Theory as a Lens

One finding, three explanations

Livestream viewing looks more socially motivated than content motivated. Why?

• Uses and gratifications (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973): viewers are active agents meeting a social need a finished video cannot
• Parasocial interaction (Horton & Wohl, 1956): viewers form one-sided bonds with the streamer, and connection is how that bond feels
• Social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): the community is a group, and the chat is a space of belonging

Same pattern, three research programs.

Theory is not speculation

• In casual use, “theory” means guess. In research it does not.
• A theory is a formal, systematic explanation of relationships between concepts or variables
• Logically coherent: the parts fit without contradiction
• Generalizable: applies across contexts, not to one case
• Falsifiable: it makes predictions that could be proven wrong
• Generative: it produces new hypotheses

Social identity, worked

Tajfel and Turner (1979): people derive part of their self-concept from the groups they belong to. This generates testable predictions:

• Viewers rate their preferred community above rivals, especially on subjective dimensions like authenticity
• Criticize a streamer and regular viewers respond defensively
• In a different domain: partisans rate aligned news outlets as more credible, even when the factual content is identical

The lens metaphor

• Theory works like a camera lens: some things sharp, some outside the frame
• Appraisal theory focuses you on individual cognitive evaluation, so you design surveys and experiments measuring personal reactions
• Social identity focuses you on group meaning, so you analyze how members talk about the stream as an identity marker
• Same phenomenon, different designs. Neither is wrong.
• You cannot use every lens at once. That produces blur.

The social scientific paradigm

• Assumes an objective reality that can be observed and measured
• Deductive: start with theory, derive predictions, collect data, test
• Its question: does X cause Y?
• Example: cultivation theory predicts heavy viewers develop particular perceptions, so you design a study to test that
• Data supports it, confidence strengthens. Data does not, and you refine.

Interpretive and critical paradigms

• Interpretive: reality is socially constructed, meaning emerges through interaction. Inductive: observe, find patterns, build theory from the data. Its question: what does X mean to the people who experience it?
• Methods: grounded theory, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), narrative
• Critical and cultural: power shapes what counts as knowledge, and research should challenge inequity. Its question: whose interests does X serve, and whose voices does it silence?

Grand and middle-range

• Grand theories explain human behavior across all contexts: Marxism, psychoanalysis, structuralism
• Intellectually powerful, and very hard to test. The scope is too broad and the predictions too general.
• Middle-range theories are specific enough to generate testable hypotheses, broad enough to generalize past one case
• Robert Merton coined the term. Every theory in the catalog ahead is one.

Catalog: relationship and group

• Parasocial interaction (Horton & Wohl, 1956): one-sided bonds with media figures that feel intimate but lack reciprocity. Predicts stronger connection with more consumption, and betrayal when a scandal breaks. The lens for donations to strangers, and for influencer marketing.
• Social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): group membership shapes self-concept. Predicts in-group favoritism and symbolic boundary maintenance. Foundational in political communication and sports fandom.

Catalog: media and message

• Agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972): media do not tell people what to think, they tell people what to think about. On Twitch, the front page, recommendations, and category rankings are agenda setters.
• Framing (Goffman, 1974; Entman, 1993): how information is presented shapes interpretation. Episodic framing pushes blame toward individuals, thematic framing toward structures. Visible in how streamers title their broadcasts.

Catalog: audience and exposure

• Uses and gratifications (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973): audiences are active and choose media to satisfy needs. Sjöblom and Hamari (2017) used it explicitly to study why people watch others play video games.
• Cultivation (Gerbner & Gross, 1976): long-term cumulative exposure shapes perceptions of social reality. Heavy consumers overestimate what they see. Strongest where audiences lack direct experience.

Two lenses on the same chat

Four messages from one Twitch broadcast:

DragoBoi89: xQc actually playing well today wtf

emotelord: PogU PogU

realnamedfan: @xqcow do u remember when u said hi to me last week

streamfan22: chat is this real

Two readings

• Uses and gratifications: four needs, four viewers. Evaluative commentary, collective emotional expression, direct acknowledgement, collective sense-making. All four are equally interesting.
• Parasocial interaction: realnamedfan is the case. An @-direct address plus a memory claim about a prior acknowledgement treats a one-sided interaction as a continuing relationship.
• emotelord and streamfan22 never address the streamer, so the second lens pushes them to the periphery

Four methods, four questions

• Surveys measure what people report. Natural for uses and gratifications. Limited by the gap between what people say and do.
• Experiments isolate cause by manipulation. Natural for “does X cause Y?” Limited by artificiality.
• Qualitative methods capture meaning and lived experience. Natural for the interpretive question. They trade breadth for depth.
• Content analysis quantifies features of the content itself, at a scale too large to eyeball.

Why content analysis here

Three reasons, and none of them is that it is the best method:

• Fit: the Twitch data is content, millions of messages and stream records
• Pedagogical completeness: you practice operationalization, sampling, reliability, and analysis on one dataset, without recruiting human subjects
• Transfer: a precise codebook, tested reliability, and systematic sampling are what make every other method work too

Committing with the alternatives in view beats committing by default.

Looking ahead to Thursday

• Thursday: variables and hypotheses, where a lens becomes something testable
• Independent and dependent variables, mediators, and moderators
• Bring the theory you are leaning toward. You will use it.
• The Librarian Visit Report is due this week, 50 points.
• The Annotated Manuscript and CITI Certification are both due next week
• Read the second half of Chapter 5 if you have not