ECREA16-Abstract

Friday, November 11

1 4 : 3 0 – 1 6 : 0 0

in the country with “neo-authoritarian model of mass media” (Becker, 2004), specifically, Russia. In neo-authoritarian or “hybrid regime” (Toepfl, 2013),

it is unsurprising that new media are regarded as the only venue for free expression of ideas that are not aligned with official perspectives. According to

the official sociological surveys, 34 per cent of respondents name social nets as the main source of information and the information there as the most

reliable one. Having considered 23 different cases of Internet mediated communications, the following major types of audience participation have been

singled out: Type 1. Multidirectional communication. It deals with the cases in which messages posted through new mass media produce greater impact

than the similar ones issued by official media (e.g. blogs in LiveJournal of the oppositional leaders). Type 2. Interdependent communication. It occurs when

the messages distributed via new media unite Russian audience on a federal level. For instance, there were three YouTube videos that prompted serious

reforms of the national police agency in 2009–2010. Another example of this kind is“The Dear Mr. President!”style of presentations which Russian Internet

users have created as a culturally specific form of communication with governmental officials. Both cases offer examples of contemporary mediated dis‑

course and they illustrate specificity of audience participation in communication that occurs between citizens and either local authorities or governmental

officials. The results of the research illustrate that political and cultural environment may predetermine the main new mass media communication types

and specific forms of audiences participation. In brief, any kind of audience participation is shaped by politics and culture that penetrate all spheres of life

and act as the“lenses”(Brislin and Yoshida, 1994) through which all actions are viewed or performed.

PS 013

Parasocial Interactions and Relationships with Modified Personae – The Social Media Personae. An Empirical Contribution to Parasocial

Activities

S. Robak

University of Erfurt, Communication Studies- Communication and Digital Media, Erfurt, Germany

At the age of digitalization and the Internet integration with human beings daily routines, the boundaries between different forms of (para)social inter‑

actions become smoother and more fluent (cf.: Konijn et al. 2008, Morimoto/Friedland 2011). The frame of medial interaction, especially for the recipients

who are from 14 to 29 years old, shifts increasingly from the static living room and theTV that stands in it (cf. parasocial activities) to the digital and interac‑

tive reception and interaction mode (cf.: Eimeren/Frees 2014, Ofcom 2015) as social media; social communities. Nowadays the communication with media

stars (pl. personae; sing. persona sensu Horton/Wohl 1956) via Facebook, Twitter or diverse blogs a) is possible, b) happens more frequent and c) without

(any) status gap, because the persona is one of [us] the community. This fact leads to the feeling of familiarity. The persona, which primarily started to exist

due to and in social media, becomes more human and is accessible for the user due to the interactivity aspect, which is specifically given in the context

of the new media (e.g. likes, comment function, private message function). In the age of social-media’tization the phenomenon of parasocial activities

gained a new aspects – the possibility of reciprocal conversation with personae and a manifest and public demonstration of experienced PSI via likes or

comments (cf.: Colliander/Dahlén 2011, Frederick et al. 2012, Menon 2007, Niemann et al. 2015, Sanderson 2008, Schlütz/Lindner/Scheunert 2014, Stever/

Lawson 2013). Essentially, the parasocial interaction studies analyze this phenomenon via a paper-pencil-questionnaire with the use of a (modified) PSI-

Scale (e.g. origin: Rubin et al. 1985; adapted for: favorite TV personality (Conway/Rubin 1991), favorite soap opera characters (Perse/Rubin 1989), favorite

characters from a just-now-watched TV program (Auter 1992)), or the new measure, the EPSI-Scale to explore the within-viewing experience of mutual

awareness (e.g Dibble et al. 2015). The PSI-studies mainly explore the interaction or the relationship itself and the fewest one focus on the medial person.

Due to the assumption that PSI is a dyadic interpersonal activity, the medial counterpart should be deconstructed just as well (see Gleich 1997, study I).

Based on quantitative research methods, a quantitative survey (n=255; German respondents), the social media persona is being analyzed and empirically

verified. The aim of this study is to a) define the medial counterpart in the frame of (interactive/social media) PSI and b) determine the differences and

commonalties between the origin (in the frame of PSI; cf. Gleich 1997) and the social media persona. The results show for example that almost the half

of the respondents follow (up to three) social media personalities (43%) and even 32% of this pool communicate(ed) with them reciprocally. Interactive/

social media PSIs are build up not only to personae from the own country, but it is rather an international phenomenon. The predominant number of social

media personae exist/performwithin the genre lifestyle/DIY-bloggers/tutorials.The comparison with the origin PSI-persona will follow at the presentation.

PS 014

The Complexity of Media Multitasking: HowViewers Distribute Their Attention Between First and Second Screen

C. Strippel

, A. Fehr

Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Berlin, Germany

In the last twenty years, the digitization of media technology has led to an overarching and still progressing convergence of different media types. In this

context especially the combination of audio-visual and online media has been associated with high expectations in public and scientific discourse (Jensen &

Cathy, 1999; Pagani, 2003): Digital and Interactive TV were supposed to enable sovereign user experiences while also providing the possibility of active par‑

ticipation in the forming of television programming and content. Over time, however, it became evident that the promising potential of these convergent

forms wasn’t being demanded by the audience just as much (e.g. van Dijk & de Vos, 2001). Against this background, the lasting success of the so-called“So‑

cial TV”is somewhat surprising. The term encompasses different forms of the combined TV and Internet use (Chorianopoulos & Lekakos, 2008; Selva, 2016):

Using a“second screen”(smartphone, tablet or laptop), the TV viewers interact with each other on social networks sites (like Facebook or Twitter) or instant

messaging channels (e.g. WhatsApp). They discuss the TV program, comment on it and sometimes even participate in the production of on-screen content

(e.g. providing audience questions for a talk show via Twitter). The latest communication research already investigates the reasons for and outcomes of this

second screen use (e.g. Han & Lee, 2014; Van Cauwenberge, et al., 2014; Giglietto, & Selva, 2014). However, it is still unknown how exactly users deal with

the new complexity of this media multitasking situation. This contribution addresses the described lack of research and analyzes – against the background

of limited capacity theory (Lang, 2000; Wang et al., 2015) – how second screen users distribute their attention between the two screens while watching

TV. For this purpose, we conducted a standardized video observation of 18 participants who were invited to watch TV and use Twitter in an everyday setting