CHAPTER TWO
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY: Lazaisfeld and Stanbon (1944) Uses and gratification theory has provided a frame work for examining the satisfaction of needs and interests through different forms of communications media (Kartz, Blumler and Gvievitch, 1974). If two media serve similar needs then they can act as functional alternatives. However, if they are designed to serve different needs then they are specialized. One type of medium they be preferred to another if it is better at fulfilling certain needs such as entertainment or socializing (Peise and Courtright, 1993). Uses and gratifications theory has been employed in different forms of social communications because of the goal-directed nature of communications behaviour (Rubin and Rubin, 1985). The motives at play, such as relaxation or the acquisition of information can be quite different depending on the types of communication media used such as the television or the internet (Fergusion and Peise, 2000). Studies also found out that the motives for being using a computer mediated communication (CMC) were different from motives for using face-to-face communication was rated higher that the computer mediated communication (CMC) for all motives, including social ones like inclusion and affection.
Two forms of media may be so different that they alter social uses and social communication. At least in terms of romantic relationships, it has been suggested that interaction on the internet are different from face-to-face interactions. The anonymity afforded by the internet allows relationship to proceed quickly to intimate levels because of the limitations of other aspects of social contact (Merkle and Richardson, 2000). In some studies, individuals have been found to communicate less frequently and closely with internet partners than with non-internet partners. However, the internet is rated as less useful than face-to-face communication for maintaining social relationships. Past research has employed uses and gratifications theory to examine motives, interest and attitudes behind face-to-face online communication (Ferguson and Persie, 2000). Flahertl et al., 1998)/ the theory suggests that if individuals find face-to-face communication and online communication useful to reach similar goals, then they will use the two media similarly. One should expect similar motives at work in the two forms of communication. If, however the uses of communication over the internet were different form those of face-to-face communication, then one could expect different motives as a factor in the two forms of communication.
High sociability and low shyness have been associated with increased traditional social behaviour (Asendorpf and Wipers, 1998; Bruch et al., 1989). Past research also indicates that high sociability would be associated with increased internet social communication. The greater anonymity provided by the internet suggests that, the motives maybe somewhat different in the two forms of social communication. The internet may also help reduce social anxiety experienced by shy individuals. This effect may led to somewhat different patterns of use in the two media for shy individuals. If this is the case, the motives behind traditional and internet social communication maybe somewhat different.
2.2 THEORY OF NEED AFFILIATION: Mcleiland (1958)
The need for affiliation by David Mccelland (1958) he says. Describes a person’s need to feel a sense of involvement and “belonging” within a social group; according to Murray (1938), people with a high need for affiliation require warm interpersonal relationships and approval from those with whom they have regular contact. People who place high emphasis on affiliation tend to be supportive team members, but may be less effective in leadership positions. A research done by Schactee (1959) shows that fear that comes form anxiety increases the need for the person to affiliate with others who are going thorough the same situation or that could help them through the stressful event. Individuals are motivated to find and create a specific amount of social interactions. Each individuals desires a different amount of a need for affiliation and they desire an optimal balance of time to their self and time spent with others. This particular need concerns the desire to be associated with specific people and groups, to have a greater sense of belonging and place. It can play a role in a variety of human interactions and in the formation of bonds and friendships.
2.3 Theory of social interaction: Hannah Humphrey
Social interaction theory studies the ways that people engage with one another. Scholars from many disciplines including anthropology, sociology, psychology, and linguistic are interested in social interaction and the patterns that can be found in such interactions. According to Max Weber, social behaviour has two components. The first is the action or the behaviour itself. The second is the meaning that the ctor attaches to is or her behaviour. That meaning Weber refereed to as orientation, is how a person perceives his behaviour in relationship to other people. It is that knowledge of another who is affected that makes an action or interaction social. Another early contribution to social interaction theory was Geiman- American Kurt Lewin, who developed the concept of group dynamics. Lewin was concerned with the interaction not just between individuals but between individuals and the groups that they belong to. The main contribution of group dynamics to later theories is that human behaviour results from the interaction between a person and his or her environment. Lewing wrote this theory as a mathematical equation, making behaviour equal to the function of individuals and the environment.
2.4 Theories of personality
CARL JUNGS THEORY OF INTROVERSION AND EXTROVERSION (1933): Carl Jung (1933).
According to his theory I am introvert is s person whose interest is generally directed inward toward his own feelings and thoughts, in constant to an extravert, who attention is directed towards other people and the outside world. Conversely, Jung explains that a person who is predominantly introverted tends to orient toward the internal or subjective world, while extroversion refers to an outgoing, social, accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly make friends and often venture forth with careless confidence into an unknown situation. He viewed introversion as signifying a hesitating reflective, retering nature that keeps to itself, shrinks from objects, always slightly in the defensive and prefer to hide behind mistrustful scrutingy. (Jung, 1964). Jung explained that although a person may be extraverted at time and introverted at some other times, he cannot be both introverted and extraverted on the same occasion.
Eysenck: Introversion-Extraversion (1967) Eysenck (1967) formulated a theory, which emphasizes introversion-Extraversion in terms of observed behaviour tendencies and presumed underlying neurological states. At the behaviour level, the typical extrover6t is sociable, needs to have people to talk to and does not like reading or studying by himself (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968). In these theory, Eysenck (1967) establishe a relationship between the brains function and behavioral tendencies of introverts-Etraverts. He explained that introverts have a lower threshold of arousal of the reticular activating system than do extraverts. Eysenck emphasized that, introvert’s experience greater arousal to lower intensity stimulation than do extraverts to. Therefore Eyneck concluded that, introverts activity level is lower that of extraverts.
