Practices of internet use – revisited
GOR Conference
Mannheim, March 6, 2012
Uwe Hasebrink, Hans Bredow Institute
Media audiences? Media users?

There IS no audience. Media services do not HAVE audiences.

„The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public
made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable“ (Rosen 2006)
– did we KNOW them?

Audiences or users are conceptual constructions based on the
interests of the respective interest groups or research disciplines who
are involved in „audiencing“ or, may be, „usering“.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 2
Three perspectives

The internet as one element of comprehensive media environments

The internet as a platform for realising a wide range of
communication modes

The internet as a communicative space shaped by intercultural
differences
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 3
Part I:
The internet as one
element
of comprehensive
media environments
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 4
The traditional perspective of research on media use

Focus on use of single media types, genres, specific contents or
services.
 Users are conceptualised as characteristics of specific media or
services: „Which users does a particular medium reach?“

As a consequence the entirety of media or services a person uses is
mostly disregarded.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 5
Towards a repertoire-oriented perspective

Growing need for transmedial approaches to audience research
•
•
•
•

differentiation and convergence
cross media strategies
mechanisms of substitution and complementarity
studies of media effects
Starting point of a repertoire-oriented perspective:
Media as characteristics of users:
„Which media does a particular user use?“
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 6
Towards a repertoire oriented approach to media use
 The concept of media repertoires refers to how media users combine their media
contacts into a comprehensive pattern of media use.
 Media repertoires are the result of many single situations of selective behaviour. Thus
they are compositions of many media contacts, including a variety of different media
and content.
Selection 1
Selection 2
Selection 3
Selection 4
Selection 5
Media repertoire
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 7
Theoretical considerations on media repertoires
 Media repertoires are relatively stable over time and as such
characteristic for individual users:
• In identifying media repertoires we get a basis to build types of media
users, which are characterised by their respective media repertoire.

Explanatory concepts for media repertoires have to refer to the level
of lifestyles, of general everyday orientations and practices which are
rooted in the respective social milieus:
• Habitus as a collective, historically acquired system of ways to perceive
and to think, which generates patterns of actions and evaluations – with
media repertoires being one important part of them.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 8
Towards a research programme on media repertoires
Core questions:

What are the general construction principles of media repertoires?
Which kinds of media and/or content are combined with each other,
which are not?

Which kinds of different repertoires may be identified, and how are
they related to specific milieus?

How do media repertoires change over time,
as a consequence of changing media
environments?
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 9
Empirical approaches

Correlations between the frequency or amount of use of different
media:
• „the more, the more“: co-ocurrence of media
• „the more, the less“: competition of media
• No correlation: different combinations of the two media

Question: How is the use of the internet correlated with the use of
other media?
• Empirical example: long-term study on media use and media evaluation
„Massenkommunikation“, survey 2005, n=4,500 Germans 14 yrs.+
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 10
Correlations between internet use
and the use of other media
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Internet
Books
Magazines
DVD/Video
CD/Records/
MP3
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 11
Correlations between internet use
and the use of other media (total population)
Indicator: correlation (r)
between frequencies of use
Television
Radio
Newspaper
-.15
-.06
Internet
Books
Magazines
.33
DVD/Video
Base: German population (14 yrs. +; n=4,500)
Source: Massenkommunikation 2005
.20
CD/Records/
MP3
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 12
Correlations between internet use
and the use of other media (adolescents)
Indicator: correlation (r)
between frequencies of use
Television
Radio
Newspaper
.11
.22
Internet
.06
.21
Books
Magazines
.20
DVD/Video
Base: German population (14 – 19 yrs.; n=444)
Source: Massenkommunikation 2005
CD/Records/
MP3
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 13
Empirical approaches

Correlations between the frequency or amount of use of different
information sources

Question: How are different information services provided via
different media platforms correlated?
• Empirical example: study on information repertoires in Germany, 1,000
CATI interviews among Germans 14 yrs.+, summer 2011 (see
Hasebrink/Schmidt, forthcoming)
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 14
Correlations between different
sources of information
Daily Soap
Boulevard
magazine
Television
Reality TV
Political
magazine
E-Mail
newsletters
News on ISPPortals
Services from
broadcasters
Radio
TV News
Google News
News blogs
Radio News
Info Radio
Regional / local
newspapers
Services from
publishers
Internet
Twitter
accounts from
news providers
RSS-Feeds
Daily quality
press
Weekly quality
press
Newspapers
Tabloids
News
magazines
Advertising
papers (for free)
News APPs
Magazines
Variety
magazines
Hasebrink:
Practices of internet use – revisited
15
Correlations between internet services
and other media services
Positive correlation
Negative correlation
Political Magazines (and News) on TV
online services provided
by broadcasters
---
Boulevard Magazines on TV
Apps, Twitter
online services provided by
publishers
Radio News
---
---
Info-Radio
online services provided
by broadcasters, Twitter
---
Regional/local newspapers, variety
magazines, advertising papers
---
---
News Magazines, Quality Press,
Tabloid Press
Most of the online
services
---
Source: Hasebrink/Schmidt (forthcoming)
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 16
Conceptual approach

In order to understand how people build up their information
repertoires by combining different kinds of sources, it is helpful to
start from a conceptual classification of information needs.

The underlying argument: People combine different kinds of
information sources because they have different kinds of information
needs, that can be fulfilled by different kinds of media.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 17
Classification of information needs
Needs for concrete
problem solving
Group related
needs
Thematic
Interests
undirected
information needs
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 18
Applicability on audience concepts and types of media
Concept of
user / audience
Primary type
of medium
Individuals
Individualized
services
Closed
communities
Social
Networks
Specific
target / interest groups
Thematic channels,
special interest magazines
Mass audience
General TV channels,
newspapers
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 19
Changing information repertoires
Until Eighties:
Undirected information
needs dominate the
repertoire
Nineties:
Growing role of
thematic interests and
lifestyles
Today:
Increase of group
related and needs and
individual problem
solving
+
+
–
+
–
–
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 20
Biographical changes of information repertoires
Youth:
Group related
needs
(Identity)
!
Professional
education:
Focus on specific
interests
(Qualification)
Family/work:
Increase of undirected
information needs
(Integration)
!
!
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 21
Part II:
The internet as a
platform for realising
a wide range of
communication
modes
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 22
What do people do when they use the internet?
In per cent of the overall
duration of internet use
Information,
14%
Communication,
46%
Base: Respondents aged 12-19
in Germany who use the internet;
Source: JIM 2010
Entertainment,
23%
Games, 17%
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 23
Empirical approach

Children‘s and young people‘s internet use: Which kinds of online
opportunities are taken by by how many children?

Basis: EU Kids Online, n=25,142 children between 9 and 16 years
and one parent, personal interviews (CAPI), realised in summer 2010
in 25 European countries
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 24
„Ladder of internet opportunities“
St
ag
e
1
2
3
4
5
% of total group
Used the internet for schoolwork
Played games against the computer
Watched video clips
Visited social networking profile
Used instant messaging
Sent/received emails
Read, watched the news on the internet
Played games with other people online
Downloaded music or films
Posted photos/videos/music to share
Used a webcam
Put or posted a message on a website
Visited chat room
Used file-sharing sites
Created a character, pet or avatar
Spent time in the virtual world
Written a blog or online diary
0-2
12
68
61
19
3
3
5
8
6
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
Groups according to number
of opportunities taken up
3-5
6-9
10-12
23
36
19
78
87
92
77
78
86
61
87
97
31
73
94
29
73
94
31
71
90
30
52
70
29
42
65
17
45
75
8
39
73
11
29
55
5
27
57
3
19
42
2
12
34
6
14
27
5
12
24
1
5
20
Base: EU Kids Online; n=25,000 children in 25 countries who use the internet ;
source: Hasebrink et al. 2011
13-17
9
95
93
99
99
98
97
84
92
90
92
77
89
80
68
58
57
52
Total
100
85
83
76
62
62
61
48
44
44
39
31
31
23
18
18
16
11
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 25
Exploratory factor analysis of online activities
Visited a social networking profile
How many profiles on SNS
Used instant messaging
Put photos, videos or music to share with others
Sent/received email
Watched video clips
Downloaded music or films
Frequency of risky online activities
Written a blog or online diary
Put a message on a website
Visited a chat room
Used file sharing sites
Used a webcam
How often have you played internet games
Played games with other people on the internet
Spent time in a virtual world
Created a character, pet or avatar
Used the internet for school work
Read/watched the news on the internet
Communication
0.82
0.78
0.62
0.61
0.54
0.49
0.46
0.41
0.37
Principal component analysis, varimax rotation, variance explained: 45.5%.
Creativity
Gaming
Learning
0.34
0.31
0.38
0.37
0.69
0.55
0.46
0.43
0.36
0.46
0.47
0.72
0.70
0.53
0.50
0.75
0.59
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 26
Conceptual approach: modes of online communication

Convergence
• Merging of telecommunication, media, and information technology
• Combination and integration of different forms of presentation
• Any media content can be distributed by using different networks and
platforms
• New technical devices integrate formerly separated functionalities
 Consequences for users
• Forms of media use and communicative activities are no longer bound to
a certain technical equipment or distribution platform.

Consequences for research on media use:
• It is no longer possible to decide at first glance what a user is actually
doing when he or she uses a certain technical device or a certain service.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 27
The concept of communication modes

Communication modes refer to how users define what they are doing
with a specific communication service.
• User-centered perspective: In any situation users define themselves as
being in a certain mode; „they know what they are doing“.
• Modes are regarded as mutually related to services:
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 28
Towards a categorisation of internet-related
communication modes

What are the criteria along which users distinguish different internetrelated communication modes?
 For example: In order to explore the continuum between mass
communication and interpersonal communication, Hoelig (2012)
empirically identified four key criteria, along which users distinguish
different online services: user‘s role, type of communication partner,
audience reached, and temporal distance.

In concrete information-oriented situations users realise specific
modes, which are characterised by a specific patterns of these
criteria: Journalistic Mass Communication, Public Expert
Communication, Private Expert Communication, Personal
Communication.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 29
Part III:
The internet as a
communicative space
shaped by
intercultural
differences
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 30
Comparing internet use across countries
The EU Kids Online network including teams from 25 European countries;
coordinated by Sonia Livingstone and Leslie Haddon, LSE











Random stratified sample: ~ 1000 9-16
year old internet users per country
Fieldwork in spring/summer 2010
Total: 25142 internet-users, 25
countries
Interviews at home, face to face
Self-completion for sensitive questions
Indicators of vulnerability and coping
Data from child paired with a parent
Directly comparable across countries
Validation via cognitive/pilot testing
National stakeholders consulted
International advisory panel
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 31
Demographic
Usage
Activities
Psychological
Risk
factors
Harm
or
coping
INDIVIDUAL USER
Parents
School
SOCIAL MEDIATION
Socio-economic
stratification
NATIONAL CONTEXT
Peers
Child as unit of analysis
Regulatory
framework
Technological
infrastructure
Education
system
Cultural
values
Country as unit of analysis
Internet use differs between countries

Country factor: Percentage of children between 9 and 16 years who
use the internet (correlations across 25 countries):
• Length of internet experience: r=.80
• Frequency of parents‘ internet use: r=.73
• Children‘s internet-related skills: r=.71
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 33
Patterns of online internet use
 Six types of internet use, identified by cluster analysis on the basis of the amount of
use, the range of activities and the four activity dimensions presented before:
Number of cases
% of total sample
Duration of online use
(min./day)
No. of online activities
(0-17)
Frequency of risky online
activities (0.0-1.0)
No. of SNS profiles (0-2)
Girls
Boys
9-10 years
11-12 years
13-14 years
15-16 years
Average age
Low Risk
Novices
7,175
28.5
Young
Networkers
3,036
12.1
Moderate
Users
5,904
23.5
Risky
Intensive Experienced
Explorers Gamers Networkers
2,732
2,729
3,564
10.9
10.9
14.2
50
72
71
118
180
108
3.0
5.8
7.7
13.2
9.8
9.6
0.01
0.09
0.05
0.21
0.14
0.13
0.1
50
50
48
30
15
8
11.1
1.1
55
45
20
27
28
25
12.7
0.6
48
52
16
30
32
22
12.7
1.2
38
62
10
22
32
36
13.5
1.2
37
63
12
15
31
42
13.6
1.2
67
33
4
13
33
50
14.1
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 34
Low Risk
Novices
42.7
39.5
33.6
32.5
30.2
29.0
28.8
27.0
25.1
24.8
24.5
23.9
22.2
21.7
21.6
20.9
20.5
19.1
18.8
17.1
16.2
15.9
15.7
13.5
13.0
28.5
Young
Networkers
8.5
37.4
8.1
14.7
19.8
16.4
13.3
14.5
4.8
21.7
5.6
11.5
15.8
12.8
16.4
12.7
11.9
21.2
33.8
23.1
17.1
23.4
9.4
14.2
17.0
12.1
Moderate
Users
24.4
7.1
24.4
26.5
12.3
28.4
24.4
14.1
27.0
17.9
31.7
34.3
21.7
21.1
23.1
15.9
34.9
15.4
9.9
5.7
21.3
20.2
25.4
23.7
16.4
23.5
Risky
Intensive
Experienced
Explorers
Gamers
Networkers
11.1
6.7
6.6
5.3
3.4
7.3
9.7
7.7
16.4
8.1
12.6
5.7
14.8
6.7
16.2
5.2
6.8
14.2
9.8
10.0
13.7
13.4
15.7
15.3
14.6
5.5
22.9
13.1
13.0
9.5
10.0
20.2
8.0
11.2
10.7
8.3
9.3
12.4
18.6
11.1
22.4
10.9
14.0
8.0
16.9
10.7
15.7
24.1
6.7
16.1
9.9
8.0
22.3
13.9
11.1
11.5
14.9
16.6
13.0
24.4
14.7
24.0
6.6
8.2
12.0
20.3
13.1
23.1
13.3
11.8
21.0
15.7
15.7Hasebrink: Practices
22.4of internet use – revisited
15.3 35
10.9
10.9
14.2
Internet use differs between countries
Turkey
Ireland
Germany
Greece
Austria
Spain
Italy
UK
France
Hungary
Romania
Portugal
Finland
Bulgaria
Belgium
Norway
Poland
Denmark
Slovenia
Sweden
Cyprus
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Estonia
Lithuania
Total
Three perspectives

The internet as one element of comprehensive media environments

The internet as a platform for realising a wide range of
communication modes

The internet as a communicative space shaped by intercultural
differences
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 36
References

Hasebrink, U. (2004): Konvergenz aus Nutzerperspektive: Das Konzept der Kommunikationsmodi. In:
Hasebrink, U./Mikos, L./Prommer, E. (Hrsg.): Mediennutzung in konvergierenden Medienumgebungen.
München: R. Fischer (Reihe Rezeptionsforschung; Bd. 1), S. 67-86.

Hasebrink, U., Görzig, A., Haddon, L., Kalmus, V. and Livingstone, S. (2011): Patterns of risk and safety
online. In-depth analyses from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25
countries. LSE, London: EU Kids Online [online available:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU Kids Online reports.aspx]

Hasebrink, U.; Popp, J. (2006): Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual
approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure. In: Communications 31, No. 3, pp. 369-387.

Hasebrink, U., Schmidt, J.-H. (forthcoming): Informationsrepertoires in Deutschland. Hamburg: HansBredow-Institut.

Hölig, Sascha (2012): Informationsorientierte Kommunikationsmodi im Internet. Eine Differenzierung
gratifikationsbestimmter kommunikativer Handlungen zwischen Massen- und interpersonaler
Kommunikation. Hamburg: Graduate School Media and Communication.

Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (MPFS) (2010): JIM-Studie 2010. Stuttgart: MPFS.
Hasebrink: Practices of internet use – revisited 37
Practices of internet use – revisited
GOR Conference
Mannheim, March 6, 2012
Uwe Hasebrink, Hans Bredow Institute