1.
Livingstone S. The changing nature of audiences : from the mass audience to the interactive media user - LSE Research Online. Published online 2003. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/417/
2.
Highmore B. ‘Absentminded Media’. In: Ordinary Lives: Studies in the Everyday. Routledge; 2011:114-138.
3.
Livingstone S. On the continuing problems of media effects research - LSE Research Online. 1996. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21503/
4.
Humphreys S. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 2005;2(1):37-51. doi:10.1080/1479142042000332116
5.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience. Vol Studies in the psychosocial. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=671529
6.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience. Vol Studies in the psychosocial. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=671529
7.
Kearney MC. ‘Grrrl Zines: Exploring Identity, Transforming Girls’ Written Culture’. In: Girls Make Media. Routledge; 2006:135-187. http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=80948
8.
Wood H. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 2007;29(1):75-103. doi:10.1177/0163443706072000
9.
Das R. Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication. 2011;26(4):343-360. doi:10.1177/0267323111423379
10.
Butsch R, Livingstone SM. Meanings of Audiences: Comparative Discourses. Routledge; 2014.
11.
various. Rethinking the Media Audience: The New Agenda. (Alasuutari, Pertti, ed.).; 1999. http://lib.myilibrary.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/Open.aspx?id=226264
12.
Brooker W, Jermyn D. The Audience Studies Reader. Routledge; 2003.
13.
Dickinson R, Linne O, Harindranath R. Approaches to Audiences: A Reader. Vol Foundations in media. Arnold; 1998.
14.
Gauntlett D. Moving Experiences: Understanding Television’s Influences and Effects. Vol Acamedia research monographs. John Libbey; 1995.
15.
McQuail D. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. 6th ed. SAGE; 2010.
16.
Andrew Ruddock. Understanding Audiences: Theory and Method. SAGE; 2001. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=10080942
17.
Benjamin W, Arendt H. Illuminations. Vol Pimlico. Pimlico; 1999.
18.
Benjamin W, Tiedemann R. The Arcades Project. Belknap Press; 1999.
19.
Recommended: application of theory of reception as distraction.
20.
Livingstone S. On the continuing problems of media effects research - LSE Research Online. 1996. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21503/
21.
Dickinson R, Linne O, Harindranath R. Approaches to Audiences: A Reader. Vol Foundations in media. Arnold; 1998.
22.
O’Neill B. Media Effects in Context. In: The Handbook of Media Audiences. Vol Global handbooks in media and communication research. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011:320-339. doi:10.1002/9781444340525.ch16
23.
David Gauntlett - Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model. http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm
24.
Morgan M, Shanahan J. The State of Cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2010;54(2):337-355. doi:10.1080/08838151003735018
25.
Potter WJ. A Critical Analysis of Cultivation Theory. Journal of Communication. 2014;64(6):1015-1036. doi:10.1111/jcom.12128
26.
Gerbner G. Cultivation Analysis: An Overview. Mass Communication and Society. 1998;1(3-4):175-194. doi:10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855
27.
Bandura A. Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965;1(6):589-595. doi:10.1037/h0022070
28.
Humphreys S. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 2005;2(1):37-51. doi:10.1080/1479142042000332116
29.
van Dijck J. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society. 2009;31(1):41-58. doi:10.1177/0163443708098245
30.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience. Vol Studies in the psychosocial. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=671529
31.
Seiter E. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 1990;4(1):61-84. doi:10.1080/09502389000490051
32.
Ortega Breton H. A psycho-cultural approach to radio listening and creative production. Radio Journal:International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media. 2013;11(1):75-90. doi:10.1386/rjao.11.1.75_1
33.
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
34.
Jensen T. "Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’. http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html
35.
Recommended Sources / Reading.
36.
Stephen F, Lisa B. Psychoanalysis and Psychosocial Studies. Psychoanalysis Culture and Society. 2008;13(4):346-365.
37.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial Explorations of Film and Television Viewing: Ordinary Audience. Vol Studies in the psychosocial. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=671529
38.
Seiter E. Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies. 1990;4(1):61-84. doi:10.1080/09502389000490051
39.
Jensen T. "Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’. http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html
40.
Chabot Davis K. An Ethnography of Political Identification: The Birmingham School Meets Psychoanalytic Theory. doi:10.1353/psy.2003.0009
41.
various - collection. The Gender and Media Reader. (Mary Celeste Kearney, ed.). Routledge; 2011.
42.
Rosenbaum, m. Psychosomatics. 39(Jan-feb).
43.
Hine C. Towards ethnography of television on the internet: A mobile strategy for exploring mundane interpretive activities. Media, Culture & Society. 2011;33(4):567-582. doi:10.1177/0163443711401940
44.
Moores S. Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media Consumption. Vol The media, culture and society series. Sage Publications; 1993.
45.
Buckingham D. `Creative’ visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and proposals. Media, Culture & Society. 2009;31(4):633-652. doi:10.1177/0163443709335280
46.
Kearney MC. ‘Grrrl Zines: Exploring Identity, Transforming Girls’ Written Culture’. In: Girls Make Media. Routledge; 2006:135-187. http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=80948
47.
Banet-Weiser S. ‘Branding the Post-Feminist Self: Girls’ Video Production and YouTube’. In: Mediated Girlhoods: New Explorations of Girls’ Media Culture. Vol Mediated youth. Peter Lang; 2011:277-294.
48.
Wood H. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 2007;29(1):75-103. doi:10.1177/0163443706072000
49.
Jensen T. "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.
Wood H. Television is Happening: Methodological Considerations for Capturing Digital Television Reception". 2007;10(4):485-506. 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:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Television+is+happening&rft.jtitle=European+Journal+of+Cultural+Studies&rft.au=Wood%2C+Helen&rft.date=2007-11-01&rft.pub=Sage+Publications&rft.issn=1367-5494&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=485&rft.epage=506&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10.1177%2F1367549407081956&paramdict=en-US
51.
Gorton K. Media Audiences: Television, Meaning and Emotion. Edinburgh University Press; 2009. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=10391726
52.
Das R. Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication. 2011;26(4):343-360. doi:10.1177/0267323111423379
53.
Livingstone S, Das R. 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
54.
Madianou M, Miller D. Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2013;16(2):169-187. doi:10.1177/1367877912452486
55.
Livingstone S. The Challenge of Changing Audiences: Or, What is the Audience Researcher to do in the Age of the Internet? European Journal of Communication. 2004;19(1):75-86. doi:10.1177/0267323104040695
56.
Das R. Meaning at the Interface: New Genres, New Modes of Interpretative Engagement? The Communication Review. 2010;13(2):140-159. doi:10.1080/10714421003795535
57.
Are We All Produsers Now? http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/09502386.2011.600532
58.
Rosenbaum, m. Psychosomatics. 39(Jan-feb).
59.
Rosenbaum, m. Psychosomatics. 39(Jan-feb).