[1]
Abercrombie, N. and Longhurst, B. 1998. Audiences: a sociological theory of performance and imagination. Sage.
[2]
Abercrombie, N. and Longhurst, B. 1998. Changing audiences, changing paradigms of research Chapter one. Audiences: a sociological theory of performance and imagination. Sage.
[3]
Alasuutari, P. 1999. Rethinking the media audience: the new agenda. Sage.
[4]
Ang, I. 2006. On the politics of empirical audience research. Media and cultural studies: keyworks. Blackwell.
[5]
Ang, I. and Couling, D. 1996. Watching Dallas: soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Routledge.
[6]
Ang, Ien 1991. Desperately Seeking the Audience. Routledge.
[7]
Arild Fetveit Anti-essentialism and reception studies: In defense of the text. International Journal of Cultural Studies,. 4, 173–199. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/136787790100400203.
[8]
Athique, A. 2018. The dynamics and potentials of big data for audience research. Media, Culture & Society. 40, 1 (Jan. 2018), 59–74. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717693681.
[9]
Bainbridge, C. et al. 2014. Television and psychoanalysis: psycho-cultural perspectives. Karnac.
[10]
Barker, M. 2006. I Have Seen the Future and It Is Not Here Yet ...; or, On Being Ambitious for Audience Research. The Communication Review. 9, 2 (Jul. 2006), 123–141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663310.
[11]
Barker, M. and Petley, J. 2001. Ill effects: the media violence debate. Routledge.
[12]
Barker, M. and Petley, J. 2001. Introduction: from bad research to good. Ill effects: the media violence debate. Routledge.
[13]
Behrenshausen, B.G. 2013. The active audience, again: Player-centric game studies and the problem of binarism. New Media & Society. 15, 6 (Sep. 2013), 872–889. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812462843.
[14]
Bird, S.E. 2011. ARE WE ALL PRODUSERS NOW? Cultural Studies. 25, 4–5 (Sep. 2011), 502–516. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2011.600532.
[15]
Birgitta Höijer Ontological Assumptions and Generalizations in Qualitative (Audience) Research. European Journal of Communication,. 23, 275–294.
[16]
Blackman, L. and Walkerdine, V. 2000. Mass hysteria: critical psychology and media studies. Macmillan.
[17]
Bolongaro, K.A.M. 2013. Pauline Hope Cheong, Peter Fischer-Nielsen, Stefan Gelfgren & Charles Ess (Eds.): Digital Religion, Social Media and Culture: Perspectives, Practices and Futures. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 2012. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research. 29, 55 (Dec. 2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v29i55.9716.
[18]
Bonnett, A. 2001. How to argue: a student’s guide. Pearson Education.
[19]
Brand New You | Kanopy: https://le.kanopy.com/video/brand-new-you-makeover-television-and-american-dream.
[20]
Brooker, W. and Jermyn, D. 2003. The audience studies reader. Routledge.
[21]
Campbell, H. 2013. Digital religion: understanding religious practice in new media worlds. Routledge.
[22]
Campbell, H. and Garner, S. 2016. Networked theology: negotiating faith in digital culture. Baker Academic.
[23]
Campbell, H. and Grieve, G.P. eds. 2014. Playing with religion in digital games. Indiana University Press.
[24]
Campbell, H.A. and La Pastina, A.C. 2010. How the iPhone became divine: new media, religion and the intertextual circulation of meaning. New Media & Society. 12, 7 (Nov. 2010), 1191–1207. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810362204.
[25]
Cantril, H. et al. 1982. The invasion from Mars: a study in the psychology of panic : with the complete script of the famous Orson Welles broadcast. Princeton University Press.
[26]
Cavalcante, A. et al. 2017. Feminist reception studies in a post-audience age: returning to audiences and everyday life. Feminist Media Studies. 17, 1 (Jan. 2017), 1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1261822.
[27]
Cavalcante, A. et al. 2017. Feminist reception studies in a post-audience age: returning to audiences and everyday life. Feminist Media Studies. 17, 1 (Jan. 2017), 1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1261822.
[28]
Cheong, P.H. 2012. Digital religion, social media, and culture: perspectives, practices, and futures. Peter Lang.
[29]
Claydon, E. and Whitehouse-Hart, J. 2018. Overcoming’ the ‘Battlefield of the Mind’: A Psycho-linguistic Examination of the Discourse of Digital-Televangelists Self-Help Texts’. Language and Psychoanalysis. 7 (2) 2-28, (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.7565/landp.v7i21587.
[30]
Couldry, N. 2005. The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon’. Media audiences. Open University Press.
[31]
Dallas, S. 1995. On the Audience Commodity and its work. Approaches to media: a reader. Arnold.
[32]
Das, R. 2017. Audiences: a decade of transformations – reflections from the CEDAR network on emerging directions in audience analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 39, 8 (Nov. 2017), 1257–1267. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717717632.
[33]
Das, R. and Sonia, L. 2013. The End of Audiences? Theoretical echoes of reception amidst the uncertainties of use. A companion to new media dynamics. John Wiley & Sons.
[34]
David Buckingham `Creative’ visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and proposals. Media, Culture & Society,. 31, 633–652. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443709335280.
[35]
Dovey, J. 2000. Freakshow: first person media and factual television. Pluto Press.
[36]
Duffy, B.E. 2013. Remake, remodel: women’s magazines in the digital age. University of Illinois Press.
[37]
Eagleton, T. 1994. Ideology. Longman.
[38]
Elizabeth Jane Evans Character, audience agency and transmedia drama. Media, Culture & Society,. 30, 197–213. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443707086861.
[39]
Elliott, P. 1974. Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alternative. The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research. Sage Publications. 249–268.
[40]
Ferrucci, P. and Painter, C. 2017. Print Versus Digital. Journal of Communication Inquiry. 41, 2 (Apr. 2017), 124–139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859917690533.
[41]
Gauntlett, D. 1998. Ten things wrong with the "effects model.”. Approaches to audiences: a reader. Arnold.
[42]
Gerbner et al, G. 2009. Growing up with television: The Cultivation Perspective. Media effects: advances in theory and research. Routledge.
[43]
Gillespie, M. 1995. Television, ethnicity and cultural change. Routledge.
[44]
Gillespie, M. 1995. Television, ethnicity and cultural change. Routledge.
[45]
Ginsburg, F.D. et al. 2002. Media worlds: anthropology on new terrain. University of California Press.
[46]
Gitlin, T. 2000. Inside prime time. University of California Press.
[47]
Glad, B. and Beradt, C. 1969. The Third Reich of Dreams. The American Political Science Review. 63, 2 (Jun. 1969). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1954716.
[48]
Glad, B. and Beradt, C. 1969. The Third Reich of Dreams. The American Political Science Review. 63, 2 (Jun. 1969). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1954716.
[49]
Gorton, K. 2009. Media audiences: television, meaning and emotion. Edinburgh University Press.
[50]
Gorton, K. 2009. Media audiences: television, meaning and emotion. Edinburgh University Press.
[51]
Gray, J. 2017. Reviving audience studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 34, 1 (Jan. 2017), 79–83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266680.
[52]
Greene, Kira 2000. TV’s test pilots. Broadcasting & Cable. 130, 30 (2000).
[53]
Hall, S. 1980. Encoding/ decoding. Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79. Hutchinson in association with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham. 117–128.
[54]
Hall, S. 1994. Reflections upon the Encoding/Decoding Model: An Interview with Stuart Hall. Viewing, reading, listening: audiences and cultural reception. Westview Press. 253–274.
[55]
Harris, J. and Watson, E. 2007. The Oprah phenomenon. University Press of Kentucky.
[56]
Hartley, J. et al. 2013. A companion to new media dynamics. John Wiley & Sons.
[57]
Hartley, J. et al. 2013. A companion to new media dynamics. John Wiley & Sons.
[58]
Hartley, J. et al. eds. 2013. The End of Audiences? A Companion to New Media Dynamics. Wiley-Blackwell.
[59]
Hayes, Dade dhayes@nbmedia.com 2015. Inside TV’s Secret Lab. (cover story). Broadcasting & Cable. 145, 19 (2015), 4–6.
[60]
Helen Wood The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society,. 29, 75–103. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706072000.
[61]
Henry Jenkins The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies,. 7, 33–43. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877904040603.
[62]
Hepp, A. 2012. Cultures of mediatization. Polity.
[63]
Hermes, J. et al. 2013. Sleeping with the enemy: Audience studies and critical literacy. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 16, 5 (Sep. 2013), 457–473. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912474547.
[64]
Hills, M. 2007. Michael Jackson Fans on Trial? "Documenting” Emotivism and Fandom in. Social Semiotics. 17, 4 (Dec. 2007), 459–477. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330701637056.
[65]
Hobson, D. 1982. Crossroads: the drama of a soap opera. Methuen.
[66]
Hoover, S.M. and Clark, L.S. 2002. Practicing religion in the age of the media: explorations in media, religion, and culture. Columbia University Press.
[67]
Ian Hutchby 2001. Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology. 35, 2 (2001), 441–456.
[68]
Jackson, R.L. and Sage reference on-line 2010. Encyclopedia of identity. SAGE.
[69]
Jenkins, H. 2008. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York University Press.
[70]
Jermyn, D. and Holmes, S. 2006. The Audience is Dead; Long Live the Audience!: Interactivity, ‘Telephilia’ and the Contemporary Television Audience. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies. 1, 1 (Mar. 2006), 49–57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7227/CST.1.1.8.
[71]
Jin, D. 2016. New Korean Wave: Transnational Cultural Power in the Age of Social Media. University of Illinois Press.
[72]
José van Dijck Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society,. 31, 41–58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443708098245.
[73]
Kavka, M. 2008. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Palgrave Macmillan.
[74]
Kavka, M. 2008. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Palgrave Macmillan.
[75]
Kavka, M. 2008. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Palgrave Macmillan.
[76]
Kavka, M. 2008. Reality television, affect and intimacy: reality matters. Palgrave Macmillan.
[77]
Lacey, N. 2002. Media institutions and audiences: key concepts in media studies. Palgrave.
[78]
Lapsley, R. 2006. Psychoanalytic Criticism. The Routledge companion to critical theory. Routledge.
[79]
Lee McGuigan 2012. Consumers: The Commodity Product of Interactive Commercial Television, or, Is Dallas Smythe’s Thesis More Germane Than Ever? The Journal of Communication Inquiry. 36, 4 (Oct. 2012). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859912459756.
[80]
Liebes, T. and Katz, E. 1993. The export of meaning: cross-cultural readings of Dallas. Polity Press.
[81]
Livingstone, sonia 1998. Relationships between media and audiences: Prospects for future audience reception studies. Media, ritual, and identity. Routledge.
[82]
Livingstone, S. and Das, R. 2013. The End of Audiences? Theoretical echoes of reception amidst the uncertainties of use. A companion to new media dynamics. John Wiley & Sons. 104–122.
[83]
Livingstone, S.M. 1998. Making sense of television: the psychology of audience interpretation. Routledge.
[84]
Lofton, K. 2011. Religion and the American Celebrity. Social Compass. 58, 3 (Sep. 2011), 346–352. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0037768611412143.
[85]
Long, P. and Wall, T. 2012. Media studies: texts, production, context. Pearson.
[86]
Long, P. and Wall, T. 2012. Media studies: texts, production, context. Pearson.
[87]
Lowes, R. et al. 2004. The international student’s guide: studying in English at university. SAGE.
[88]
Lundby, K. 2011. PATTERNS OF BELONGING IN ONLINE/OFFLINE INTERFACES OF RELIGION. Information, Communication & Society. 14, 8 (Dec. 2011), 1219–1235. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.594077.
[89]
Madianou, M. 2014. Smartphones as Polymedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19, 3 (Apr. 2014), 667–680. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12069.
[90]
Madianou, M. and Miller, D. 2013. Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 16, 2 (Mar. 2013), 169–187. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912452486.
[91]
Manley, J. and Crociani-Windland, L. 2018. Social dreaming, associative thinking and intensities of affect. Palgrave Macmillan.
[92]
Mansfield, N. 2000. Lacan : The Subject is Language. Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Haraway. Allen & Unwin.
[93]
Martin J. Barker The Lord of the Rings and ‘Identification’: A Critical Encounter. European Journal of Communication,. 20, 353–378.
[94]
Mayer, V. 2016. The Places Where Audience Studies and Production Studies Meet. Television & New Media. 17, 8 (Dec. 2016), 706–718. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416652482.
[95]
McKee, A. 2003. Textual analysis: a beginner’s guide. Sage Publications.
[96]
McLeod, D. et al. 2017. Thinking about the media: A review of theory and research on media perceptions, media effects perception and their consequences. Review of Communication REsearch. Volume 5, (2017).
[97]
Mediatization and the ‘molding force’ of the media: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/commun.2012.37.1.issue-1/commun-2012-0001/commun-2012-0001.xml.
[98]
Meissner, W W Notes on identification. I. Origins in Freud. The Psychoanalytic quarterly. 39, 4, 563–89.
[99]
Melissa A. ClickSuzanne Scott 9AD. The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom (Routledge Media and Cultural Studies Companions). Routledge; 1 edition.
[100]
Michael O’Shaughnessy 1994. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 97, (1994), 44–48.
[101]
Michael O’Shaughnessy 1994. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 97, (1994), 44–48.
[102]
Miller, D. 2011. Tales from Facebook. Polity.
[103]
Mirca Madianou Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies,. 16, 169–187.
[104]
Modleski, T. 1984. Loving with a vengeance: mass-produced fantasies for women. Methuen.
[105]
Morgan, D. 2013. Religion and media: A critical review of recent developments. Critical Research on Religion. 1, 3 (Dec. 2013), 347–356. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303213506476.
[106]
Morley, D. 2006. Unanswered Questions in Audience Research. The Communication Review. 9, 2 (Jul. 2006), 101–121. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663286.
[107]
Morley, D. 2006. Unanswered Questions in Audience Research. The Communication Review. 9, 2 (Jul. 2006), 101–121. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663286.
[108]
Mytton, G. et al. 2016. Media audience research: a guide for professionals. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
[109]
Nancy Thumin 2013. Self-Representation and Digital Culture. European Journal of Communication,. 28, 6 (2013), 729–730. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113505802c.
[110]
Neilsen Launches ‘Neilsen Twitter TV Ratings’: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=263c30ed-675a-4554-859f-e35ae5e4887b%40sessionmgr120&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bwh&AN=bizwire.c51050908.
[111]
Nightingale, V. 1996. Studying the television audience: the shock of the real. Routledge.
[112]
Nikolas Coupland 10AD. The Handbook of Language and Globalization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics). Wiley-Blackwell.
[113]
Ong, J.C. 2009. Watching the Nation, Singing the Nation: London-Based Filipino Migrants’ Identity Constructions in News and Karaoke Practices. Communication, Culture & Critique. 2, 2 (Jun. 2009), 160–181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2009.01033.x.
[114]
O’Shaughnessy, M. 1994. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 97, (1994).
[115]
O’Shaughnessy, M. 1994. Promoting ‘emotion’: Feelings, film studies and teaching or understanding films; understanding ourselves. Metro Media and Education. 97, (1994).
[116]
P, M. 1994. Made to Order and Standardized Audiences: forms of reality in audience measurements. Audience making: how the media create the audience. Sage. 57–74.
[117]
Paddy Scannell Big Brother as a Television Event. Television & New Media,. 3, 271–282. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640200300303.
[118]
Palmgreen, p et al. 1985. Uses and gratifications research: the past ten years. Media gratifications research: current perspectives. Sage. xx–xxx.
[119]
Pears, R. and Shields, G.J. 2022. Cite them right: the essential referencing guide. Bloomsbury Academic.
[120]
Pink, S. 2007. Doing visual ethnography: images, media and representation in research. SAGE.
[121]
Piper, H. 2006. Understanding Reality Television * Reality TV - Audiences and Popular Factual Television * Reality TV - Realism and Revelation. Screen. 47, 1 (Jan. 2006), 133–138. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/hjl012.
[122]
Press, A.L. 2006. Audience Research in the Post-Audience Age: An Introduction to Barker and Morley. The Communication Review. 9, 2 (Jul. 2006), 93–100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663278.
[123]
Radway, J.A. 1991. Reading the romance: women, patriarchy, and popular literature. University of North Carolina Press.
[124]
Radway, J.A. 1991. Reading the romance: women, patriarchy and popular literature. University of North Carolina Press.
[125]
Radway, J.A. 1991. Reading the romance: women, patriarchy, and popular literature. University of North Carolina Press.
[126]
Ranjana Das Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication,. 26, 343–360.
[127]
Readdy, T. and Ebbeck, V. 2012. Weighing in on NBC’s The Biggest Loser. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 83, 4 (Dec. 2012), 579–586. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599255.
[128]
Redman, P. et al. 2017. Good essay writing: a social sciences guide. SAGE.
[129]
Redman, P. and Open University 2008. Attachment: sociology and social worlds. Manchester University Press in association with the Open University.
[130]
Redman, P. and Open University 2008. Attachment: sociology and social worlds. Manchester University Press in association with the Open University.
[131]
Rippen, A. 2014. Internet: Implications and Future Possibilities’. Muslims And The New Information And Communication Technologies Notes From An Emerging And Infinite Field. Springer.
[132]
Rose, G. 2012. Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. SAGE.
[133]
Rosengren, k. E. 1974. Uses and Gratifications: A Paradigm Outlined. The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research. Sage Publications. 269–286.
[134]
Rosengren, K. 1996. Chapter 2 - Combinations, comparisons and confrontations: towards a comprehensive theory of audience research. The audience and its landscape. Westview Press. 23–51.
[135]
Ross, K. and Nightingale, V. 2003. Media and audiences: new perspectives. Open University Press.
[136]
Ross, K. and Playdon, P. 2001. Black marks: minority ethnic audiences and media. Ashgate.
[137]
Ruggiero, T.E. 2000. Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication and Society. 3, 1 (Feb. 2000), 3–37. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02.
[138]
Sandler, J. and Sigmund Freud Center for Study and Research in Psychoanalysis (Universiṭah haʻIvrit bi-Yerushalayim) 1988. Projection, identification, projective identification. Karnac Books.
[139]
Schrøder, K.C. 1987. Convergence of Antagonistic Traditions? The Case of Audience Research. European journal of communication. 2, 1 (1987), 7–31.
[140]
Sconce, J. 2000. Haunted media: electronic presence from telegraphy to television. Duke University Press.
[141]
Sconce, J. 1998. The Voice from the Void. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 1, 2 (Aug. 1998), 211–232. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779980010020401.
[142]
Seiter, ellen 1990. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 4, 1 (1990).
[143]
Seiter, ellen 1990. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 4, 1 (1990).
[144]
Seiter, E. 1989. Remote control: television, audiences and cultural power. Routledge.
[145]
Seiter, E. 1989. Remote control: television, audiences and cultural power. Routledge.
[146]
Sender, K. 2006. Queens for a Day: and the Neoliberal Project. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 23, 2 (Jun. 2006), 131–151. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07393180600714505.
[147]
Sender, K. 2015. Reconsidering Reflexivity: Audience Research and Reality Television. The Communication Review. 18, 1 (Jan. 2015), 37–52. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2015.996414.
[148]
Sender, K. 2012. The makeover: reality television and reflexive audiences. New York University Press.
[149]
Sender, K. and Sullivan, M. 2008. Epidemics of will, failures of self-esteem: Responding to fat bodies in and. Continuum. 22, 4 (Aug. 2008), 573–584. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310802190046.
[150]
Serials Solutions Article Linker -: http://gl9sn3dh2u.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.title=Audience+Economics&rft.au=PHILIP+M.+NAPOLI&rft.date=2003-09-25&rft.pub=Columbia+University+Press&rft_id=info:doi/10.7312%2Fnapo12652&rft.externalDocID=napo12652¶mdict=en-US.
[151]
Shanahan, J. and Morgan, M. 1999. Television and its viewers: cultivation research and theory. Cambridge University Press.
[152]
Skeggs, B. et al. 2008. ‘Oh goodness, I am watching reality TV’. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 11, 1 (Feb. 2008), 5–24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407084961.
[153]
Skeggs, B. et al. 2008. ‘Oh goodness, I am watching reality TV’. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 11, 1 (Feb. 2008), 5–24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407084961.
[154]
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. 2012. Reacting to reality television: performance, audience and value. Routledge.
[155]
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. 2014. Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Value. Taylor & Francis Group.
[156]
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. 2011. Reality television and class. BFI.
[157]
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. 2011. Reality television and class. BFI.
[158]
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. 2008. The labour of transformation and circuits of value ‘around’ reality television. Continuum. 22, 4 (Aug. 2008), 559–572. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310801983664.
[159]
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. 2011. Turning it on is a class act: immediated object relations with television. Media, Culture & Society. 33, 6 (Sep. 2011), 941–951. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711412298.
[160]
Sonia Livingstone The Challenge of Changing Audiences: Or, What is the Audience Researcher to Do in the Age of the Internet? European Journal of Communication,. 19, 1, 75–86.
[161]
Stephen Parker Winnicott’s object relations theory and the work of the Holy Spirit. Journal of Psychology and Theology.
[162]
Thumim, N. 2012. Self-representation and digital culture. Palgrave Macmillan.
[163]
Tincknell, E. and Raghuram, P. 2002. Big Brother: Reconfiguring the `active’ audience of cultural studies? European Journal of Cultural Studies. 5, 2 (May 2002), 199–215. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1364942002005002159.
[164]
Toynbee, J. 2006. The Media’s View of the Audience. Media Production. Open University Press. 91–133.
[165]
Tse, T. 2018. Reconceptualising prosumption beyond the cultural turn : passive fashion consumption in Korea and China. journal of Consumer Culture. o (o) 1, (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540518804300.
[166]
Tsuria, R. et al. 2017. Approaches to digital methods in studies of digital religion. The Communication Review. 20, 2 (Apr. 2017), 73–97. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2017.1304137.
[167]
Tulloch, J. 1999. The implied audience in soap opera production: Everyday Rhetorical Strategies among television professionals. Rethinking the media audience: the new agenda. Sage. 151–178.
[168]
Twitter to drive TV Ratings beyond an ‘assumption’ of engagement: 7AD. http://www.bandt.com.au/media/twitter-to-drive-tv-ratings-beyond-an-assumption-o.
[169]
Victor Costello Cultural Outlaws: An Examination of Audience Activity and Online Television Fandom. Television & New Media,. 8, 124–143. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476406299112.
[170]
Wasko, J. 2005. Reality TV: Performance, Authenticity, and Television Audiences. A companion to television. Blackwell. A-Hill.
[171]
Webster, James G. 1998. Audience, The. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 42, (1998).
[172]
Webster, J.G. et al. 2006. Ratings analysis: the theory and practice of audience research. L. Erlbaum Associates.
[173]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. 2014. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience. Palgrave Macmillan.
[174]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. and SpringerLink (Online service) 2014. Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
[175]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. and SpringerLink (Online service) 2014. Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
[176]
Williams, K. 2003. Effects What Effects chapter 7. Understanding Media Theory. Arnold.
[177]
Wood, H. 2004. What Reading the Romance Did for Us. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 7, 2 (May 2004), 147–154. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549404042487.
[178]
Xu, S. and Campbell, H.A. 2018. Surveying digital religion in China: Characteristics of religion on the Internet in Mainland China. The Communication Review. 21, 4 (Oct. 2018), 253–276. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2018.1535729.
[179]
Ytre-Arne, B. 2011. ‘I want to hold it in my hands’: readers’ experiences of the phenomenological differences between women’s magazines online and in print. Media, Culture & Society. 33, 3 (Apr. 2011), 467–477. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711398766.
[180]
2014. Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. (2014).
[181]
2006. The communication review (Yverdon, Switzerland). 9, 2 (2006), 123–141.
