1991gendersca

8/3/2019 1991genderSCA

1/22

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE

USE OF REMOTE CONTROL DEVICES

Douglas A. Fer guson, Ph .D.

Department of Radio-Television-Film

Bowling Green State University

Bowling Green, Ohio 43403

(419) 372-6007

BITNET: ferguson@bgsuopie

Competitive paper submitted t o

th e Mass Comm un icat ion Division of the

Speech Communication Association

November 1991


2/22

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE

USE OF REMOTE CONTROL DEVICES

Abstract

The remote control device (RCD) is a choice-facilitating element in the

television environmen t. This stu dy examined at titu des an d beha viors

associated with RCD use as a fun ction of gender differences. Using 1990

telephone dat a (N=583), t-tests foun d men chan ging chan nels with th e RCD

more often tha n women, even dur ing favorite progra ms. Boredom,

commercial avoidan ce, an d wat ching t wo shows (as motiva tions for RCD

beha vior) were reported more often by men. Women r eport ed cur iosity more

often.


3/22

Remote Contr ol & Gender

1

Gender Differences in the Use of Remote Control Devices

Part of the promise of the "new media environment" is that unbounded

choice rep laces the homogene ity of th e "old media" (Webst er, 1986). In

addition to cable television a nd th e videocassett e recorder (VCR ), th e rem ote

control device (RCD) is a choice-facilitating element in the new media

environment. This study examined at titudes and behaviors associated with

RCD use, especially as a function of gender differences.

The resear ch qu estion h ere sought to identify which a ttitu des an d

beha viors sh owed significan t gender differen ces a nd wha t m otivat ions wer e

behind such differen ces. Based on th e review of liter at ur e, it was an ticipat ed

th at men would process informa tion differen tly tha n women , as indicat ed by

RCD use. The implicat ions of how men an d women u se RCDs differen tly to

view television h ave pr actical impa ct on t elevision pr ogra mm ers a nd

theoretical importance for television choice models (Heeter, 1985; Webster &

Waksh lag, 1983).

The popular media (e.g., cart oons, greet ing cards, t elevision shows)

ha ve ta ken note of th e appa ren t differen ces in RCD beha vior: Men ar e often

port ra yed as cha nn el-hopping television viewers ("The Ba tt le," 1991;

Kissinger, 1991). Women , for th eir part , rea ct to such behav ior in var ious

ways: an ger, ridicule, an d exaspera tion.

A series of focus groups (Fer guson, 1990a ) produced evocat ive

comment s about gender differences sur round ing RCD use. Several ma le

par ticipan ts a dmitt ed to fighting over th e remote contr ol:

My roomm at es and I fight over the remote. When we leave th e room we ha nd

it off to an oth er guy t o ma ke sur e someone else doesn't get it.


4/22


2

Sometimes we'll hide it. Reminds me of people who call the remote God

[because it] controlled their life.

Often t her e was a sense of frustr at ion directed at t he person (always ma le, in

th is purposive sam ple of women an d men ) who controlled th e rem ote control:

My dad is a cruiser. He'll flip it back an d forth an d it gets real irrita ting.

My dad does th at , just somet hing fierce. It makes me so ma d. 'Cause I'll sit

down a nd h e'll be watching someth ing and I'll watch it a nd just at the

point -- I don't k now how he does th is -- just at th e point when I'm

getting in t o it, he'll flick it t o somet hing else. Then I'll wat ch t ha t, a n d

I'll just be gett ing in t o it, and h e'll flick to somet hing else. Everyone

gives him a ha rd t ime, but he th inks they're kidding him.

This qualita tive resear ch produced six them es about viewing in t he new media

environment : selective viewing as a pu rp oseful activity, th e use of television

as a source of noise, boredom a s a prer equisite t o choice, RCD chan nel flipping

as a flour ishing phenomenon, a sense of inter ru ption as a pa rt of th e viewing

experience, an d a sen se of fru str at ion over cont rol as a pa rt of RCD use.

Fer guson concluded th at people ar e using n ew media t echn ologies to view

prime-time television selectively.

Gender differen ces in television viewing ha ve been st udied previous ly.

Heet er (1985) reported t ha t ma les use viewing guides less, chan ge cha nn els

more, watch more different cha nn els, engage in less concent ra ted cha nn el use,

an d ar e more fam iliar with differen t cha nn els. Heet er (1988) also noted

several gender differences in television viewing loyalty. Ten separ at e stu dies

using a va riety of met hods revealed tha t females are m ore likely to wat ch the

same daily and weekly progra ms an d th at men a re less likely to plan their


5/22


3

viewing before tu rn ing on th e television set. However, Heeter did not link

gender differences to the use of remote control devices.

Although pr evious r esearch ha s shown t hat men a nd women watch

television differen tly as individua ls, th e sam e may not be tru e when th e unit of

an alysis is family usa ge. Lindlof an d Sha tzer (1989) used Q-sort a na lysis to

show greater perceptual similarities than differences when spousal viewing

was considered with rega rd t o fam ily use of the VCR.

Ther e ha ve been ma ny stu dies done on th e gender differen ces between

children wat ching television. Ha efner , Metts, and War tella (1989) noted

differences in power strategies between boys and girls when resolving conflict

over television program choice. They suggested tha t male domina nce in the

television cont ext m ay be esta blished ea rlier in life, explaining lat er fat her

an d hu sban d dominan ce found by Morley (1986).

Gender Research

One possible explan at ion for RCD-related gender differen ces concern s

the dissimilar ways tha t males an d females process informa tion an d render

judgmen ts. Meyers-Levy (1989) presen ted an extensive review of th e

liter at ur e on inform at ion-processing. Meyers-Levy was able to reconcile

sometimes cont ra dictory findin gs by postu lat ing a selectivity hypothesis,

based on t he idea t ha t m ales do not compr ehen sively process all ava ilable

informa tion, relying inst ead on highly available and sa lient heu ristic cues.

The selectivity hypoth esis suggests "fema les gener ally att empt t o

enga ge in a r at her effort ful, compr ehen sive, piecemea l ana lysis of all ava ilable

inform a tion" (Meyers -Levy, 1989, p. 221). Alth ough neith er of th e two

stra tegies are su perior t o the other , the aut hor found su pport in the r esearch


6/22


4

liter at ur e for gender differen ces on severa l levels of inform at ion -processing:

interpretation, play behavior, other-directed interactions, spatial versus

linguist ic skills, and influenceability. The resea rch focused on differen t

styles of adver tising for men a nd women, but could suggest th at men u se the

rem ote contr ol more often because of th eir faster (th ough not n ecessar ily

better) decision-making. It is importa nt t o note tha t neither a pproach is

inher ent ly superior, but ma y serve to explain gender differences in

informa tion processing.

Att ention span ha s been a lso studied by different researchers.

Ander son (1986) reported t ha t m en looked at th e television set m ore tha n

women . Although Sta uffer, Fr ost, an d Rybolt (1983) foun d no gender

differen ces in th e r ecall of network t elevision news program s, Gould (1987)

noted th at youn ger females recalled more television comm ercials t ha n other

ma le an d female groups. Gould at tr ibuted such findings to grea ter

self-consciousness among younger females.

Att itudina l and beha viora l differen ces ha ve been st udied in gender

resea rch. Dovidio et a l. (1988) reported differen ces in verba l an d nonverba l

displays of power. Na dler an d Nadler (1987) foun d women t o be less

successful in int ra organizat iona l negotiat ion situ at ions, because of such

var iables as cognitive an d behavior orient at ions t owar d conflict situ at ions.

Conflict in t he form of great er a ggravat ion an d powerlessness wh ile choosing

television pr ogra ms could be expected with regar d to rem ote contr ol at titu des

for women. Mickelson (1989) used theories of social powerless nes s to

formulate hypotheses regarding women's academic achievement.


7/22


5

Anoth er area of gender resear ch concern s critical appr oaches. Rak ow

(1988) ar gued th at technology itself expresses ma inly ma le values a nd

mea nings. Car ter an d Spitzack (1989) ha ve criticized th e predominat e

theories a nd m ethods used in commu nicat ion r esearch. Nadler, Nadler, and

Todd-Mancillas (1987) also have summarized critical writings, especially

concern ing conflict and negotia tion. LaDu c (1990) a tt emp ted to reconcile

biologica l an d sociologica l explana tions by devising a cont inuum of beha viors.

LaDu c believed tha t t he cont inuu m su ggested wa ys "to overcome our fear of

physiologically-based r esear ch t hr ough th e rea lizat ion t ha t it ma y enrich our

sear ch for explana tions of sex/gender differen ces rat her t ha n na rr owly

circumscribe them" (p. 28).

Remote Contr ol Resear ch

Remote contr ol research represents a n importa nt yet under -researched

ar ea of th e new media environm ent . Remote control penet ra tion in 1990 ha d

rea ched 77% of television households in t he Un ited Sta tes (Sha grin , 1990),

alth ough t he inclusion of VCR rem ote control devices h as reportedly inflat ed

such Nielsen estima tes 10 percenta ge point s (Sylvester , 1990). Heet er an d

Greenber g (1985; 1988) examined th e impa ct of RCDs a mong cable viewers,

pointing out t ha t viewers with RCDs a re m ore likely to zap comm ercials

during and between progra ms.

Ainslie (1988) reported on "grazing" (flipping through channels with

rem ote contr ol devices) as a new way of wat ching television. Dra wing on a

na tiona l sample of 650 adult r espondents surveyed by Fr an k N. Magid

Associat es, Ainslie revealed th at two major motivations for gr azing were

boredom and concern for missing a better program on another channel.


8/22


6

Brown (1989) sum ma rized the findings of th e Magid study, warn ing tha t it

would be "perilous" for broadcast ers to downplay th e importa nce of gra zing

(p. 55).

Walker a nd Bellamy (in press) wrote th at the "neglect of RCDs by

commun icat ion resea rchers is un fort un at e" (p. 3). Their resea rch cent ered on

a tr an sactiona l model of gra tifica tions/effects. Using a sam ple of un iversity

stu dent s (N=455), they report ed a factor a na lysis of gra tificat ions t ha t

identified select ive avoidance as a n import an t motivat ion for RCD u se.

Wenner & Dennehy (1990) reported evidence tha t t he RCD is a toy

technology ra th er t ha n a tool technology (for a nother view, see Bellam y &

Walker, 1990). This finding support s Meyers-Levy's notion th at ma les use

concret e props for pla y beha vior a nd fema les rely more on fan ta sy or

pret ending. This may be th e result of "grea ter par ticipat ion of boys in

low-str uctur e sett ings and girls in h igh-stru ctu re set tings" (Meyers-Levy,

1989, p. 225). Ther e is a lso evidence tha t women a re more likely to self-focus

tha n m en (Ingra m, Cruet, & J ohnson, 1988).

Ther e is no evidence tha t recall of inform at ion is r elated t o gender

(Sta uffer, F rost , & Rybolt, 1983). Nor is th ere conclus ive evidence rega rdin g

left br ain -right bra in gender differen ces (e.g., Bowers & La Bar ba, 1988;

Kert esz, Polk, H owell, & Black, 1987).

This present study sought to identify which at titudes a nd behaviors

showed significan t gender differen ces. The findings, like those in th e Magid

study, are ba sed on a ra ndom telephone survey.


9/22


7

Method

A telephone sur vey in Spr ing 1990 used a ra ndom-digit dialing

technique t ha t a ssigned four digits t o th ree a vailable telephone prefixes,

weight ed by th eir actu al distr ibution within the town (Fr ey, 1983). The

ta rget populat ion was a dults living off-cam pus in a un iversity town in th e

Midwest. Tra ined college stu dent s in an au dience mea sur emen t class dialed

2452 nu mber s from a closely-super vised cent ra l locat ion. Nonworking

nu mber s accoun ted for 1364 at tem pts, leaving 1088 valid at tem pts. Ea ch

working ra ndom num ber was dialed three t imes and callbacks were used.

After deleting 130 business numbers an d 193 no answers, there were 765

phone number s in th e sam ple. Ther e were 583 completions, with 182

refusa ls, for a 76.2% completion ra te.

The survey collected information on technology ownership (TV, cable,

pay cable, VCR, satellite dish) an d basic demograph ics pat ter ned a fter th e

Magid stu dy (sex, educat ion, age, an d income). Behaviors associat ed with

RCD use (flipping, checking TV listings, grazing, increased use, a greemen t,

an d verbal disagreemen t) were ask ed to detect differen ces. The

questionna ire also surveyed at titudes t oward RCDs t o determine gender

differen ces r egar ding decision-makin g, aggra vation, feelings of power, a nd

television enjoyment .

Flipping frequ ency was deter mined by ask ing: "Dur ing a t ypical hour of

TV viewing yester day, how often did you chan ge th e cha nn el?" If th e

respondent did not wat ched t elevision "yesterda y," th e int erviewer asked

about "th e day before yesterda y." Ther e was no th ird cha nce given; other

responses were coded as missing dat a.


10/22


8

Responden ts ident ified th eir motivat ions for flipping t hr ough

channels during programs by verbal frequencies

(alwa ys-usu ally-ra rely-never), using sta tem ents t ha t a lso closely par alleled

th e nat iona l dat a from the Magid stu dy (Brown, 1989). Specifically, th ere

were six motivations for cha nging chan nels dur ing program s: (1) to escape

boredom, (2) to avoid m issing a bett er sh ow, (3) to check oth er pr ogra ms out of

curiosity, (4) to avoid commercials, (5) to avoid cert a in per sons on t elevision,

an d (6) to wat ch two or more cha nn els at t he same time. These "flipping

motivations" were cross-validat ed ear lier in t he su rvey by an open-ended

quest ion r egarding t he r esponden ts' major rea son (and a ny "other r eason") for

cha nging cha nn els with the remote contr ol. This inform al quality cont rol was

done to make sure that respondents were really aware of "why" they changed

channels using RCDs.

The st at istical pa cka ge SPSS Version 4.0 was us ed for a ll

computa tions. The ana lysis of gender differen ces was condu cted by mea ns of

the t-test.

Results

Despite a tt empts to int erview tha t person who ha d the "last birth day"

in the household, 58 percent of th e respondent s were fema les. Even so, the

differen ce in cell sizes for female a nd ma le users of RCDs was never

sufficiently large t o violate th e assu mpt ions of t-test compa risons.

Nea rly 76% of the 583 responden ts (n = 442) owned a rem ote contr ol

device for th eir television set. The avera ge cable penet ra tion was 67.2% an d

VCR penet ra tion was 71.1%. Ther e were no gender differen ces for th ese

var iables measu ring t echn ology presence.


11/22


9

Remote cont rol frequ ency (n = 350) ra nged from 0 to 50 cha nges per

hour (M = 4.92, SD = 5.75). When flipping frequen cy was exam ined by

gender, women changed chan nels an a vera ge 4.1 times per hours (SD = 4.2).

Men chan ged cha nn els 5.9 t imes per hour (SD = 7.1), significan tly more often

th an women (t = 2.8, p < .01).

The flipping motivations (n = 412) were coded 4=always, 3=usually,

2=ra rely an d 1=never. In descending order , th e responses to th e quest ion

"How often do you cha nge cha nn els because . . ." were : boredom (M = 2.85,

SD = .78), curiosity (M = 2.73, SD = .81), avoid comm ercials (M = 2 .47,

SD = 1.06), avoid m issing a bett er program (M = 2.39, SD = .81), avoid certa in

people (M = 2.09, SD = .88), an d wat ching two or m ore shows (M = 1.76,

SD = .86).

Table 1 shows the gender differen ces a ssociat ed with th e six

__________________

Table 1 about here

__________________

flipping motivat ions. All but t wo (chan ging chann els to check oth er program s

an d fear of missing a bett er show) showed significan t differen ces (p < .05).

Table 2 sum ma rizes the differen ces in RCD beha viors bet ween

__________________

Table 2 about here

__________________


12/22


10

men a nd women . Women were less likely to gra ze dur ing favorite progra ms

(t = 3.13, p < .001). None of th e othe r beha viors showed gender differen ces.

The a ttitudinal measu res pr oduced t wo substant ial differences

__________________

Table 3 about here

__________________

between women an d men. Women were much more likely to express

aggra vation when a nother person used t he RCD for gra zing (t = -5.46,

p < .001). Also, men wer e more likely to report feeling more powerful when in

cont rol of th e RCD (t = 3.43, p < .001).

Discussion

This study looked at the relationship between gender an d RCD use.

Heet er (1985) found t ha t m en cha nge cha nnels more often , but did not conn ect

the behavior to RCD use. The more importan t finding here is th at m en are

more likely to chan ge cha nn els with an RCD (somet imes even dur ing th eir

favorite progra ms) for th ree rea sons: boredom, aver sion to comm ercials, and

th e desire to wat ch two or more progra ms. Women a re more likely to cha nge

cha nnels with a n RCD out of curiosity. Fu rth ermore, the RCD appa rent ly

gives men a feeling of power a nd crea tes a source of aggrava tion for women.

The r esear ch findings here ser ve to focus on th e motivat ions behind t he

role of gender in program choice models (e.g., Heeter, 1985; Webster &

Waksh lag, 1983). Heet er (1985) found tha t gender (as a viewer at tr ibute) ha d

a consisten t r elationship with choice process var iables (such a s chan nel

cha nging frequ ency). The present st udy looked at possible "uses an d


13/22


11

gra tificat ions" of th e choice process. The resu lts here add t o th e

un derst an ding of television viewing: to know why choices are being ma de,

from a functiona l point of view.

The differen ce regarding feeling of power m ay be m ore r elated to

gender an d power in gener al (cf. Dovidio et a l., 1988) th an to RCD use in

par ticular. Power may be a feeling tha t men are socialized to disclose.

However, th ere is insufficient evidence in th is study t o suggest why men a re

more likely to report feeling more powerful. More resea rch needs to be done

in t his area.

The findings of this study are important to scholars and practitioners

who study the multicha nnel environment . On a practical level, remote

control devices a re cha nging t he way people wat ch television, alth ough

appa ren tly to a lesser degree tha n cable television an d VCRs. It also seems

likely that the cumulative effects of choice-facilitating devices and

prolifera ting chan nels ma ke ma le viewers more selective.

Why ar e there apparent gender differences in RCD use? The

explan at ion offered by Meyers -Levy (1989) is a ppealing but far from certa in.

Per ha ps women process inform at ion differen tly tha n men do. E ven if th is is

tru e, what a re other possible factors? Fu tur e resear ch needs to test such

explanations.

The findings of th is study a re su bject to th e usua l limitat ions of

self-report data a nd university-town samples. Fu tur e resear ch on remote

control behavior needs more objective information on channel selection,

possibly th rough meter s instea d of diaries. Arbitron and Nielsen already

mea sur e VCR recording a nd pla yback; th e need exists for similar inform at ion


14/22


12

on rem ote contr ol us e. Sylvester (1990) is one of th e firs t voices am ong th e

adver tising comm un ity to cajole such da ta from th e ra tings services.

Another consideration for further research is that all remote controls

ar e not crea ted equa lly (see Heeter & Greenberg, 1988, pp. 45-47). For

exam ple, ther e is a rem ote cont rol device featu re called Quick -View

(Consum er Reports, J an . 1983, p. 36) tha t m emorizes th e last two cha nnels

watched so sports viewers can easily wat ch t wo games a t the sa me time.

Some RCDs permit ra ndom access, while others can only step up or step down.

Also, Ca na dians ha ve developed int era ctive u ses for RCDs (Moshavi, 1990).

Television ma rket s with higher VCR and cable penet ra tion produce

more selective viewers (Fer guson, 1990b). In a similar wa y, viewers with

RCDs and enhanced channel repertoires are actively selecting their own new

media environmen ts (Fer guson, in press). The remote cont rol device is an

importa nt element in th e new media environmen t, despite a scar city of

published resea rch on RCDs.


15/22


13

References

Ainslie, P. (1988, Septem ber). Confronting a na tion of gra zers. Ch an nels,

pp. 54-62.

Anderson, D. R. (1986). Television viewing at home: Age trends in visual

at ten tion an d time with TV. Child Development, 57, 1024-1033.

The bat tle (zap! click!) of th e sexes. (1991, J ul y 7). New York Times [edit orial],

section 4, p. 10.

Bellam y, R. V. J r., & Walker , J . R. (1990, November). The diffus ion of a t ool

techn ology: The political economy of the rem ote cont rol device. Paper

presented t o the a nnu al meeting of the Speech Commun icat ion

Associa tion, Chicago.

Bowers, C. A., & LaBarba, R. C. (1988). Sex differences in the lateralization of

spat ial abilities: A spat ial component an alysis of extr eme group scores.

Bra in a nd Cognition, 8, 165-177.

Brown, M. (Ed.) (1989). How Americans watch TV: A nation of grazers. New

York: C.C. Publishing.

Carter, K., & Spitzack, C. (1989). (Eds.). Doing research on women's

commun icat ion: Per spectives on t heory and m ethod. Norwood, NJ :

Ablex.

Dovidio, J . F., Brown, C. E., H eltma n, K., Ellyson, S. L., et a l. (1988). Power

displays between women a nd m en in discussion s of gender -linked

tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 55, 580-587.


16/22


14

Fergu son, D. A. (1990a). Selective exposur e to television: An explora tory st udy

of VCR usage. Pa per presented at the a nnu al meeting of the Speech

Communication Association, Chicago.

Fergu son, D. A. (1990b). Selective exposur e to television: P red ict ing

inher itan ce effects from VCR an d cable penetr at ion. Pa per presen ted a t

th e an nua l meeting of th e Speech Commu nicat ion Associat ion,

Chicago.

Fer guson, D. A. (in press). Cha nn el repertoire in th e presen ce of remote

cont rol devices, VCRs, and cable television. J ourn a l of Broadcast ing &

Electronic Media.

Frey, J. H. (1983). Survey research by telephone (pp. 91-104). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Gould, S. J . (1987). Gender differen ces in a dvertising response a nd

self-consciousness var iables. Sex Roles, 16(5/6), 215-225.

Greenberg, B. S., Heet er , C., & Lin, C. A. (1988). Playboy viewing styles. In C.

Heet er & B. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Cableviewing. Norwood, NJ : Ablex

Publishing Company.

Ha efner , M. J ., Metts, S., & Wart ella, E. (1989). Siblings' stra tegies for

resolving conflict over television program choice. Communication

Quarterly, 37(3), 223-230.

Heeter, C. (1985). Program selection with abundance of choice: A process

model. Hu ma n Commu nicat ion Resea rch, 12(1), 126-152.

Heet er, C. (1988). Gender differen ces in viewing st yles. In C. Heeter & B. S.

Greenberg (Eds.), Cableviewing. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.


17/22


15

Heet er, C., & Greenberg, B. S. (1985). Profiling th e zapper s. J ourna l of

Advertising Research, 25(2), 15-19.

Heet er, C., & Green berg, B. S. (1988). Cableviewing. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.

Ingr am , R. E., Cru et, D., & J ohnson, B. R. (1988). Self-focused at ten tion:

Gender , gender r ole, an d vulnera bility to negative affect. J ourna l of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 967-978.

Kert esz, A., Polk, M., Howell, J ., & Black, S. E . (1987). Cerebra l domin an ce,

sex, and ca llosa l size in MRI . Neu rology, 37, 1385-1388.

Kissinger, D. (1991, Febru ar y 25). Zap -ha ppy fellas widen ra tings gender gap.

Variety, pp. 59, 63.

LaDuc, L. M. (1990, November ). From "sex differ ences" to "gender differences":

Toward an integrated model of the relationship between

commun icat ion behavior, cognition, an d neurophysiology. Pa per

presen ted a t t he convent ion of the Speech Commu nication Association,

Chicago.

Lindlof, T. R., & Sha tzer , M. J. (1989). Su bjective differences in spousa l

perceptions of family video. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media, 33, 375-395.

Meyers-Levy, J . (1989). Gender differen ces in inform a tion pr ocessing: A

selectivity interpr eta tion. In P . Caffera ta & A. M. Tybout (Eds.),

Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 219-260).

Lexingt on, MA: Lexingt on Books.

Mickelson, R. A. (1989). Why does J an e r ead a nd wr ite so well? The a noma ly of

women 's achievemen t. Sociology of Edu cat ion , 62(1), 47-63.


18/22


16

Morley, D. (1986). F am ily t elevision: Cultur al power an d domestic leisur e.

London: Comedia.

Moshavi, S. D. (1990, August 13). Montreal cable offers interactive options.

Broadcasting, pp. 60, 62.

Na dler, L. B., Na dler, M. K., & Todd-Man cillas, W. R. (1987). Advances in

gender a nd commu nicat ion research. Lan ham , MD: University Pr ess of

America.

Na dler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (1987). Commun icat ion, gen der, a nd

intra organ izat iona l negotiation ability. In L. P. Stewart an d S.

Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse

interaction contexts (pp. 119-134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rak ow, L. F. (1988). Gender ed t echn ology, gendered pra ctice. Cr itical Stu dies

in Mass Communication, 5(1), 57-70.

Sta uffer, J ., Frost, R., & Rybolt, W. (1983). The a tt ent ion factor in recalling

net work television news. J our na l of Comm un icat ion , 33(1), 29-37.

Sylvester , A. K. (1990, Febru ar y). Cont rolling r emote. Mar keting & Media

Decisions, p. 54 .

Walker , J . R., & Bellamy, R. V. J r. (in pr ess). The gra tifica tions of gra zing: An

explorat ory stu dy of rem ote control use. J our na lism Qua rt erly.

Webster, J . G. (1986). Audience behavior in t he new media en vironm ent .

J ourna l of Comm un icat ion , 36(3), 77-91.

Webst er, J . G., & Wa ksh lag, J . (1983). A th eory of television progra m choice.

Comm un icat ion Resear ch , 10, 430-447.

Wenner , L. A., & Dennehy, M. (1990, November). In our lives, in our ha nds:

Towards and underst an ding of remote cont rol use. Pa per presented at


19/22


17

th e an nua l meeting of th e Speech Commu nication Association,

Chicago.


20/22


18

Table 1

Gender Differences for RCD Motivations

Flipping Motivat ions Women Men t p

Avoid boredom 2.74 2.99 3.21 .00

Avoid missing bet te r show 2.46 2.32 1.73 .09

Check othe r shows (cur iosity) 2.84 2.64 2.51 .01

Avoid comm ercials 2.27 2.72 4.43 .00

Avoid people 2.02 2.18 1.84 .07

Wat ch two or more shows 1.61 1.95 3.95 .00

Note. Motivations defined as h ow often th e chann el was changed because of the given r eason

(4=always, 3=usually, 2=rarely, 1=never)


21/22


19

Table 2

Gender Differences for RCD Behaviors

Flipping Beha viors Women Men t p

F lip ba ck to origina l show 2.43 2.52 1.15 .28

Use RCD as listings subst itut e 2.56 2.69 1.35 .18

Gra ze dur ing favorite program 1.55 1.76 3.13 .00

Wat ch more TV if with RCD 2.62 2.77 1.73 .09

Agree with RCD cont roller 2.54 2.55 .07 .95

Voice opin ions (disagreem ent s) 2.71 2.76 .61 .54

Note. Behaviors defined as how often the behavior occurred (4=always, 3=usually, 2=rarely,

1=never)


22/22


20

Table 3

Gender Differen ces for RCD Attitu des

RCD Att itudes Women Men t p

RCD cont roller ma kes decision 2.71 2.72 .07 .94

Aggrava tion at RCD gra zing 3.12 2.63 -5.46 .00

Feel more powerful with RCD 2.21 2.60 3.43 .00

TV more enjoyable with RCD 3.03 3.15 1.53 .13

Note. Att itudes were mea sur ed on an a greement scale (4=strongly agree, 3=agree,2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree)

1991gendersca

Documents