[1]
Andrew Ruddock 2001. Understanding Audiences: Theory and Method. SAGE.
[2]
Bandura, A. 1965. Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1, 6 (1965), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070.
[3]
Banet-Weiser, S. 2011. ‘Branding the Post-Feminist Self: Girls’ Video Production and YouTube’. Mediated girlhoods: new explorations of girls’ media culture. Peter Lang. 277–294.
[4]
Benjamin, W. and Arendt, H. 1999. Illuminations. Pimlico.
[5]
Benjamin, W. and Tiedemann, R. 1999. The Arcades Project. Belknap Press.
[6]
Brooker, W. and Jermyn, D. 2003. The audience studies reader. Routledge.
[7]
Buckingham, D. 2009. `Creative’ visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and proposals. Media, Culture & Society. 31, 4 (July 2009), 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443709335280.
[8]
Butsch, R. and Livingstone, S.M. 2014. Meanings of audiences: comparative discourses. Routledge.
[9]
Chabot Davis, K. An Ethnography of Political Identification: The Birmingham School Meets Psychoanalytic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1353/psy.2003.0009.
[10]
Das, R. 2011. Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication. 26, 4 (Dec. 2011), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111423379.
[11]
Das, R. 2011. Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication. 26, 4 (Dec. 2011), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111423379.
[12]
Das, R. 2010. Meaning at the Interface: New Genres, New Modes of Interpretative Engagement? The Communication Review. 13, 2 (May 2010), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421003795535.
[13]
David Gauntlett - Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm.
[14]
Dickinson, R. et al. 1998. Approaches to audiences: a reader. Arnold.
[15]
Dickinson, R. et al. 1998. Approaches to audiences: a reader. Arnold.
[16]
van Dijck, J. 2009. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society. 31, 1 (Jan. 2009), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443708098245.
[17]
Gauntlett, D. 1995. Moving experiences: understanding television’s influences and effects. John Libbey.
[18]
Gerbner, G. 1998. Cultivation Analysis: An Overview. Mass Communication and Society. 1, 3–4 (June 1998), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855.
[19]
Gorton, K. 2009. Media audiences: television, meaning and emotion. Edinburgh University Press.
[20]
Highmore, B. 2011. ‘Absentminded Media’. Ordinary lives: studies in the everyday. Routledge. 114–138.
[21]
Hine, C. 2011. Towards ethnography of television on the internet: A mobile strategy for exploring mundane interpretive activities. Media, Culture & Society. 33, 4 (May 2011), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711401940.
[22]
Humphreys, S. 2005. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 2, 1 (Mar. 2005), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479142042000332116.
[23]
Humphreys, S. 2005. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 2, 1 (Mar. 2005), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479142042000332116.
[24]
Kearney, M.C. 2006. ‘Grrrl Zines: Exploring Identity, Transforming Girls’ Written Culture’. Girls make media. Routledge. 135–187.
[25]
Kearney, M.C. 2006. ‘Grrrl Zines: Exploring Identity, Transforming Girls’ Written Culture’. Girls make media. Routledge. 135–187.
[26]
Livingstone, S. 2004. 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 (Mar. 2004), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323104040695.
[27]
Livingstone, S. 2003. The changing nature of audiences : from the mass audience to the interactive media user - LSE Research Online. (2003).
[28]
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912452486.
[29]
McQuail, D. 2010. McQuail’s mass communication theory. SAGE.
[30]
Moores, S. 1993. Interpreting audiences: the ethnography of media consumption. Sage Publications.
[31]
Morgan, M. and Shanahan, J. 2010. The State of Cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 54, 2 (May 2010), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151003735018.
[32]
On Not Being a Fan: Masculine Identity, DVD Culture and the Accidental Collector | Bainbridge | Wide Screen: http://widescreenjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/41.
[33]
On the continuing problems of media effects research - LSE Research Online: 1996. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21503/.
[34]
On the continuing problems of media effects research - LSE Research Online: 1996. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21503/.
[35]
O’Neill, B. 2011. Media Effects in Context. The handbook of media audiences. Wiley-Blackwell. 320–339.
[36]
Ortega Breton, H. 2013. A psycho-cultural approach to radio listening and creative production. Radio Journal:International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media. 11, 1 (Apr. 2013), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1386/rjao.11.1.75_1.
[37]
Potter, W.J. 2014. A Critical Analysis of Cultivation Theory. Journal of Communication. 64, 6 (Dec. 2014), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12128.
[38]
Rosenbaum and m Psychosomatics. 39, Jan-feb.
[39]
Rosenbaum and m Psychosomatics. 39, Jan-feb.
[40]
Rosenbaum and m Psychosomatics. 39, Jan-feb.
[41]
Seiter, E. 1990. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 4, 1 (Jan. 1990), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502389000490051.
[42]
Seiter, E. 1990. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 4, 1 (Jan. 1990), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502389000490051.
[43]
Stephen, F. and Lisa, B. 2008. Psychoanalysis and Psychosocial Studies. Psychoanalysis Culture and Society. 13, 4 (2008), 346–365.
[44]
The End of Audiences? Theoretical Echoes of Reception amid the Uncertainties of Use: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/WhosWho/AcademicStaff/SoniaLivingstone/pdf/Livingstone-and-Das,-manuscript.pdf.
[45]
various 1999. Rethinking the Media Audience: The New Agenda.
[46]
various - collection 2011. The gender and media reader. Routledge.
[47]
"Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’: http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html.
[48]
"Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’: http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html.
[49]
"Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’: http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html.
[50]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. 2014. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience. Palgrave Macmillan.
[51]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. 2014. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience. Palgrave Macmillan.
[52]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. 2014. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience. Palgrave Macmillan.
[53]
Whitehouse-Hart, J. 2014. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience. Palgrave Macmillan.
[54]
Wood, H. 2007. Television is Happening: Methodological Considerations for Capturing Digital Television Reception". 10, 4 (Nov. 2007), 485–506.
[55]
Wood, H. 2007. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 29, 1 (Jan. 2007), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706072000.
[56]
Wood, H. 2007. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 29, 1 (Jan. 2007), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706072000.
[57]
Are We All Produsers Now?
[58]
Recommended: application of theory of reception as distraction.
[59]
Recommended Sources / Reading.