ISSN 2079-6617 (Print)
ISSN 2309-9828 (Online)
Ru | En
Russian Psychological Society
The Faculty of Psychology. Lomonosov Moscow State University.
Main RSS Search

MainArticlesVolumes

Sharikov A.V. (2018). Sociometric status and leisure media consumption. National Psychological Journal, [Natsional’nyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal], 4, 39–49

Abstract

Background. In the context of mass communication research a special value is placed on the discussion of the connection between using various means of mass communication and their particular features. One of the important personal characteristics is the sociometric status of a person in a group.

The Objective of the empirical research presented in the paper is to reveal whether there is a connection between leisure media consumption and the sociometric status of a person in small groups. If the assumption about the unified nature of communication processes in interpersonal and mass communication is deemed as the initial theoretical premise, it is reasonably assumed that sociometric characteristics of a person should correlate with the parameters of his address to the means of mass communication.

Design. The study involved 110 people aged 25 to 28 years old, employed with 10 departments of two companies. According to the results of a special questionnaire used together with a sociometric questionnaire, media consumption parameters are determined: preference of media channels (print media, radio, television, the Internet)), intensity of access to these media channels, functional orientations (e.g. information, entertainment, cultural and educational). Based on the data obtained, special indices are calculated: sociometric status index; four indices of media channels preferences (print media, radio, television, the Internet); four intensity indices of media consumption (reading print media, radio listening, television watching, using the Internet); three indexes of functional orientation (index of information function, index of entertainment function, index of cultural and educational function).

Research Results. Popular respondents choose the print media much more often than others, while the unpopular ones choose television; more popular respondents use do print media and radio much more intensively, while unpopular respondents used television; with respect to the Internet, no significant differences were found; popular respondents are much more focused on cultural, educational and informational functions, and unpopular ones are focused on entertainment. For the sociometric status index, the following findings are true: strong direct relationship with the radio consumption index (R = 0.713) and with the print media consumption index (R = 0.693); mean value of television consumption index (R = -0.541); mean value of the Internet consumption index (R = 0.471).

Conclusion. The obtained results correlate quite well with the results of the research conducted in the 1980s, although they were obtained in other socio-cultural and socio-economic conditions, as well as in a different social group. This proves the existence of a connection between sociometric status and media preferences, not only in high school students, but also in young adults. Hence it is logical to assume that such kind of connections should be observed in other social groups. At the theoretical level, there is an issue of developing an explanatory socio-psychological model that would organically link the interpersonal communication and mass communication patterns.

Received: 09/13/2018
Accepted: 10/27/2018
Pages: 39-49
DOI: 10.11621/npj.2018.0404

By: ;

Sections: Social Psychology;

PDF: /pdf/npj-no32-2018/npj_no32_2018_039-049.pdf

Keywords: sociometry; sociometric status; media; media consumption; preference for media channels; functional orientations for media consumption; popular members of the group; unpopular members of the group;

Available Online 30.12.2018

Table 1. Preferences of social information channels and their relationship with sociometric status index

Mass Media Type

Prefereces, % depending on Sample (N=110)

Pearson's correlation coefficient R with sociometric status index

Satistical significance of R by Z-Fisher criterion (α = 0,05)

Interent

75

-0.060

Not significant

Television

56

-0.526

Significant

Printed Media

41

0.478

Significant

Radio

15

0.075

Not significant

Table 2. Quotes of media channels among popular and unpopular members of groups

Mass Media Type

Quotes by popular group members

Quotes by unpopular group members

Statistical significance of the chi-square difference (α = 0.05)

Printed Media

23

6

Significant

Radio

6

5

Not significant

Television

6

34

Significant

Internet

23

32

Not significant

Table 3. Mean values of consumption for different types of media channels, correlation coefficient and sociometric status index

Mass Media Type

Mean value of consumption intensity index

Pearson's R correlation coefficient with sociometric status index

Statistical significance of R by Z-Fisher criterion (α = 0.05)

Printed Media

2.18

0. 693

Significant

Radio

2.09

0.713

Significant

Television

3.14

-0.541

Significant

Internet

4.55

0.471

Significant

Table 4. Mean values of distribution channels consumption for socially significant information in subsamples of popular and unpopular members of groups

Type of Media Channel

Mean value of consumption intensity index among popular group members

Mean value of consumption intensity index among unpopular group members

Statistical significance of the chi-square difference (α = 0.05)

Printed Media

3.52

1.15

Significant

Radio

3.45

0.83

Significant

Television

1.71

4.08

Significant

Internet

5.00

3.50

Not significant

Mean

3.42

2.39

Significant

Table 5. Mean values of the functional orientation index, Pearson coefficients, and sociometric status index

Functions

Mean value of functional orientation index

Pearson R coefficient with sociometric status index

Statistical significance of R by Z-Fisher criterion (α = 0.05)

Information

0.55

0.433

Significant

Entertainment

0.91

-0.638

Significant

Cultural and Educational

0.29

0.541

Significant

Table 6. Mean values of functional orientation index between popular and unpopular respondents

Functions

Mean value of functional orientation index among the popular members of groups

Mean value of functional orientation index among the unpopular members of groups

Statistical significance of the chi-square difference (α = 0.05)

Information

0.94

0.20

Significant

Entertainment

0.19

1.45

Significant

Cultural and Educational

0.61

0.00

Significant

Table 7. Pearson coefficients between functional orientation indices and intensity indices of media channels consumption

Functions

Pearson correlation coefficient with print media reading index

Pearson correlation coefficient with radio listening intensity index

Pearson correlation coefficient with viewing intensity index

Pearson correlation coefficient with internet access intensity index

Information

0.392

0.315

-0.298

0.169

Entertainment

-0.556

-0.441

0.404

-0.374

Cultural and Educational

0.357

0.456

-0.213

0.291

References:

Buyanov V.I. (2012). The study of the socio-psychological climate in the organization: content, criteria, methods. Moscow.

Cherkashin A.G. (2011). Features of self-relation to the image of the physical I depending on the sociometric status. [Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Sotsial’nye, gumanitarnye, mediko-biologicheskie nauki], 13(2–3), 627–630.

Gerasimenko I.Ya., & Yusupov R.M. (1994). Sociometry of the conflict. St. Petersburg, Rossiyskaya Akademiya Nauk. St. Petersburgskiy Institut Informatiki and Avtomatizatsii.

Gurskaya A.S., & Shlyakhta D.A. (2013). Sociometric status of a person as one of the differentiating factors of human behavior. Personality, family and society: questions of pedagogy and psychology, 35(2), 136–140.

Holsti O.R. (1996). Public opinion and American foreign policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Jensen J.L., Mortensen M., & Ørmen J. (eds.). (2016). News across media: production, distribution and consumption. New York; London, Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315692456

Katz E., & Lazarsfeld P.F. (1955). Personal Influence: the Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York, The Free Press.

Kolominsky J.L. (1978). Psychology of relationships in small groups: communication and age characteristics. Minsk, Izdatel’stvo BGU.

Kornilovich V.A., & Kholin A.N. (2017). Communicative dynamics of a small group: information support for management decisions (for example, group situational analysis). [Kommunikologiya], 5(1), 99–110.

Kripsky A.M. (1982). Scientific and methodological recommendations for the definition and improvement of relationships in production teams using sociometric methods. Minsk, Izdatel’stvo BGINH.

LaPiere R.T. (1934). Attitudes vs. Actions Social Forces, 13 (2), 230–237. doi: 10.2307/2570339

Lazarsfeld P.F., Berelson B., & Gaudet H. (1944). The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

Markov I.M. (1999). Sociometric methods in psychology: manual. Chelyabinsk: Izdatel’stvo YuUrGU.

Mazilov V.A., & Kostrigin A.A. (2017). The work of V.A. Snegirev: An historical and psychological study. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 10(1), 198–210.

Moreno J.L. (2004). Sociometry. Experimental method and social science. Moscow, Akademicheskiy Proekt.

Moreno J.L. (1951). Sociometry. Experimental Method and the Science of Society: An Approach to a New Political Orientation. Beacon, N.Y., Beacon House.

Rasskazova A.L. (2004). Sociometric method for the study of small groups. Moscow, MosGU.

Samrailova E.K. (2006). Sociometric analysis of conflict processes. Moscow, Rektor.

Sharikov A.V. (2012). Towards a general audience theory. [Sotsiologiya i obshchestvo: global’nye vyzovy i regional’noe razvitie : materialy 4go Ocherednogo Vserossiyskogo sotsiologicheskogo kongressa]. Moscow, ROS, 965–973.

Sobkin V.S. (2000). Television and education: research 1980–90s. [Obrazovanie i informatsionnaya kul’tura. Sotsiologicheskie aspekty. Trudy po sotsiologii obrazovaniya]. Vol. V. Issue VII. Moscow, Tsentr sotsiologii obrazovaniya RAO, 11–94.

Sobkin V.S., & Sharikov A.V. (1989). Features of television preferences of students with different sociometric status. [Televidenie I shola]. Moscow: APN USSR, 53–61.

Sofia C. (2004). Gruppi e opinion leadership : impatti sociali sulle politiche locali. Milano, Franco Angeli.

Solomon M.R. (2009). Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson, Prentice Hall.

Summers J.O., & King C.W. (1969). Opinion leadership and new product adoption. Lafayette, Ind., Krannert Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Purdue University.

The connected customer: the changing nature of consumer and business markets / Ed. by S. Wuyts. - New York : Routledge, 2010.

Tkhostov A.Sh. (2017). Opportunities and prospects of social pathopsychology. [Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta], Series 14. Psychology, 1, 36–50.

Volkov B.S., & Volkova N.V. (2014). Methodology and methods of psychological research. Moscow, KNORUS.

Volkov I.P. (1970). Sociometric methods in social and psychological research. Leningrad, Zhdanov Leningrad State University.

Zolotovitsky R.A. (2003). Organizational art therapy and training: sociodrama and sociometry in work with an organization, a group, a family. Moscow, Moreno-Institut, ARK Business Group.

Zubanova L.B. (2009). Reality in the judgments of media opinion leaders. [Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya], 10, 109–118.

For citing this article:

Sharikov A.V. (2018). Sociometric status and leisure media consumption. National Psychological Journal, [Natsional’nyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal], 4, 39–49

About Editorial Board Volumes Authors For Authors Indexing Contacts
CC BY-NC

National Psychological Journal, 2006 - 2020