0%*'34'2/34+454'0(!'%*/0-0)70%*'34'2/34+454'0(!'%*/0-0)7
!+)+4#-/34+454+0/#-'103+4027!+)+4#-/34+454+0/#-'103+4027
!*'3'3

8!#,'!*03'-&'%02&3((4*' *'-(9"3'32#4+:%#4+0/38!#,'!*03'-&'%02&3((4*' *'-(9"3'32#4+:%#4+0/3
45&70(+(('2'/453+%-#4(02.3 45&70(+(('2'/453+%-#4(02.3
.+-7#6,
''*2+4'&5
0--064*+3#/&#&&+4+0/#-602,3#4*44132'103+40272+4'&54*'3'3
'%0..'/&'&+4#4+0/'%0..'/&'&+4#4+0/
#6,.+-78!#,'!*03'-&'%02&3((4*' *'-(9"3'32#4+:%#4+0/3 45&70(+(('2'/453+%
-#4(02.3!*'3+30%*'34'2/34+454'0(!'%*/0-0)7%%'33'&(20.
!*+3!*'3+3+3$205)*440705(02(2''#/&01'/#%%'33$74*'!+$2#2+'302.02'+/(02.#4+0/1-'#3'%0/4#%4
2'103+40272+4'&5
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS 1
“Take Those Old Records Off the Shelf”
A Uses & Gratifications Study of Different Music Platforms
Emily Hawk
School of Communication
College of Liberal Arts, Rochester Institute of Technology
A Thesis presented
in partial fulfillment of the Master of Science degree in
Communication & Media Technologies
Degree Awarded:
August 14, 2020
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
2
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of
Emily Hawk presented on June 2, 2020.
__________________________________________
Kelly Norris Martin, PhD
Director and Associate Professor
School of Communication
Thesis Advisor
__________________________________________
Whitney Sperrazza, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Digital Humanities and Social Sciences Program
Thesis Advisor
__________________________________________
Ammina Kothari, PhD
Associate Professor and
Director of Graduate Programs
School of Communication
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
3
Acknowledgements
My time as a master’s student in the School of Communication at the Rochester Institute
of Technology has been a hugely rewarding experience, despite all of the challenges that I’ve
faced. My time as a RIT community member started in 1999 and will continue well past the end
of my degree program. I have been honored to be surrounded by some of the most supportive,
kind, intelligent, and patient faculty, staff, and classmates, for whom I will be forever grateful. I
am also thrilled to become an alum of the school that I was introduced to at 6 years old; RIT will
always have a special place in my heart.
I would like to thank my primary advisor, Dr. Kelly Martin, for taking me and my
research on as an advisee later in the process than normal, especially as that was the same week
that RIT (and the state of New York) went into lockdown to slow the spread of COVID-19. I
know that the timing was far from ideal, but the words of encouragement, critique, and endless
support you provided in spite of the challenges that COVID-19 brought to you and the School of
Communication have been essential in keeping me focused and in getting this thesis completed. I
also would like to thank Dr. Whitney Sperrazza for your invaluable insight and feedback on this
thesis. Again, I sincerely appreciate you taking this on later in the process than usual and
continuing your support through this global pandemic. I would also like to thank Dr. Ammina
Kothari, for providing me structure and for all your help during the stressful moments of my
thesis; your advice was exactly what I needed. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Eun Sook Kown
for all your support and assistance, specifically when it came to creating my survey and
analyzing my data. I certainly could not have done this without any of you. To all my fellow
CMT classmates, you have been fantastic! Your support and encouragement throughout all my
time in this program has been wonderful, especially as I juggled my full-time position with
classes and research. I would also like to thank my supervisors at Manning & Napier for your
understanding, flexibility, and support throughout my time as a master’s student.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family. Thank you to my friends that were
understanding when I was too busy with schoolwork to see you, to friends who have been there
through every tear, phone call, and moment of frustration, and to all of my friends for your love
and excitement as I finish up this program. To my brother, thank you for all your insight and
understanding even as you completed your own master’s degree. Lastly, to my parents, thank
you for supporting me in this, as in everything else I have done. From encouraging my ideas, to
providing me with meals, to being the reason that I am part of the RIT community in the first
place, I really could not have done it without you. I love you.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
4
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………5
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………….8
Music Technology Changes and Evolution……………………………………………….8
Uses and Gratifications………………………………………………………………..…11
Why People Listen to Music……………………………………………………………..15
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………………16
Method…….……………………………………………………………………………………..17
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….19
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………22
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..26
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………………….31
Future Studies…………………………………………………………………………………….33
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….33
References………………………………………………………………………………….….…35
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………….……….…..40
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
5
Abstract
The platforms people use to listen to music have evolved rapidly in the last fifty years. Digital
streaming and digital downloads are the most popular platforms to consume music, but physical
platforms like CDs and vinyl are still common or, in the case of vinyl, even growing in use. This
study investigated the needs being met and the reasons behind listening to music on these
different platforms. This study also compared the differences in gratifications sought between
physical music platforms and non-physical music platforms. A survey shared via email,
Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, as well as via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service, used a
snowball sampling method to recruit participants who listened to at least two hours of music a
week (N = 594). Factor analysis revealed four gratifications for listening to music: personal
identity, mood management, diversion, and personal relationships. Physical platforms were
found to be preferred by users to satisfy personal relationship needs while non-physical
platforms were found to be used by users to satisfy mood management needs, with no significant
difference between platform types used to satisfy the needs of personal identity or diversion.
Keywords: music, uses and gratification theory, digital streaming, digital download, CDs,
vinyl
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
6
“Take Those Old Records Off the Shelf”
A Uses & Gratifications Study of Different Music Platforms
Music has been an artistic expression among humans for our entire history and has
continued into the modern day as an intrinsic part of the human experience, as well as growing
into a sprawling and powerful business industry. Because of its prominence and influence, music
should not be discounted as a form of communication. Music is, in fact, one of the more
powerful forms of communication that can influence masses and connect groups of people in a
common experience. Examining music consumption, therefore, can be helpful in understanding
the motivations of groups of people behind their music choices.
General music consumption is rising across the United States. According to the Nielsen
Music’s 2019 Mid-Year Report, total album equivalent consumption rose almost 16% in the first
six months of 2019 alone (Nielsen Music, 2019). More and more people are consuming music,
especially as smart phones and other mobile technologies have allowed music to become an
almost constant part of people’s daily lives. As well, people have more options in how they
consume music than ever before. Digital music consumption has become dominant. However,
the number of music platforms available is larger than ever before, due to the fact that old music
platform technologies did not become fully obsolete as digital music platforms gained
prominence.
Music consumption has changed dramatically over the last 50 years, with the most
obvious indicator being the switch from physical music platforms to non-physical music
platforms. In this study, music platforms are analyzed as media forms, that is, the socially
realized structures of communication for music. Physical music platforms, therefore, include
CDs, cassettes, vinyl records, and so forth, as they require an actual physical object devoted
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
7
solely for the purpose of hosting the music (in this case a CD or record), while non-physical
music platforms include digital downloads and digital music streaming and do not require a
physical object to host the music. To further differentiate between physical and non-physical
music platforms, music for non-physical platforms is hosted via non-tangible digital files on
devices that are not devoted solely to playing music, such as smart phones or computers. This
dichotomy between physical and non-physical does not perfectly categorize all music platforms;
radio, for example, requires a specific physical device (a radio receiver) to play music but the
music heard over radio is hosted on non-tangible radio waves. However, for the purpose of this
study, music platforms will be categorized as physical or non-physical on a best fit scenario, with
an “other” category existing for platforms like radio.
In 2018, 75% of revenue in the music industry came from some form of digital music
consumption (Recording Industry Association of America, 2018). However, as digital music
consumption continues to dominate the music industry, there has been an interesting trend in the
growth of vinyl album sales and consumption. In 2005, vinyl LP/EP revenues represented only
0.1% of annual music revenue. In 2018, vinyl represented 4% of annual music revenue
(Recording Industry Association of America, 2018).
In light of these music consumption trends across platforms, this study examined how
people consume music and the uses and gratifications sought regarding music platform selection.
It further explored the differences between people’s gratifications for choosing digital music
platforms versus physical music platforms, such as vinyl.
This study provides additional information and new perspectives on the uses made and
gratifications discovered through media, specifically Internet-based platforms. These
environments have changed so dramatically that a firmer understanding of why people choose
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
8
the platforms from which they consume music is necessary, as the uses and gratifications
different groups are seeking from music consumption may have changed. Understanding
people’s changing gratifications related to music platforms could also shed light on the more
general changing gratifications people are seeking when it comes to media consumption,
especially as media platforms change rapidly. The rapid shift to digital as the primary media
platform for not just music, but television, film, and even books as well, may have a large effect
on the typical gratifications sought by users. A comparison of physical versus non-physical
music platforms is a small part of this larger industry shift but may help illuminate some trends
in the gratifications sought by users in light of this shift. Therefore, using a survey methodology,
participants who listen regularly to music were recruited to complete an online questionnaire (see
Appendix) in an effort to gain this firmer understanding.
Literature Review
Understanding why people use the music platforms they do comes from an intersection of
many different factors. Music platforms themselves are the product of innovations in music
technologies, which have been rapidly changing since the introduction of the phonograph in the
early 20
th
century (Sinclair & Tinson, 2016). New music technologies then will affect the music
listening experience, as different technologies provide different environments for music
consumption. Finally, there is the ever-present overarching question of “why do people listen to
music.” In addition, the uses and gratifications theory needs to be understood as well before
applying it within this study.
Music Technology Changes and Evolution
Music consumption technology has developed rapidly since the early 20
th
century, from
the phonograph, to radio, to record players, to cassette tapes, to CDs, and finally to Internet-
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
9
based music consumption such as digital downloads and streaming (Sinclair & Tinson, 2016). As
new technologies become available, they disrupt the status quo of current music consumption
practices, which in turn disrupts the listening practices of music consumers (Hudson, 2011).
Music consumers, therefore, need to actively choose which platforms, from the many available,
that they will use to consume their music. It is also important to note that platforms available for
music consumption have always been shaped, and defined by the users of these platforms. A
great example of that is Gitelman’s exploration of how the amusement phonograph was
advertised, originally as a business tool, but rapidly developed into a social experience that
became a domestic touchpoint (2003). The users of the phonograph took the platform and rapidly
shifted it to suit their desires as users, not the desires of the manufacturers. Therefore, music
consumption has long been driven by the users of music platforms, and shaped by their choices
and needs.
Music consumption has been especially affected by the development of the Internet,
which gave birth first to peer-to-peer file sharing, next to paid digital file download systems, and
finally, to music streaming services that do not require file downloading or special playing
devices besides a computer or smartphone. This has also added a physical product as well as a
non-physical dynamic to the consumption of music (Magudda, 2011). Researchers have found
that there is a contradictory relationship between online music consumption and behavior related
to conventional music consumption. Online music consumption has evolved from a history of
“unrestricted and free” music ownership, while physical music consumption has a past rooted in
capitalism and business pressure (Molteni & Ordanini, 2003).
While there has been an ecologically favorable trend of music consumption moving from
physical to non-physical, there is still a healthy appetite for material music objects (Magudda,
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
10
2011). Magudda (2011) writes that “music digitalization and the dematerialization of musical
goods do not mean less materiality and do not imply a less relevant social role for material
objects within consumption processes” (p. 16). Essentially, even as technology moves
consumption towards the non-physical, people still feel a need for material objects connected to
their music consumption.
Music streaming has increasingly become the preferred music consumption platform
(Aguiar & Waldfogel, 2018), leaving physical music consumption to a more niche market.
Streaming has pulled the music industry out of the slump caused by the Internet and music
piracy. Aguiar and Waldfogel’s (2018) study found that although music streaming services
reduced music piracy, streaming revenues have made up for lost revenue: “the sales
displacement estimates show that the losses from displaced sales are roughly outweighed by the
gains in streaming revenue” (p. 279).
One of the niche markets of physical music consumption that still exists is the use of
vinyl records. Vinyl was challenged by cassette tapes and replaced by CDs as the primary
technology for media consumption in the United States in the 1980s (Recording Industry
Association of America, 2018), but has managed to never go fully obsolete as a technology,
mainly due to a dedicated collecting culture (Bartmanski & Woodward, 2015). However, vinyl
has been slowly increasing in popularity for music consumption in recent years (Recording
Industry Association of America, 2018). Sarpong et al. (2016) found that the re-diffusion of
vinyl was not simple and instead required a collective effort and a number of allies to bring the
platform back to a certain level of popularity, as opposed to the more passive growth of music
streaming services. Palm (2019) argues that vinyl consumption does not seem to follow the same
rules as the rest of the music industry:
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
11
The pressing question about the future of vinyl is not, will there continue to be a place for
analog formats in a post-digital world; but rather, to what extent can physical media
circulate independently of the same corporate interests that have come to dominate
popular culture in its digital form. (p. 653)
While some have pointed to an underlying need for physical objects (such as vinyl) when
consuming music (Magudda, 2011), others have found that having a physical object is not
necessarily required to have a sense of ownership over one’s music collection. Sinclair and
Tinson (2016) report that while participants found physical products to be more personal,
streaming was the most popular music platform used. As well, they found that both streaming
and physical platforms were used for similar reasons, namely that of loyalty, empowerment, and
social rewards, which reflect both platforms meeting the needs of psychological ownership of the
participants’ music.
Hagen (2015) found that users of music streaming services curated a variety of personal
playlists across genre, age, and other musical categories. The author argues that these playlists fit
the need of users to “collect” music, allowing them to have a curated and personal music library
that was completely digital, and giving them the same satisfaction of collection that physical
music platforms can provide. The differences between physical versus non-physical music
consumption are therefore not as cut and dry as some may believe. Instead, it is up to the music
consumers to choose which platform(s) best suit their needs.
Uses and Gratifications
The uses and gratifications theory can be traced back to the early 1940s with studies on
radio. Specifically, Herzog’s (1941) study into listeners of radio soap operas was one of the first
to find gratifications listeners got from using the medium. In the 1960s and 1970s, more
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
12
researchers started to solidify the uses and gratifications theory. In their study from that era,
McQuail et al. (1972) identified four general types of gratifications from media consumption: (a)
entertainment, (b) information, (c) personal identity, and (d) integration and social interaction.
Uses and gratifications was outlined as a theory, including its basic concepts by Katz,
Gurevitch, and Haas (1973). The theory was then further expanded upon by Katz, Blumer, and
Gurevitch (1973) and outlined existing uses and gratifications studies on print, radio, and
television media at the time, and argued that media research should study human needs to then
discover how much “media do or do not contribute to their creation and satisfaction” (p. 521).
These studies set up the fundamental concepts and outline of the uses and gratifications theory.
More recently, as more technologies have given birth to new forms of media, uses and
gratifications studies have expanded beyond print, radio, and television mediums. Specifically,
these new uses and gratifications studies have focused on the Internet and the many media
platforms the creation of the Internet has supported. Understanding these new studies helps
provide context for the differences in uses and gratifications between physical and non-physical
platforms, as the Internet revolutionized many forms of media in addition to music. Ko et al.
(2005) looked into Internet uses and gratifications from a psychological point of view by looking
at motivators among specific media usage. Smock et al. (2011) used uses and gratifications to
study social media and the Internet, with the theory acting as a framework focused on how
people use different platforms to fulfil needs. Whiting and Williams (2013) studied consumers
across social media platforms and found multiple main uses and gratifications: (a) information
sharing, (b) as an entertainment source, (c) social interaction, (d) relaxation, (e) to pass time, and
(d) information seeking.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
13
There have also been uses and gratifications studies into specific portions of the Internet.
Chen et al. (2010) performed a uses and gratifications study into online gaming and found that
people used online gaming most often as a diversion, a positive aesthetic experience, or to find a
sense of community. Hicks et al. (2012) performed a uses and gratifications study on the website
Yelp.com (a community business reviewing website) and found that it was used for information
seeking, convenience, to pass time, and for entertainment. Malik et al. (2016) performed a uses
and gratifications study specifically on photo sharing on Facebook and found a positive
correlation between media exposure and social influence, with gratifications related to the photo
and information sharing.
Uses and gratifications studies also continue in more traditional media areas, such as Kim
et al.’s (2015) study into print magazine reading, which found that emotional needs drive
magazine reading while personal experiences drive magazine ad engagement. Music, in general,
can also be considered a more traditional medium when looking at music as one single medium
instead of the many different platforms that support people’s ability to listen to music.
A uses and gratifications examination by Lonsdale and North (2011) looked into why
people listen to music. They performed four different studies within their examination. The first
study, a survey, found six important factors for listening to music: (a) negative mood
management, (b) personal identity, (c) surveillance, (d) positive mood management, (e)
interpersonal relations, and (f) diversion. Their second study built on these findings by
qualitatively comparing these factors to other media and leisure activities outside of listening to
music. Their third study was a qualitative analysis of why people listen to music consisting of
open-ended questions for participants, instead of ratings of reasons, and the fourth study looked
at age groups outside of adolescents and young adults. The last three studies confirmed the
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
14
factors found in the first study, with mood management being the most common and prevalent
factor for why people listened to music.
De la Rosa Herrera and Pugliese’s (2017) study examined young adults’ use of music, the
needs it addresses, as well as looking into the role of specific music genres within these needs.
The results of the survey performed found seven factors for listening to music: (a) identity, (b)
behavior, (c) interaction, (d) knowledge and information, (e) needs, (f) negative moods, and (g)
positive moods. The study also found many connections between these factors and musical
genres, including that the genre of rock was significantly related to the factor of identity, while
the dance and hip-hop genres were strongly tied to the factor of behavior.
A few uses and gratifications studies have looked into specific aspects of music
consumption. A recent uses and gratifications study into the genre of house music was conducted
by Sarovic in 2016. Using McQuail’s outline of the gratifications of diversion, personal
relationships, personal identity, and surveillance, house music was most connected to the
gratifications of diversion. The study highlights the fact that house music is used mostly by
listeners as escapism, matching the genre’s reputation for listeners getting “lost” in the music
instead of simply “experiencing” the music. Lantigua (2019) investigated music consumption in
the Dominican Republic and found that pleasure, relaxation, and diversion were the most
common gratifications of music use among Dominicans. Aside from the uses and gratifications
of music consumption by Dominicans, this study also found that the most common platforms of
music consumption used by Dominicans were digital streaming platforms, primarily Spotify.
The uses and gratifications theory has been shown to be an effective way of
understanding the motivations of people when it comes to using media, with music being no
exception. Using the uses and gratifications theory to understand why people use the specific
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
15
music platforms that they do, therefore, is a logical extension of the existing uses and
gratifications studies.
Why People Listen to Music
The question of why people listen to music has been examined by many scholars over the
years, from many different perspectives in addition to the uses and gratifications theory. The
answer to the question of why people listen to music is as varied as the approaches taken to
studying that question. North et al. (2004) found that people use music to produce psychological
states, which causes a large range of types of engagement with music. These psychological states
lead into one of the more important reasons why people listen to music: mood management.
Thayer et al. (1994) found in their psychological study that listening to music can change
a bad mood, raise energy, and reduce tension. Sarrikallio and Erkkil (2007) found that music
improved moods effectively among adolescents. Building on the base of that study, Saarikallio
(2010) created a psychometric scale to measure music and mood regulation, known as the B-
MMR, and found that music improves moods in a wide range of adults (2010). Balkwill and
Thompson (1999) conducted a cross-cultural study about music and emotion and found that
music can effectively produce specific emotions in listeners. Overall, these studies have shown
music to be an effective mood management tool across a wide range of people.
Outside of mood management, music is also used by people to fulfil mental health needs.
Carlson et al. (2015) found through a behavioral and neuroimaging study a strong relationship
between mental health and music. DeNora (1999) found that music is a useful means of self-
therapy that provides support for the use of music therapy professionally. Pelletier (2004) found
that music helps to reduce stress, and is regularly used by people to do just that. Tarrant et al.’s
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
16
(2000) study into English and American teens found that listening to music fulfilled self-
actualization, as well as social and emotional needs.
This is merely a sample of the many studies into why people listen to music. As Witchel
(2010) wrote, “humans have music to establish and reinforce social territory” (p. 5).
Understanding an individual’s social territory helps that individual gain a sense of belonging
within their community, as well as a deeper understanding of themselves in order to fit better
within this community (Witchel, 2010, p. 8). A need for establishing and reinforcing social
territory, therefore, essentially defines humanity’s largest reason for listening to music,
encompassing the reasons listed above and more. These studies show that music is an intrinsic
part of many people’s lives for a variety of reasons. Using the results from these previously
mentioned studies, this project explores the gratifications people seek and the needs they are
looking to meet by using different music platforms.
Research Questions
This study draws on the uses and gratifications theory, which focuses on the consumer of
media and imagines audience members as independent actors who actively choose their media
content to achieve their own goals (Littlejohn et al., 2017). There are many variables capable of
influencing the uses and gratifications that people seek through media consumption, researchers
have found. Given this, this study investigated the following questions regarding the uses and
gratifications people seek from different music platforms:
RQ1: What platform(s) do people prefer to use to consume music?
RQ2: What needs are people satisfying through the different music platforms they use?
RQ3: Is there a significant difference in the gratifications people seek from physical
music platforms versus non-physical music platforms?
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
17
Method
The purpose of this survey research was to investigate what platforms people are using to
listen to music and the different needs they are satisfying through these platforms. Survey
research was an appropriate method for this study as it has the potential to reach a large number
of participants, which can then be interpreted to generalize the larger active music listening
population (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). The survey method is also appropriate for testing the uses
and gratifications theory as it allows for participants to express their opinions on how they use
different music platforms to meet their various needs.
Several demographic variables were collected, including age, gender, and ethnicity.
Participation in this study was limited to participants who were 18 years of age or older and
listened to at least two hours of music a week, which was chosen as a lower limit of music
listening to ensure that the results did not include those who did not listen to music regularly.
Participants were also asked to choose all of the music platforms they used from a list that
included the following: (a) digital streaming, (b) digital download, (c) CDs, (d) vinyl, and (e)
other. These platform options were chosen as the four largest selling platforms of music in the
United States during 2018 (Recording Industry Association of America, 2018).
The sample for this study was recruited using snowball sampling through sharing the
questionnaire through three separate email lists and by posting the questionnaire link on
Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Snowball sampling allows research participants to connect
new participants to the questionnaire, who can then in turn connect even more participants to the
questionnaire, and so on (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). Additionally, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(mTurk) research service was used as a recruiting tool. In the context of this study, the researcher
shared the link for the questionnaire via email, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and mTurk, and
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
18
asked participants to pass the link on to further potential participants. Snowball sampling allowed
for more randomized subjects and was able to allow the questionnaire to reach a variety of
demographics.
This study was approved by the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Institutional Review
Board, and the questionnaire remained optional, consensual, and confidential. The questionnaire
consisted of five questions, including one where participants indicated what music platforms
they used, followed by 24 Likert scale statements (see Table 2 for statements) for each music
platform selected (i.e., if the participant indicated they used two music platforms, the 24
statements would be presented twice for a total of 48 statements, etc.). The initial sample
consisted of 649 respondents who fully completed the online questionnaire, with 55 participants
admitting they did not listen to more than 2 hours of music a week, leaving a total of 594
participants.
The four gratifications adapted for this study were taken from the scale and themes
identified by Lonsdale and North’s (2011) uses and gratifications study into why people listened
to music. Lonsdale and North focused on five themes: (a) Diversion, (b) Mood Management, (c)
Personal Identity, (d) Personal Relationships, and (e) Surveillance. For this study, the researcher
chose to drop the theme of Surveillance, as it was deemed less relevant than the other four
themes, and would allow the questionnaire to be shortened slightly with the goal of increasing
the response rate. Surveillance was deemed less relevant because the activities related to this
theme, such as keeping up with current events or obtaining useful information for daily life, were
deemed less relevant to listening to music. The Likert scale statements for the four remaining
themes were derived from Lonsdale and North’s 2011 study, with a five-point Likert scale
accompanying these statements.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
19
For this study, the four themes follow the definitions laid out in Lonsdale and North’s
2011 study:
Diversion: the need for escapism, entertainment, and relaxation.
Mood Management: the need to consciously adjust one’s mood.
Personal Identity: the need to find out who we are.
Personal Relationships: the need to interact with others.
Data Analysis
The survey (see Appendix) was available on Qualtrics for two weeks, after which it
closed, and the results were exported to Excel, where the data was cleaned up by deleting
incomplete entries. Some participants who chose “Other” as their music platform of choice but
listed platforms that fit one of the four listed platforms were recoded to show their results under
those platforms. This left the Other category representing mainly Radio listeners and those that
used YouTube (not the paid YouTube music streaming service) as their primary platforms.
YouTube was deemed to not fit the Digital Streaming platform category, as the platform is video
based, and its main function is not music consumption.
Data analysis was conducted through mean comparison, factor analysis, scale reliability
test, independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA tests using the IBM Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) software. A single variable representing each gratification identified by the
factor analysis was created by compiling and averaging the corresponding Likert scale items.
These new gratification variables were tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha (see Table
1).
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
20
Table 1
Reliability of Representative Gratification Variables
Gratification Variable
Reliability
Personal identity
.923
Mood management
.906
Diversion
.744
Personal relationships
.755
Factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify the underlying gratifications.
A total of four dimensions with eigenvalues greater than 1 were obtained, and these dimensions
explained 64.9% of the total variance (see Table 2). One item (“To alleviate feelings of
loneliness”) was evenly split between two factors, and was excluded from the single variables
created for each dimension.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
21
Table 2
Factor Analysis (N = 594) Results of Survey Gratifications
Gratification Item
1
2
4
Personal identity
To create an image for myself
.818
.124
.140
To explore possible identities
.792
.131
.159
To discover who I really am
.790
.143
.146
To construct a sense of identity for myself
.783
.266
.071
To portray a particular image to others
.770
.002
.305
To display my membership of social groups/subcultures
.752
.022
.315
To express my identity
.741
.300
.064
To alleviate feelings of loneliness
.470
.466
-.013
Mood management
To relieve tension/stress
.101
.802
.056
To make me feel better
.102
.794
.100
To relieve anxiety
.243
.763
.014
To help get through difficult times
.303
.751
-.005
To take my mind off things
.168
.723
.059
To relax
-.096
.719
.174
To set the “right mood”
.222
.630
.209
To express my feelings and emotions
.433
.624
.082
To be entertained
-.185
.583
.175
To escape the reality of everyday life
.452
.528
.019
Diversion
To pass the time
.101
.299
.107
To relieve boredom
.113
.393
.070
To “fill” uncomfortable silences
.417
.154
.080
Personal relationships
To spend time with family
.229
.134
.804
To spend time with friends
.367
.228
.752
To have something to talk about with others
.500
.111
.586
Eigenvalue
9.639
3.474
1.159
% of variance
40.16
14.48
4.83
Cumulative %
40.16
54.64
64.90
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
22
An independent t-test was conducted to compare gratification levels with non-physical
versus physical music platforms (see Table 3).
Table 3
Number, Means, and Standard Deviations Comparison of Gratification Levels
Gratification
N
M
SD
Personal identity
Non-physical
653
2.94
1.070
Physical
112
3.01
1.181
Mood management
Non-physical
642
4.13
.756
Physical
114
3.94
.891
Diversion
Non-physical
658
3.75
.941
Physical
116
3.75
1.006
Personal relationships
Non-physical
661
3.13
1.105
Physical
116
3.44
1.091
Results
Of the 594 participants (N = 594), 39.7% identified as male, 50.5% identified as female,
1.1% identified as other, and 8.8% preferred not to say. The majority of participants identified
themselves as White (75.4%), 6.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino, 4.6% identified as
Black/African American, 3.4% identified as Asian, 0.6% identified as Other, and 9.1% preferred
not to say. In terms of participants’ ages, 18.46% preferred not to list an age (listing an age was
not required to complete the questionnaire). Of the remaining participants, 17.08% were between
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
23
the ages of 18-24, 30.31% were between 25-34, 13.08% were between 35-44, and 21.08% were
above the age of 45.
In regard to RQ1, the platforms that participants indicated they used regularly were
compared. When selecting which music platform they utilized, participants were allowed to
choose more than one platform. Digital Streaming platforms were used by 493 participants,
Digital Download platforms were used by 171 participants, CDs were used by 74 participants,
Vinyl was used by 43 participants, and 96 participants used Other music platforms which mainly
included radio and YouTube.
To answer RQ2, the four dimensions, or gratifications for listening to music, obtained
from the factor analysis were labeled as follows:
Dimension 1 – Personal Identity
Dimension 2 – Mood Management
Dimension 3 – Diversion
Dimension 4 – Personal Relationships
The Personal Identity dimension was comprised of seven items, all pertaining to creating
an image of one’s self, for both internal personal understanding and external presentation. This
includes items such as “to explore possible identities,” “to discover who I really am,” and “to
portray a particular image to others.”
The Mood Management dimension consisted of 10 items, having the most related items,
all connected to using music as a tool to control one’s mood and emotions. This dimension
includes items such as “to make me feel better,” “to relax,” and “to relieve tension/stress.”
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
24
The three items in the Diversion dimension related to using music as a distraction or
passive activity, including the items “to pass the time,” “to relieve boredom,” and “to ‘fill’
uncomfortable silences.”
The three items in the Personal Relationships dimension connected to one’s social
relationships with others, including the items “to spend time with family,” “to spend time with
friends,” and “to have something to talk about with others.”
When comparing means, mood management (M = 4.08) and diversion (M = 3.75) had the
highest means among all participants, indicating that these are the two significantly sought
gratifications from listening to music across all platforms.
To examine RQ3, an independent t-test was conducted comparing the gratifications of
participants using physical music platforms versus those using non-physical platforms. The
independent t-test found a significant difference between those using physical platforms for
mood management (M = 3.94, SD = 0.89) and those using non-physical platforms for mood
management (M = 4.13, SD = 0.76). The Levene’s test for equality of variances, however, was
significant (F = 6.92, p = .009) so equality of variances was not assumed, conditions t(143) =
2.095, p = 0.038. These results suggest that music listeners prefer using non-physical platforms
over physical platforms when looking to address their mood management needs.
The independent t-test also found a significant difference between those using physical
platforms for personal relationship needs (M = 3.45, SD = 1.09) and those using non-physical
platforms for personal relationship needs (M = 3.13, SD = 1.11). The Levene’s test for equality
of variances was not significant (F = .054, p = .816) so equality of variances was assumed,
conditions t(775) = -2.856, p = 0.04. These results suggest that music listeners prefer using
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
25
physical platforms over non-physical platforms when using music listening to address personal
relationship needs.
The independent t-test found that there was no significant difference between those using
physical platforms to meet personal identity needs (M = 3.01, SD = 1.18) and those using non-
physical platforms to meet personal identity needs (M = 2.94, SD = 1.07). The Levene’s test for
equality of variances was not significant (F = 2.631, p = .105) so equality of variances was
assumed, conditions t(763) = -.651, p = .515.
There was also no significant difference between those using physical platforms for
diversion (M = 3.75, SD = 1.01) and those using non-physical platforms for diversion (M = 3.75,
SD = 0.94). The Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant (F = 1.044, p = .307)
so equality of variances was assumed, conditions t(772) = -.027, p = .978.
One-way ANOVA tests were then conducted on the two gratifications that had significant
differences between physical and non-physical platforms per the independent t-test, mood
management and personal relationships. These ANOVA tests were run to determine if one of the
specific platform options within the physical and non-physical platform groups was used in a
significantly different way to meet these two gratifications.
While a significant difference among all platforms was found within the mood
management gratification, F(4, 839) = 4.942, p =.001, η
2
= .023, the Scheffe post hoc test found
no significant difference between Digital Streaming (M = 4.17, SD = 0.75) and Digital Download
(M = 4.00, SD = 0.77) within the mood management gratification, p = .200. The Scheffe post hoc
test also found no significant difference between CDs (M = 3.87, SD = 0.88) and Vinyl (M =
4.07, SD = 0.91) within the mood management gratification, p = .785.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
26
A significant difference was also found among all platforms within the personal
relationships gratification, F(4, 860) = 6.412, p =.000, η
2
= .029, however the Scheffe post hoc
test again found no significant difference between Digital Streaming (M = 3.13, SD = 1.09) and
Digital Download (M = 3.14, SD = 1.14) within the personal relationships gratification, p =
1.000. The Scheffe post hoc test also found no significant difference between CDs (M = 3.34, SD
= 1.09) and Vinyl (M = 3.64, SD = 1.08) within the personal relationships gratification, p = .721.
Both of these results suggest that the physicality of the music platform is the cause of the
significant difference within the mood management and personal relationship gratifications, and
not the result of one specific platform type within the physical and non-physical platform
categories.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to investigate why people choose to listen to music on
different platforms and if there are specific gratifications they are seeking from different music
platform types. The results of the study support previously discovered gratifications for listening
to music: (a) personal identity, (b) mood management, (c) diversion, and (d) personal
relationships (Lonsdale & North, 2011). The gratifications found from this study also support
previous research on the connection between personal identity and music listening (Tarrant et al.,
2000), as well as the effects of music on mood (Thayer et al., 1994).
The findings of this study indicate that non-physical music platforms are used over
physical music platforms when listeners are seeking mood management through music.
Participants responding for non-physical platforms selected higher levels of agreement with
statements such as “to make me feel better” and “to relieve tension/stress.” A strong connection
between mood management and non-physical platforms therefore makes sense, as using music to
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
27
manage one’s mood is a deeply personal choice by the user and, therefore, the sense of privacy
that a user might feel when using a non-physical music platform is more important. As well,
listeners using music for mood management would more likely want quickly accessible and easy
to use music platforms to address their mood as quickly as possible. Thayer et al. (1994) found
that listening to music is one of the more effective behaviors for changing one’s mood and was
the second highest activity participants chose for mood management – ease of use of a music
platform only makes this activity more appealing.
Further, most digital music libraries (whether they are via streaming or download) are
larger and have preset playlists catering specifically to mood management, making these
platforms preferential for many for mood management. This most likely is not a coincidence;
studies showed that music was used for mood management before streaming platforms were
started (Balkwill & Thompson, 1999). These platforms most likely saw this trend and created
“mood” playlists to further entice users to their platforms over others; these playlists serve as a
built-in benefit to using digital streaming platforms.
The results from this study also indicate that physical music platforms are used over non-
physical music platforms when listeners are seeking personal relationship needs via music.
Participants responding for physical platforms selected higher levels of agreement with
statements such as “to spend time with friends” and “to have something to talk about with
others.” This finding makes sense when one is using active music listening for socializing or
impressing friends and family. A physical collection of items is more social, and it might seem
more impressive than a non-physical music library. For example, a collection of vinyl records or
CDs specifically collected and curated by one person allows people they have relationships with
to browse their library and socialize over music easily. As well, consumers still give more
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
28
importance to physical possessions over non-physical ones (Magudda, 2011), so physical music
platforms are seen as more of a status symbol than non-physical platforms and therefore are
more likely to be shown off by a user.
Likewise, while research has shown that it is impossible to definitively state if analog or
digital has better sound quality (Morgan, 2017), many listeners firmly believe that analog, or
physical, music platforms sound much better. To these listeners, the different listening aesthetic
that comes from scratches and analog playback in some physical platforms makes the experience
much more interesting. This opens up another possible reason why listeners are seeking personal
relationship needs via physical music platforms: By using, subjectively, better sounding
platforms when listening to music with friends or family, they are more likely to impress others
and show the effort that they have put into the social activity they are sharing, namely actively
listening to music together. There could be other factors at play as well, such as nostalgia for a
past moment in a personal relationship that revolved around a physical music item, like a shared
trip to a record store or an impromptu dance around a stereo. Physical music platforms may also
become keepsakes within families, making them more precious due to their connections to loved
ones.
Furthermore, the study indicated a lack of a significant difference in the type of music
platform listeners utilize to meet their diversion and personal identity needs. Participants
responded equally across platform types to statements related to diversion (e.g., “to pass the
time,” “to relieve boredom”) and personal identity (e.g., “to create an image for myself,” “to
discover who I really am”). This is understandable for both gratification categories. In the case of
diversion, using music purely for entertainment, distraction, or combating boredom is extremely
common. Listeners most likely gravitate towards whatever platform is easiest to reach at that
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
29
given moment, or chose a platform based on a preference for the technology or the sound quality
they perceive that platform provides.
Personal identity also connects to this, as listeners will use whichever music platform
speaks to their identity at any given moment. Ease of access to a platform and a stated preference
for a platform’s sound quality or technologic qualities can easily be absorbed as part of one’s
personal identity. People tend to feel strongly about if physical or non-physical platforms are
“better,” to the point that both platform types could easily be connected to someone’s personal
identity, especially if they are an avid music listener and already connect strongly to music in
general on a personal level.
The findings from this study also show that while the participants certainly used non-
physical platforms much more than physical platforms, the use of physical music platforms is not
fully disappearing. The trend towards digital entertainment in visual media (e.g., television, film,
magazines, books, etc.) is also seen in the trend toward digital music platforms, but this study
does show that the physical music platform is not fully obsolete.
In fact, the use of physical music platforms over non-physical music platforms for
meeting the personal relationships gratification could imply that physical music platforms may
never fully become obsolete, as that platform seems to be meeting this gratification more than
non-physical platforms. Compare, for example, the gift of a playlist on a streaming service
versus the gift of a mixtape cassette or mixed CD. While all are thoughtful gifts, the physicality
of the mixtape or CD is seen by most as a representation of a stronger and more thoughtful
relationship than the gift of a playlist. The contributions of physicality towards personal
relationships is something many people are especially aware of currently, during the COVID-19
global pandemic, as personal relationships have had to be supported through virtual platforms.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
30
While there are no academic studies into this phenomenon yet, anecdotal evidence has shown
that using non-physical media platforms to support personal relationships does not quite meet the
needs of many people as they seek new ways to connect to each other.
This study found that the music platform type used matters for certain, but not all,
gratifications listeners are seeking. For musicians looking to target audiences based on their
music listening needs, this study might show which platforms could work for targeting these
audiences. However, musicians tend to try to reach the widest audience possible, so choosing to
release music only on certain platforms most likely would not make sense. The findings of this
study also reinforce the need to release music on all platforms. This not only allows musicians to
reach the widest audience they can, it also allows listeners to choose actively which platforms
they will use to meet their needs.
Listeners can actively choose to change between music platforms, if possible, while
seeking gratification through music listening. By making music available across all platforms,
the music will cover the broadest spectrum of listeners and the gratifications that they are
seeking. While some listeners may think that consuming music on only one platform type is
sufficient, they could be missing out on opportunities to have a strongly emotionally connection
with a song or album. For example, physical music platforms were found to meet personal
relationship needs over non-physical platforms. If a listener only uses non-physical music
platforms, they may be missing out on the chance to emotionally connect with a specific song or
album during a pivotal moment in their personal relationships, such as a first date, or the
introduction of a type of music from father to son, or any other moment similar to these.
In terms of listening to music on different platform types, this study revealed that users
choose to utilize different platforms when trying to meet their mood management and personal
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
31
relationship needs, but not when trying to meet their diversion or personal identity needs. The
uses and gratifications theory states that users actively seek out media types to meet specific
needs, as seen in this study. The lack of significant difference between platform types when it
comes to participants meeting their diversion or personal identity needs shows that specific needs
can be met with multiple platform types. However, the significant differences between platform
types when it comes to participants meeting their mood management and personal relationship
needs shows that different platform types can work better to meet the needs of listeners. This
somewhat contradictory relationship found between users and platform physicality supports both
the studies by Magudda (2011), who found that consumers have an underlying need for physical
objects when consuming music, and Hagen (2015), who found that curated and personal music
libraries within digital streaming platforms allowed users to feel as if they were “collecting”
music in the same ways of physical music platforms. Which music platform type used truly
seems to depend on the specific needs of the listener whether or not the physicality of the
platform is truly important or not when satisfying their needs.
It is important to note that, while non-physical music platforms were used much more by
participants than physical music platforms, physical music platforms still have a place in meeting
the gratifications listeners are seeking. These findings also reinforce the uses and gratifications
framework when it comes to listening to music, no matter the platform type used. Per the basis of
the uses and gratifications theory, this study found that listeners are actively choosing their
preferred music platform to meet a variety of needs. However, the reasons for choosing between
physical or non-physical platforms may not always be due to the specific gratifications they are
actively seeking by listening to music.
Limitations
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
32
There are a few limitations of this study. Firstly, the questionnaire was not widely
dispersed. While it did reach a large number of people, the downside of using a snowball
sampling method is that the respondents can be more homogenous than the actual population
that, in this study, was focused on all adults in the United States. The sample of this study tended
to be younger adults, and weighted more heavily with White participants compared to the
general population of the United States. The questionnaire also did not have any warning for
those outside of the United States to not respond to the survey, nor did it ask for location or
respondent’s nationality, so international responses may have been recorded alongside responses
from U.S. residents.
Another specific and interesting limitation of this study is that it was conducted during
the COVID-19 global pandemic. There are multiple implications from conducting this study
because of this, the first being that the response rate may have been inflated due to respondents
using the questionnaire as a distraction from the pandemic and related lockdowns. The second
implication is that respondents’ music listening habits may have dramatically changed in light of
pandemic related lockdowns. Some respondents may have been listening to music more, or less,
often due to being stuck in their homes, as well as utilizing music platforms for wildly different
needs than they would have pre-lockdown.
This also adds confusion into what respondents were thinking about: Some respondents
might have answered the questionnaire with regard to their pre-pandemic habits while others
might have answered the questionnaire with how they were currently utilizing different music
platforms. It would be interesting to see this same study performed after the global pandemic has
passed and compare the results of these studies. Unfortunately, such a repeat study will have to
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
33
wait for the global pandemic to pass and possibly even until the global economy has recovered,
allowing people to have more dispensable income to spend on music platforms.
Future Studies
As mentioned earlier, future studies could recreate this study after the COVID-19 global
pandemic has passed and then compare the results to this study. Ideally, the same sample would
be used to have direct comparison over time, but the logistic difficulty of recreating this study’s
sample might prove to be too much. However, a study post-pandemic might show a significant
difference in music listening habits as users return to everyday life.
Future studies may also want to recruit a more diverse and representative sample for the
study, specifically one that reaches older adults and more minority populations. The study could
also be adjusted to include a wider range of platform types within the categories of physical and
non-physical, as some participants used the Other category to answer while listing platforms that
this study considered either physical or non-physical. Additionally, a qualitative study based on
these findings could be performed to gain more insight into listeners’ personal reasons for using
specific music platforms. This would allow for more nuance than this study’s questionnaire
provided.
Conclusion
This study examined the motivations behind listening to music on both physical and non-
physical music platforms. As different media continue to transfer from physical platforms to
non-physical platforms, understanding what motivates users to choose between those platforms
is important. While ease of access and cost may affect which platforms users gravitate towards
using, the gratifications that they are seeking may also affect the platform they choose to use to
listen to music. There seems to be an intangible connection between users and certain music
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
34
platforms, both physical and non-physical, when it comes to specific reasons for using those
platforms. A physical object can gain a stronger attachment from a user than a non-physical due
to its physical presence around a user. At the same time, a digital platform allows users a wider
library and more options in terms of music available. As well, non-physical platforms tend to
offer more privacy and individuality in their use when compared to physical platforms.
Music has been part of human culture since before recorded history and will most likely
continue to be part of human culture for centuries to come. While the technology for recorded
music has only been available for approximately a century, this technology has evolved rapidly,
culminating in the shift to digital platforms in the early 2000s and the introduction of digital
streaming in the 2010s. Music listeners now seem to gravitate more towards non-physical music
platforms over physical music platforms, however physical music platforms have been found in
this study to be preferred for meeting certain gratifications. The shift to listening to music
digitally has allowed for listeners to discover wider varieties of music and for musicians to reach
audiences that they had not been able to reach previously. However, physical platforms will
continue to be used, as they meet certain needs for users that non-physical platforms have yet to
be able to meet. As technology evolves, this may change, but for now both physical music
platforms will continue to have a noticeable presence among music listening platforms.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
35
References
Aguiar, L., & Waldfogel, J. (2018). As streaming reaches flood stage, does it stimulate or
depress music sales? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 57, 278–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2017.06.004
Balkwill, L. L., & Thompson, W. F. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation of the perception of
emotion in music: Psychophysical and cultural cues. Music Perception, 17, 43–64. doi:
10.2307/40285811
Bartmanski, D., & Woodward, I. (2015). The vinyl: The analogue medium in the age of digital
reproduction. Journal of Consumer Culture, 15(1), 3–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540513488403
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2003). The basics of communication research. Boston: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Carlson, E., Saarikallio, S., Toiviainen, P., Bogert, B., Kliuchko, M., & Brattico, E. (2015).
Maladaptive and adaptive emotion regulation through music: A behavioral and
neuroimaging study of males and females. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(466), 1–
13. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00466
Chen, K., Chen, J. V., & Ross, W. H. (2010). Antecedents of online game dependency: The
implications of multimedia realism and uses and gratifications theory. Journal of
Database Management (JDM), 21(2), 69–99. doi:10.4018/jdm.2010040104
De la Rosa Herrera, K., & Pugliese, R. (2017). The uses and gratifications of music among
emerging adults. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 10(1), 351–364. Retrieved
from https://ezproxy.rit.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.
rit.edu/docview/2032376933?accountid=108
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
36
DeNora, T. (1999). Music as a technology of the self. Poetics, 27, 31–56. doi: 10.1016/S0304-
422X(99)00017-0
Hagen, A. N. (2015). The playlist experience: Personal playlists in music streaming services.
Popular Music & Society, 38(5), 625–645. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.rit.edu/10.1080/03007766.2015.1021174
Herzog, H. (1941). On borrowed experience: An analysis of listening to daytime sketches,
Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 9(1), 65–95.
https://doi.org/10.5840/zfs1941915
Hicks, A., Comp, S., Horovitz, J., Hovarter, M., Miki, M., & Bevan, J. L. (2012). Why people
use yelp.com: An exploration of uses and gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior,
28(6), 2274–2279. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.034
Hudson, H. D. (2011). Disruptive distribution in the music business, Part 1: An historical
perspective. The Four Peaks Review, 1(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.7152/fpr.v1i1.11420
Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109
Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things.
American Sociological Review, 38, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094393
Kim, J., Lee, J., Jo, S., Jung, J., & Kang, J. (2015). Magazine reading experience and advertising
engagement: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 92(1), 179–198. doi:10.1177/1077699014559914
Ko, H., Cho, C., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation
model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57–70.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639191
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
37
Lantigua, Frank R. (2019). Music consumption in the Dominican Republic: Technological
changes, uses, and gratifications (Masters’ Thesis). Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses/10079
Lonsdale, A. J., & North, A. C. (2011). Why do we listen to music? A uses and gratifications
analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 108–134.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X506831
Magudda, P. (2011). When materiality ‘bites back’: Digital music consumption practices in the
age of dematerialization. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 15–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510390499
Malik, A., Dhir, A., & Nieminen, M. (2016). Uses and gratifications of digital photo sharing on
Facebook. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.009
McQuail, D. (1972). Sociology of mass communications: Selected readings. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Molteni, L., & Ordanini, A. (2003). Consumption patterns, digital technology and music
downloading. Long Range Planning, 36(4), 389–406.
doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00073-6
Morgan, K. (2017, October 11). Which Sounds Better, Analog or Digital Music? Scientific
American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/which-sounds-better-
analog-or-digital-music/
Nielsen Music. (2019). Mid-Year Report [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/06/nielsen-us-music-mid-year-
report-2019.pdf
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
38
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & Hargreaves, J. J. (2004). Uses of music in everyday life.
Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 41–77.
https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2004.22.1.41
Palm, M. (2019). Keeping what real? Vinyl records and the future of independent culture.
Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies,
25(4), 643-656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856519835485
Pelletier, C. L. (2004). The effect of music on decreasing arousal due to stress: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Music Therapy, 16, 192–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/41.3.192
Recording Industry Association of America. (2018). U.S. Recorded Music Revenues by Format
[Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
Saarikallio, S., & Erkkil, J. (2007). The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation.
Psychology of Music, 35, 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607068889
Saarikallio, S. (2010). Music as emotional self-regulation throughout adulthood. Psychology of
Music, 39(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610374894
Sarpong, D., Dong, S., & Appiah, G. (2016). ‘Vinyl never say die’: The re-incarnation, adoption
and diffusion of retro-technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103,
109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.012
Sarovic, A. (2016). The uses and gratifications theory (in the Case of House Music). New
Sound: International Journal of Music, 47(1), 87–98. Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.rit.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.rit.edu
/docview/1867963811?accountid=108
Sinclair, G. & Tinson, J. (2016). Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption.
Journal of Business Research, 71, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.002
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
39
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses
and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(6), 2322–2329. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
Tarrant, M., North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2000) English and American adolescents’
reasons for listening to music. Psychology of Music, 28(2), 166–173. doi:
10.1177/0305735600282005.
Thayer, R. E., Newman, J. R., & McClain, T. M. (1994). Self-regulation of mood: Strategies for
changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.910
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications
approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362–369.
doi:10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041
Witchel, H. (2010). You are what you hear: How music and territory make us who we are. New
York: Algora Publishing. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
40
Appendix
Survey Questionnaire
Principle Investigator: Emily Hawk
“Take Those Old Records off the Shelf”: A Uses & Gratifications Study of Different Music
Platforms
You are invited to participate in a research study about listening to music on different music
platforms. The purpose of this study is to understand why someone may choose to listen to music
on a particular platform. I ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before
completing the questionnaire.
This study is being conducted by Emily Hawk from Rochester Institute of Technology, School of
Communication.
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand why someone may choose to listen to music on a
particular platform.
PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY
If you agree to this study, you will complete an online questionnaire about your music listening
habits for different music platforms, which should take 5 - 10 minutes of your time.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The online survey instrument will assign you a unique id and your demographic information
collected in this study will be used for data analysis purposes only.
RISK
We anticipate no risks to you if you choose to participate.
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
41
CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS
For questions about the study, contact the researcher: Emily Hawk at [email protected].
For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints, or
concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Rochester
Institute of Technology, Institutional Review Board, Dawn Severson, Engineering Hall,
Room #2115, Rochester, NY 14623, (585) 475-2167, or by email at [email protected].
VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY
Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at
any time. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or
future relations with the investigator.
I confirm that I am 18 years or older and that I consent to taking this questionnaire.
o Yes
o No
[If “no” is chosen, the respondent is taken straight to the survey termination screen and their
response will not be included.]
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
42
Screening Questions
1. Do you listen to more than 2 hours of music a week?
o Yes
o No
[If “no” is chosen, the respondent is taken straight to the survey termination screen.]
2. Of the options below, please select which type of music platform(s) you regularly use.
[respondents are allowed to choose multiple options]
o Digital Streaming (ex. Spotify, Apple Music, etc.)
o Digital Download (ex. iTunes, Bandcamp, other paid MP3 downloading services)
o CDs
o Vinyl
o Other [enter text to describe other]
Music Platform Use
[Question #3 only displays if “Digital Streaming” was selected in question #2]
3. Please select how much you agree or disagree about each statement below when you use
Digital Streaming platforms.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
To escape the reality of
everyday life
To be entertained
To relax
To take my mind off things
To pass the time
To relieve boredom
To help get through difficult
times
To relieve anxiety
To relieve tension/stress
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
43
To express my feelings and
emotions
To make me feel better
To set the “right” mood
To alleviate feelings of
loneliness
To construct a sense of identity
for myself
To explore possible identities
To express my identity
To create an image for myself
To discover who I really am
To portray a particular image
to others
To display my membership of
social groups/subcultures
To spend time with family
To have something to talk
about with others
To spend time with friends
To “fill” uncomfortable
silences
[Question #4 only displays if “Digital Download” was selected in question #2]
4. Please select how much you agree or disagree about each statement below when you use
Digital Download platforms.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
To escape the reality of
everyday life
To be entertained
To relax
To take my mind off things
To pass the time
To relieve boredom
To help get through difficult
times
To relieve anxiety
To relieve tension/stress
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
44
To express my feelings and
emotions
To make me feel better
To set the “right” mood
To alleviate feelings of
loneliness
To construct a sense of identity
for myself
To explore possible identities
To express my identity
To create an image for myself
To discover who I really am
To portray a particular image
to others
To display my membership of
social groups/subcultures
To spend time with family
To have something to talk
about with others
To spend time with friends
To “fill” uncomfortable
silences
[Question #5 only displays if “CDs” was selected in question #2]
5. Please select how much you agree or disagree about each statement below when you use
CDs.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
To escape the reality of
everyday life
To be entertained
To relax
To take my mind off things
To pass the time
To relieve boredom
To help get through difficult
times
To relieve anxiety
To relieve tension/stress
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
45
To express my feelings and
emotions
To make me feel better
To set the “right” mood
To alleviate feelings of
loneliness
To construct a sense of identity
for myself
To explore possible identities
To express my identity
To create an image for myself
To discover who I really am
To portray a particular image
to others
To display my membership of
social groups/subcultures
To spend time with family
To have something to talk
about with others
To spend time with friends
To “fill” uncomfortable
silences
[Question #6 only displays if “Vinyl” was selected in question #2]
6. Please select how much you agree or disagree about each statement below when you use
Vinyl.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
To escape the reality of
everyday life
To be entertained
To relax
To take my mind off things
To pass the time
To relieve boredom
To help get through difficult
times
To relieve anxiety
To relieve tension/stress
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
46
To express my feelings and
emotions
To make me feel better
To set the “right” mood
To alleviate feelings of
loneliness
To construct a sense of identity
for myself
To explore possible identities
To express my identity
To create an image for myself
To discover who I really am
To portray a particular image
to others
To display my membership of
social groups/subcultures
To spend time with family
To have something to talk
about with others
To spend time with friends
To “fill” uncomfortable
silences
[Question #7 only displays if “Other” was selected in question #2]
7. Please select how much you agree or disagree about each statement below when you use
[piped text from “Other” text entry box in question #2] music platforms.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
To escape the reality of
everyday life
To be entertained
To relax
To take my mind off things
To pass the time
To relieve boredom
To help get through difficult
times
To relieve anxiety
To relieve tension/stress
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
47
To express my feelings and
emotions
To make me feel better
To set the “right” mood
To alleviate feelings of
loneliness
To construct a sense of identity
for myself
To explore possible identities
To express my identity
To create an image for myself
To discover who I really am
To portray a particular image
to others
To display my membership of
social groups/subcultures
To spend time with family
To have something to talk
about with others
To spend time with friends
To “fill” uncomfortable
silences
Demographics
8. How old are you? __________
9. What gender do you most identify with?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
10. What is your ethnicity?
o White
o Black or African American
o American Indian or Alaska Native
USES & GRATIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT MUSIC PLATFORMS
48
o Hispanic or Latino
o Asian
o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
o Other
o Prefer not to say