1.
Livingstone S. The changing nature of audiences : from the mass audience to the interactive media user - LSE Research Online. 2003; Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/417/
2.
Highmore B. ‘Absentminded Media’. In: Ordinary lives: studies in the everyday. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 114–38.
3.
Livingstone S. On the continuing problems of media effects research - LSE Research Online [Internet]. 1996. Available from: 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 Mar;2(1):37–51.
5.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience [Internet]. Vol. Studies in the psychosocial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Vol. Studies in the psychosocial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Available from: 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 [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 2006. p. 135–87. Available from: 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 Jan 1;29(1):75–103.
9.
Das R. Converging perspectives in audience studies and digital literacies: Youthful interpretations of an online genre. European Journal of Communication. 2011 Dec 1;26(4):343–60.
10.
Butsch R, Livingstone SM. Meanings of audiences: comparative discourses. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014.
11.
various. Rethinking the Media Audience: The New Agenda [Internet]. Alasuutari, Pertti, editor. 1999. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/Open.aspx?id=226264
12.
Brooker W, Jermyn D. The audience studies reader. London: Routledge; 2003.
13.
Dickinson R, Linne O, Harindranath R. Approaches to audiences: a reader. Vol. Foundations in media. London: Arnold; 1998.
14.
Gauntlett D. Moving experiences: understanding television’s influences and effects. Vol. Acamedia research monographs. London: John Libbey; 1995.
15.
McQuail D. McQuail’s mass communication theory. 6th ed. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE; 2010.
16.
Andrew Ruddock. Understanding Audiences: Theory and Method [Internet]. SAGE; 2001. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=10080942
17.
Benjamin W, Arendt H. Illuminations. Vol. Pimlico. London: Pimlico; 1999.
18.
Benjamin W, Tiedemann R. The Arcades Project. Cambridge, Mass: 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 [Internet]. 1996. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21503/
21.
Dickinson R, Linne O, Harindranath R. Approaches to audiences: a reader. Vol. Foundations in media. London: Arnold; 1998.
22.
O’Neill B. Media Effects in Context. In: The handbook of media audiences [Internet]. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 320–39. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781444340525.ch16
23.
David Gauntlett - Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model [Internet]. Available from: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm
24.
Morgan M, Shanahan J. The State of Cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media [Internet]. 2010 May 19;54(2):337–55. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/08838151003735018#.VNiQri5yV2A
25.
Potter WJ. A Critical Analysis of Cultivation Theory. Journal of Communication. 2014 Dec;64(6):1015–36.
26.
Gerbner G. Cultivation Analysis: An Overview. Mass Communication and Society [Internet]. 1998 June;1(3–4):175–94. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855#.VNiSJi5yV2A
27.
Bandura A. Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965;1(6):589–95.
28.
Humphreys S. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 2005 Mar;2(1):37–51.
29.
van Dijck J. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society. 2009 Jan 1;31(1):41–58.
30.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience [Internet]. Vol. Studies in the psychosocial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Available from: 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 Jan;4(1):61–84.
32.
Ortega Breton H. A psycho-cultural approach to radio listening and creative production. Radio Journal:International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media. 2013 Apr 1;11(1):75–90.
33.
On Not Being a Fan: Masculine Identity, DVD Culture and the Accidental Collector | Bainbridge | Wide Screen [Internet]. Available from: 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’ [Internet]. Available from: 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):346–65.
37.
Whitehouse-Hart J. Psychosocial explorations of film and television viewing: ordinary audience [Internet]. Vol. Studies in the psychosocial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Available from: 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 Jan;4(1):61–84.
39.
Jensen T. "Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’ [Internet]. Available from: http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html
40.
Chabot Davis K. An Ethnography of Political Identification: The Birmingham School Meets Psychoanalytic Theory. Available from: http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/journals/journal_for_the_psychoanalysis_of_culture_and_society/v008/8.1davis_k.pdf
41.
various - collection. The gender and media reader. Mary Celeste Kearney, editor. London: Routledge; 2011.
42.
Rosenbaum, m. Psychosomatics. 1st edn 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 May 1;33(4):567–82.
44.
Moores S. Interpreting audiences: the ethnography of media consumption. Vol. The media, culture and society series. London: Sage Publications; 1993.
45.
Buckingham D. `Creative’ visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and proposals. Media, Culture & Society. 2009 July 1;31(4):633–52.
46.
Kearney MC. ‘Grrrl Zines: Exploring Identity, Transforming Girls’ Written Culture’. In: Girls make media [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 2006. p. 135–87. Available from: 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. New York: Peter Lang; 2011. p. 277–94.
48.
Wood H. The mediated conversational floor: an interactive approach to audience reception analysis. Media, Culture & Society. 2007 Jan 1;29(1):75–103.
49.
Jensen T. "Watching with my hands over my eyes”: Shame and irritation in ambivalent encounters with ‘Bad Mothers’ [Internet]. Available from: http://www.radicalpsychology.org/vol9-2/jensen.html
50.
Wood H. Television is Happening: Methodological Considerations for Capturing Digital Television Reception". 2007 Nov 1;10(4):485–506. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2009. Available from: 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 Dec 1;26(4):343–60.
53.
Livingstone S, Das R. The End of Audiences? Theoretical Echoes of Reception amid the Uncertainties of Use [Internet]. Available from: 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 Mar 1;16(2):169–87.
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 Mar 1;19(1):75–86.
56.
Das R. Meaning at the Interface: New Genres, New Modes of Interpretative Engagement? The Communication Review. 2010 May 19;13(2):140–59.
57.
Are We All Produsers Now? Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/09502386.2011.600532
58.
Rosenbaum, m. Psychosomatics. 1st edn 39(Jan-feb).
59.
Rosenbaum, m. Psychosomatics. 1st edn 39(Jan-feb).