1980
1
1981
1
1982
3
1984
3
1985
1
1986
1
1992
1
1993
1
2009
1
2011
1
2012
1
2013
1
2014
2
2017
1
2018
1
2019
1
2020
1
8 Contemporary Management Research
Research Methodology
The countries surveyed, populations, and data collection methods are presented in
Table 3. The data were collected from eight different countries; 18 out of 23 articles were
published using data from the USA, followed by Canada with two articles. The data for the
remaining articles were collected from Pakistan and Sweden, except for the study by
Karimi et al. (2014), which was conducted in Iran, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, and
South Africa.
We have categorized the study populations into two general groups: students and
others (e.g., users, voters, and employees). Most of the studies were conducted with users,
voters, and employees, whereas very few studies collected data from students. All the
articles used a survey design, except Levy and Windahl (1984) and Gibbs et al. (2014),
which used interviews and surveys together.
Table 3 Country of research, study population, and data collection methods
Surveyed
countries
#a
Selected
Populationa
Methodologya
Referencesa
USA
18
Othersb: 13
Students: 6
Survey: 18
Bae (2018), Barton (2009), Barton
(2013), Dobos (1992), Garramone (1984),
Lin (1993), McLeod et al. (1982),
Palmgreen and Rayburn (1979),
Palmgreen et al. (1980, 1981), Palmgreen
and Rayburn (1985), Palomba (2018),
Rayburn et al. (1984), Rokito et al.
(2019), Wang (2012), Wenner (1982),
Wenner (1986), Yoo (2011)
Canada
2
Others: 1
Students: 1
Survey: 1
Interview & survey: 1
Gibbs et al. (2014), Houghton-Larsen
(1982)
Pakistan
1
Others: 1
Survey: 1
Hussain et al. (2020)
Sweden
1
Others: 1
Interview & survey: 1
Levy and Windahl (1984)
Iran
1
Students: 1
Survey: 1
Karimi et al. (2014)
Malaysia
1
Students: 1
Survey: 1
Karimi et al. (2014)
United
Kingdom
1
Students: 1
Survey: 1
Karimi et al. (2014)
South
Africa
1
Students: 1
Survey: 1
Karimi et al. (2014)
a The totals exceed the actual number because some researchers have collected data from more than one
country and population.
b Others = users, voters, and employees.
Contemporary Management Research 9
Discussion and Suggestions for Future Research
This sub-section is written based on the systematic literature review (Paul & Benito,
2018; Shahab et al., 2021), discussing the reviewed articles to develop a future research
agenda. Seven main realms can be identified that are grounded in the literature
developments: (i) research context, (ii) regions of research, (iii) media, (iv) gratifications,
(v) consumer behavior, (vi) other theories or models, and (vii) different conceptualizations
to study gratification discrepancies.
Research Context
These 23 articles have contributed overwhelmingly to the academic literature in
terms of psychology, communication, and sports (see Table 4). However, several other
important research contexts have been overlooked by researchers, such as education,
entrepreneurship, environment, health, marketing, public administration, and tourism.
Therefore, future research involving the GO-GS approach should also focus on diverse
research contexts.
Table 4 Research contexts of the reviewed articles
Research context
#
References
Role of the media in user’s
behavioral intentions, satisfaction,
recurring usage, and exposure
7
Bae (2018), Levy and Windahl (1984), Lin
(1993), Palmgreen and Rayburn (1985),
Rokito et al. (2019), Wang and Tchernev
(2012), Yoo (2011)
GS and GO from different television
programs
6
Barton (2009, 2013), Palmgreen et al. (1980,
1981), Wenner (1982, 1986)
Differences in GS and GO based on
different demographic
characteristics, and personality traits
5
Houghton-Larsen (1982), Hussain et al. (2020),
Karimi et al. (2014), Palmgreen and Rayburn
(1979), Rayburn et al. (1984)
Role of the different media in voting
2
Garramone (1984), McLeod et al. (1982)
Employee’s satisfaction from
different media: electronic media,
written memos, and face-to-face
conversation
1
Dobos (1992)
Satisfaction from media for getting
updates on football
1
Gibbs et al. (2014)
Media consumption experience for
video games
1
Palomba (2018)
10 Contemporary Management Research
Regions of Research
North America was the most surveyed region, with 20 out of the 23 identified
articles, whereas two articles were published from Europe and Asia. Karimi et al. (2014)
took their data from Asia, Europe, and Africa. Therefore, the regions of Oceania and South
America have been overlooked by researchers. Additionally, other countries with strong
research contributions have not published any research articles on the GO-GS approach,
such as China (2nd highest contributor), Germany (3rd), Japan (5th), France (6th),
Switzerland (8th), South Korea (9th) and Australia (10th; Crew, 2019). Therefore, there is a
need to conduct research on the GO-GS approach in these countries to understand user
behavior better.
Types of Media
The reviewed articles have made breakthrough contributions by studying the impact
of diverse communication media on users. For example, television, printed media, social
media, computer-related media, radio, mobile phones, phonographs, and face-to-face
conversations have been studied (see Table 5). New technologies such as AR, chatbots,
location-based services (LBS), smartphone applications, smartwatches, and VR have been
under-researched by scholars. These technologies, especially AR and VR, have a great
potential to be considered the main media in the future (Rauschnabel et al., 2022).
Therefore, a research gap exists in studying the GO-GS approach with new technologies.
Contemporary Management Research 11
Table 5 Communication medium in the identified studies
General
Category
Sub-Category
#a
References a
Television
• Reality programs: The
Apprentice, The Bachelor,
Survivor, American Idol,
Dancing with the Stars,
America’s Got Talent
• News programs: World
News Tonight, evening
news, nightly news, network
evening news, 60 minutes
• General news
• Advertisements
15
Barton (2009, 2013), Garramone
(1984), Houghton-Larsen (1982),
Levy and Windahl (1984), Lin
(1993), McLeod et al. (1982),
Palmgreen et al. (1981, 1980),
Palmgreen and Rayburn (1979,
1985), Rayburn et al. (1984), Wang
and Tchernev (2012), Wenner (1982,
1986)
Social media
• Social networking sites
• Facebook
• Twitter
5
Bae (2018), Gibbs et al. (2014),
Hussain et al. (2020), Karimi et al.
(2014), Rokito et al. (2019)
Printed media
• Newspaper
• Magazines
• Books
• Written memos
5
Dobos (1992), Garramone (1984),
Houghton-Larsen (1982), McLeod et
al. (1982), Wang and Tchernev
(2012)
Computer-
related
mediums
• Video games
• Online newspaper
• Electronic media
4
Dobos (1992), Palomba (2018),
Wang and Tchernev (2012), Yoo
(2011)
Radio
• N/A
2
Houghton-Larsen (1982), Wang and
Tchernev (2012)
Mobile
phones
• N/A
1
Wang and Tchernev (2012)
Phonographs
• N/A
1
Houghton-Larsen (1982)
Face-to-face
conversation
• N/A
1
Dobos (1992)
a The totals exceed the actual number because several articles used more than one media
N/A = Not applicable
Gratifications
Table 6 presents the diverse types of gratification studied by the researchers that are
according to the nature of the communication medium. For example, social media provides
socialization; hence, Bae (2018) studied a “social support” gratification. In the same way,
“information seeking” has been widely studied in the context of television and “seeking
12 Contemporary Management Research
fantasy” in relation to video games. Several other gratifications are given in Table 6.
Sundar and Limperos (2013) extended the usage of U&G theory by proposing its 2.0
version for new technologies, as “noting that studies on the uses of the Internet have
generated a list of gratifications that are remarkably similar to those obtained from older
media…gratifications are conceptualized and operationalized too broadly (e.g.,
information-seeking), thus missing the nuanced gratifications obtained from newer media”
(p. 504). U&G theory 2.0 version provides variables for measuring gratifications such as
novelty, being there (telepresence), realism, dynamic control, coolness, agency
enhancement, community-building, interaction, activity, responsiveness, browsing, and
navigation aids (Sundar & Limperos, 2013).
In order to provide a rigorous future research agenda, we also searched “uses &
gratifications” key terms in google scholar to obtain articles published using U&G theory.
Table 6 explicitly presents the gratifications studied using the GO-GS approach.
Additionally, Table 7 provides an extensive list of the gratifications and media studied in
the literature using U&G theory. By comparing these two tables, we have developed a
triangle figure (see figure 2) to summarize the contributions of the GO-GS approach in the
extant literature and future research agenda for GO-GS. Through this, we propose new
gratifications that should be studied with new media elements. For example, these include
novelty, realism, coolness, activity, responsiveness, achievement, challenge, and
telepresence.
Contemporary Management Research 13
Table 6 Other theories, gratifications, and outcomes studied using the GO-GS approach
1
References
Other theories or
models
Gratifications
Outcome
Bae (2018)
-
Information, entertainment, escapism, social support,
convenience
Satisfaction, continuance
intention
Barton (2009)
-
Personal utility, social utility, pass time, perceived
reality, vicarious participation
Groupings based on three
programs
Barton (2013)
-
Schadenfreude, personal utility, social utility, TV
personalities, vicarious participation, perceived
reality, pass time
Groupings based on three
programs
Dobos (1992)
-
Production, maintenance, innovation
Satisfaction and channel choice
Garramone
(1984)
Drive reduction model,
Exposure learning
model
Surveillance-vote guidance
Groupings based on three
media
Gibbs et al.
(2014)
Expectancy value
theory, SERVQUAL
Interaction, promotion, live game updates, news
Satisfaction
Houghton-
Larsen (1982)
-
Relaxation, entertainment, information,
companionship, forget loneliness, enjoyment,
excitement, local information, information on
international events, detailed information on national
events, information on movies, detailed information
on international events and weather, time, music
Analysis based on gender,
income, watching habits, and
age brackets
Hussain et al.
(2020)
-
Cognitive
Groupings based on gender and
profession
Karimi et al.
(2014)
-
Interpersonal utility, pass time, entertainment,
information seeking, convenience
Groupings based on different
countries
Levy and
Windahl
(1984)
-
Entertainment, parasocial interaction, interpersonal
utility, surveillance
Inattentive behavior, exposure
Lin (1993)
-
Informational guidance, interpersonal
communication, parasocial interaction, entertainment,
diversion
Viewing satisfaction
14 Contemporary Management Research
References
Other theories or
models
Gratifications
Outcome
McLeod et al.
(1982)
Drive reduction model,
Exposure learning
model
Surveillance-vote guidance, contest-excitement,
communication utility
Groupings based on age and
time of decision
Palmgreen and
Rayburn
(1979)
-
Relaxation, learning about things, communicatory
utility, forget, pass time, companionship,
entertainment
Analysis based on viewers vs.
non-viewers, education,
income, number of children,
number of TV sets, and
perceptions of public television
Palmgreen et
al. (1980)
-
General information seeking, decisional utility,
entertainment, interpersonal utility, parasocial
interaction
Groupings based on three
programs
Palmgreen et
al. (1981)
-
General information seeking, decisional utility,
entertainment, interpersonal utility, parasocial
interaction
Analysis based on
discrepancies between the
programs, viewership, interest
in politics, discussion of
politics, radio news exposure,
newspaper readership, family
income, age, and education
Palmgreen and
Rayburn
(1985)
Gratifications obtained
model, Modified
gratifications obtained
model, Expectancy
value model, Absolute
value discrepancy
model, Simplified
discrepancy model,
Expectancy value
discrepancy model
General information seeking, decisional utility,
entertainment, interpersonal utility, parasocial
interaction
Media satisfaction
Palomba
(2018)
Expectancy value
model
Seeking fantasy, seeking information and reflection,
positive virtual engagement, virtual distractions
Media consumption experience,
gratifications obtained
Contemporary Management Research 15
References
Other theories or
models
Gratifications
Outcome
Rayburn et al.
(1984)
-
General information seeking, decisional utility,
entertainment, interpersonal utility, parasocial
interaction, current affairs
Analysis based on anchor-
persons discrepancies, program
style discrepancy, program
quality discrepancy, GO-GS
discrepancy, education, and
income
Rokito et al.
(2019)
-
Social information, pass time, sociability, self-relief,
self-affirmation
Recurring Facebook use
Wang and
Tchernev
(2012)
-
Emotional, cognitive, social, habitual
Multi-tasking behavior
Wenner (1982)
-
Surveillance, entertainment, interpersonal utility,
parasocial interaction
Analysis based on GO-GS
discrepancies, obtained
gratification from two
programs, dependency,
attention, habit, education,
income, age, and gender
Wenner (1986)
-
Surveillance, entertainment, interpersonal utility,
parasocial interaction
Frequency of viewing and
dependency on programs
Yoo (2011)
-
Socialization, entertainment, information seeking,
pastime
Attitude towards the online
newspaper, repeat visit
intention
Note. Outcomes mentioned in italic depicts analysis based on groups, for instance, age, gender, country, and programs etc.
2
3
16 Contemporary Management Research
Table 7 Focus of articles published using the U&G theory
4
Media
Gratifications
References
Print media
Surveillance, diversion, interaction, entertainment,
pastime, relaxation, information, personal identity,
social interaction, transformation, guidance,
inspiration, retrospection, social prestige, respite,
occupation, ritual, security, companionship, forget
loneliness, contest-excitement, communication
utility, habitual, follow celebrities, loving sports
Carter (2013), de Bock (1980), Garramone (1984),
Houghton-Larsen (1982), Kim et al. (2015), McLeod et al.
(1982), Payne et al. (1988), Payne et al. (2003), Randle
(2003), Van Reijmersdal et al. (2005), Wang and Tchernev
(2012), Wei (2009)
Radio
Relaxation, entertainment, information,
companionship, forget loneliness, habitual, pastime,
variety-seeking, education, communication,
diversion, surveillance, habit, follow celebrities,
loving sports
Albarran et al. (2007), Houghton-Larsen (1982), Lin
(2006), Safi and Iqbal (2015), Wang and Tchernev (2012),
Wei (2009)
Television
Information, social prestige, respite, occupation,
ritual, security, Personal utility, social utility, pass
time, perceived reality, vicarious participation,
schadenfreude, surveillance, relaxation,
entertainment, diversion, contest-excitement,
communication utility, decisional utility, habitual,
follow celebrities, loving sports
Barton (2009, 2013), de Bock (1980), Garramone (1984),
Houghton-Larsen (1982), Levy and Windahl (1984), Lin
(1993), McLeod et al. (1982), Palmgreen et al. (1980,
1981), Palmgreen and Rayburn (1979, 1985), Rayburn et al.
(1984), Wang and Tchernev (2012), Wei (2009), Wenner
(1982, 1986)
Internet
Surveillance, diversion, interaction, entertainment,
pastime, relaxation, information seeking,
socialization, follow celebrities, loving sports, self-
expression, extrinsic rewards, convenience, access to
information, escape, intertext, anonymity, process,
pleasing visuals, self-development, wide exposure,
user-friendly, career opportunities
Chou and Hsiao (2000), Cuillier and Piotrowski (2009),
Khang et al. (2013), Ko et al. (2005), Larose et al. (2001),
Liu et al. (2020), Payne et al. (2003), Randle (2003), Roy
(2009), Stafford et al. (2004), Wei (2009), Yoo (2011)
Contemporary Management Research 17
Media
Gratifications
References
Video game
Action, companionship, passing time, solitude,
substitute for friends, seeking fantasy, seeking
information and reflection, positive virtual
engagement, virtual distractions, emotional,
competition, challenge, tension release
Chang et al. (2006), Ferguson and Olson (2013), Ghazali et
al. (2019a, 2019b), Granic et al. (2014), Greenberg et al.
(2010), Jang and Liu (2019), Jansz and Martens (2005),
Khang et al. (2013), Lucas and Sherry (2004), Palomba
(2018), Rauschnabel et al. (2017), Sherry et al. (2006),
Sjöblom and Hamari (2017)
Smartphone
or tablet
Relaxation, personal influence, social influence,
global influence, sexually explicit content, emotional,
cognitive, habitual, pass time, accessibility, following
the trend, caring for others, escapism, entertainment,
instant messaging, email, internet/websites, games,
music/podcasts/radio, taking pictures/videos,
watching videos/TV/movies, reading
books/magazines, maps navigation
Ahad and Anshari (2017), Elhai et al. (2017, 2018), Harun
et al. (2015), Joo and Sang (2013), Khang et al. (2013),
Kim (2017), Kim and Shin (2013), Leung and Zhang
(2016), Park and Lee (2012), Reychav and Wu (2014),
Sutanto et al. (2013), Wang and Tchernev (2012),
Wolniewicz et al. (2018)
Social media
Seeking friends, social support, entertainment,
information, convenience, escapism, interaction,
promotion, pastime, sociability, self-relief, self-
affirmation, organizing, designing, conforming,
trendgaging, inspiring, reaching, summarizing,
endorsing, maintain relationships, meet new people,
realism, high-tech, social events, status-seeking,
sharing photos and videos
Bae (2018), Basilisco and Jin (2015), Dolan et al. (2016),
Ezumah (2013), Froget et al. (2013), Gibbs et al. (2014),
Korhan and Ersoy (2016), Lee and Ma (2012), Rauschnabel
et al. (2019), Rokito et al. (2019), Sheldon (2008), Wang et
al. (2012)
Virtual or
augmented
reality
Hedonic, emotional, social, sensual, symbolic,
utilitarian, achievement, escapism, challenge
Ghazali et al. (2019a, 2019b), Jang and Liu (2019), Kim et
al. (2020), Rauschnabel (2018), Rauschnabel et al. (2017)
5
6
18 Contemporary Management Research
Figure 2 Gratifications and media for future research
7
8
9
Note. AR=augmented reality, LBS=location-based services, VR=virtual reality
10
Contemporary Management Research 19
In this sub-section, we have only discussed those gratifications that can be studied
11
with new media in future. Novelty is defined as a situation that has not been previously
12
encountered or experienced by a person (Barto et al., 2013). Sundar and Limperos (2013)
13
explained novelty as an unusual experience of a new technology that has a different
14
interface. Empirically studying novelty gratification may enhance the U&G theory by
15
deepening the understanding of users’ nuanced gratifications. Realism is a user’s
16
perception of reality in which visual-related stimuli generate a sense of a more realistic
17
virtual environment than non-visual forms (Meijer et al., 2009). For example, video
18
conference is considered more realistic than audio conference or text (Sundar & Limperos,
19
2013). Coolness relates to a user’s perceptions of liking and approving of new ideas,
20
services, or products, which are generally positive (Kerner & Pressman, 2007). Individuals
21
prefer to use new technology that makes them look cool (Liu & Mattila, 2019), and that is
22
also unique, distinctive, and stylish (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Activity is a user’s active
23
interaction with a technology through which a user can perform many tasks (Sundar &
24
Limperos, 2013). The perfect example of this gratification is the AR Pokémon GO game,
25
in which users actively participate in catching Pokémon.
26
Responsiveness is a technological characteristic that enables users to obtain a quick
27
response from the technology in order to fulfill their need for active interaction (Sundar &
28
Limperos, 2013). Achievement and challenge are gratifications that have recently been
29
studied in relation to the AR Pokémon GO game (Ghazali et al., 2019a), but there exists a
30
gap in the literature to study these gratifications using the GO-GS approach. Specifically,
31
achievement is a user’s motivation to advance rapidly and attain a significant goal, and it
32
can be applied to achieving knowledge, a promising career, or success in video games
33
(Salvador & Carmen, 2001; Wu et al., 2010). Conversely, challenge is gratification that
34
has primarily been studied in the context of video games, and Liu and Shiue (2014) defined
35
it as “the overcoming of perceived difficulties, including competition from other
36
players…which provides a sense of accomplishment” (p. 127).
37
Sundar and Limperos (2013) explained “being there” as the immersive feeling of
38
being in a 360-degree interactive panoramic view shown through the technology. In the
39
literature on new technologies, the phenomenon of being there is mainly referred to as
40
telepresence. Specifically, telepresence is the characteristic of a technology replicating a
41
real scenario in a computer-mediated environment, with users being deeply involved in
42
that environment (Suh & Chang, 2006). The gratifications mentioned above can be adopted
43
in different scenarios; for example, novelty, realism, coolness, activity, responsiveness, and
44
20 Contemporary Management Research
telepresence are suitable for tourism-related multi-sensory VR, whereas novelty, coolness,
45
activity, achievement, and challenge can be used with AR games. These two cases are
46
examples, but researchers can use these gratifications according to their problem statement
47
and course of study.
48
49
Outcomes
50
Table 6 demonstrates that some articles have explored consumer-related factors,
51
such as attitude, intention, or behavior (Bae, 2018; Levy & Windahl, 1984; Rokito et al.,
52
2019; Wang & Tchernev, 2012; Yoo, 2011), and satisfaction (Bae, 2018; Dobos, 1992;
53
Gibbs et al., 2014; Lin, 1993; Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1985), thus neglecting the study of
54
loyalty and decision-making. The study of loyalty and decision-making is considered a key
55
factor in the literature on consumer behavior; therefore, future research should explore the
56
role of the GO-GS approach in under-researched areas of consumer behavior.
57
58
Other Theories or Models
59
The theories or models studied with the GO-GS approach are provided in Table 6.
60
For example, these include the drive reduction model, exposure learning model,
61
expectancy-value theory, SERVQUAL, gratifications obtained model, modified
62
gratifications obtained model, absolute value discrepancy model, simplified discrepancy
63
model, and expectancy-value discrepancy model. These theories or models have been
64
successfully adopted in the GO-GS approach, but the literature is unable to highlight the
65
best model for measuring the consequences of media consumption by comparing all
66
models. Palmgreen and Rayburn (1985) attempted to compare eight models using
67
hierarchical regression analysis, such as (1) ∑GO, (2) ∑ eGO, (3) ∑be, (4) ∑ │GS-GO│,
68
(5) ∑ (GO-GS), (6) ∑ e(GO-GS), (7) ∑ (GS+GO), and (8) ∑ e(GS+GO). Their results
69
overall showed that models 3 and 4 did not perform well also, “introducing the respondent's
70
affective evaluation of gratification-related attributes did not result in the consistent
71
superiority of model 2 (∑ eGO) and model 6 (∑ e[GO-GS]) over their non-evaluative
72
counterparts [models 1 and 5, respectively]” (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1985, p. 343).
73
Despite the importance of their research, Palmgreen and Rayburn (1985) neglected
74
the use of models dealing with the gratifications sought and the user’s personal importance.
75
Therefore, due to scant research in this context, there is a need to compare models by
76
considering the gratifications sought and the user’s personal importance through strong
77
statistical analysis, including structural equation modeling.
78
Contemporary Management Research 21
Different Conceptualizations of Gratification Discrepancies in a Theoretical
79
Framework
80
Two different methods have been used to conceptualize the gratifications sought
81
and obtained in a theoretical framework. The first method involves subtracting the values
82
of gratifications sought from gratifications obtained (GO-GS) and using the discrepancy
83
scores as an independent variable (see Bae, 2018, and Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1985). Indeed,
84
this type of conceptualization is the most popular and widely used in the literature.
85
However, another unique conceptualization is to use GS as an independent variable,
86
followed by an intervening variable that leads to GO, with the resulting GO subsequently
87
leading to attitude and intention (see Yoo, 2011). This second type of conceptualization
88
provides a more complex model. The visual depiction of both conceptualizations is given
89
in figure 3. The second conceptualization requires the researcher to explore the underlying
90
mechanisms existing between gratifications sought and obtained.
91
22 Contemporary Management Research
Figure 3 Different conceptualizations of gratifications sought and obtained
92
93
94
Conceptualization 1 Conceptualization 2
95
96
Contemporary Management Research 23
CONCLUSION
97
For the first time, this theory-based systematic literature review analyzes the
98
existing research on the GO-GS approach for recommending a future research agenda.
99
Previously, researchers have used this approach with several communication media and
100
diverse gratifications, such as information seeking, entertainment, escapism, social utility,
101
promotion, and surveillance-vote guidance, among others. However, the extant literature
102
has not adopted the GO-GS approach with new media nor highlighted the impact of
103
nuanced gratifications, such as novelty, realism, coolness, activity, responsiveness,
104
achievement, challenge, and telepresence. This review proposes seven realms that can be
105
considered grounded in the current literature developments, including research contexts,
106
regions of research, media, gratifications, consumer behavior, other theories or models, and
107
different conceptualizations to study gratification discrepancies. As well as the theoretical
108
implications, empirically studying these research agendas may also help manufacturers and
109
content creators to improve their technology, as the GO-GS approach compares the
110
expectations for using a media and the fulfillment of those expectations after usage.
111
112
REFERENCES
113
Ahad, A. D., & Anshari, M. (2017). Smartphone habits among youth: Uses and
114
gratification theory. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and
115
Learning, 7(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2017010105
116
Albarran, A. B., Anderson, T., Bejar, L. G., Bussart, A. L., Daggett, E., Gibson, S.,
117
Gorman, M., Greer, D., Guo, M., Horst, J. L., Khalaf, T., Lay, J. P., McCracken, M.,
118
Mott, B., & Way, H. (2007). “What Happened to our Audience?” Radio and New
119
Technology Uses and Gratifications Among Young Adult Users. Journal of Radio
120
Studies, 14(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10955040701583171
121
Bae, M. (2018). Understanding the effect of the discrepancy between sought and obtained
122
gratification on social networking site users’ satisfaction and continuance intention.
123
Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 137–153.
124
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.026
125
Barto, A., Mirolli, M., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Novelty or surprise? Frontiers in
126
Psychology, 4(DEC), 907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00907
127
Barton, K. M. (2009). Reality television programming and diverging gratifications: The
128
influence of content on gratifications obtained. Journal of Broadcasting and
129
Electronic Media, 53(3), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150903102659
130
24 Contemporary Management Research
Barton, K. M. (2013). Why we watch them sing and dance: The uses and gratifications of
131
talent-based reality television. Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 217–235.
132
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.751437
133
Basilisco, R., & Jin, K. (2015). Uses and gratification motivation for using Facebook and
134
the impact of Facebook usage on social capital and life satisfaction among Filipino
135
users. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 9(4),
136
181–194. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijseia.2015.9.4.19
137
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude
138
toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test.
139
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28(2), 229–254.
140
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148634
141
Boland, A., Cherry, M. G., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a systematic review : A
142
student’s guide (Second edition).
143
Carter, C. (2013). Come away with me: the uses and gratifications of leisure travel
144
magazine readership. In Submitted by the University of Missouri--Columbia
145
Graduate School. University of Missouri--Columbia.
146
Chang, B. H., Lee, S. E., & Kim, B. S. (2006). Exploring factors affecting the adoption
147
and continuance of online games among college students in South Korea:
148
Integrating uses and gratification and diffusion of innovation approaches. New
149
Media and Society, 8(2), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806059888
150
Chou, C., & Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure
151
experience: The Taiwan college students’ case. Computers and Education, 35(1),
152
65–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00019-1
153
Crew, B. (2019, July 1). The top 10 countries for scientific research in 2018. Nature
154
Index. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/top-ten-countries-research-science-
155
twenty-nineteen
156
Cuillier, D., & Piotrowski, S. J. (2009). Internet information-seeking and its relation to
157
support for access to government records. Government Information Quarterly,
158
26(3), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.03.001
159
de Bock, H. (1980). Gratification frustration during a newspaper strike and a TV
160
blackout. Journalism Quarterly, 57(1), 61–78.
161
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700109
162
Dobos, J. (1992). Gratification models of satisfaction and choice of communication
163
channels in organizations. Communication Research, 19(1), 29–51.
164
Contemporary Management Research 25
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001002
165
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement
166
behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
167
24(3–4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222
168
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Non-social features of
169
smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone
170
use. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 75–82.
171
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.023
172
Elhai, J. D., Tiamiyu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., Levine, J. C., Picard, K. J., & Hall, B. J.
173
(2018). Depression and emotion regulation predict objective smartphone use
174
measured over one week. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 21–28.
175
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.051
176
Ezumah, B. A. (2013). College students’ use of social media: Site preferences, uses and
177
gratifications theory revisited. International Journal of Business and Social Science,
178
4(5), 27-34.
179
Ferguson, C. J., & Olson, C. K. (2013). Friends, fun, frustration and fantasy: Child
180
motivations for video game play. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 154–164.
181
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9284-7
182
Froget, J. R. L., Baghestan, A. G., & Asfaranjan, Y. S. (2013). A uses and gratification
183
perspective on social media usage and online marketing. Middle-East Journal of
184
Scientific Research, 15(1), 134–145.
185
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.15.1.2127
186
Garramone, G. M. (1984). Motivational models: replication across media for political
187
campaign content. Journalism Quarterly, 61(3), 537–541.
188
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908406100309
189
Ghazali, E. M., Mutum, D. S., & Woon, M. Y. (2019a). Exploring player behavior and
190
motivations to continue playing Pokémon GO. Information Technology and People,
191
32(3), 646–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2017-0216
192
Ghazali, E. M., Mutum, D. S., & Woon, M. Y. (2019b). Multiple sequential mediation in
193
an extended uses and gratifications model of augmented reality game Pokémon Go.
194
Internet Research, 29(3), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0505
195
Gibbs, C., O’Reilly, N., & Brunette, M. (2014). Professional team sport and Twitter:
196
Gratifications Sought and obtained by followers. International Journal of Sport
197
Communication, 7(2), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2014-0005
198
26 Contemporary Management Research
Gilal, F. G., Zhang, J., Paul, J., & Gilal, N. G. (2019). The role of self-determination
199
theory in marketing science: An integrative review and agenda for research.
200
European Management Journal, 37(1), 29–44.
201
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.10.004
202
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games.
203
American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857
204
Greenberg, B. S., Sherry, J., Lachlan, K., Lucas, K., & Holmstrom, A. (2010).
205
Orientations to video games among gender and age groups. Simulation & Gaming,
206
41(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108319930
207
Ha, Y. W., Kim, J., Libaque-Saenz, C. F., Chang, Y., & Park, M. C. (2015). Use and
208
gratifications of mobile SNSs: Facebook and KakaoTalk in Korea. Telematics and
209
Informatics, 32(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.10.006
210
Harun, A., Soon, L. T., Mohd Kassim, A. W., & Sulong, R. S. (2015). Smartphone
211
dependency and its impact on purchase behavior. Asian Social Science, 11(26), 196–
212
211. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n26p196
213
Houghton-Larsen, R. (1982). Patterns of media usage related to gratifications sought.
214
Canadian Journal of Communication, 8(4). https://www.cjc-
215
online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/284
216
Hussain, A., Shabir, G., & Taimoor-Ul-Hassan, G. (2020). Cognitive needs and use of
217
social media: a comparative study of gratifications sought and gratification obtained.
218
Information Discovery and Delivery, 48(2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-11-
219
2019-0081
220
Jang, S., & Liu, Y. (2019). Continuance use intention with mobile augmented reality
221
games: Overall and multigroup analyses on Pokémon Go. Information Technology
222
and People, 33(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2018-0221
223
Jansz, J., & Martens, L. (2005). Gaming at a LAN event: The social context of playing
224
video games. New Media & Society, 7(3), 333–355.
225
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444805052280
226
Joo, J., & Sang, Y. (2013). Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: An integrated model
227
of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory. Computers in
228
Human Behavior, 29(6), 2512–2518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.002
229
Kamboj, S. (2020). Applying uses and gratifications theory to understand customer
230
participation in social media brand communities: Perspective of media technology.
231
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(1), 205–231.
232
Contemporary Management Research 27
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-11-2017-0289
233
Karimi, L., Khodabandelou, R., Ehsani, M., & Ahmad, M. (2014). Applying the uses and
234
gratifications theory to compare higher education students’ motivation for using
235
social networking sites: Experiences from Iran, Malaysia, United Kingdom, and
236
South Africa. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(1), 53–72.
237
https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6115
238
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by
239
the individual. The Uses of Mass Communications : Current Perspectives on
240
Gratifications Research, 19–32.
241
Kerner, N., & Pressman, G. (2007). Chasing cool: Standing out in today’s cluttered
242
marketplace. Simon & Schester Inc.
243
Khang, H., Kim, J. K., & Kim, Y. (2013). Self-traits and motivations as antecedents of
244
digital media flow and addiction: The Internet, mobile phones, and video games.
245
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2416–2424.
246
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.027
247
Kim, J. H. (2017). Smartphone-mediated communication vs. face-to-face interaction:
248
Two routes to social support and problematic use of smartphone. Computers in
249
Human Behavior, 67, 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.004
250
Kim, J., Lee, J., Jo, S., Jung, J., & Kang, J. (2015). Magazine reading experience and
251
advertising engagement: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journalism & Mass
252
Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 179–198.
253
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014559914
254
Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Preis, M. W. (2020). The impact of innovation and gratification
255
on authentic experience, subjective well-being, and behavioral intention in tourism
256
virtual reality: The moderating role of technology readiness. Telematics and
257
Informatics, 49, 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101349
258
Kim, T.-Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2013). The usage and the gratifications about smartphone
259
models and applications. International Telecommunication Policy Review, 20(4).
260
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2373428
261
Ko, H., Cho, C. H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural
262
equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57–70.
263
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639191
264
Korhan, O., & Ersoy, M. (2016). Usability and functionality factors of the social network
265
site application users from the perspective of uses and gratification theory. Quality
266
28 Contemporary Management Research
and Quantity, 50(4), 1799–1816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0236-7
267
Lariscy, R. W., Tinkham, S. F., & Sweetser, K. D. (2011). Kids these days: Examining
268
differences in political uses and gratifications, internet political participation,
269
political information efficacy, and cynicism on the basis of age. American
270
Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 749–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398091
271
Larose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding internet usage. Social
272
Science Computer Review, 19(4), 395–413.
273
https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900401
274
Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications
275
and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331–339.
276
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002
277
Leung, L., & Zhang, R. (2016). Predicting tablet use: A study of gratifications-sought,
278
leisure boredom, and multitasking. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 331–341.
279
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.013
280
Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications. Communication
281
Research, 11(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365084011001003
282
Lin, C. A. (1993). Modeling the gratification-seeking process of television viewing.
283
Human Communication Research, 20(2), 224–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
284
2958.1993.tb00322.x
285
Lin, C. A. (2006). Predicting satellite radio adoption via listening motives, activity, and
286
format preference. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50(1), 140–159.
287
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5001_8
288
Lin, H. F., & Chen, C. H. (2017). Combining the technology acceptance model and uses
289
and gratifications theory to examine the usage behavior of an augmented reality
290
tour-sharing application. Symmetry, 9(7), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9070113
291
Liu, H. J., & Shiue, Y. C. (2014). Influence of Facebook game players’ behavior on flow
292
and purchase intention. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 125–133.
293
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.125
294
Liu, S. Q., & Mattila, A. S. (2019). Apple pay: Coolness and embarrassment in the
295
service encounter. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 268–275.
296
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.009
297
Liu, X., Min, Q., & Han, S. (2020). Understanding users’ continuous content contribution
298
behaviours on microblogs: An integrated perspective of uses and gratification theory
299
and social influence theory. Behaviour and Information Technology, 39(5), 525–
300
Contemporary Management Research 29
543. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1603326
301
Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: Communication
302
Research, 31(5), 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204267930
303
Luo, X. (2002). Uses and gratifications theory and e-consumer behaviors. Journal of
304
Interactive Advertising, 2(2), 34–41.
305
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2002.10722060
306
McLeod, J. M., Bybee, C. R., & Durall, J. A. (1982). Evaluating media performance by
307
gratifications sought and received. Journalism Quarterly, 59(1), 3–5.
308
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908205900101
309
Meijer, F., Geudeke, B. L., & Van Den Broek, E. L. (2009). Navigating through virtual
310
environments: Visual realism improves spatial cognition. Cyberpsychology and
311
Behavior, 12(5), 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0053
312
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2010). Preferred
313
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
314
International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341.
315
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
316
Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1979). Uses and gratifications and exposure to public
317
television. Communication Research, 6(2), 155–179.
318
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600203
319
Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1985). A comparison of gratification models of media
320
satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 52(4), 334–346.
321
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376116
322
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. (1980). Relations between gratifications
323
sought and obtained. Communication Research, 7(2), 161–192.
324
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365028000700202
325
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. (1981). Gratification discrepancies and
326
news program choice. Communication Research, 8(4), 451–478.
327
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365028100800404
328
Palomba, A. (2018). Virtual perceived emotional intelligence: How high brand loyalty
329
video game players evaluate their own video game play experiences to repair or
330
regulate emotions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 34–42.
331
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.024
332
Park, N., & Lee, H. (2012). Social implications of smartphone use: Korean college
333
students’ smartphone use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
334
30 Contemporary Management Research
and Social Networking, 15(9), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0580
335
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. G. (2018). A review of research on outward foreign direct
336
investment from emerging countries, including China: What do we know, how do
337
we know and where should we be heading? Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(1),
338
90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2017.1357316
339
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know
340
and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717.
341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
342
Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-
343
global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda.
344
International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-
345
2018-0280
346
Payne, G. A., Dozier, D., Nomai, A., & Yagade, A. (2003). Newspapers and the internet:
347
A uses and gratifications perspective. Ecquid Novi, 24(1), 115–126.
348
https://doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2003.9653264
349
Payne, G. A., Severn, J. J. H., & Dozier, D. M. (1988). Uses and gratifications motives as
350
indicators of magazine readership. Journalism Quarterly, 65(4), 909-913.
351
Randle, Q. (2003). Gratification niches of monthly print magazines and the world wide
352
web among a group of special-interest magazine subscribers. Journal of Computer-
353
Mediated Communication, 8(4), JCMC849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
354
6101.2003.tb00224.x
355
Rauschnabel, P. A. (2018). A conceptual uses & gratification framework on the use of
356
augmented reality smart glasses. Augmented Reality & Virtual Reality, 211–227.
357
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_15
358
Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H., & Alt, F. (2022). What is XR?
359
Towards a framework for augmented and virtual reality. Computers in Human
360
Behavior, 133, 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107289
361
Rauschnabel, P. A., Rossmann, A., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2017). An adoption framework
362
for mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go. Computers in
363
Human Behavior, 76, 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.030
364
Rauschnabel, P. A., Sheldon, P., & Herzfeldt, E. (2019). What motivates users to hashtag
365
on social media? Psychology & Marketing, 36(5), 473–488.
366
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21191
367
Rayburn, J. D., Palmgreen, P., & Acker, T. (1984). Media gratifications and choosing a
368
Contemporary Management Research 31
morning news program. Journalism Quarterly, 61(1), 149–156.
369
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908406100121
370
Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2014). Exploring mobile tablet training for road safety: A uses
371
and gratifications perspective. Computers and Education, 71, 43–55.
372
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.005
373
Rokito, S., Choi, Y. H., Taylor, S. H., & Bazarova, N. N. (2019). Over-gratified, under-
374
gratified, or just right? Applying the gratification discrepancy approach to
375
investigate recurrent Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 76–83.
376
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.041
377
Roy, S. K. (2009). Internet uses and gratifications: A survey in the Indian context.
378
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 878–886.
379
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.002
380
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass
381
Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37.
382
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02
383
Safi, F., & Iqbal, L. (2015). Uses and needs gratification of FM radio broadcast in native
384
Pashto language: A case study of youth from Mardan. Journal of Applied
385
Environmental and Biological Sciences, 59, 220–227.
386
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320004322
387
Salvador, A., & Carmen, D. (2001). The definition of achievement and the construction
388
of tests for its measurement: A review of the main trends. Psicológica, 22(1), 43–66.
389
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16917746001
390
Shade, D. D., Kornfield, S., & Oliver, M. B. (2015). The uses and gratifications of media
391
migration: Investigating the activities, motivations, and predictors of migration
392
behaviors originating in entertainment television. Journal of Broadcasting &
393
Electronic Media, 59(2), 318–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1029121
394
Shahab, M. H., Ghazali, E., & Mohtar, M. (2021). The role of elaboration likelihood
395
model in consumer behaviour research and its extension to new technologies: A
396
review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
397
45(4), 664–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12658
398
Sheldon, P. (2008). Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use. Southwestern
399
Mass Communication Journal, 23(2), 39–53.
400
Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as
401
predictors of use and game preference. International Journal of Sports Marketing
402
32 Contemporary Management Research
and Sponsorship, 24(1).
403
Sjöblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2017). Why do people watch others play video games? An
404
empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users. Computers in Human Behavior,
405
75, 985–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.019
406
Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and
407
gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259–288.
408
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00117315.2004.02524.x
409
Suh, K. S., & Chang, S. (2006). User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online
410
stores: The role of telepresence. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 99–
411
113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330398
412
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and Grats 2.0: New gratifications for new
413
media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525.
414
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
415
Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C.-H., & Phang, C. W. (2013). Addressing the
416
personalization-privacy paradox: An empirical assessment from a field experiment
417
on smartphone users. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1141–1164.
418
Van Reijmersdal, E., Neijens, P., & Smit, E. (2005). Readers’ reactions to mixtures of
419
advertising and editorial content in magazines. Journal of Current Issues and
420
Research in Advertising, 27(2), 39–53.
421
https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2005.10505180
422
Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal
423
dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of
424
Communication, 62(3), 493–513. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-
425
abstract/62/3/493/4085810
426
Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination
427
of social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in
428
Human Behavior, 28(5), 1829–1839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.001
429
Wei, M. (2009). Shenyang college students’ use of sports media and their gratification.
430
Journal of Shenyang Sport University, 6.
431
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-SYTB200906014.htm
432
Wenner, L. A. (1982). Gratifications sought and obtained in program dependency.
433
Communication Research, 9(4), 539–560.
434
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365082009004003
435
Wenner, L. A. (1986). Model specification and theoretical development in gratifications
436
Contemporary Management Research 33
sought and obtained research: A comparison of discrepancy and transactional
437
approaches. Communication Monographs, 53(2), 160–179.
438
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376134
439
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: a uses and
440
gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
441
16(4), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041
442
Wolniewicz, C. A., Tiamiyu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., & Elhai, J. D. (2018). Problematic
443
smartphone use and relations with negative affect, fear of missing out, and fear of
444
negative and positive evaluation. Psychiatry Research, 262, 618–623.
445
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.058
446
Wu, J. H., Wang, S. C., & Tsai, H. H. (2010). Falling in love with online games: The uses
447
and gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1862–1871.
448
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.033
449
Yoo, C. Y. (2011). Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in
450
online newspapers. Communication Theory, 21(1), 67–89.
451
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01376.x
452
453
Dr. Hamza Shahab is a PhD scholar at University of Malaya, Malaysia. He has been
454
working as a Lecturer at University of Wah since 2014. His main areas of research interest
455
are digital marketing and tourism. Hamza has publications in well-reputed journals such as
456
Computers in Human Behavior, International Journal of Consumer Studies, International
457
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction and others. He has also worked as an assistant
458
editor of UW Journal of Management Sciences (UWJMS).
459
Dr. Ezlika Ghazali is an Associate Professor at the University of Malaya in Malaysia. Her
460
Ph.D. is from Warwick University in England. Her research interests include consumer
461
behavior, switching barriers, augmented-reality marketing, online retailing, sustainable
462
marketing, and social entrepreneurship. Ezlika has authored over 130 academic articles,
463
conferences, and books.
464
Dr. Mozard Mohtar (Corresponding author) is a senior lecturer in the Department of
465
Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Malaya. He received his
466
PhD in Marketing from Aston University (UK) and MBA from University of Malaya
467
(Malaysia). He teaches marketing-related subjects with a deep research interest in
468
advertising, marketing, and consumer psychology. He did various consulting works for
469
various organizations including the Islamic Tourism Centre of the Ministry of Tourism and
470
Culture on profiling mosques as tourism attractions.
471
