Bypassing traditional sports media? Why and how professional volleyball players use social networking sites

Table of contents

Bibliographic information


Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 8 (2019), Issue 3
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 8 (2019), Issue 3


Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2019
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information


Open Access Full access

Volume 8 (2019), Issue 3

Bypassing traditional sports media? Why and how professional volleyball players use social networking sites


Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007


Preview:

In recent years, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have become major players in sports communication. In this study, we focus on the motives for athletes’ use of social media. Applying a mediatization approach, we conceptualize social media as a possible means to bypass traditional (sports) journalism. For sport disciplines that receive minor media coverage, social media provides the opportunity to increase public visibility. Consequently, our study focuses on indoor volleyball as such a marginalized sport. The online survey results from all players of the 24 either all-male or all-female teams of the German first volleyball leagues are combined with a quantitative content analysis of the players’ social media activities. Results indicate that athletes evaluate traditional media coverage of their sport as negative and social media as extremely influential. Still, their postings on social media seem neither to aim at bypassing sports journalism nor to address sports fans directly. Instead, they use social media primarily to connect with friends and family. In conclusion, volleyball players have so far not embraced social media as a tool to promote themselves as sportspersons. At the moment, they do not exploit social media’s potential as channels for professional sports communication.

Bibliography


  1. Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y. Y., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience, 63(4), 284–287. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  2. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  3. Amann, M., Dohle, M., & Raß, S. (2012). Wahrgenommene Medieneinflüsse und ihre Bedeutung für Kommunikationsaktivitäten von Lokalpolitikern [Perceived media influences and their meaning for communication efforts of local politicians]. Studies in Communication and Media, 1(3–4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  4. 2012-3-493 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  5. Beck, D., & Capt, I. (2017). Geschlechtsspezifische Muster der Selbstdarstellung von Tennisstars auf Facebook [Gender-specific patterns of tennis stars’ self-portrayal on Facebook]. In C. G. Grimmer (Ed.) Der Einsatz sozialer Medien im Sport. Gestaltung, Vermarktung, Monetarisierung (pp. 139–156). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-13588-1_7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  6. Bellamy, R. V. (2013). Reflections on communication and sport. On institutions and strategies. Communication & Sport, 1(1–2), 4354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479512468870 Birkner, T. (2017). Medialisierung und Mediatisierung [Medialization and mediatization]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  7. Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845272955 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  8. Birkner, T., & Nölleke, D. (2016). Soccer players and their media-related behavior: A contribution on the mediatization of sports. Communication & Sport, 4(4), 367–384. https://doi. org/10.1177/2167479515588719 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  9. Boehmer, J. (2016). Does the game really change? How students consume mediated sports in the age of social media. Communication & Sport, 4(4), 460–483. https://doi. org/10.1177/2167479515595500 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  10. Browning, B., & Sanderson, J. (2012). The positives and negatives of Twitter: Exploring how student-athletes use Twitter and respond to critical tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.5.4.503 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  11. Burk, V., & Grimmer, C. G. (2018). Sportkommunikation bei Instagram, Snapchat, You-Tube und Blogs [Sports communication on Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube and blogs]. In T. Horky, H. J. Stiehler, & T. Schierl (Eds.), Die Digitalisierung des Sports in den Medien (pp. 42–67). Köln: Halem. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  12. Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2014). Dimensions of social media utilization among college sport fans. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  13. Communication & Sport, 2(3), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479513480355 Deprez, A., Mechant, P., & Hoebeke, T. (2013). Social media and Flemish sports reporters: Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  14. A multimethod analysis of Twitter use as journalistic tool. International Journal of Sport Communication, 6(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.6.2.107 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  15. Dohle, M., & Vowe, G. (2006). Der Sport auf der „Mediatisiserungstreppe“? Ein Modell zur Analyse medienbedingter Veränderungen des Sport [Sports on the “mediatization stairway”? A model for the analysis of media-related changes in sport]. Medien und Erziehung, 50(6), 18–28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  16. DVV. (2016). Mitglieder [Members]. Retrieved from http://www.volleyball-verband.de/de/ verband/historie/mitglieder/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  17. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). A paradigm in the making: Lessons for the future of mediatization research. In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatizations of politics (pp. 223–242). Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137275844_12 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  18. FIVB. (2011). Volleyball history. Retrieved from http://www.fivb.org/en/volleyball/History. asp Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  19. FIVB. (2017a). The game – beach volleyball rules. Major changes in beach volleyball rules. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  20. Retrieved from http://www.fivb.org/TheGame/TheGame_BeachVolleyballRules.htm FIVB. (2017b). The game – volleyball rules. Major changes in volleyball rules. Retrieved Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  21. from http://www.fivb.org/TheGame/TheGame_VolleyballRules.htm Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  22. Frandsen, K. (2016). Sports organizations in a new wave of mediatization. Communication & Sport, 4(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479515588185 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  23. Frees, B., & Koch, W. (2018). ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2018. Zuwachs bei medialer Internetnutzung und Kommunikation [ARD/ZDF online study. Increase in internet use and communication]. Media Perspektiven, (9), 398–413. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  24. Gibbs, C., & Haynes, R. (2013). A phenomenological investigation into how Twitter has changed the nature of sport media relations. International Journal of Sport Communication 6(4), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.6.4.394 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  25. Gibbs, C., O’Reilly, N., & Brunette, M. (2014). Professional team sport and Twitter: Gratifications sought and obtained by followers. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(2), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2014-0005 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  26. Goldlust, J. (1987). Playing for keeps. Sport, the media and society. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  27. Grimmer, C. G., & Horky, T. (2018). Sportkommunikation bei Facebook und Twitter [Sports communication on Facebook and Twitter]. In T. Horky, H. J. Stiehler, & T. Schierl (Eds.), Die Digitalisierung des Sports in den Medien (pp. 17–41). Köln: Halem. Hambrick, M. E., Simmons, J. M., Greenhalgh, G. P., & Greenwell, T. C. (2010). Understanding professional athletes‘ use of Twitter: A content analysis of athlete tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1123/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  28. ijsc.3.4.454 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  29. Heinecke, S. (2016). Medialisierung im Spitzensport. Eine Erfolgsgeschichte? [Mediatization of top-class sports. A story of success?]. Journal für Sportkommunikation und Mediensport, 1(1–2), 42–52. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  30. Heinecke, S. (2014). Fit fürs Fernsehen? Die Medialisierung des Spitzensports als Kampf um Gold und Sendezeit [Ready for TV. The mediatization of top-class sports as a struggle for gold and airtime]. Köln: Herbert von Halem. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  31. Hepp, A. (2013). The communicative figurations of mediatized worlds: Mediatization research in times of the ‘mediation of everything’. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113501148 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  32. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society: A Theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/ nor-2017-0181 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  33. Horky, T., & Nieland, J.-U. (2013a). Comparing sports reporting from around the world. Numbers and facts on sports in daily newspapers. In T. Horky & J.-U. Nieland (Eds.), International Sports Press Survey (pp. 22–41). Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  34. Horky, T., & Nieland, J.-U. (Eds.). (2013b). International sports press survey 2011. Norderstedt: Books On Demand. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  35. Hull, K. (2014). A hole in one (hundred forty characters): A case study examining PGA tour golfers’ Twitter use during the Masters. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526437723 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  36. Hull, K. (2016). An examination of women’s sports coverage on the Twitter accounts of local television sports broadcasters. Communication & Sport. https://doi. org/10.1177/2167479516632520 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  37. Hull, K., & Lewis, N. P. (2014). Why Twitter displaces broadcast sports media: A model. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1123/ ijsc.2013-0093 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  38. Jhally, S. (1989). Cultural studies and the sports/media complex. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  39. Media, sports, and society (pp. 70–93). Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  40. Kepplinger, H. M., & Zerback, T. (2009). Der Einfluss der Medien auf Richter und Staatsanwälte [Media influence on judges and prosecutors]. Publizistik, 54(2), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-009-0036-y Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  41. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241–1257. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  42. Knödler, L. (2017). Strategie oder Zufall. Wie agieren ausgewählte deutsche Handballklubs der DKB Handball-Bundesliga auf Twitter? [Strategy or coincidence. How do selected clubs of the DKD handball league act on Twitter?]. In C. G. Grimmer (Ed.) Der Einsatz sozialer Medien im Sport. Gestaltung, Vermarktung, Monetarisierung (pp. 85–105). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13588-1_5 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  43. Kunelius, R., & Reunanen, E. (2016). Changing power of journalism: The two phases of mediatization. Communication Theory, 26(4), 369–388. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  44. Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics. A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. Communication Theory, 23(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12098 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  45. Lebel, K., & Danylchuk, K. (2012). How tweet it is. A gendered analysis of professional tennis players self-presentation on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.5.4.461 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  46. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2016). Is ‘mediatization’ the new paradigm for our field? A commentary on Deacon and Stanyer (2014, 2015) and Hepp, Hjarvard and Lundby (2015). Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716631288 Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2014). Mediatization and political autonomy: A systems approach. In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatizations of politics (pp. 74–89). Bas- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  47. ingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137275844_5 Matsa, K. E., & Mitchell, A. (2014). 8 key takeaways about social media and news. Re- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  48. trieved from http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-key-takeaways-about-social-media-and-news/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  49. McChesney, R. W. (1989). Media made sport: A history of sports coverage in the United States. In L. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, and society (pp. 49–69). Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  50. Meyen, M. (2014). Medialisierung des deutschen Spitzenfußballs: Eine Fallstudie zur Anpassung von sozialen Funktionssystemen an die Handlungslogik der Massenmedien [Mediatization of German top-class football. A case study on the adaptation of social systems to media logic]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62(3), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2014-3-377 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  51. Naraine, M. L., & Parent, M. M. (2016). “Birds of a feather”: An institutional approach to Canadian national sport organizations’ social-media use. International Journal of Sport Communication, 9(2), 140–162. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2016-0010 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  52. Nölleke, D. (2018). Der Einfluss von Social Media auf Sportjournalisten [The influence of social media on sports journalists]. In T. Horky, H. J. Stiehler, & T. Schierl (Eds.), Die Digitalisierung des Sports in den Medien (pp. 181–207). Köln: Herbert von Halem. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  53. Nölleke, D., Grimmer, C. G., & Horky, T. (2017). News sources and follow-up communication: Facets of complementarity between sports journalism and social media. Journalism Practice, 11(4), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1125761 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  54. Pedersen, P. M. (2012). Reflections on communication and sport. On strategic communication and management. Communication & Sport, 1(1–2), 55–67. https://doi. org/10.1177/2167479512466655 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  55. Pegoraro, A. (2010). Look who’s talking—athletes on Twitter: A case study. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 501–514 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526437372 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  56. Pfadenhauer, M. & Grenz, T. (2012). Mediatisierte Fitness? Über die Entstehung eines Geschäftsmodells [Mediatized fitness? On the emergence of a business model]. In F. Krotz & A. Hepp (Eds.), Mediatisierte Welten: Beschreibungsansätze und Forschungsfelder (pp. 87–109). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-94332-9_4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  57. Reed, S. (2013). American sports writers’ social media use and its influence on professionalism. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.739325 Rühle, A. (2013). Sportprofile im deutschen Fernsehen 2002 bis 2012 [Sports profiles in Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  58. German television 2002 to 2012]. Media Perspektiven, (9), 423–440. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  59. Sanderson, J. (2008). The blog is serving its purpose: Self-Presentation Strategies on 38pitches.com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 912–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00424.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  60. Sanderson, J. (2011). To tweet or not to tweet: Exploring division I athletic departments‘ social-media policies. International Journal of Sport Communication, 4(4), 492–513. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.4.4.492 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  61. Scherer, J., & Jackson, S. J. (2008). Producing allblacks.com: Cultural intermediaries and the policing of electronic spaces of sporting consumption. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.25.2.187 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  62. Schulz, W. (2014). Mediatization and new media. In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatizations of politics (pp. 57–73). Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  63. Sheffer, M. L., & Schultz, B. (2010). Pardigm shift or passing fad? Twitter and sports journalism. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 472–484. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137275844_4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  64. Sheffer, M. L., & Schultz, B. (2013). The new world of social media and broadcast sports reporting. In P. M. Pedersen (Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport communication (pp. 210– 217). London; New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123485.ch21 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  65. Sherwood, M., Nicholson, M., & Marjoribanks, T. (2017). Controlling the message and the medium? The impact of sports organisations’ digital and social channels on media access. Digital Journalism, 5(5), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1239546 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  66. Sinner, P. (2017). Die Struktur der Social-Media-Angebote der Vereine der Bundesliga und der 2. Bundesliga in Deutschland [The structure of the social media offerings of Germany’s first and second division clubs]. In C. G. Grimmer (Ed.) Der Einsatz sozialer Medien im Sport. Gestaltung, Vermarktung, Monetarisierung (pp. 63–83). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13588-1_4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  67. Smith, L. R., & Sanderson, J. (2015). I’m going to instagram it! An analysis of athlete self-presentation on Instagram. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(2), 342– 358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1029125 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  68. Stiehler, H. J., & Horky, T. (2018). Die Digitalisierung des Sports in den Medien. Anforderungen und Herausforderungen [The digitization of media sports. Requirements and challenges]. In T. Horky, H. J. Stiehler, & T. Schierl (Eds.), Die Digitalisierung des Sports in den Medien (pp. 9–16). Köln: Herbert von Halem. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  69. Strömbäck, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2013). Why political parties adapt to the media: Exploring the fourth dimension of mediatization. International Communication Gazette, 75(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048513482266 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  70. Tedesco, J. C. (2011). Political public relations and agenda building. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations (pp. 75–94). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  71. Tippelt, F., & Kupferschmitt, T. (2015). Social Web: Ausdifferenzierung der Nutzung – Potenziale für Medienanbieter [Social web. Differentiation of usage – potentials for media suppliers]. Media Perspektiven, (10), 442–452. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  72. VBL. (2014). Masterplan 2013–2016. Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.volleyball-bundesliga.de/uploads/f75bd3e2-5107-4e29-b9ab-3fb00711ca94 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  73. VBL. (2017a). Masterplan 2017–2021. Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.volleyball-bundesliga.de/uploads/bdd2f4c8-57f0-4e5c-8eae-ac1e1f65691b/vbl-masterplan_2017-2021.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  74. VBL. (2017b). Zuschauerstatistik 2016/2017 [Audience statistics 2016/2017]. Retrieved from http://wiki-uploads.vbl-wiki.de/PR-Presse/Zuschauerstatistik/Zuschauerstatistik_ Saison1617.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  75. Vowe, G., & Dohle, M. (2016). Sportkommunikation und Mediensport im Wandel. Grundzüge eines Forschungsprogramms für die Sportkommunikationsforschung [Sports communication and media sports in transition. Main features of a research programme for sports communication research]. Journal für Sportkommunikation und Mediensport, 1(1–2), 4–18. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  76. Whannel, G. (2013). Reflections on communication and sport: On mediatization and cultural analysis. Communication & Sport, 1(1–2), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2167479512471335 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-287
  77. Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation in political debates on the internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1). 62– 82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500519548 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  78. ALLBUS (2014). Fragebogendokumentation. Material zu den Datensätzen der Studiennummern ZA5240 und ZA5241. https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/file.asp?file=ZA5240_ fb.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  79. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “Nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcc4.12009 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  80. Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Princeton paperbacks. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  81. Borah, P. (2012). Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivilty and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809– 827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212449353 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  82. Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Jounal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  83. Brown, A. (2018). What is so special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech? Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  84. Ethnicities, 18(3), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796817709846 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  85. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658– 679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  86. Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  87. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10584600590933160 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  88. Ellis, D. G. (2012). Deliberative communication and ethnopolitical conflict. Language as social action: Vol. 13. New York: Peter Lang. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  89. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  90. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  91. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Frey, D. (2008). Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.94.3.382 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  92. Fuchs, D. (2017). Hassbriefe: Moscheebau, Sprache und antimuslimischer Rassismus in Deutschland [Hate letters: Mosque building, speech and anti-Muslim racism in Germany]. Münster: UNRAST-Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  93. Gagliardone, I., Pohjonen, M., Beyene, Z., Zerai, A., Aynekulu, G., Bekalu, M., . . . Teferra, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  94. Z. (2016). Mechachal: Online debates and elections in Ethiopia – From hate speech to engagement in Social Media. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2831369 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  95. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles: SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  96. Gervais, B. T. (2014). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.997416 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  97. Habermas, J. (1989/1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  98. Haller, M. (2017). Die “Flüchtlingskrise” in den Medien: Tagesaktueller Journalismus zwischen Meinung und Information [The „refugee crisis“ in the media: Daily journalism between opinion and information]. Frankfurt a. M.: Otto Brenner Stiftung. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  99. Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors? Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  100. Hwang, H. (2008). Why does incivility matter when communicating disagreement? Examining the psychological process of antagonism in political discussion (unpublished dissertation). Madison, USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  101. Hwang, H., Borah, P., Kang, N., Veenstra, A. (2008, May). Does civility matter in the blogoshpere? Examining the interaction effects of incivility and disagreement on citizen attitudes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  102. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Huh, C. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966365 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  103. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2017). Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research, 45(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215616861 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  104. Infratest dimap (2015). 54 Prozent der Bevölkerung meinen: Wir schaffen es nicht, die Flüchtlinge erfolgreich zu integrieren. https://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/54-prozent-der-bevoelkerung-meinen-wir-schaffen-es-nicht-die-fluechtlinge-erfolgreich-zu-integrieren/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  105. Infratest Dimap (2018). Aktuelle Flüchtlings- und Asylpolitik Deutschlands stößt auf Kritik. https://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/ aktuelle-fluechtlings-und-asylpolitik-deutschlands-stoesst-auf-kritik/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  106. Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York, NY: Century-Crofts. Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  107. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  108. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  109. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.37.11.2098 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  110. Masullo Chen, G., & Lu, S. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in wews website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016. 1273922 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  111. Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence III, C. R., Delgardo, R., & Crenshaw, K. (Eds.). (2018). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Boulder: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  112. Mawindi Mabweazara, H. (2014). Readers comments on Zimbabwean newspaper websites. Digital Journalism, 2(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.850200 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  113. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Phronesis. London, New York: Verso. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  114. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of incivlity on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055405051452 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  115. Namkoong, K., Thorson, K., Fung, T. K., & Borah, P. (2009, May). Uncivil engagement: Linking incivility to political participation through negative emotions. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  116. Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, UK, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  117. Pang, N., Ho, S. S., Zhang, A. M.R., Ko, J. S.W., Low, W. X., & Tan, K. S.Y. (2016). Can Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  118. spiral of silence and civility predict click speech on Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 898–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.066 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  119. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media and Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  120. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New media and Society, 6(4), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  121. Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2017). Patterns of empathy in online communication. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (April 28–May 3). San Jose, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240763 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  122. Reich, Z. (2011). User comments – the transformation of participatory space in participatory journalism. In J. B. Singer, & T. Quandt (Eds.), Participatory journalism guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96–118). Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  123. Rinke, E. M., & Lück, J. (2010). Cognitive style, selectivity, and reinforcement: Toward clarifying the role of political ideology in the reception of political communication. In Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  124. K. Mok & M. Stahl (Eds.), Politische Kommunikation heute. Beiträge des 5. Düsseldorfer Forums Politische Kommunikation (pp. 219–234). Berlin: Frank & Timme. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  125. Rowe, I. (2014). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  126. /1369118X.2014.940365 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  127. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates on online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1940161211415849 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  128. Santana, A. D. (2013). Virtuous or vitriolic. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. https://doi.or g/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  129. Smolla, R. A. (1992). Information, imagery, and the First Amendment: A case for expansive protection of commercial speech. 71 Texas L. Rev., 777. https://scholarlycommons.law. wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1231&context=wlufac Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  130. Vissors, S., & Stolle, D. (2014). The Internet and new modes of political participation: online versus offline participation. Information, Communication and Society, 17(8), 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.867356 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  131. Wei, J., Carroll, R. J., Harden, K. K., & Wu, G. (2012). Comparisons of treatment means when factors do not interact in two-factorial studies. Amino acids, 42(5), 2031–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-011-0924-0 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  132. Wolfgang, J. D. (2016). Pursuing the ideal. Digital Journalism, 4(6), 764–783. https://doi.or g/10.1080/21670811.2015.1090882 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  133. Wolfgang, J. D. (2018). Cleaning up the “Fetid Swamp”. Digital Journalism, 6(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1343090 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  134. Xenos, M. (2008). New mediated deliberation: Blog and press coverage of the Alito nomination. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 485–503. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00406.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  135. Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Princeton paperbacks. Democracy and difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 120–135). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-311
  136. Ananny, M., & Bighash, L. (2016). Why drop a paywall? Mapping industry accounts of online news decommodification. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3359– 3380. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  137. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD). (2010). Telemedienkonzepte der gemeinschaftlichen Angebote ARD. de und einsplus.de [Telemedia concepts for the joint ARD.de and einsplus.de services]. Abgerufen von http://www.ard.de/download/658452/ARD_de_und_einsplus_de.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  138. ARD.de. (2018). ARD-Chef Wilhelm begrüßt Reform des Telemedienauftrags [ARD Head of ARD Wilhelm welcomes reform of telemedia mandate]. Abgerufen von http://www. ard.de/home/die-ard/presse-kontakt/pressearchiv/ARD_Chef_Wilhelm_begruesst_Reform_des_Telemedienauftrags/4898762/index.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  139. ARD.de. (2019). Online-Nutzungszahlen [Online usage figures]. Abgerufen von http:// www.ard.de/home/die-ard/fakten/ard-mediendaten/ARD_Reichweitendaten/409224/ index.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  140. Badura, P. (2009). Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten bieten Rundfunk und Telemedien an [The public service broadcasters offer broadcasting and telemedia]. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 134, 240–267. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  141. Baier, D., & Brusch, M. (2009). Erfassung von Kundenpräferenzen für Produkte und Dienstleistungen [Recording customer preferences for products and services]. In D. Baier & M. Brusch (Hrsg.), Conjointanalyse (S. 3–17). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  142. Bauer, H. G., & Bienefeld, A. (2007). Der Public Value Test. Ein Vergleich zwischen dem BBC-Modell und dem geplanten Verfahren beim ZDF [The Public Value Test. A comparison between the BBC model and the planned ZDF procedure.]. Funkkorrespondenz. Abgerufen von http://medienpolitik.eu/der-public-value-test-ein-vergleich-zwischen-dem-bbc-modell-und-dem-geplanten-verfahren-beim-zdf/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  143. Baumgarth, C. (2004). Besonderheiten der Markenpolitik im Mediensektor [Special features of brand policy in the media sector]. In C. Baumgarth (Hrsg.), Erfolgreiche Führung von Medienmarken. Strategien für Positionierung, Markentransfers und Branding (S. 3–14). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  144. Blumer, C. (2017). „Die Nutzer werden mehr für Journalismus bezahlen müssen“ [Users will have to pay more for journalism]. Tages-Anzeiger. Abgerufen von https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/die-nutzer-werden-mehr-fuer-journalismus-bezahlen-muessen/story/18403954 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  145. Bonfadelli, H., & Saxer, U. (1986). Lesen, Fernsehen und Lernen: wie Jugendliche die Medien nutzen und die Folgen für die Medienpädagogik [Reading, watching TV and learning: How young people use the media and the consequences for media education] (1. Aufl.). Zug: Klett u. Balmer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  146. Bosshart, L. (1976). Untersuchungen zur Verstehbarkeit von Radio- und Fernsehsendungen [Studies on the comprehensibility of radio and television broadcasts]. Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 24(3), 197–209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  147. Bouhs, D. (2018). Es ist nicht das Ende von Text im Netz [It is not the end of text in the net]. Abgerufen von https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/zapp/Es-ist-nicht-Ende-von-Text-im-Netz,wilhelm200.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  148. Brinkmann, J. (2018). Verlagspolitik in der Zeitungskrise: Theorien, Strukturen, Strategien [Publishing policy in the newspaper crisis: theories, structures, strategies] (1. Aufl.). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  149. Brosius, H.-B. (1995). Alltagsrationalität in der Nachrichtenrezeption [Everyday rationality in news reception]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  150. Brüggemann, M., Esser, F., & Humprecht, E. (2012). The strategic repertoire of publishers in the media crisis: The “Five C” scheme in Germany. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664336 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  151. Bundesgerichthof (2015). Zur Zulässigkeit der Tagesschau-App. Urteil des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 30. April 2015 – I ZR 13/14 – Tagesschau-App – OLG Köln [On the legitimacy of the Tagesschau-App. Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice of 30 April 2015 – I ZR 13/14 – Tagesschau-App – OLG Köln]. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht, 12, 989–996. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  152. Bundesgesetz über elektronische Medien (BGeM) [Electronic Media Act] (Vorentwurf) (2018). Abgerufen von https://www.bakom.admin.ch/dam/bakom/de/dokumente/bakom/ das_bakom/rechtliche_grundlagen/Vernehmlassungen/vernehmlassung-gem/gesetzesentwurf.pdf.download.pdf/Beilage%2001%20G_DE%20zu%20BRA%20UVEK.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  153. Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger (2018a). Paid Content Angebote deutscher Zeitungen [Paid content offers of German newspapers]. Abgerufen von https://www. bdzv.de/maerkte-und-daten/digitales/paidcontent/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  154. Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger (2018b). BDZV begrüßt Einigung auf neuen Telemedienauftrag [BDZV welcomes agreement on new telemedia mandate]. Abgerufen von https://www.bdzv.de/nachrichten-und-service/presse/pressemitteilungen/artikel/ detail/bdzv-begruesst-einigung-auf-neuen-telemedienauftrag/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  155. Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger (BDZV); Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger (VDZ). (2017). Gemeinsame Stellungnahme zum Vorschlag der Rundfunkreferenten zur Novellierung des öffentlich-rechtlichen Telemedienauftrags vom 17. Mai 2017 [Joint statement on the proposal of the broadcasting officers for the Amendment of the Public Service Telemedia Mandate of 17 May 2017]. Abgerufen von https://medien. sachsen-anhalt.de/fileadmin/Bibliothek/Politik_und_Verwaltung/StK/Medien/Dokumente/Konsultationsverfahren_Telemedienangebot/Verband_Deutscher_Zeitschriftenverleger Bundesverband_Deutscher_Zeitungsverleger_e._V..pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  156. Bund-Länder-Kommission zur Medienkonvergenz. (2016). Bericht Bund-Länder-Kommission zur Medienkonvergenz [Report Federal-Länder Commission on Media Convergence]. Abgerufen von https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/suche/bericht-der-bund-laender-kommission-mit-eckpunkten-zur-medienkonvergenz-beschlossen-473878 Buschow, C. (2012). Strategische Institutionalisierung durch Medienorganisationen. Der Fall des Leistungsschutzrechtes [Strategic institutionalization by media organisations. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  157. The case of ancillary copyright]. Köln: Herbert von Halem. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  158. Buschow, C. (2018). Die Neuordnung des Journalismus: eine Studie zur Gründung neuer Medienorganisationen [Re-organising journalism. A study on the foundation of new media organizations]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  159. Cagé, J., Herve, N., & Viaud, M.-L. (2017). The production of information in an online world: Is copy right? NET Institute Working Paper. Abgerufen von https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672050 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  160. Chan-Olmsted, S. (2011). Media branding in a changing world: Challenges and opportunities 2.0. International Journal on Media Management, 13(1), 3–19. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  161. Cornils, M. (2014). Staatsferner Rundfunk als Demokratievoraussetzung – Das Verfassungsproblem der Rundfunkaufsicht [State-distant public broadcasting as a prerequisite for democracy – The constitutional problem of broadcasting supervision]. In Fakultät für Vergleichende Staats- und Rechtswissenschaften der Andrássy Gyula Universität Budapest, C. Schubel, S. Kirste, P.-C. Müller-Graff, O. Diggelman, & U. Hufeld (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch für Vergleichende Staats- und Rechtswissenschaften – 2013 (1. Aufl., S. 27– 47). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  162. Costera Meijer, I., & Groot Kormelink, T. (2015). Chacking, sharing, clicking and linking. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  163. Digital Journalism, 3(5), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.937149 Dachwitz, I., & Fanta, A. (2018). Datenanalyse: Googles Geld und die Medien in Europa Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  164. [Data analysis: Google‘s money and the media in Europe]. Abgerufen von https://netzpolitik.org/2018/datenanalyse-googles-geld-und-die-medien-in-europa/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  165. DeFleur, M. L., Davenport, L., Cronin, M., & DeFleur, M. (1992). Audience recall of news stories presented by newspaper, computer, television and radio. Journalism Quaterly, 69(4), 1010–1022. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  166. Deloitte Consulting. (2009). Medienökonomisches Gutachten zu den marktlichen Auswirkungen des bestehenden Telemedienangebots tagesschau.de unter Federführung des Norddeutschen Rundfunks [Media economic report on the market effects of the existing telemedia service tagesschau.de under the lead of Norddeutscher Rundfunk] (Gutachten). Düsseldorf: Deloitte Consulting. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  167. die medienanstalten. (2016). MedienVielfaltsMonitor. Ergebnisse 1. Halbjahr 2016 [Media plurality monitor. Results 1st half-year 2016]. Abgerufen von https://www.blm.de/files/ pdf1/alm_vielfaltsmonitor_1-halbjahr-2016-1.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  168. die medienanstalten. (2018). MedienVielfaltsMonitor. Ergebnisse 2. Halbjahr 2017. Anteile der Medienangebote und Medienkonzerne am Meinungsmarkt der Medien in Deutschland [Media plurality monitor. Results 2nd half-year 2017. Shares of media offerings and media groups in the opinion market for media in Germany]. Abgerufen von https://www.blm.de/files/pdf1/mvm_pp_17-2.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  169. Dörr, D., Holznagel, B., & Picot, A. (2016). Legitimation und Auftrag des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens in Zeiten der Cloud (Gutachten) [Legitimacy and mandate of public service television in times of the cloud (expert report)]. Mainz. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  170. Dörr, R. (2011). The ZDF three-step test. A dynamic tool of governance. In K. Donders & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  171. H. Moe (Hrsg.), Exporting the Public Value test. The regulation of public broadcasters’ new media services scross Europe (S. 69–81). Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  172. Drescher, K. H. (1997). Erinnern und Verstehen von Massenmedien: empirische Untersuchungen zur Text-Bild-Schere [Remembering and understanding mass media: Empirical research on the image-to-text gap]. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  173. Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation (UVEK). (2018). Vernehmlassung: Entwurf eines neuen Bundesgesetzes über elektronische Medien [Consultation: Draft of a new Electronic Media Act] [Erläuternder Bericht]. Bern. Eidgenössische Medienkommission EMEK. (2017). Zukunft der Medien- und Kommunikationsordnung Schweiz: Trends, Szenarien, Empfehlungen. Ein Positionspapier der Eidgenössischen Medienkommission (EMEK) [The future of Switzerland’s media and communications order: trends, scenarios, recommendations. A position paper of the Federal Media Commission (FMEC)]. Biel. Abgerufen von https://www.emek.admin. ch/inhalte/pdf/D_MUKOS_FINAL_25.9.17.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  174. Europäische Kommission. (2007). Staatliche Beihilfe E 3/2005 (exCP 2/2003, CP 232/2002, CP 43/2003, CP 243/2004 und CP 195/2004) – Deutschland. Die Finanzierung der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten in Deutschland. K(2007) 1761 endg [State aid E 3/2005 (exCP 2/2003, CP 232/2002, CP 43/2003, CP Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  175. 243/2004 and CP 195/2004) – Germany. The financing of public service broadcasters in Germany. K(2007) 1761 final]. Brüssel. Abgerufen von https://www.ard.de/ download/74354/index.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  176. Gackaitė, A. (2018). Pay models for online news. Abgerufen von https://medium.com/journalism-trends-technologies/pay-models-for-online-news-8ea87d46a3c7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  177. Goldhammer, K., Kerkau, F., Scholl, E., & Reichert, M. (2017). Wettbewerbssituation im Online-Informationsmarkt in Deutschland. Reichweiten und Marktanteile [Competitive situation in the online information market in Germany. Reach and market shares ] (Gutachten im Auftrag der ARD). Berlin: Goldmedia. Abgerufen von https://www.ard. de/download/4185674/Wettbewerbssituation_im_Online_Informationsmarkt_in_ Deutschland_.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  178. Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093650208321782 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  179. Hasebrink, U., Schulz, W., Dreyer, S., Kirsch, A.-K., Loosen, W., Puschmann, C., … Schröder, H.-D. (2017). Zur Entwicklung der Medien in Deutschland zwischen 2013 und 2016. Wissenschaftliches Gutachten zum Medien- und Kommunikationsbericht der Bundesregierung [On the development of the media in Germany between 2013 and 2016. Scientific report on the Federal Government’s Media and Communications Report]. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg. Abgerufen von https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/ BKM/2017/2017-06-27-medienbericht.pdf? blob=publicationFile&v=1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  180. Hölig, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2018). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018: Ergebnisse für Deutschland [Reuters Digital News Report 2018: Results for Germany]. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung. Abgerufen von https://hans-bredow-institut.de/uploads/media/Publikationen/cms/media/t611qnd_44RDNR18_ Deutschland.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  181. Hölig, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2019). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019: Ergebnisse für Deutschland. [Reuters Digital News Report 2019: Results for Germany]. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung. Abgerufen von https://hans-bredow-institut. de/uploads/media/default/cms/media/x52wfy2_AP47_RDNR19_Deutschland.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  182. Hölig, S., Hasebrink, U., & die medienanstalten. (2017). Katzen und Katastrophen. Zur Nutzung von Online-Nachrichtenvideos im internationalen Vergleich [Cats and catastrophes. On the use of online news videos in an international comparison]. In Content-Bericht 2016. Forschung, Fakten, Trends. Leipzig: VISTAS Verlag. Abgerufen von https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/die_medienanstalten/ Publikationen/Content-Bericht/Content-Bericht_2016_web.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  183. Hülsen, I., & Brauck, M. (2017). „Ein propagandistisches Meisterwerk in öffentlich-rechtlicher Sache“. Springer-Chef Döpfner kontra ARD [A propagandistic masterpiece in public service matter’. Springer CEO Döpfner vs. ARD]. Spiegel Online. Abgerufen von http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/mathias-doepfner-vom-springer-konzern-ueber-die-ard-a-1182447.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  184. IVW.de. (2019). Gemessene Nutzungsdaten [Measured usage data]. Abgerufen von http:// ausweisung.ivw-online.de/index.php?i=10&mz_szm=201812&pis=0&az_filter=0&kat1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  185. =0&kat2=0&kat3=0&kat4=0&kat5=0&kat6=0&kat7=0&kat8=0&sort=vod&suche= Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf, K., & Atkin, D. J. (2012). Acquiring knowledge from the media in the internet age. Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  186. 1463373.2012.641835 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  187. Kalogeropoulos, A., Cherubini, F., & Newman, N. (2016). The Future of online news video. (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Hrsg.). Oxford. Abgerufen von https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/The%2520Futu re%2520of%2520Online%2520News%2520Video.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  188. Keine neue Kontrollinstanz für Öffentlich-Rechtliche. Wie der Kompromiss beim Telemedienauftrag für einen Neuanfang sorgen soll [How the compromise on the telemedia mandate should ensure a fresh start]. (2018). Abgerufen von https://www. meinungsbarometer.info/beitrag/Keine-neue-Kontrollinstanz-fuer-oeffentlich-rechtliche_3053.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  189. Kluth, W., & Schulz, W. (2014). Konvergenz und regulatorische Folgen. Gutachten im Auftrag der Rundfunkkommission der Länder [Convergence and regulatory implications. Expert opinion on behalf of the Länder Broadcasting Commission]. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg. Abgerufen von https://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/uploads/media/Publikationen/cms/media/ d74b139d80000c12483526a23a55bf89f9d971c6.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  190. Koldehoff, S. (2017). Ich wollte nicht warten, bis der WDR verklagt wird [I didn't want to wait for WDR to get sued]. Abgerufen von https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/neue-wdr-online-strategie-ich-wollte-nicht-warten-bis-der.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=402901 Kruikemeier, S., Lecheler, S., & Boyer, M. M. (2018). Learning from news on different media platforms: An eye-tracking experiment. Political Communication, 35(1), 75–96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1388310 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  192. Küng, L. (2017). Going digital. A roadmap for organisational transformation. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  193. Latzer, M. (1997). Mediamatik – Die Konvergenz von Telekommunikation, Computer und Rundfunk [Mediamatics – The convergence of telecommunications, computers and broadcasting]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  194. Latzer, M. (2006). Medien- und Telekommunikationspolitik: Unordnung durch Konvergenz – Ordnung durch Mediamatikpolitik (ITA manu:scripts) [Media and telecommunications policy: disorder through convergence – order through mediamatic policy (ITA manu:scripts)]. Institute of Technology Assessment. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  195. Lobigs, F. (2017). Paradigmenwechsel in der Ökonomie gesellschaftlich relevanter digitaler Medieninhalte. Expertise im Auftrag der Eidgenössischen Medienkommission EMEK (Expertise) [Paradigm shift in the economy of socially relevant digital media content. Expertise on behalf of the Federal Media Commission FMEC (Expertise)]. Abgerufen von https://www.emek.admin.ch/inhalte/pdf/Expertise_EMEK_Frank_Lobigs_v.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  196. Lobigs, F., & Neuberger, C. (2018). Meinungsmacht im Internet und die Digitalstrategien von Medienunternehmen: neue Machtverhältnisse trotz expandierender Internet-Geschäfte der traditionellen Massenmedien-Konzerne: Gutachten für die Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich [Paradigm shift in the economy of socially relevant digital media content. Expertise on behalf of the Federal Media Commission FMEC (Expertise)]. Leipzig: VISTAS Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  197. Maier, D., & Dogruel, L. (2016). Akteursbeziehungen in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Online-Aktivitäten des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks [Actor relationships in newspaper coverage of the online activities of public service broadcasting]. Publizistik, 61(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-016-0258-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  198. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  199. Medienpolitik.net. (2017). „Der Maßstab für ‚Presseähnlichkeit‘ ist kompliziert“ [“The standard for ‘press-likeness’ is complicated”]. Abgerufen von http://www.medienpolitik.net/2017/06/rundfunk-der-massstab-fuer-presseaehnlichkeit-ist-kompliziert/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  200. Myllylahti, M. (2014). Newspaper paywalls – the hype and the reality: A study of how paid news content impacts on media corporation revenues. Digital Journalism, 2(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.813214 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  201. Napoli, P. M. (1999). Deconstructing the diversity principle. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02815.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  202. Neuberger, C. (2009). Medienrecht und Medienwandel aus kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Sicht [Media law and media change from a communication science perspective]. Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kommunikationsrecht, (6), 537–541. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  203. Neuberger, C., & Lobigs, F. (2010). Die Bedeutung des Internets im Rahmen der Vielfaltssicherung: Gutachten im Auftrag der Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich [The importance of the Internet in ensuring diversity: expert opinion commissioned by the Commission on Concentration in the Media]. Berlin: Vistas. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  204. Newman, N. (2017). Journalism, media, and technology predictions 2017. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Abgerufen von https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/2017-04/Journalism%2C%20Media%20and%20Technology%20 Trends%20and%20Predictions%202017.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  205. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Kleis Nielsen, R. (2018). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  206. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1977). Öffentlichkeit als Bedrohung: Beiträge zur empirischen Kommunikationsforschung [The Public as a threat: Contributions to empirical communication research]. (J. Wilke, Hrsg.) (1. Aufl., Bd. 6). Freiburg im Breisgau; München: Alber. Nünning, V. (2018a). Der NDR zieht in Sachen „Tagesschau“-App vor das Bundesverfassungsgericht [The NDR takes the matter of “Tagesschau” app before the Federal Constitutional Court]. Medienkorrespondenz. Abgerufen von https://www. medienkorrespondenz.de/politik/artikel/der-ndr-zieht-in-sachen-tagesschau-app-vors- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  207. bundesverfassungsgericht.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  208. Nünning, V. (2018b). Bundesländer einigen sich auf neuen Telemedienauftrag für öffentlich-rechtliche Sender [Federal states agree on new telemedia mandate for public broadcasters]. Medienkorrespondenz. Abgerufen von https://www.medienkorrespondenz.de/politik/artikel/bundeslaender-einigen-sich-auf-neuennbsptelemedienauftrag-fuer-oeffentlich-rechtlichenbspsende.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  209. Nünning, V. (2019). Staatsvertragsnovelle: Neue Online-Regeln für öffentlich-rechtliche Sender [New online rules for public broadcasters]. Medienkorrespondenz. Abgerufen von https://www.medienkorrespondenz.de/politik/artikel/staatsvertragsnovelle-neue-online-regeln-fuer-oeffentlich-rechtliche-sender.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  210. Oswald, D. (2012). Die Onlinedienste des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. Zum Telemedienauftrag des § 11a RStV (Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Rechte der Universität Mannheim) [The online services of public service broadcasting. On the telemedia mandate of § 11a RStV (Inaugural dissertation to obtain the academic degree of Doctor of Laws of the University of Mannheim)]. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  211. Papier, H.-J., & Schröder, M. (2010). „Gebiet des Rundfunks“. Gutachten von H.-J. Papier und M. Schröder zu „Presseähnlichen Angeboten“ [“Area of broadcasting”. Expert opinion by H.-J. Papier and M. Schröder on “press-type offers”]. epd medien, (60), 16–33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  212. Pickard, V., & Williams, A. T. (2014). Salvation or folly? Digital Journalism, 2(2), 195– 213. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.865967 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  213. Puppis, M., Hofstetter, B., & Ingenhoff, D. (2017). 5. Medienorganisationen im Wandel [5. media organisations in transition]. In M. Puppis, M. Schenk, & B. Hofstetter (Hrsg.), Medien und Meinungsmacht (S. 205–292). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  214. Puppis, M., Schenk, M., Bosshart, S., & Hofstetter, B. (2017). 8. Schlussfolgerungen [8. Conclusions]. In M. Puppis, M. Schenk, & B. Hofstetter (Hrsg.), Medien und Meinungsmacht (S. 353–377). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  215. Rat der Europäischen Union. (2019). EU passt Urheberrecht an digitales Zeitalter an [EU adapts copyright law to digital age] (Pressemitteilung). Abgerufen von https://www. consilium.europa.eu/de/press/press-releases/2019/04/15/eu-adjusts-copyright-rules-to-the-digital-age/pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  216. Rundfunkkommission der Länder. (2018) Diskussionsentwurf zu den Bereichen Rundfunkbegriff, Plattformregulierung und Intermediäre – „Medienstaatsvertrag“ [Draft discussion on the concept of broadcasting, platform regulation and intermediaries – "Media State Treaty]. Abgerufen von https://www.rlp.de/fileadmin/rlp-stk/pdf-Dateien/ Medienpolitik/04_MStV_Online_2018_Fristverlaengerung.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  217. Schöberl, M. (Hrsg.). (2018). Deutsche Publikumspresse mit 320 Mio € jährlichem Paid Content Umsatz [German consumer press with an annual paid content turnover of € 320 million]. pv digest, 1, 16–20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  218. Schubert, T. (2017). Der Einfluss der Digitalisierung auf die Presse – Leistungsschutzrechte für Presseverleger in Deutschland und in Europa [The impact of digitisation on the press – ancillary copyrights for press publishers in Germany and Europe]. In M. Hennemann & A. Sattler (Hrsg.), Immaterialgüter und Digitalisierung (S. 219–236). Baden-Baden, Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  219. Serong, J. (2017). Die Öffentlich-Rechtlichen und Public Value. Über das ungenutzte Potential des Public-Value-Begriffs [Public Law and Public Value. About the unused potential of the concept of public value]. Socialis, 50(1), 20–34. https://doi. org/10.5771/0010-3497-2017-1-20 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  220. Seufert, W. (2017). Werbung im Internet: Die Entkopplung von Medien- und Werbekontakt und ihre Folgen für die Medienfinanzierung [Advertising on the Internet: The decoupling of media and advertising contact and their consequences for media financing]. In W. Seufert (Hrsg.), Media Economics revisited (S. 199–230). Baden-Baden, Nomos. Severin, W. (1967). Another look at cue summation. AV Communication Review, 15(3), 233–245. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  221. Simon, U. (2018). Telemedienauftrag: Zeitungsverleger und Öffentlich-Rechtliche einigen sich [Telemedia mandate: newspaper publishers and public broadcasters reach agreement]. Horizont. Abgerufen von https://www.horizont.net/medien/nachrichten/Telemediengesetz-Zeitungsverleger-und-oeffentlich-Rechtliche-einigen-sich-167562 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  222. Speck, D., & Roether, D. (2018). BGH weist Beschwerde im Verfahren um „Tagesschau“-App zurück [Federal Court of Justice rejects appeal in proceedings concerning „Tagesschau“ app app]. Abgerufen von https://www.epd.de Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  223. Staatskanzlei Rheinland-Pfalz. (2018). Erläuterungen zur Novellierung des Rundfunkbegriffs und der Zulassungsvorschriften [Explanations on the amendment of the concept of broadcasting and the licensing regulations]. Abgerufen von https://www.rlp.de/de/ landesregierung/staatskanzlei/medienpolitik/beteiligungsverfahren-medienstaatsvertrag/ rundfunkbegriff/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  224. Staatsvertrag für Rundfunk und Telemedien (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag – RStV) vom 31. August 1991 in der Fassung des Einundzwanzigsten Staatsvertrages zur Änderung rundfunkrechtlicher Staatsverträge (Zweiundzwanzigster Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag) in Kraft seit 25. Mai 2018. Abgerufen von https://www.rlp.de/fileadmin/rlp-stk/pdf-Dateien/Medienpolitik/21_RAEStV_Text.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  225. Staatsvertrag für Rundfunk und Telemedien (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag – RStV) vom 31. August 1991 in der Fassung des Zweiundzwanzigsten Staatsvertrages zur Änderung rundfunkrechtlicher Staatsverträge (Zweiundzwanzigster Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag) in Kraft seit 1. Mai 2019. Abgerufen von https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/ fileadmin/user_upload/Rechtsgrundlagen/Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/Rundfunkstaatsvertrag_RStV.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  226. Stark, B., & Steiner, M. (2016). Positive Vielfaltsicherung in medienkonvergenten Welten [Positive diversity assurance in media-convergent worlds]. In Die Medienanstalten (Hrsg.), Meinungsbildung und Meinungsvielfalt in Zeiten der Konvergenz. Dokumentation des Symposiums der Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich (KEK) (S. 119–145). Leipzig: VISTAS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  227. Stark, B., & Steiner, M. (2018). Public network value for the next generation am Beispiel von funk [Public network value for the next generation using the example of funk]. In Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  228. N. Gonser (Hrsg.), Der öffentliche (Mehr-)Wert von Medien (S. 77–92). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20498-3_6 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  229. Stringer, P. (2018). Finding a place in the journalistic field: The pursuit of recognition and legitimacy at BuzzFeed and Vice. Journalism Studies, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 61670X.2018.1496027 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  230. Stulberg, A. (2017). Testing news paywalls: Which are leaky, and which are airtight? Abgerufen von https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/news-paywalls-new-york-times-wallstreet-journal.php Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  231. Verband Schweizer Medien. (2018). Admeira: Bedenken zu Marktverzerrungen bleiben trotz Verkauf der Anteile durch die SRG [Admeira: Concerns about market distortions remain despite sale of shares by SRG]. Abgerufen von http://www.schweizermedien.ch/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  232. artikel/medienmitteilung/2018/admeira-bedenken-zu-marktverzerrungen-bleiben-trotz-verkauf-der-anteile-durch-die-srg Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  233. Vogler, D. (2016). II. Medienstrukturen [II. Media structures]. In fög – Forschungsinstitut Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft / Universität Zürich (Hrsg.), Qualität der Medien. Jahrbuch 2016. Basel: Schwabe Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  234. Vogler, D. (2017). II. Medienstrukturen [II. Media structures]. In fög – Forschungsinstitut Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft / Universität Zürich (Hrsg.), Qualität der Medien. Jahrbuch 2017. Basel: Schwabe Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  235. Wimmer, N., & Nawrath, K. (2016). Der schöne 15. Juni 2011 – Anmerkungen zu BGH ZUM 2015, 989 – Tagesschau-App [The beautiful 15 June 2011 – Comments on BGH ZUM 2015, 989 – Tagesschau-App]. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht, 2, 126– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  236. 134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  237. Witte, B. (1997). Literaturwissenschaft heute, „Oralität“ und „Literalität“ als Kategorien eines Paradigmenwechsels [Literary studies today, “orality” and “literality” as categories of a paradigm shift]. In Perspektiven der Germanistik. Neueste Ansichten zu einem alten Problem (S. 59–74). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  238. Woldt, R. (2011). Öffentlich-rechtliche Onlineangebote: Keine Gefahr für den Wettbewerb. Erkenntnisse aus den Marktgutachten im Rahmen der Drei-Stufen-Tests [Public broadcast online offers: No danger to competition. Findings from the market reports as part of the three-step tests]. Media Perspektiven, 2, 66–79. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  239. Wyss, V., & Keel, G. (2016). Journalistische Produktion: Trends, Innovationen & Organisation [Journalistic Production: Trends, Innovations & Organization] (EMEK Expertise)]. Biel: Eidgenössische Medienkommission EMEK. Abgerufen von https://www. emek.admin.ch/inhalte/pdf/EMEK_Expertise_Wyss_Keel.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  240. Zwölfter Staatsvertrag zur Änderung rundfunkrechtlicher Staatsverträge (Zwölfter Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag) in Kraft seit 1. Juni 2009. Abgerufen von https://www. ard.de/download/138948/index.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-338
  241. Abrahamson, J. A., Fisher, K. E., Turner, A. G., Durrance, J. C., & Turner, T. C. (2008). Lay information mediary behavior uncovered: exploring how nonprofessionals seek health information for themselves and others online. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96(4), 310–323. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.006 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  242. Adams, E., Boulton, M., & Watson, E. (2009). The information needs of partners and family members of cancer patients: A systematic literature review. Patient Education and Counseling, 77(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.027 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  243. Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885. 2004.tb00310.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  244. Bachl, M. (2016). Online health information seeking in Europe: Do digital divides persist? Studies in Communication and Media, 5(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-427 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  245. Baiocchi-Wagner, E. A. (2015). Future directions in communication research: individual health behaviors and the influence of family communication. Health Communication, 30(8), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.845492 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  246. Baumann, E., & Czerwinski, F. (2015). Erst mal Doktor Google fragen? Nutzung Neuer Medien zur Information und zum Austausch über Gesundheitsthemen [Ask doctor Google first? Usage of new media for information and exchange about health topics]. In J. Böcken, B. Braun, & R. Meierjürgen (Hrsg.), Gesundheitsmonitor 2015: Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen (S. 57–79). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  247. Baumann, E., Czerwinski, F., & Reifegerste, D. (2017). Gender-specific determinants and patterns of online health information seeking: Results from a representative German health survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(4), e92. https://doi. org/10.2196/jmir.6668 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  248. Baumann, E., & Hastall, M. R. (2014). Nutzung von Gesundheitsinformationen [Usage of health information]. In K. Hurrelmann & E. Baumann (Hrsg.), Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation (S. 451–466). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  249. Bevan, J. L., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2008). Understanding the impact of family caregiver cancer literacy on patient health outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling, 71(3), 356– 364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.02.022 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  250. Bidmon, S., & Terlutter, R. (2015). Gender differences in searching for health information on the internet and the virtual patient-physician relationship in Germany: Exploratory results on how men and women differ and why. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6). e156. https:/doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4127 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  251. Bierhoff, H. W. (2010). Psychologie prosozialen Verhaltens: Warum wir anderen helfen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  252. [Psychology of prosocial behavior: Why we help others]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  253. Bogg, T., & Vo, P. T. (2014). Openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and family health and aging concerns interact in the prediction of health-related Internet searches in a representative U.S. sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 370. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00370 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  254. Bonfadelli, H. (2019). Wissenskluft-Perspektive und Digital Divide in der Gesundheitskommunikation [Knowledge gap and digital divide in health communication]. In C. Rossmann & M. R. Hastall (Eds.), Handbuch der Gesundheitskommunikation (pp. 1-12). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  255. Chiu, T. M. L., & Eysenbach, G. (2011). Theorizing the health service usage behavior of family caregivers: a qualitative study of an internet-based intervention. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(11), 754–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.08.010 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  256. Cutrona, S. L., Mazor, K. M., Agunwamba, A. A., Valluri, S., Wilson, P. M., Sadasivam, R. S., & Finney Rutten, L. J. (2016). Health information brokers in the general population: An analysis of the health information national trends survey 2013–2014. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6), e123. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5447 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  257. Cutrona, S. L., Mazor, K. M., Vieux, S. N., Luger, T. M., Volkman, J. E., & Finney Rutten, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  258. L. J. (2015). Health information-seeking on behalf of others: Characteristics of “Surrogate Seekers”. Journal of Cancer Education, 30(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13187-014-0701-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  259. Cutrona, S. L., Wagner, J., Roblin, D. W., Gaglio, B., Williams, A., Torres-Stone, R., & Mazor, K. M. (2015). E-mail to promote colorectal cancer screening within social networks: Acceptability and content. Journal of Health Communication, 20(5), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1012238 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  260. Detweiler-Bedell, J. B., Detweiler-Bedell, B., Baugher, A., Cohen, M., & Robertson, J. (2013). Using message framing to promote social support in depression: when misery makes better company. Psychological Studies, 58(1), 38–47. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  261. DeWalt, D. A., & Hink, A. (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Pediatrics, 124 Suppl 3, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2009-1162B Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  262. Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 565. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026265 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  263. Dierks, M.-L. (2017). Gesundheitskompetenz – Was ist das? [Health literacy – What is it?]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  264. Public Health Forum, 25(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1515/pubhef-2016-2111 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  265. Egbert, N., Miraldi, L. B., & Murniadi, K. (2014). Friends don’t let friends suffer from depression: How threat, efficacy, knowledge, and empathy relate to college students’ intentions to intervene on behalf of a depressed friend. Journal of Health Communication, 19(4), 460–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.821554 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  266. Feng, B., & Magen, E. (2016). Relationship closeness predicts unsolicited advice giving in supportive interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(6), 751–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515592262 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  267. Fennell, K. M., Heckel, L., Wilson, C., Byrnes, M., & Livingston, P. M. (2016). How calls from carers, friends and family members of someone affected by cancer differ from those made by people diagnosed with cancer; analysis of 4 years of South Australian Cancer Council Helpline data. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24(6), 2611–2618. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-3069-y Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  268. Fetchenhauer, D., & Bierhoff, H.-W. (2004). Altruismus aus evolutionstheoretischer Perspektive. [Altruism from an evolutionary perspective] Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 35(3), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.35.3.131 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  269. Fox, S., & Duggan, M. (2013). Health online 2013. Pew Internet Research. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/PIP_ HealthOnline.pdf, Zugriff am: 15.05.2019 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  270. Geber, S. (2017). Wie Meinungsführer Meinung kommunizieren [How opinion leaders communicate opinion]. Köln: Herbert von Halem. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  271. Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2), 230–S245. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  272. Guttman, N., Siegal, G., Appel, N., & Bar-On, G. (2016). Should altruism, solidarity, or reciprocity be used as prosocial appeals? Journal of Communication, 66(6), 909–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12267 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  273. Haugstvedt, A., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Graue, M., Søvik, O., & Rokne, B. (2010). Fear of hypoglycaemia in mothers and fathers of children with Type 1 diabetes is associated with poor glycaemic control and parental emotional distress: A population-based study. Diabetic Medicine, 27(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02867.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  274. Holt-Lunstead, J., & Uchino, B. N. (2015). Social support and health. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Hrsg.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed., S. 183–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  275. Johnson, J. D., & Meischke, H. (1993). A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Human Communication Research, 19(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00305.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  276. Kinnane, N. A., & Milne, D. J. (2010). The role of the Internet in supporting and informing carers of people with cancer: a literature review. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18(9), 1123–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0863-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  277. Kirschning, S., & Kardorff, E. von. (2007). Welche Informationen suchen internetnutzende Angehörige krebskranker Frauen und Männer? [What information are sought by family members of cancer patients?]. Medizinische Klinik, 102(2), 136–140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  278. Kjos, A. L., Worley, M. M., & Schommer, J. C. (2011). Medication information seeking behavior in a social context: the role of lay and professional social network contacts. University of Minnesota, College of Pharmacy. Retrieved from https://conservancy. umn.edu/handle/11299/120061, Zugriff am 15.05.2019 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  279. Knoll, N., Scholz, U., & Rieckmann, N. (2017). Einführung Gesundheitspsychologie [Introduction Health Psychology]. Stuttgart: Utb. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  280. Kolip, P. (2008). Geschlechtergerechte Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention [Gendersensible health promotion and prevention]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz, 51(1), 28–35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  281. Krieger, J. L. (2014). Family communication about cancer treatment decision making: A description of the DECIDE typology. Annals of the International Communication Association, 38(1), 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2014.11679165 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  282. Laidsaar-Powell, R., Butow, P., Bu, S., Charles, C., Gafni, A., Fisher, A., & Juraskova, I. (2016). Family involvement in cancer treatment decision-making: A qualitative study of patient, family, and clinician attitudes and experiences. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(7), 1146–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.014 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  283. Lauckner, C. (2016). The emotions and action tendencies associated with viewing online cancer information among patients’ loved ones. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(11), 2525–2537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315581063 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  284. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Lederle, M., Weltzien, D., & Bitzer, E. M. (2017). Führt die Steigerung von Gesundheit- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  285. skompetenz und Selbstmanagement zu einer angemesseneren Inanspruchnahme gesundheitlicher Leistungen? [Do increasing health literacy and self-management contribute to an adequate demand of health care provision] Das Gesundheitswesen, 79(08/09), V-168. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1605758 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  286. Leiner, D. J. (2016). Our research’s breadth lives on convenience samples A case study of the online respondent pool “SoSci Panel”. Studies in Communication and Media, 5(4), 367–396. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  287. Levin, J. B., Peterson, P. N., Dolansky, M. A., & Boxer, R. S. (2014). Health literacy and heart failure management in patient-caregiver dyads. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 20(10), 755–761. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  288. Levine, M., & Manning, R. (2014). Prosoziales Verhalten [Prosocial behavior]. In K. Jonas, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  289. W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone, & M. Reiss (Hrsg.), Sozialpsychologie (6th ed., S. 357–400). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41091-8_10 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  290. Lin, T.-C., Hsu, J. S.-C., Cheng, H.-L., & Chiu, C.-M. (2015). Exploring the relationship between receiving and offering online social support: A dual social support model. Information & Management, 52(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.01.003 Lindquist, L. A., Jain, N., Tam, K., Martin, G. J., & Baker, D. W. (2011). Inadequate health literacy among paid caregivers of seniors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(5), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  291. 474–479. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  292. Luce, C. B. (2017). Reimagining healthcare: Through a gender lens. Los Angeles, CA: Rare Bird Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  293. Marton, C., & Choo, C. W. (2012). A review of theoretical models of health information seeking on the web. Journal of Documentation, 68(3), 330–352. https://doi. org/10.1108/00220411211225575 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  294. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth Literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9. https:// doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  295. Oh, Y.-S. (2015). Predictors of self and surrogate online health information seeking in family caregivers to cancer survivors. Social Work in Health Care, 54(10), 939–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2015.1070780 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  296. O’Keefe, D. J., & Nan, X. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27(7), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.640974 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  297. Pechmann, C., Zhao, G., Goldberg, M. E., & Reibling, E. T. (2003). What to convey in antismoking advertisements for adolescents: The use of protection motivation theory to identify effective message themes. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 1–18. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  298. Powell, J., Inglis, N., Ronnie, J., & Large, S. (2011). The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1600 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  299. Pulgarón, E. R., Sanders, L. M., Patiño-Fernandez, A. M., Wile, D., Sanchez, J., Rothman, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  300. R. L., & Delamater, A. M. (2014). Glycemic control in young children with diabetes: The role of parental health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 94(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  301. Ramirez, A. S., Leyva, B., Graff, K., Nelson, D. E., & Huerta, E. (2015). Seeking information on behalf of others: An analysis of calls to a Spanish-language radio health program. Health Promotion Practice, 16(4), 501–509. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524839915574246 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  302. Reifegerste, D., Bachl, M., & Baumann, E. (2017a). Surrogate health information seeking in Europe: Influence of source type and social network variables. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 103, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.006 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  303. Reifegerste, D., Bachl, M., & Baumann, E. (2017b). Wer sind die Surrogate Seeker? Demografische, motivationale und sozio-kontextuelle Faktoren der Suche nach Gesundheitsinformationen für andere Personen [Who are the surrogate seekers? Demografic, motivational and socio-cultural factors of health information seeking on behalf of others]. In C. Lampert & M. Grimm (Hrsg.), Gesundheitskommunikation als transdisziplinäres Forschungsfeld (S. 119–130). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  304. Reifegerste, D., & Hartleib, S. (2016). Hypoglycemia-related information seeking among informal caregivers of Type 2 diabetes patients: Implications for health education. Journal of Clinical & Translational Endocrinology, 4, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcte.2016.02.001 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  305. Reifegerste, D., Schumacher, M.-B., Hoffmann, S., Schwarz, U., & Hagen, L. (2015). The influence of message framing on intentions to support healthy settings: An experimental study in preschool and the workplace. International Journal of Communication and Health, 3(6). Retrieved from http://communicationandhealth.ro/no-6-2015/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  306. Renahy, E., Parizot, I., & Chauvin, P. (2010). Determinants of the frequency of online health information seeking: Results of a web-based survey conducted in France in 2007. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 35(1), 25–39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  307. Röhm, A., Hastall, M. R., & Ritterfeld, U. (2019). Stigmatisierende und destigmatisierende Prozesse in der Gesundheitskommunikation [Stigmatizing and destigmatizing processes in health communication]. In C. Rossmann & M. R. Hastall (Eds.), Handbuch der Gesundheitskommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  308. Rosland, A.-M., Piette, J. D., Choi, H., & Heisler, M. (2011). Family and friend participation in primary care visits of patients with diabetes or heart failure: patient and physician determinants and experiences. Medical Care, 49(1), 37–45. https://doi. org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f37d28 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  309. Sadasivam, R. S., Kinney, R. L., Lemon, S. C., Shimada, S. L., Allison, J. J., & Houston, T. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  310. K. (2013). Internet health information seeking is a team sport: Analysis of the Pew Internet Survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(3), 193–200. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.09.008 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  311. Schenk, M., Jers, C., & Gölz, H. (Eds.). (2013). Die Nutzung des Web 2.0 in Deutschland: Verbreitung, Determinanten und Auswirkungen [The use of Web 2.0 in Germany: Diffusion, determinants and consequenses]. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  312. Schulz, I., & Rossmann, C. (2013). Gesundheitsbotschaften im Spannungsfeld zwischen Selektion und Wirkung [Health messages between selection and effects]. In C. Rossmann & M. R. Hastall (Hrsg.), Medien und Gesundheitskommunikation: Befunde, Entwicklungen, Herausforderungen (S. 219–234). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  313. Sekimoto, M., Asai, A., Ohnishi, M., Nishigaki, E., Fukui, T., Shimbo, T., . . . Imanaka, Y. (2004). Patients’ preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in Japan. BMC Family Practice, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-5-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  314. Soellner, R., Huber, S., & Reder, M. (2014). The concept of eHealth literacy and its measurement. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 26(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  315. Sokolowski, K., & Heckhausen, H. (2010). Soziale Bindung: Anschlussmotivation und Intimitätsmotivation [Social ties: affiliation motivation and intimacy motivation]. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Hrsg.), Motivation und Handeln (S. 193–210). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12693-2_7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  316. Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, Stephan, Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12(80), 80. https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  317. Stegbauer, C. (2016). Grundlagen der Netzwerkforschung: Situation, Mikronetzwerke und Kultur [Foundations of network research: Situation, micronetworks, and culture] (1. Auflage). Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  318. Trepte, S., & Boecking, B. (2009). Was wissen die Meinungsführer? [What do opinion leaderes know?]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 57(4), 443–463. Retrieved from http://www.m-und-k.nomos.de/fileadmin/muk/doc/Aufsatz_MuK_09_04.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  319. Voland, E. (2013). Soziobiologie: Die Evolution von Kooperation und Konkurrenz [Sociobiology: The evolution of cooperation and competition]. Berlin: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  320. Walshe, C., Roberts, D., Appleton, L., Calman, L., Large, P., Lloyd-Williams, M., & Grande, G. (2017). Coping well with advanced cancer: A serial qualitative interview study with patients and family carers. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169071. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169071 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  321. Washington, K. T., Meadows, S. E., Elliott, S. G., & Koopman, R. J. (2011). Information needs of informal caregivers of older adults with chronic health conditions. Patient Education and Counseling, 83(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.017 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  322. Werner, S., & Shulman, C. (2014). Does type of disability make a difference in affiliate stigma among family caregivers of individuals with autism, intellectual disability or physical disability? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59(3), 272–283. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  323. Ybarra, M. L., & Suman, M. (2006). Help seeking behavior and the Internet: A national survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75(1), 29–41. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.029 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  324. Yoo, W., Shah, D. V., Shaw, B. R., Kim, E., Smaglik, P., Roberts, L. J., . . . Gustafson, D. H. (2014). The role of the family environment and computer-mediated social support on breast cancer patients’ coping strategies. Journal of Health Communication, 19(9), 981–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.864723 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  325. Yuen, E. Y. N., Knight, T., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Burney, S. (2018). Health literacy of caregivers of adult care recipients: A systematic scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(2), e191–e206. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12368 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  326. Zhang, Y., & Jin, Y. (2015). Who’s responsible for depression? The Journal of International Communication, 21(2), 204–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2015.1052532 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378
  327. Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.53 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  328. Abelson, R. P. (1981). The psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36(7), 715–729. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.715 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  329. Bamberg, S. (1996). Habitualisierte PKW-Nutzung: Integration des Konstrukts “Habit” in die Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens [Habitual car use: Integration of the construct “habits” into the theory of planned behavior]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 27(4), 295–310. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  330. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  331. Bassili, J. N., & Fletcher, J. F. (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research. A method for CATI and a new look at nonattitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(3), 331. https://doi. org/10.1086/269265 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  332. Bayer, J. B., & Campbell, S. W. (2012). Texting while driving on automatic: Considering the frequency-independent side of habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2083–2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2012.06.012 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  333. Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 777–799. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  334. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0065-2601(08)60318-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  335. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd). New York: McGraw-Hill. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  336. Hefner, D., Rothmund, T., Klimmt, C., & Gollwitzer, M. (2011). Implicit measures and media effects research: Challenges and opportunities. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(3), 181–202. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.597006 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  337. Ji, M. F., & Wood, W. (2007). Purchase and consumption habits: Not necessarily what you intend. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 261–276. https://doi. org/10.1080/10577400701542403 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  338. Klöckner, C., Matthies, E., & Hunecke, M. (2003). Problems of operationalizing habits and integrating habits in normative decision-making models. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003. tb01902.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  339. Koch, T. (2010). Macht der Gewohnheit? Der Einfluss der Habitualisierung auf die Fernsehnutzung [Power of habit? The influence of habitualization on television use]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  340. LaRose, R. (2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20(2), 194–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682885.2010.01360.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  341. LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2004). A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(3), 358–377. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 2 0 7 / s15506878jobem4803_2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  342. Lombard, M., Reich, R. D., Grabe, M. E., Bracken, C. C., & Ditton, T. B. (2000). Presence and television: The role of screen size. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-2958.2000.tb00750.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  343. MacPherson, S. E., Phillips, L. H., & Della Sala, S. (2002). Age, executive function and social decision making: A dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 17(4), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.598 McQuail, D. (1986). Mass communication theory. An introduction. London, UK: Sage Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  344. Naab, T. K., & Schnauber, A. (2016). Habitual initiation of media use and a response-frequency measure for its examination. Media Psychology, 19(1), 126-155. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.951055 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  345. Naab, T. K. (2013). Gewohnheiten und Rituale der Fernsehnutzung. Theoretische Konzeption und methodische Perspektiven [Habits and rituals of television viewing. Theoretical conception and methodological perspectives]. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  346. Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0412-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  347. Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1982). Gratification sought and media exposure: An expectancy value model. Communication Research, 9(4), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936508 2009004004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  348. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15506878jobem4402_2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  349. Peters, O. (2007). Social psychological determinants of mobile communication technology use and adoption (PhD thesis). University of Twente, Enschede. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/58107/1/thesis_Peters.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  350. Salthouse, T. A., Babcock, R. L., & Shaw, R. J. (1991). Effects of adult age on structural and operational capacities in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 6(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.6.1.118 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  351. Schnauber-Stockmann, A. & Naab, T. K. (2018). The process of forming a mobile media habit: results of a longitudinal study in a real-world setting. Media Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org//10.1080/15213269.2018. 1513850 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  352. Schnauber, A. (2017). Medienselektion im Alltag: Die Rolle von Gewohnheiten im Selektionsprozess [Media selection in everyday life: The role of habits in media selection processes]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  353. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  354. Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology, 10(1), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000035 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  355. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., & Moonen, A. (1998). Habit versus planned behaviour: A field experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.2044-8309.1998.tb01160.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  356. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., & van Knippenberg, C. (1994). Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816. 1994.tb00583.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  357. Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003. tb01951.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  358. Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jppm.25.1.90 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  359. Webster, J. G. (2009). The role of structure in media choice. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media choice. A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 221–233). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  360. Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F., & Lichty, L. W. (2006). Ratings analysis: The theory and practice of audience research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  361. Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.114.4.843 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413
  362. Zelinski, E. M., & Burnight, K. P. (1997). Sixteen-year longitudinal and time lag changes in memory and cognition in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12(3), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.3.503 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-413

Citation


Download RIS Download BibTex