A Christian Mega Church Strives for Relevance: Examining Social Media and Religiosity

A CHRISTIAN MEGA CHURCH STRIVES FOR RELEVANCE: EXAMINING SOCIAL

MEDIA AND RELIGIOSITY

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between Facebook and Twitter uses

and gratifications and religiosity. Non-denominational Christian mega churches focus their

outreach programs on a “come-as-you-are” attitude with the hopes of making people feel

comfortable. The interactive technology in our daily lives also infiltrates our experience at

church. The congregation now has the ability to worship through technologies endorsed by

leadership (Watson & Scalen, 2008; Bogomilova, 2004; Thomas, 2009). In order for churches

to engage in effective communication, they must understand how people use social

networking. Through survey methodology, the researcher takes an account of how people use

media in their involvement as members, so that effective member programs can be

implemented to attract and maintain parishioners. The appropriate theoretical approach for this

study is uses and gratification because parishioners are able to express how their social media

use interacts with their personal religiosity. This study found correlations between faith

commitments and uses among Facebook and Twitter. These correlations help build the uses

and gratifications theory within the constructs of religion.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

I grew up in a mega church in Las Vegas, Nevada, which presently has more than 18,000

members across a span of five local campuses, a campus in Alaska, Arizona, Australia, Florida

and an online campus. Although Las Vegas mega churches are often successful at increasing

membership and attendance, the transient nature of the city presents challenges in retaining

parishioners. Using the uses and gratifications approach as a theoretical basis, this study

explores social media trends of a similar local mega church with approximately 3,000 attendees.

Currently there is little or no information regarding media usage preferences of these

churchgoers. The focus of this study is the use of Facebook and Twitter of the churchgoers as

well as their faith commitments to their Christian beliefs. It is agreed upon by the leaders of this

church to remain anonymous for the duration of this study.

Uses and gratifications theory can best be defined as “… the program that asks the question, not

‘What do the media do to people?’ but, ‘What do people do with media?” (Katz, 1959, p. 2).

Gratifications work stems back to the beginning of empirical mass communication research

which includes studies with audiences listening to soap operas, radio, newspapers and more

(Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1973 p. 509). More than thirty years have passed and no longer are

scholars highly interested in soap operas and radio. Rather there is a shift toward social media

audiences in regards to uses and gratifications. “The uses and gratifications theory is concerned

with how individuals use the media (in this case, friend-networking sites), and therefore it

emphasizes the importance of the individual” (Bonds-Raacke & Raacke, 2010 p. 170). This

demands that the researchers look at each individual’s preferences to find some kind of common

ground within the sample. The results eventually point to some popular trends among the

participants that can add to uses and gratifications research as a whole.

Members of the congregation in this study take the time to find out what the church has to offer

through Facebook and Twitter. Information regarding events, campaigns, sermon topics,

announcements, and updates are all distributed with the help of these two social media channels.

Volunteer opportunities, summer camps for students, retreats for adults, photos, videos, links

and more can be found on both Facebook and Twitter accounts. This church also has separate

Facebook pages for their student ministry, elementary school ministry, men’s ministry,

women’s ministry, singles ministry, and couples ministry. In an effort to get a broader sense of

uses and gratification implications, this study focuses on the main church Facebook and Twitter

pages and examines how the congregation uses them and which gratifications they get from

them.

The uses and gratifications in this study include using Facebook and Twitter for information,

spiritual guidance, entertainment, to feel close to God, for moral support, companionship, to

pass the time, out of habit, as an escape, relax and for social interaction. Each participant has

different usage tendencies regarding social media. These particular uses can give insight on

some of the behaviors surrounding Facebook and Twitter in this context. It is important to take

into account the history of uses and gratifications theory. Doing so explains the importance of

this study and what it adds to the theoretical framework overall. The following paragraphs

discuss examples of studies that summarize each decade from 1940 to the present. These

snapshots that represent the highlights and important findings help shape uses and gratifications

theory for what it is today.

Initial studies in the 1940s (Laszarsfeld-Stanton, Herzog, Suchman, Wolfe & Fiske & Berelson)

described in Uses and Gratifications Research (Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1973) shared

similar methodologies. While Lazarsfeld and Stanton (1942, 1944, 1949) focused on soap

operas, Suchman (1942) looked at audience members of serious music on the radio, Wolfe and
Fiske (1949) studied children’s interest in music and Berelson examined newspaper reading.

First, they surveyed respondents in an open-ended format to collect the statements about media

functions. Next, they used qualitative measures to categorize the gratification statements while

also ignoring the rate at which these gratifications were reported. They also avoided the

connections between psychological and sociological trends connected to respondents needs.

There was also a lack of exploration between media channels, which added more intrigue

regarding media gratifications. “Consequently, these studies did not result in a cumulatively

more detailed picture of media gratifications conducive to the eventual formulation of

theoretical statements” (Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1973, p. 509).

More analysis of uses and gratifications theory arrived in the 1950s and 1960s with controversy

as some academics discredited the validity of use behaviors (Katz, 1959, p. 2). Bernard Berelson

took the position that communication research was no longer valid in an issue of the Public

Opinion Quarterly (1959). He, as well as other critics, found the “campaign” mentality did not

work among audiences as they thought it would. People did not change their vote based on

media messages and it began to look as if researchers would complicate matters in order to

receive the results they were hoping to achieve. In other words, persuasion within media was

not an effective way to change the thoughts and opinions of the audience. Katz continues to

explain, “The ‘uses approach’ begins with the assumption that the message of even the most

potent of media cannot ordinarily influence an individual who has no use for it in the social and

psychological context in which he lives” (1959, p.2).

The International Research Associates conducted a study in 1958 that included a World Poll for

the New York Herald Tribune. This poll questioned readers about their gratification behavior in

relation to this particular newspaper. Although there was an exciting atmosphere surrounding

this research, there was also a downside to it as well. Wilson wrote, “And with gratification
goes the feeling of responsibility. In the relatively short period of time we have been operating,

we have been attacked by Pravda; we have been cited in Congressional Record; we have been

referred to in the councils of the United Nations; and so on” (Wilson, 1958, p. 183). This study

is important because it asks the audience about their reading behavior without considering their

social backgrounds. It was thought that none of that mattered in the beginning, as if the masses

could be divided up into a few groups. Collecting data from audiences in this manner is much

different than it is today. Scholars continued to build on uses and gratification research during

the next decade.

Katz’s research in the 1960s acknowledged issues with mass communication research to include

a misconception of the audience. At that time, it regarded the audience as a disconnected group

of people distinguished only by their age, sex, and ethnicity. This definition excluded the

relationships people have with one another that tend to shape their ideologies and opinions. This

crucial factor adds humanistic character in survey participants. According to Katz, and many

others to follow, the audience plays an active role with media; media, as was previously

assumed, do not easily affect them. “The shared values in groups of family, friends, and co-

workers and the networks of communication…’intervene’ between the campaign in mass media

and the individual as the mass target” (Katz, 1960, p. 436). This was an important shift in mass

communication and it directly impacted uses and gratifications research in the future. If the

individual is the “mass target,” then academics must take the time to evaluate individual wants

and how they want it; that is, uses and gratifications theory (Katz, 1960). As the study of media

use evolved, many began to support Katz’s idea that the audience played an active role in media

interaction (Abelman, 1987, p.293).

Abelman focused on television use in one of his prominent studies that helped bridge the gap

between early and modern uses and gratification studies (Abelman, 1987; Rubin, 1984).
Academics found two primary reasons that explained why people watched television. People

used television out of ritual and as an instrument, (Rubin, 1981, 1983, 1984; Windahl, 1981).

“Ritualized viewing consists of more habitual use of television for diversionary reasons (e.g.,

companionship, time consumption, relaxation)…Instrumental viewing, on the other hand,

reflects a more goal-oriented use of television content to gratify informational needs or motives”

(Abelman, 1987, p.293). This new shift gives the audience the power over how they use

television. Abelman went even further to shed light on the lack of studies focused on religious

programming (Hoover, in press; Horsfield, 1984). Dennis (1962) found that people viewed

religious media for moral reasons, for information and entertainment, and to substitute secular

programs (Abelman, 1987, p. 298).

The 1990s and 2000s studies further explored the details of primary media uses. Although there

were constant themes within the reasons for watching television, there were discrepancies along

the way. These lead to challenges in completing a full set of consistent results for uses and

gratifications. Researchers across the board focus on different levels of study, materials, and

cultures. Today there is more freedom for uses and gratifications researchers to explore

audiences than ever before. “The earliest researchers for the most part did not attempt to explore

the links between the gratifications detected and the psychological or sociological origins of the

needs satisfied” (Ruggiero, 2000, p. 5). Early researchers were more concerned with how

television used people instead of the other way around. The origins of the need to be satisfied

were later developed as an important focal point later on.

One of the main characteristics of uses and gratification theory is based upon individual

preferences. Audience members choose to engage in a particular social media activity for their

own personal reasons that have the potential to add to academic research. This is in contrast to

other theoretical approaches that depend on passive audiences. For example, a researcher
documenting a group of people living day to day in their natural habitat as an observer, called

ethnography, requires no action from the audience.

Communication is characterized by the active nature of its audiences, by social and

psychological factors as mediators in communicative behavior, and with certain media

competing with other forms of communication to meet the needs of human beings, given that

these media can come to have more influence than certain interpersonal processes (Jimenez,

Lopez, Pisionero, 2012, p. 232).

Ruggeiero (2000) defines uses and gratifications theory through Cantril’s (1942) point of view.

“Early in the history of communications research, an approach was developed to study the

gratifications that attract and hold audiences to the kinds of media and the types of content that

satisfy their social and psychological needs” (Ruggiero, 2000, p. 3).

Efforts to reach out to the local and global community can be improved by knowing what the

audience prefers. This potential begs the questions: Why do people use Facebook and Twitter?

Are social media trends (passing time, for information or entertainment) connected with

religious beliefs? In Being Immersed In Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups,

Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes Park, Kerk and Valenzuela (2009) polled 2,603

university students in Texas and the results showed an overlap in gratifications for why they use

Facebook. According to Pisionero (2012) “the intensity of Facebook use was strongly related to

other gratifications such as feelings of personal satisfaction, confidence and participation in

civic life” (p. 234). The connections found between social media and gratifications are dominant

enough to explore possible gratification trends in the church. A brief history of Facebook and

Twitter helps create a stronger research foundation.

Brief Facebook & Twitter History

Facebook became available for public use in 2004 and currently has 1.11 billion users (Martelli,

2013; Phillips, 2007). “Because of this popularity, Facebook.com has become not only a

technological phenomenon but also a realm of interest for scholars exploring the processes and

effects of computer-mediated communication and social networking” (Wise, Alhabash & Park

2010, p. 555). When Facebook began, users needed a Harvard.edu email address. This filtering

process restricted the pool of users to a select group of people. It later opened to high school

students in 2005, and in 2006 the general public was allowed to get a Facebook profile (Urista,

Quinwen & Day, 2009, p. 217). According to Wise, Alhabash & Park (2010), Facebook is

largely used to make a connection with others by social browsing and social searching profiles

(p. 555).

Twitter officially launched in 2006 and currently has 200 million users (Johnson, 2013). It was

originally created for coworkers to keep track of one another with short messages. “Twitter, the

140 character or less micro blogging application, has received popular attention in the mass

media for its own entertainment value, but it remains a novelty for many” (Lin, Hoffman &

Borengasser, 2013, p. 39). Users post their own messages under the 140 character limit (called

tweets) and share pictures and videos for their followers to see. Twitter was also the first to

implement hashtags to categorize posts, pictures and videos. A hashtag is a short phrase that

describes the main focus of the post. By using a # (hashtag sign) before the phrase, it

automatically takes you to a master list of every piece of content that also shares that hashtag.

For example, if a woman tweets a message and picture of a dress she made, she can hashtag, or

file, the photo under any category she can think of to increase the number of people who might

see it. Some possibilities include #dress, #lookwhatImade, #proud, #loveit etc. Others who see

her status can click on any one of those hashtags to see more photos that use those categories.

Since the invention of Twitter, hashtags have been incorporated into Facebook as well.
Both forms of social media are still very young compared to radio and television, however, the

impact of these forms of media has gained and maintained global attention. Although radio and

television are not considered social media, and are very different in their own right, it is

important to consider uses and gratification history in regards to media in general. Social

browsing is when someone looks through Facebook for nothing in particular, a passive way to

engage in social media. Social searching is when a participant is looking through their Facebook

and Twitter newsfeeds for specific information. This is classified has an information seeking

way of using Facebook (Wise, et al. 2010, p. 555).

Purpose and Key Terms

The purpose of this study is to explore specific uses and gratification trends of this congregation

in regards to Facebook and Twitter. The uses evaluated in this study include using Facebook

and Twitter for information, spiritual guidance, entertainment, to feel close to God, for moral

support, companionship, to pass the time, out of habit, as an escape, relax and for social

interaction. Each participant has different usage tendencies regarding social media.

This study examines how Facebook and Twitter use correlates with religious gratification. For

example, Facebook and Twitter keep people connected to friends and family all over the world.

They create personal profiles, share pictures, send invites to upcoming events, and communicate

more conveniently. Communicating, sharing information, and relating to one another in this

fashion has the potential to expose a deeper understanding of social media play within churches.

Past research expands knowledge of uses and gratifications theory as it applies to a religious

audience. If religion involves behavior, community, belief, and deep feeling (Cornwall et al.,

1986, p. 227), these key points speak to the mission, culture, and focal points of this church. The

mission of this church, as posted on their website, is to “love God, love people, and serve

others.” Their belief statement about the church is, “We believe that the church is the
community of God and the body of Christ on earth and exists to reach those who are far from

Christ and disciple believers (Matthew 28:19-20).” This desire to reach the masses requires a

better understanding of how this audience uses social media. An overview of the methodology

and outline of the remainder of this thesis will set up the literature review in chapter two.

Abelman’s Why Do People Watch Religious TV?: A Uses and Gratifications Approach (1987)

provides the methodological approach. Abelman argues that audience members are “active”

with measurable uses of media. While Abelman focuses on television viewing, his measurement

questions for TV viewing levels, viewer affinity, and program preference were adapted to this

study of social media use. Religiosity was also assessed in order to better understand the

relationship between church commitments and social media use. Respondents self-reported uses

of social media in a religious context. Like Abelman, a range of one meaning “strongly

disagree” to five meaning “strongly agree” was used to assess the following uses of Facebook

and Twitter within a mega-church community: information learning, spiritual guidance,

entertainment, feeling close to God, religiosity, moral support, replacing church attendance and

social interaction. With this example as a model, I began the process of collecting data for this

survey. I used the Survey Monkey online service. Chapter 3 will focus on the methodology of

this study to include details of the step by step process, the survey instrument, distribution and

data collection. Chapter 4 will describe the findings and Chapter 5 will discuss their

significance.
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

How Mega Churches Evolved

The following definition of a the word “church” is from the online version of the Encyclopedia

Britannica; The word ‘church’ in Christian doctrine means the Christian religious community

as a whole, or a body or organization of Christian believers. The Greek word ekklēsia, which

came to mean church, was originally applied in the Classical period to an official assembly of

citizens. In the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament (3rd–2nd century BC), the

term ekklēsia is used for the general assembly of the Jewish people, especially when gathered

for a religious purpose such as hearing the Law (e.g., Deuteronomy 9:10, 18:16). In the New

Testament it is used of the entire body of believing Christians throughout the world.

In other words the church is made up of believers, the people, it is not a building. Churches can

gather in schools, banquet halls, homes, parks, in bars and nightclubs after hours, online,

prisons, on the beach and more. The only thing you need to make a church is a group of

believers. The purpose of the Christian church is to gather in community to study God’s word,

to be more like Jesus, support one another and reach out to others.

“The Great Commission” given to Christians by Jesus Christ himself is found in the book of

Matthew in the New Testament in the Bible. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,

baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching

them to obey everything I have commanded you,” (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV).

“Mega churches are not an entirely new phenomenon…but the rapid proliferation of these

churches since the 1970s, and especially in the past few decades, is a distinctive social
phenomenon” (Thumma & Travis, 2007, p. 6). The Bible gives some insight to how many

people came together on a regular basis as a church. The book of Acts in the New Testament

was written by Luke, one of Jesus’ followers. Luke’s account of the increase of followers after

the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, describes one of the first recorded mega churches.

Christians, Christ followers, in Biblical times came together to accept Christ into their lives

through baptism. The Apostle Peter, after the first recorded Christian sermon by someone other

than Jesus, addressed a large crowd and “…those who accepted his message were baptized, and

about three thousand were added to their number” (Acts 2:41 New International Version). This

verse is significant in the history of mega churches since the original Christian church was, by

definition, a mega church. Another highlight that contributes to mega church history is the

Christian revivals that took place in the United States.

The Great Awakening refers to the series of religious revivals among Protestants in the

American colonies, especially in New England, lasting from 1730s to 1740s. This was during

the time, and in response to, the Enlightenment period in Europe which focused on logic,

reason and individuals applying these ideas to religion. “Christian revivals that happened in

response to ‘The Awakening’ has received surprisingly little systematic study and lacks even

one comprehensive general history,” (Butler, 1982, p. 306). Religious awakenings came about

due to the economic and social climate during those times in history. These significant events

in religious history, within the United States, gained high levels of attention from those in need

of direction (Sims, 1988). Many people traveled to hear the message of charismatic preachers

which sometimes involved healing hands and speaking in tongues “ The largest most

historically important meeting took place on August 6, 1801, when a crowd variously estimated

at from twelve to twenty-five thousand gathered at Cane Ridge, near the present city of

Lexington, Kentucky,” (Sims, 1988, p. xiv). Currently there are many religious beliefs for

people to choose from. They can simply go online to join a church, pick and choose from many
beliefs to create their own or choose not to believe at all. While the term, “mega church” only

refers to the size of a church, it relates to revivals only because of the mass amounts of people

who are drawn to both of them. The history of revivals shows that large church gatherings are

not new to the religious community. Some criticize mega churches for being too big to be able

to communicate effectively. Discussing what mega churches look like today will further

solidify the connection between social media and religiosity as well as mass communication

options.

Mega Churches Today

Due to the broad nature of this particular topic, I focus on the definition of mega churches in

relation to the number of attendees. Mega churches generally have more than 2,000 members

(Thumma & Travis, 2007, p. 8). This speaks to the number of attendees and is not exclusive to

Christian churches alone. “The religious message must have relevance to everyday life and

contemporary reality. It is not necessary for worship styles and sermon forms to be

contemporary idioms, but for them to touch on daily concerns, issues and social needs”

(Thumma & Travis, 2007, p. 16). These social needs are similar to those needs met through

social media.

Some scholars have identified three reasons why mega churches have increased development –

mega churches have emerged, the shifting paradigm of Christian missions (focusing on

congregationally-based short-term mission trips) and the rise of evangelical international

development organizations (Gramby-Sobukwe & Hoiland, 2009, p. 105). These movements

within the church continue to affect the more than 1,300 mega churches in the United States.

Gramby-Sobukwe & Hoiland (2009) also look beyond their research of notable mega churches,

such as Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, toward future research.

“Considerable research remains be done to ascertain more fully the nature and scope of mega
church involvement in development, to learn from the possible innovations they are coming up

with as they engage in this process [development and missions],” (p.114).

Mega churches today must balance popular or secular ideas with religious ideas. For example

while some churches are comfortable including a secular song during the sermon, others would

find that to be crossing the line. In the same context it might be acceptable for a pastor to refer

to social media as a ministry tool at one church but unacceptable at another. These push and

pull tendencies between the church and the outside world are different for each church culture

but the reality is that it exists. Because of these wide ranges of ideas, shifts and changes that

occur within mega churches on a regular basis it is difficult to group them all together.

Thumma and Travis (2007) explain that, “People have to be able to hear their lives in the

message and glean understanding that translates into wise actions throughout the week with

their family, coworkers or spouse” (p. 16). They continue to explain some of the musical

worship to be “in part to entertain, to entice, to excite, and to inspire” (p. 16). The relevance of

sermon and musical worship connects the outside world with the religious world in the mega

church setting. People then attend these large churches in the hopes of finding spiritual

guidance and a religious community they can relate to. The definition of religiosity shows the

difference between a church community and every other community. This next section

explores the important relationship between church attendees and religiosity.

Religiosity

Religiosity is the main gratification of interest for this study. Academic scholars have

previously evaluated the definition of term “religiosity” and the context in which it makes the

most sense. It is somewhat of a vague topic and accepted definitions are known to be broad.

One definition holds religiosity is “phenomena that include some relevance to traditional

institutionalized searches to acknowledge and maintain some relationship with the

transcendent” (Hill & Hood, 1999, p. 48). This further reflects the definition of religion. “…

religion is a multifaceted object, incorporating cognitive, emotional, motivational, and

behavioral aspects” (Hackney & Sanders, 2003, p. 45). These scholars continue to discuss the

possibility that, “religiosity could represent its own unique, but interrelated, construct, with the

overall concept of religiosity consisting of a cluster of somewhat independent factors. If that is

the case, then it would be expected that some aspects of religiosity would correlate with other

variables (such as mental health) more strongly than others…” (p. 45). Independent factors

include coping and attribution (p. 46) and life satisfaction and self actualization (p.49). This

current survey includes religious factors for the purpose that was previously stated. There is a

possibility that some religious aspects, called faith commitments, could correlate with other

variables.

Faith Commitments

After these uses and gratifications are measured they are then compared to “faith commitment”

statements that were later combined to create the religiosity index; the main gratification for

this study. These faith commitments were created by my former thesis chairman, an academic

collegue of his named Judith Buddenbaum and myself. Both my former thesis chairman and

Buddenbaum have extensive knowledge in media and religious communities. The faith

commitments include the following:

I pray regularly

Believe Jesus is the Son of God

Have a personal relationship with Jesus

Reading the Bible is important part of my life

All measure personal religious beliefs of participants and are combined into an index (see

Appendix A p. 59). This aspect is important in evaluating any possible connections between

social media use and religious commitment. The theory behind uses and gratifications leads to

relevance.

Faith commitments also relate to the participants’ commitment to the church community they

engage in. If someone does not pray regularly, believed that Jesus is the Son of God, have a

personal relation with Jesus etc., they are less likely to be commitment members of the church

and therefore not involved with the community. Community is a large component of being part

of a mega church and is worth mentioning in this study.

Community

The concept for community is important to this study because it directly relates to religiosity.

Church attendees come together to listen to the message and worship together on a weekly basis.

They also participate in classes, social gatherings, and Bible study groups as a community. This

study gathers insight on how this community uses social media, it is important to have a credible

academic definition. Scholars have taken a deeper interest in the definition of community, to

understand how people groups are developed and maintained. One academic definition for

community includes the following four elements; membership, influence, integration and

fulfillment of needs and shared emotional connection (McMillan & George, 1986, p. 4). These

are all aspects that help mold this church community and the communication behaviors.

Membership, as in the description of community, is the feeling of belonging to a group while

influence is a two part action. Parishioners can have an influence on the community and the

community can have an influence on the parishioner. Being part of a church community can

satisfy the need to be integrated and connected to others. Integration in the community comes

from the participant choosing to be more involved at church through volunteering and being
intentional about making friends at church. It takes time to get to know one another outside of

church and only those who make the effort can be fully integrated in the community. Once the

participant is integrated in the mega church community, they can better navigate how to fulfill

their emotional needs. By that point there is trust within in the community and participants can

share feelings in a more genuine manner. Identifying with the relevance of the sermons, as a

whole on Sunday mornings, is the gateway to these deeper levels of community. “With the

primacy of the consumer, each church or religious organization tries to fashion a product that

consistently meets consumer preferences” (Watson & Scalen, 2008, p. 175). It is through active

participation and the continuous choice to be involved that changes the anonymous experience

into a community focused one (Thumma & Travis, 2007). Active participation in a religious

environment guarantees regular encounters with religiosity factors such as prayer, reading the

Bible, belief in Jesus and having a personal relationship with Jesus.

How Mega Churches Communicate

Traditionally churches communicated to the masses through radio and television broadcasts.

Next came mass distribution of paper newsletters, through the mail or handed out in church,

included updates and information. The newsletters evolved to an electrical format for email

purposes and were easily sent out by a click or a button to a master list. The use of social media

in churches allowed for a cost-effective way to communicate on a more regular basis.

Social media are tools that allow people to add a personal touch to technology, and therefore

self-report how they use them on a daily basis. “U&G fell out of favor with some mass

communication scholars for several decades, but the advent of telecommunications technology

may well have revived it from dormancy” (Ruggeriero, 2000, p. 13). Technology acts as an

equalizer because the available knowledge bridges the gap between age, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status and belief systems. These components also act as a security blanket for

some in times of emergency when getting the word out is important.

Before social media, churches relied on live announcements on Sunday mornings, newsletters

and sometimes phone calls to relay messages to their congregation. Although some modern

churches still use a combination of these options to communicate, the implementation of social

media like Facebook and Twitter helped streamline content and interactive communication.

Feedback and interactive communication was not a benefit of past modes of relaying a message

to large amounts of people.

The Facebook page for the church in this study has 4,043 “likes” and 501 followers on Twitter.

These numbers of participants show how the congregation prefers to communicate on Facebook

and Twitter and perhaps other forms of social media. Both ways of communication provide

information about events and allow for interaction between the church and the congregation. The

gratifications, such as to get information, to feel close to God and as an escape, highlight specific

social media the church should continue to use and others they can eliminate. Church leaders

take cues from these trends in planning service elements such as temporary Facebook pages for a

current series, smart phone applications etc. Elements of social networking also come into play

as many larger churches use social networking websites such as Facebook as a way to

communicate (Bonds-Raacke & Raacke, 2010). Regular websites for mega churches serve as a

place for communication, community, and church identity through branding (Kim, 2007; Baab,

2008). Because each church has a different culture, it is important to find a way to communicate

that culture to those looking around for a place to call their “home church.” The way a church is

branded is through the perception of others. Although a church cannot please everyone,

leadership at mega churches work diligently in a creating brand that is largely accepted. “…with

Christianity increasingly becoming a type of faith to sell i.e., a brand Christian churches and
pastors seek new and innovative ways to mine popular culture” (Butterworth, 2011, p. 314).

These new and innovative ways of communication can play out in many different channels to

include social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

People visit social media outlets and websites to get more information, view the services offered,

and to compare to other churches. During the trial period before they fully commit; and for the

most part, church leadership is fully aware of this trend. The Internet opens a host of possiblities

for churches to market their main ideologies as well as incorporating the day-to-day aspects of

the World Wide Web (Campbell, 2005; Lindlof, 1998). These types of media allow for open

communication between the church and people who attend, not to mention movie clips, music

clips, and other popular frames of reference that might be used to make a sermon relevant and

gratifying.

People who attend non-denominational mega churches have a unique experience compared to

traditional denominations. All churches are different but some use smoke machines, video, live

bands, electrical instruments, DJs, intricate lighting, voting through text messages, hashtags with

social media, popular secular songs, and more. These tools that are sometimes used to enhance

the religious experience are also known to cause controversy because they are not traditionally

accepted. Some academic studies have taken a further look at the relationship between

religiosity and technology use. Researchers in “Technology in Spiritual Formation: An

Exploratory Study of Computer Mediated Religious Communicators” interviewed 13 pastors

across the country in order to collect data on how they used technology to communicate with the

congregation. The researchers found that many of the pastors depended on their church website

or an electronic newsletter for mass communication purposes. Larger churches have to master

the art of mass communication through technology because it is one of most efficient ways to

spread information; whether it is a recorded sermon or the service times for an Easter weekend.
The reason why large amounts of people allow this interaction to take place is that it falls into

place with what they already do on a regular basis. “We learned that adoption of technology in

spiritual practice mirrors previous experiences in both corporate and recreational uses of

technology” (Wyche, Haye, Harvel & Grinter, 2006, p. 9). These 13 pastors also used emails to

pray for or communicate with people in the congregation that were going through hard times or

in need of a connection. It is common for people to leave a church because they do not feel like

they are a part of the community or close to the head pastor.

The mega church must constantly answer the question “How do we communicate with a large

amount of people?” This daunting task requires church leaders to immerse themselves in how

people relate and communicate on a daily basis. Social media, watching sermons online, and

emailing prayer requests are just a few ways to reach out to others. “The mega church also shifts

media easily because it self-consciously mimics the kind of excitement generated elsewhere”

(Twitchell, 2004, p. 85). In other words, it is important for mega churches to take note of social

media trends, hot topics on the news, major world events, and other current topics, in order to

stay relevant in the eyes of the congregation. For example, when the economy went through a

downturn and many people lost their jobs during the same time, pastors either decided to

mention the state of the economy, use it as the focus of a sermon or even take a few weeks to

commit a full series to the economy. A series is a collection of sermons that focus on the same

topic for a few weeks in order to cover many biblical lessons over a longer period of time.

Another example is the idea of using hashtags for campaign or big event weekend at a mega

church. A pastor could say, “Share an Instagram picture of your favorite Bible verse and don’t

forget to use the hash tag ‘#myverse!” The shifts in media in the outside world also mirror the

media changes in the church. Understanding the relationship between this church culture and the

outside world provides a foundation for this study.

A Non-denominational Christian Church

No two churches are the same, even if they identify as the same religious sect. Regardless, there

are some general similarities of non-denominational Christian churches in the Las Vegas area.

The following details describe a brief overview of the culture of the church that is evaluated

with the survey. These features are also common in other local mega churches.

Churchrelevance.com recently listed this church as one out of 493 churches in America growing

fast enough to be listed on their “Churches to Watch” list. The come-as-you-are mentality

allows participants to wear casual clothing if they choose. Children are encouraged to go to their

own classrooms during service where they attend age-appropriate biblical teachings. Students in

middle school and high school are encouraged to attend their own service produced by the

student ministry. The worship band, greeting team, and video team are all comprised of student

volunteers. Children and students have the opportunity to learn about God in a way that they

find relevant, while parents attend the main service. The main lobby connects to the coffee shop

where churchgoers stop and chat while grabbing a coffee to take into service with them.

Inside the auditorium, there is a tech booth, two professional video cameras, a stage, and seating

for attendees. They are currently constructing a new auditorium that will seat 1,800 attendees

per service because they out grew their current space. In their current main auditorium, there are

two side screens on either side of the stage and a center screen. Backstage there is a storage

space, green room, baptistery, and a video control room. A regular service contains an

announcement video, “The Pulse,” three to four worship songs, a series video bumper, a 25

minute message from the senior pastor or the executive pastor, communion, tithe and

announcements in person.

About 2,500 people attend every weekend with available service times of 8:30, 10 and 11:30

a.m. and 6 p.m. The service streams live during the first three services and one later posted on
the website for anyone to reference. This church also has a considerable following on Facebook

and Twitter in which people ask questions, give their opinions, and stay up to date on events. The

goal here is to get a deeper, more thorough understanding of how these social media are used so

that the church environment can be adapted to members’ preferences. Pastors also use popular

forms of social communication to teach such as Facebook and Twitter.

This study mirrors similar implications as another study of one of the largest mega churches in

the country. Central Christian Church – Las Vegas, mentioned in the introduction, ranks as the

top 15 largest churches in the United States. Churchrelevance.com named Central as number five

in the top 30 churches in the U.S. to learn from in all areas of growth and number 15 in the top

churches to learn from in all areas. Gilmore (2009) surveyed the online church members of

Central Christian Church. Electronic surveys helped identify the feelings of the congregation that

watched the main service online. The results showed 177 people completed the survey and 12 of

those participants came to do a final interview. These participants explained how they viewed the

culture at Central and how they felt about the community. One man felt like Central is a place for

people to start their faith while others repeat the church slogan, “It’s okay to not be okay.” These

opinions allowed leaders to reevaluate how they presented the media options on their Online

Campus, which serves people all over the country who are unable to visit in person. The Online

Campus developed new ways to connect with the audience, evolved with media technology, and

created a better community shortly after this Gilmore’s study was completed.

In order to teach the basic principles of Christianity there must be a connection between the

religious material and real life situation with the population at hand. The sermon material must

keep biblical integrity but also maintain current validity that connects with the congregation. It is

very common for churches to use popular videoclips, music sound bites and references to make a

point toward a Christian principle. Keeping individuals involved with the church is very difficult
to do because many feel like the sacred lifestyle has little to offer them (Petersen et al., 1997;

Goreham et al., 2003). Teenagers and young adults alike begin to establish their own identity and

spirituality is connected to that transformation. This study will contribute to previous research as

it evaluates the valid connection between social media use and religiosity.

Uses and gratifications theory speaks to the use of available technology and therefore becomes a

guideline in measuring relevance. The congregation also has the freedom to consider if the

church is relevant or not, based on the technology they use on a daily basis outside of Sunday

morning. “…the perception of media consumers as cognitively “active” and behaviorally

“purposeful” selectors and recipients of mass communication has gathered much support in the

scientific literature” (Abelman, 1989 p. 56). Leadership of modern churches looks to connect

with the congregation in order to have validity behind their message and ministry.

METHODOLOGY

Instrument

Social media provide tools that allow people to add a personal touch to technology, and therefore

self-report how they use them on a daily basis. “U&G fell out of favor with some mass

communication scholars for several decades, but the advent of telecommunications technology

may well have revived it from dormancy” (Ruggeriero, 2000, p. 13). Technology acts as an

equalizer because the available knowledge bridges the gap between age, ethnicity,

socioeconomic status and belief systems. The “likers” on this church’s Facebook give some

insight that perhaps Facebook is one way they prefer to communicate.

Research Questions

The research questions are:

 1. Is there a significant correlation between Facebook uses and religiosity?

2. Is there a significant correlation between Twitter uses and religiosity?

3. Is there a significant correlation between age, Facebook use, and

religiosity, how long the participant has been going to this church and the

frequency of when they attend this church’s services?

4. Is there an overall positive experience with the church’s social media experience

voiced in the open-ended questions?

Faith commitments are measured on a scale Lickert scale similar to Abelman’s (1987). A range

of one meaning “strongly disagree” to five meaning “strongly agree” was used to assess the

following faith commitments within a mega-church community: I pray regularly, I believe Jesus

is the Son of God, I feel like I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and reading the Bible is an

important part of my life.

A good example of religious gratifications of religious media, is the use of Bible applications for

smart phones. These applications allow partishioners to have acces to the entire Bible in any

translation avaialble on their phone. It is very common to see adults and students refer to their

phone during the sermon instead of having an actual Bible. Founder of the blog

ChurchTechToday and church technology consultant confesses, “I will add that although using

digital devices for Bible study and reference during church is very useful, occasionally, I am

self-conscious about this as I don’t want people to think that I am texting or checking email”
(Hunter, 2011). This is the kind of usage that is not identified in the doctrine of any non-

denominational Christian Mega-church, but it is a very popular practice. If leaders were aware of

the uses and gratifications of their congregation, they could streamline their communication

avenues and become more effective.

Social media, in this case Facebook and Twitter, is a great match for uses and gratifications

theory. Particiapants seek these ways of communication for the same reasons people in the past

claimed they listened to the radio or read the newspaper. This study builds on uses and

gratifications studies of the past and also adds insight into religiosity through the Faith

commitment statements. These faith commitment statements are indicators of religiosity in that

they measure aspects of the participants’ personal faith. In the following methodology section

reveals details regarding the survey instrument, distribution, data collection and statistical

analysis.

The methodology for this study includes an electronic survey with an open ended question

section at the end. A survey lists statements or questions and gives the participant options to

answer the questions. These are usually referred to as closed-ended questions because the

answers are given to the participant to choose from. In this survey the participants were asked to

choose one out of all the options that best describes their true feelings for each question. The

open-ended question was optional, as were all of the questions, and later coded separately from

the survey questions. Electronic surveys allow participants to take the survey conveniently

without having to schedule an appointment or feeling the pressure of taking the survey in an

unfamiliar environment. Due to some of the personal nature of the questions, the electronic

survey method was the best way to get honest answers and answer the research questions.

After the consent form, the survey begins with questions regarding church membership and

participation. This is followed by statements regarding Facebook friends and posts. The
Facebook usage statements are next and respondents answer with the Lickert scale (this scale

will be explained in the measurement section). Twitter questions regarding friends and posts

follow and later transition into the Twitter statements using the Lickert scale. Subsequently, the

Lickert scale is also employed as participants evaluate statements about their religiosity: “I pray

regularly,” “I believe Jesus is the Son of God,” “I feel I have a personal relationship with Jesus”

and “I think reading the Bible is an important aspect of my life,” (See Appendix A to see

survey). These faith commitments were combined into an index to measure religiosity. The

religiosity index achieved an alpha reliability of 0.854. This indicates a good reliability for this

index. Appendix A (p. 59) shows the complete list of survey questions and answering scales

starting with church involvement, Facebook use, Twitter use, faith commitments, demographic

questions and one open-ended question.

Measurements

This current study is modeled after Abelman’s study on the uses and gratifications of the “PTL

Club” (1989) and his study of religious television uses (1987). Both of his studies have a

religious media focus and use the Lickert scale, ranging from, (1) “strongly agree,” (2) “agree,”

(3) “not sure,” (4) “disagree” and (5) “strongly disagree.” This current study also uses some of

the same motivations Abelman (1989) used in his PTL study, namely: information-learning,

entertainment, social interaction, spiritual guidance, feeling close to God, moral support,

companionship, pass time, habit, escape and relaxation (1989, p. 59).

Church involvement was measured by asking following three items: (1) how long the participant

has attended this church, (2) how often they attend services, and (3) if they have taken the

membership class (called Starting Point). General Facebook use and involvement was then

measured by asking the participant the following six items: (1) how often do you use Facebook,

(2) how many Facebook friends they have, (3) how many of these Facebook friends they knew
through this church, (4) how often do they post statuses about this church, (5) how often do they

post statuses about their faith, and (6) if they “liked” this church’s Facebook page. The Facebook

uses, mirroring Abelman further, are then listed and participants answer from the “strongly

disagree” to “strongly agree” scale for the following 11 items: (1) to get information, (2) for

spiritual guidance, (3) for entertainment, (4) to feel close to God, (5) for moral support, (6) for

companionship, (7) to pass the time, (8) out of habit, (9) as an escape, (10) to relax, and (10)for

social interaction. This section ends by measuring the importance of this church’s Facebook

page by asking participants the following five items: (1) if visiting this particular Facebook page

was one of the most important things they did each day, (2) if they would miss this page if it was

missing, (3) reading posts from this Facebook page was is very important in their life, (4) if they

could easily do without this page for several days, and (5) if they would feel lost without this

page.

In the next section of the survey, asked about faith commitments which measure religiosity of

participants. With the same Lickert scale that Ableman uses, participants answer questions

about their religiosity with the following four statements: (1) pray regularly, (2) I believe Jesus

is the Son of God, (3) I feel I have a personal relationship with Jesus and (4) I think reading the

Bible is an important aspect of my life. These faith commitment statements were compiled into

a religiosity index and I later correlated the Facebook and Twitter uses questions with the faith

commitment index. Religiosity is the main gratification of interest for this study.

Demographic questions measure a basic background of the participant and the model for these

questions were taken from the U.S. Census. Sex is measured by the participant choosing one of

the following three items (1) male, (2) female, or (3) trans-gendered. Age was measured by the

year the participant was born (they entered their year of birth). Marital status options included
one of the following five items: (1) single, (2) married, (3) separated, (4) divorced and (5)

widowed. Participants also had the option of adding their ethnicity. Options included any of the

following seven items: (1) White, (2) Black or African American, (3) Hispanic, (4) Native

American or Alaska Native, (5) Asian, (6) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or (7)

Other (please specify). Highest education completed ranged from the following eight items: (1)

did not graduate high school, (2) graduated from high school, (3) one year of college, (4) two

years of college, (5) three years of college, (6) graduated from college, (7) some graduate

school and (8) completed graduate school. Approximate average household income ranged

from the following nine items: (1) $0 to $24,999, (2) $25,000 to $49,999, (3) $50,000 to

$74,999, (4) $75,000 to $99,999, (5) $100,000 to $124,999, (6) $125,000 to $149,999, (7)

$150,000 to $174,999, (8) $175,000 to $199,999, and (9) $200,000 and up.

The last demographic question asked participants to describe their employment status.

Participants could choose from one of the following six items: (1) retired, (2) not employed-not

looking for work, (3) not employed-looking for work, (4) disabled-not able to work, (5)

employed-working one to 39 hours per week and (6) employed-working 40 or more hours per

week. The last question is the optional open-ended question that states, “The things you

consider most important about this church’s social media may not have been covered in this

survey. Please feel free to make any additional comments in the space provided below.” The

anonymity of the survey allowed the participants to respond honestly and will give leaders an

inside look at their congregation’s social media uses in relation to religiosity. This inside look

does not include details about the participants, rather an overview of trending correlations

between the uses of Facebook, Twitter and the faith commitments.

The overall purpose of the questionnaire was to assess the uses and gratifications of Facebook

and Twitter and relate this information to levels of religiosity. There are two broad categories
of questions: social media use and personal religiosity as the main gratification of this survey.

The survey items allow the researcher to assess the relationship between these two areas. “The

components of religiosity with which we began are familiar to social psychologists who

generally recognize the importance of making a decision between knowing (cognition), feeling

(affect), and doing (behavior)” (Cornwall & Albrecht, 1986). The social media questions shed

light on how social media play a role in these dimensions of religiosity to expand uses and

gratification research.

Survey Distribution

Before receiving IRB approval on July 31, 2012, by the Office of the Protection of Research

Subjects at UNLV, church leaders were asked if they would be interested in being part of a

study regarding Facebook and Twitter usage. They agreed and were later asked to get contact

information of members who would be willing to take the survey as a pilot test. Five church

members agreed to take the survey and the survey link was sent to their personal emails. All

five participants took the survey and reported suggestions regarding clarity of some of the

questions. Minor changes were made with the format and wording and was finalized before

congregation heard about it.

During the announcement portion of the service, pastors informed parishioners of this third

party social media survey. Parishioners were also informed that the information would

potentially help leaders to use social media in a better way. The survey was posted

electronically on the church website with a link and later shared through their Facebook page

no more than three times. As a result, only 65 out of the projected 200 participants completed

and submitted the survey initially.

Church leaders were asked if they would send out a message to their email database in the

hopes of gathering more information. They agreed and sent out an email with approved text
from both my former chairman and leadership from this church. On December 4, 2012, this

survey was launched with an email to all 11,600 email addresses found in their main database.

Although this main database included anyone who had ever provided their email address to this

church, the consent form served as a filter to remove attendees who were inactive, underage or

staff members. This email action warranted the responses of 262 people who completed this

social media survey. As a way to eliminate bias, staff members refrained from taking the survey

as requested in the consent form; this is strictly a way for the congregation to report their social

media uses with Facebook and Twitter. If they checked, “Yes, proceed to survey” on the

electronic survey they were given access to answer the questions on the subsequent pages (with

the option to quit at any time). If they checked, “No, Thank you,” they were excused from the

survey with the message, “Thank you for your time.” The actual questions of the survey also

helped to filter the respondents, such as “How often do you attend services at this church?”

Data were generated from the electronic instrument Survey Monkey, designed to assess social

media uses and levels of personal religiosity. The submitted surveys were sent directly to my

Survey Monkey account that housed all of the data.

Data Collection

The initial sample size was 200 respondents so when it reached 262 respondents the data was

saved in the Survey Monkey program. This program automatically calculated frequencies but

further statistics were needed in order to fulfill the purpose of this study. The data, except for

the responses to the open-ended question, was exported from Survey Monkey into a SAV file, a

format the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program (SPSS), can read, and code. The

SAV file was then uploaded into SPSS where further statistical functions were performed.

A frequency function was performed to get the mean, standard deviation and N (amount of

respondents) for each variable in the survey. The Pearson correlation function was used to find
relationships between religiosity and the use of Facebook and Twitter as defined and

operationalized in this study. A Pearson correlation function was also used to find possible

correlations between the following five combinations: ( 1) religiosity and age, (2) religiosity

and frequency of using Facebook, (3) religiosity and frequency of using Twitter, (4) religiosity

and length of time going to this church, and (5) religiosity and how often they attend services.

Each of the open-ended comments were reviewed and sorted into categories of dominant

themes. A second individual found similar categories and made suggestions about additional

ones. Both readers agreed on these categories and irrelevant comments were not included in the

discussion.

Validity and Reliability

This survey has content validity because the questions encompass an exhaustive account of the

social media used within this church. It refers to the extent to which all aspects of the topic are

examined within in the survey. In other words it refers to the actual measures of the study.

Doing so ensures that research questions are answered to the fullest extent and that the topic

itself is fully explored in an effort to have a complete study. These questions are the key

components in understanding who the parishioners are and what form of social media they

continue to prefer.

Internal consistency reliability is a way to test the actual questions of the survey. This test looks

at similar questions within in the survey and evaluates how participants answer them. It can

determine if the questions receive a wide range of answers or if participants see the similarity

and continue to answer them in the same way. For example, if a participant uses Facebook to be

closer to God, they should also agree with the faith commitment questions; any other

correlation has low reliability.

This study also has face validity because it appears as if it can measure uses and religiosity just

by looking at it. This is an important aspect for this survey because the questions and format

have to match up with the main goal; to take the religiosity as the main gratification and

compare it to the uses of Facebook and Twitter. Face validity is also important for participants

because it allows them to trust that the survey will use the information correctly and is coming

from a credible source. Reviewing the findings in this next section shows that it maintains

validity.

Limitations

Staff members were encouraged to opt out of taking this survey in an effort to keep the

responses completely pure of bias as leaders are also employees. With that being said, all of the

staff members attend this church with their families and have a community of friends at this

church. Although some could have taken this survey as a member of the congregation and not

as an employee, it was decided to leave out their responses.

Another limitation is that participants could skip any question throughout the survey and

advance to the rest of the questions without restriction. The percentages discussed in the

previous sections do not include the responses from participants who skipped questions.

Restricting the participants, especially with the faith commitments, could have given the

impression that in order to finish the survey they had to have their faith figured out. Restriction

could have alienated someone who did not feel like answering a particular question due to

sensitivity.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

Findings
A total of 262 parishioners participated in this survey. The response count for females was 56% and

males were 44%. No transgendered participants were reported. The ethnicity with the highest number of

participants was those who reported they were white at 201 respondents (M = 1.00, SD = .071). The

average age of participants for this survey was in their early forties and 55% are married (M = 2.17, SD

= 1.062). The average participant completed at least at some college (M = 4.99, SD = 2.042) and 22%

graduated from college. The average yearly income is $50,000 to $74,999 (M = 3.86, SD = 2.043). More

than 52% (M. 4.75, SD = 1.745) are employed and are working 40 hours or more per week.

The faith commitment statements help to measure the religiosity of the participants and were combined

to form an index of religiosity. The alpha reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, of the religiosity index is .854

(this represents a good level of reliability).

Those who use Facebook for information had a significant correlation with the religiosity index (r

= .176, p = < 0.01). There were significant correlations among the following Faith Commitments and

using Facebook for information: Those who pray regularly (r = .174, p = <0.01), those who believe

Jesus is the Son of God (r = .221, p = <0.01) and those who have a personal relationship with Jesus (r

= .146, p = <0.05). Those who use Facebook for social interaction had a significant correlation with

believing Jesus is the Son of God (r = .199, p = <0.01) and having a personal relationship with Jesus (r

=.155, p = <.05). Those who believe Jesus is the Son of God had a significant correlation with the

following Facebook uses: for information (r =.221, p = < 0.01), entertainment (r = .169, p = < 0.05) and

moral support (r = .138, p = < 0.05).

Participants agree they use Facebook for information (N= 227) (M =3.56, SD = 1.233) and (N

= 228) participants disagree that they use Facebook for spiritual guidance (M =2.33, SD =

1.100). In addition, (N = 228) participants agree that they use Facebook for entertainment (M

=3.85, SD = 1.102) while (N = 229) participants agree they use it to pass the time (M =3.85, SD

= 1.115). A total of (N = 227) respondents reported that they use Facebook for social
interaction (M =3.90, SD = 1.078). Table 1 shows a relationship between Facebook uses,

individual faith commitments, the religiosity index (FC) and Table 3 (p. 77) shows all

frequencies.

The Twitter use questions showed signs of a deeper connection shown in Table 2 (p. 76).

Participants (N = 85) agreed that they use Twitter for entertainment (M =3.27, SD 1.383).

Participants (N = 85) also disagreed that they used Twitter to feel close to God (M = 1.91, SD =

.908).

Open-Ended Question

The open-ended question gave participants the option to give their opinion regarding social

media use at this church. It asks, “The things you consider most important about this church’s

social media may not have been covered in this survey. Please feel free to make any additional

comments in the space provided below.” A total of 63 were submitted. I, along with my former

thesis chairman, evaluated each of the comments to look for any repeated phrases and key

words. We agreed on classifying the survey responses based on these popular key words and

phrases occurring five times or more.

After a full review, seven categories were created to accommodate the open-ended responses.

Out of the 63 responses, 13 respondents submitted statements that showed signs of resisting

social media, 11 respondents mentioned their constant search for information, 11 respondents

focused on finding out more about events, eight participants mentioned daily Bible verses as an

addition to the church’s social media, eight participants had positive opinions about the

church’s Facebook, six respondents did not know this church had social media and five

participants mentioned the preference to use this church’s website instead of their social media.

The remaining 17 comments were irrelevant to the survey, such as “I love pie.” The identity of

this church has remained anonymous by replacing the name of it by using “this church.” The
following includes examples of each category. The responses are listed with the same numbers

they have in Appendix A: The complete list of responses is in Appendix B (p. 65).

Resistant to Social Media

27. I'm not sure social media for my relationship with God is something I would

enjoy.

18. Please consider how best to communicate with the congregation that does not

use Facebook or other social media, we want to remain informed as well.

(Responses 1, 6, 7, 13, 18 20, 27, 29, 34, 37, 40, 56 and 57 fall under this category)

Information Seeking

8. The social media of this church is very important because it is difficult to get

specific information at the church itself. People that are manning the booths

need to be more informed.

38. The information is easily shared on Facebook. I love that they post videos of

some of the activities that the church participates in.

(Responses 2, 4, 6, 8, 18, 25, 36, 38, 42, 49, 59 fall under this category) Events

54. I like to see what events are coming up.

58. Upcoming events including concerts, night of praise, sermon message, etc.

(Responses 4, 7, 8, 16, 25, 28, 36, 49, 54, 58, 60 fall under this category)

Daily Verses (Encouragement)

 60. I wish they posted more inspirational quotes/bible verses.

36. Also, maybe it would be nice to have some quotes/ food for thought from what

our pastors and staff are reading currently. It would encourage people to use

their minds for God more.

(Responses 7, 9, 14, 24, 36, 60, 61, and 63 fall under this category)

Social Media Supporters

31. This church is very good about keeping people updated using Facebook.

26. I really appreciate this church and the varying ministries posts on Facebook

to keep me current on what studies we are in and what activities are up ahead.

(Responses 5, 12, 26, 31, 44, 46, 59 and 60 fall under this category)

Unaware of Church Social Media

22. I did not know about this church’s Facebook page nor can I remember

social media being prominently advocated.

51. I will definitely look for and follow this church on Twitter because I think it can

be a valuable tool in many ways.

(Responses 5, 15, 17, 22, 27 and 33 fall under this category)

Prefers Website

40. I don't see the Twitter comments regularly updated. Facebook is pretty good but I

use the website for information, not Facebook.

 57. I don't use this church's Facebook page, but I visit the website

regularly. (Responses 4, 6, 22, 40 and 57 fall under this category)

Discussion

This study examined the use of Facebook and Twitter at a mega church in Las Vegas, Nevada.

This use was compared to an index of religiosity and age. There were 29 total questions asked in

the electronic survey for this study. Overall, the findings show the Facebook and Twitter uses of

parishioners of this church have a relationship with their personal faith commitment to the

Christian faith. With the help of Abelman’s models of measurement, using the Lickert scale and

the same gratification categories, this survey was able to highlight significant correlations. This

academic foundation also allowed for the findings to be a relevant addition to the history and

body of work that have been validated by previous researchers. These data also represent details

that were previously unknown, such as social media uses and preferences of this congregation.

This aspect is important because it allows for customization of mass communication in the

future, not only for this church, but also any large organization looking for better ways to

communicate to their target audience.

Although there are many social media tools, the focus for this study was Facebook and Twitter.

At the beginning of this research, this church used Facebook and Twitter as their main sources of

social media communication. It was important that the research mirrored the same social media

uses in order to maintain relevance in the results.

This discussion section will review the findings and highlight other research methodologies that

could also work for this study and recommendations for future researchers regarding this topic.

Discussing the relationship between religiosity and social media use, as is shown in the findings,

reveals why this topic is important to examine. Assuming that there is little significance of
religiosity within the construct of uses and gratifications is no longer valid. A closer look at the

meaning behind the religiosity index points to an area of study waiting to be explored.

The religiosity index gives a personal look into the beliefs of the participants. Uses and

gratifications studies tend to focus on the use trends in comparison to demographics, instead of

introducing separate factors to include religiosity (Abelman 1987, 1988, 1989; Bonds-Racke &

Raacke 2010; Pisoniero 2012; Katz 1959, 1960; Katz & Gurevitch 1973). Even though it was

optional to share their personal Christian beliefs, more than 246 people decided to participate in

this section.

A significant correlation was found between the religiosity index and those who use Facebook

for information. This does not exclude the other uses; rather it highlights the one use that is

related to religiosity in a significant way. Using Facebook for information is a common use and

is therefore a topic of interest in comparison to religiosity. The need to be informed, repeated in

the open-ended section, might also indicate a desire to be in community. While using Facebook

for information can pertain to any number of things, it is the need to be informed that continues

to show up throughout the findings section. A participant could use Facebook to look up details

of an event, double check a birthday of a friend, or to get a look at a friend’s wedding pictures

that were recently posted and so on.

There was also a significant correlation between using Facebook for information and every faith

commitment variable except reading the Bible. This might be because the interface of Facebook

allows for users to share more aspects of their lives. For example, Facebook is set up to keep

track of everything you do on a timeline that shows up in your personal profile and in your

newsfeed. If you enter your life events in your timeline, such as your birthday, college

graduation day, wedding anniversary, birth of your child and so on, Facebook will keep track of

it and let your friends know when you add them as well. All of this information, including
photos and checking in to the location where you are updating from, is available for fellow users

to view and participate in once provided. This information is then directly connected to the

personal, everyday life of users, including faith commitments. In general, sharing personal

information is easier with Facebook.

Those who believe Jesus is the Son of God showed significance with using Facebook for

information, entertainment, moral support and social interaction. This finding also shows the

power of the Facebook interface as it allows users to share information and materials they find

entertaining (such as videos, photos, news articles and so on) in their newsfeeds that goes out to

everyone on their friends list. Although you can share these materials in a private manner

through Facebook messaging, the newsfeed is a constant source of information that shows the

material in an open manner. As a consequence, the photos, videos and other links are not hidden,

but rather automatically previewed by simply scrolling through the newsfeed.

No matter what kind of information is sought, the ultimate goal is to feel included and therefore

part of a larger church community. Integration is one of four elements that help define

community along with membership, influence and fulfillment (McMillan & George, 1984). This

sense of community is noted in this study as a minor, but important, aspect to this research.

A significant correlation was found between the religiosity index and those who use Twitter in

general, out of habit and as an escape. The interface of Twitter might be a leading factor for a

higher level of significance among religiosity. Twitter was designed for short messages (called

tweets) that are no more than 140 characters. These constraints force users to choose their words

wisely. Although you have the option to upload a photo or video to Twitter, it is mainly a

medium for words. Users are known to shorten words to make their tweets fit and retweet

messages from others. Unlike Facebook, users are able to share insights without getting too

personal. A celebrity or well-known pastor will likely use their personal Facebook to upload
family pictures and event invites. It’s highly unlikely that a famous person or group will get

“likers” on Facebook if they do not upload pictures, check-in at different locations, update their

status or add other personal elements. Alternatively, Twitter users can gain a significant

following with wit, information and inspiration alone.

There was a significant correlation between those who have a personal relationship with Jesus

and using Twitter for spiritual guidance, entertainment and feeling close to God. There was also

significant correlation between those who view reading the Bible as an important part of their

daily lives and the following Twitter uses: for spiritual guidance, feel close to God, moral

support, companionship, out of habit and to escape. All of these significant correlations lend

themselves to the way Twitter was designed. Pastors and churches share words of wisdom and

daily Bible verses on Twitter without the pressure of having to add a photo or video. Twitter

followers are then exposed to inspiration and provoking thoughts through the words instead of

images. This community can find comfort in positive religious thoughts and even retweet them

to share with their followers if they feel compelled to do so. Twitter can help cultivate some

aspects of having a personal relationship with Jesus and reading the Bible daily, depending on

how the participant is using it and who they are following.

In addition, the open-ended responses gave participants freedom to make suggestions and share

their feelings regarding social media at this church. Although some shared opinions that were

irrelevant to this topic, the majority of the responses were recognized and coded to benefit the

findings of the survey. A total of 13 responses showed signs of resistance to social media in

general, as well as in this church. There are signs of participants having positive experiences

with the social media at this church. Out of the 46 relevant responses, only eight of them

mentioned a positive social media experience. This is due to the resistance of social media and

frustration with the lack of cohesive information about events in particular. The following
recommendations could help this church use Facebook and Twitter more effectively among their

congregation.

Recommendations

This church would benefit from posting inspirational words and quotes from the main pastors as

well as Bible verses on Facebook and Twitter. These kinds of posts receive significantly more

attention (measured by “likes,” comments and shares) than any other posts. For example, an

inspirational quote from the main pastor received 113 likes and 28 people shared it. Conversely,

a post reminding participants about the current series and service times received 12 likes and no

shares. Participants relate to their pastors because they hear from them every week from the

stage. Pastors share personal stories about their lives and people get to know them over tine as

someone they can relate to. At this church, there is one lead pastor, but several other pastors also

deliver weekend sermons on an irregular rotation. Whether it is the lead pastor or the other

pastors at this church, there is a significant need for inspiration and hope through the church’s

social media. Participants get that inspiration when they can relate to a topic, quote or Bible

verse through social media.

The findings show that there are more Facebook users than Twitter users in this sample but the

Twitter users had more significant correlations with the faith commitments. Church leaders

should consider a more personal touch on the Facebook page, such as pictures of churchgoers

during the events. People like to see themselves and to be featured on the church’s Facebook

would be seen as an honor in some respects. Church leaders should also consider the

inspirational quotes and Bible verses on a daily basis due to the interface of Twitter and the fact

that their congregation was found to have more significant correlations with religiosity on

Twitter.
Parishioners’ uses of social media in relation to religiosity could help direct a more focused

approach. For example, the religiosity index has more significant correlations with Twitter and it

might help to use and promote it more. Conversely, the majority of their parishioners are on

Facebook and a look at customizing that information could help as well. The findings lead to the

idea that this study could have been done in other ways to warrant deeper examination on user

preferences within religiosity.

Future Studies

An ethnography is a qualitative type of research that allows the researcher to observe and

take note of the participants in their natural environment. Researchers can evaluate the

participants without the participant having to self report through a list of questions. Rather,

all data are recorded by the researcher. Future researchers could consider taking this approach

to further build on religiosity and social media.

Another approach for future researchers is content analysis. This form of study is the

examination of actual text. This would be beneficial in this study because researchers could

analyze posts and comments on the church’s Facebook and Twitter. Their website also has

comments from participants that researchers could study to get a better understanding of

religiosity in the social media world. This could have an impact on how churches

communicate to their congregations within the construct of social media.

Future studies could benefit by examining visual media forms, such as live streaming video

and YouTube. Some mega churches live stream their services online and upload videos of

worship for parishioners to watch remotely.

This church has 280 followers on Instagram, a popular social media tool that allows users to

share via photos and short video clips. A user can choose to follow other users or simply
collect users along the way. The only way to communicate is through “likes” and comments

for a photo or video clip. Some believe Instagram has less clutter than Facebook in the

newsfeed because of this fact. A future researcher could examine the photos, video clips and

activity of followers shared on this particular Instagram profile to further expand the

academic findings under uses and gratifications as well.

As for most organizations, distributing information is an important and multifaceted

undertaking. For this church, it requires attention to the latest trends while also maintaining

religiosity and personal preferences of the parishioners. While some would log on to the

Facebook page for up to date information, others would use the website or just ask a

volunteer at the information booth for more information. The need to be informed was one of

the top gratifications with Facebook, Twitter and in the open-ended question. Thumma &

Travis (2007) explain that mega church attendees have to be able to relate to the culture and

community of the church. Something as basic as being informed gives the parishioner a sense

of solid community where they feel welcomed and part of the mega church.

Traditional churches who may not use social media to communicate can take the findings of

this study to also examine their communication needs. While this study found significant

correlations between religiosity and Facebook and Twitter use, traditional churches might

find the similar correlations among their mass communication tools. Some traditional mass

communication tools include emails, hardcopy newsletters, announcement/bulletin board

inside church, phone calls and word of mouth. Having a preference for one or more of the

previous communication channels could reveal levels of usage as well as religiosity. This can

be applied to any church of any size or religion that has communication between the leaders

and the congregation.

According to one scholar, “In recent years individuals increasingly have interpreted their

religious commitments and beliefs in individualistic terms and less in terms of institutional

loyalty and obligation,” (Petersen, 1997, p. 1,073). These individualistic terms, among other

things, relate to communication preferences. The growth of mega churches is attributed to the

acknowledgement of these preferences as well as others. The “McDonaldization” (Watson &

Scalen, 2008, p. 171) of the church is one explanation for the huge growth among churches.

A deeper look into the individual gratifications could lead a broader understanding of uses

and gratification research in the future.

Table 1

Correlations Among Facebook Uses and Faith Commitment Variables

Pray Jesus Personal Bible FC

Info .174** .221** .146* .103 .176**

Spirit. Guide. .087 .121 .117 .071 .100

Entertain. -.032 .169* .108 -.118 .002

Feel God .113 .106 .077 .101 .110

Moral Supp. -.023 .138* .060 -.066 .016

 Companion. -.038 .117 .081 -.088 .00

Pass Time -.036 .087 -.035 -.156 -.071

Habit -.017 .104 -.012 -.104 -.033

Escape -.088 .048 -.051 -.171 -.102

Relax -.050 .060 -.048 -.174 -.087

Social .064 .199** .155* .069 .128

Notes. N’s range from 216 to 228 due to occasional missing data. Pray = I pray

regularly. Jesus = I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Personal = I feel like I have a

personal relationship with Jesus. Bible = Reading the Bible is an important part of my

life.

FC = Faith Commitments

* p < .05.

* p < .01

Table 2

Correlations Among Twitter Uses and Faith Commitment Variables

 Pray Jesus Personal Bible FC

Info .116 .195 .204 .206 .212

Spirit. Guide. .006 .080 .220* .276* .108

Entertain. .167 .154 .227* .140 .202

Feel God .076 .087 .223* .303** .215

Moral Supp. .106 .058 .169 .309** .206

Companion. .089 .058 .153 .237* .170

Pass Time .129 .168 .133 .064 .139

Habit .152 .136 .178 .261* .224*

Escape .233* .168 .211 .258* .265*

.193

Relax .132 .181 .205 .217

.159

Social .156 .170 .189 .202

Notes. N’s range from 216 to 228 due to occasional missing data. Pray = I pray

regularly. Jesus = I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Personal = I feel like I have a

personal relationship with Jesus. Bible = Reading the Bible is an important part of my

life.

FC = Faith Commitments

* p < .05.

* p < .01

Table 3 (A through M)

Frequencies-A

Consent Coming Attend Member Use FB

Form to this Services Class in general

church .

N 296 255 255 255 233

Mean 1.03 2.91 4.45 1.65 4.69

Std. Deviation .258 1.453 1.041 .669 1.386

Frequencies-B (Participant’s General Facebook Use)

FB From Church Faith “liked”

friends Church Posts Posts churchFB

N 232 231 231 231 233

Mean 1.75 1.73 1.75 2.24 4.69

Std. Deviation 1.115 .685 .882 .882 1.095

Frequencies-C (Facebook Uses)

Info Spirit Entertain Close to Moral

Guide God Support

N 227 228 228 226 228

Mean 3.56 2.33 3.85 2.00 2.75

Std. Deviation 1.233 1.100 1.102 .964 1.264

Frequencies-D (Facebook Uses)

Compan. Pass Habit Escape Relax

Time

N 229 229 227 229 229

Mean 2.86 3.85 3.50 2.89 3.13

Std. Deviation 1.252 1.115 1.242 1.313 1.276

76
Frequencies-E (Church Facebook)

Social Church Miss Read Easily do

Interact. FB Church Church without

daily FB Posts FB

N 227 229 227 225 228

Mean 3.90 2.18 2.76 2.80 3.22

Std. Deviation 1.078 .987 1.185 1.164 1.145

 References

Abelman, R. (1987). Why do people watch religious TV?: A uses and gratifications

approach. Review of Religious Research, 29(2)199-210.

Abelman, R. (1988). The impact of the PTL scandal on religious television

viewers. Journal of Communication & Religion, 11(1), 41-51.

Abelman, R. (1989). “PTL Club” viewer uses and gratifications. Communication

Quarterly, 37(1), 54-66.

(August 23, 2011). Virginia Earthquake 2011: Twitter users react to east coast tremors

(tweets). The Huffington Post, (Huff Post Green). Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/virginia-earthquake-2011-twitter-

reactions_n_934401.html#s336882title=Josue

Anderson, A. (2006). The Azusa street revival and the emergence of Pentecostal missions in the

early twentieth century. Transformation, 23(2), 107-118.

Baab, L. M. (2008). Portraits of the future church: A rhetorical analysis of congregational

websites. Journal of Communication & Religion, 31(2), 143-181. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ufh&AN=37008026&site=ehost-live

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing

foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication,58(4), 707-731.

Berelson. B. (1949). What 'missing the newspaper' means. Communications research, 1948,

eds. P. F. Lazarsfeld and F. N. Stanton. New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
Bogomilova, N. (2004). Reflections on the contemporary religious “revival” religion,

secularization, globalization. Religion in Eastern Europe, 24(4), 1-10. Retrieved

fromhttp://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.a spx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=15058224&site=ehost-live

Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. (2010). MySpace and Facebook: Identifying dimensions of uses

and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Differences Research, 8(1), 27-33.

Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=49314725&site=ehost-live

Butler, J. (1982). Enthusiasm described and decried: the Great Awakening as

interpretative fiction. The Journal of American History, 69(2), 305-325.

Butterworth, M. L. (2011). Saved at home: Christian branding and faith nights in the church

of baseball’. Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 97(3), 309-333.

Campbell, H. (2005). Making space for religion in Internet Studies. Information

Society, 21(4), 309-315.

Cantril, H. (1942). Professor quiz: A gratifications study. In P. F. Lazarsfeld&F. Stanton (Eds.),

Radio research 1941 (pp. 34–45). New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.

Church (n.d.) In Encyclopedia Britannica online. Retrieved from

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/117086/church

Cornwall, M., Albrecht, S., Cunningham, P.H., & Pitcher, B.L. (1986).

The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test.

Review of Religious Research, 27(3), 226-244.

Dennis, J. L. (1962). An analysis of the audience of religious radio and television programs

in the Detroit metropolitan area. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor.

Dobbelaere, K (1999). Towards an integrated perspective of the processes related to the

descriptive concept of secularization. Sociology of Religion, 60(3) 229-247.

Emmett, B. P. (1968). A new role for research in broadcasting. The Public Opinion

Quarterly, 32(4), 654-665.

Gantz, W. (1978). How uses and gratifications affect recall of television news. Journalism

Quarterly, 55(4), 664-72.

Gerbner, G. (1984). Religion and television.

Gilmore, K. (2009). A church without walls: Finding community in Central Christian

Church’s online campus.UNLV Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones. Paper 114.

http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/114.

Goreham, G. A., & Meidinger, N. J. (2003). Senior high youth group participation in rural

midwest churches Association of Youth Ministry Educators. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=11389084&site=ehost-live

Gramby-Sobukwe, S. & Hoiland, T. (2009). The rise of mega-church efforts in international

development: A brief analysis and areas for further research. Transformation: An International

Journal of Holistic Mission Studies.

Great Awakening. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/great+awakening

Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A Meta–

Analysis of recent studies.

Hadden, J., & Swan, C.E. (1981). Prime time preachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing.

Herzog, H. (1942). Professor quiz: a gratification study. Radio Research, 1941, eds. P. F.

Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton. New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

Hill, P. C. and R. W. Hood, eds. 1999. Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious

Education Professor the scientific study of religion,42(1), 43-55.

Hoover, S. (in press). The religious television audience: A matter of significance or size?

Review of Religious Research.

Horsfield, P. G. (1984). Religious television: An American experience. New York:

Longman.

Hunter, L. (August 22, 2011). 5 Reasons to take your Bible to church. Church Tech

Today: Technology: Technology for Today’s Church. Retrieved from

http://churchtechtoday.com/2011/08/22/5-reasons-bible-church/

Johnson, M. (January 23, 2013). The history of Twitter. Socialnomics: World of Mouth.

Retrieved from http://www.socialnomics.net/2013/01/23/the-history-of-twitter/

Katz, E. (1959). Mass communications research and the study of popular culture: An

Editorial Note on Possible Future for this Journal. 2-6.

Katz, E. (1960). Communication research and the image of society convergence of two

traditions. American Journal of Sociology, 65(5), 435-440.

Katz, E. (1987). Communications research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2),

25-45.

Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.

Katz, E. & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of the mass media as escape: Clarification of a

concept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (3), 377-388.

Kim, K. (2007). Ethereal Christianity: Reading Korean mega-church websites. Studies in World

Christianity, 13(3), 208-224. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=27984900&site=ehost-live

Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. F.& F. N. Stanton (eds.). (1942). Radio research, 1941. New York, Duell,

Sloan and Pearce.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (1949). Communication research 1948–1949.NewYork: Harper

& Row.

Lin, M., Hoffman, E., & Borengasser, C. (2013). Is social media too social for class? A case

study of twitter use. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(2),

39-45.

Lindlof, T. R., & Shatzer, M. J. (1998). Media ethnography in virtual space: Strategies, limits,

and possibilities. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2), 170.

Lovgen, S. (June 17, 2005) “War of the worlds”: Behind the 1938 radio show panic. National

Geographic News. Retrieved from

http://lhjhlibertyhill.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_4396527/File/Patterson/War

%20of%20the%20Worlds-%20Reg.pdf

Martelli, D. (February 21, 2013). The ultimate history of Facebook (infographic).

Technorati. Retrieved from http://technorati.com/social-media/article/the-ultimate-

history-of-facebook-infographic1/

Maslow, A. H. (1948) Some theoretical consequences of basic need-gratification. Journal of

Personality, 16(4), 402-416.

McLeod, J., Ward, S., & Tancill, K. (1965). Alienation and uses of the mass media.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(4), 583-594.

McMillanm, D. & George, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and

theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 1-14.

Mueller, D. P., & Cooper, P. W. (1986). Religious interest and involvement of young adults: A

research note. Review of Religious Research, 27(3), 245. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=11064513&site=ehost-live

Myers, Bryant (2003) Exploring world mission: Context and challenges. Monrovia, CA: World

Vision.

Ostling, R.N. (1986, February, 12). Power, glory – and politics, Time, 62-69 Park,

Namsu, Kee Kerk F. &. Valenzuela, Sebastian, “Being immersed in social networking
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social

outcomes”,CyberPsychobgy & Behavior, 12, (6), 729-733.

Petersen, L. R., & Donnenwerth, G. V. (1997). Secularization and the influence of

religion on beliefs about premarital sex. Social Forces, 75(3), 1071-1088.

Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=9704205067&site=ehost-live

91
Pettersson, T. (1986). The audiences' uses and gratifications of TV worship

services. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 391-409.

Phillips, Sarah (July 24, 2007). A brief history of Facebook. The Guardian. Retrieved

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia

Pisionero, C. (2012). A vision of uses and gratifications applied to the study of

Internet use by adolescents. Comunicación Y Sociedad, 25(2), 231-254.

Robinson, J. P. (1969). Television and leisure time: yesterday, today, and (maybe)

tomorrow. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(2), 210-222.

Roof, W.C. (1999). Spiritual marketplace: Baby boomers and the remaking of American

religion. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Rubin, A. M. (1981). A multivariate analysis of '60 Minutes' viewing motivations.

 Journalism Quarterly, 58, 529-534.

Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of

viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.

Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal

of Communication,34(3), 67-77.

Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication:

A research agenda. Critical Studies In Mass Communication, 2(1), 36.

Rubin, A. M. (1986). Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In J. Bryant &

D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 281–301). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rubin, A. & Windahl, S. (1986). The uses and dependency model of mass

communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3(2), 184-199.

92
Rubin, A. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication

Monographs, 60(1), 98.

Ruggiero, T. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21 st century. Mass

Communication & Society, 3(1), 3-37.

Severance, Diane (n.d.). When revival ran epidemic. Retrieved from

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1801-1900/when-

revival-ran-epidemic-11630508.html

Sims, Patsy. (1988). Can somebody shout amen!: Inside the tents and tabernacles of

American revivalists. New York: Saint Martin’s Press.

Smith, Craig (August 5, 2013). How many people use the top social media, apps &

services. DMR Digital Marketing Ramblings: The latest digital marketing stats,

tips trends and technology. Retrieved from

 http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-

social-media/

Song, I., Larose, R., Eastin, M., and Carolyn, A.(2004). Internet gratifications and

Internet addiction: On the uses and abuses of new media. Cyber Psychology &

Behavior, 7(4), 384-394.

Spitulnik, D. (1993) Anthropology and mass media. Annual Review of

Anthropology, (22) , 293-315.

Stout, D. A. (2004). Secularization and the religious Audience: A study of Mormons

and Las Vegas media. Mass Communication & Society, 7(1), 61-75.

Stout, D.A. (2012). Media and religion: Foundations of an emerging field. New York:

Routledge. p.1
93
Suchman, E. (1942). An invitation to music. Radio research, 1941, eds. P. F.

Lazarsfeld and F. N. Stanton. New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

Swanson, D. (1992). Understanding audiences: Continuing contributions of gratifications

research. Poetics, 21(4), 305-328.

Swatos, W. & Christiano, K. (1999). Introduction—secularization theory: The course of

a concept. Sociology of Religion, 60(3), 209-228.

Sims, P. (1988). Can somebody shout amen! Lexington, Kentucky: The University

Press of Kentucky.

Thomas, P. (2009) Selling God/saving souls: Religious commodities, spiritual markets

and the media. Global Media and Communication, 5(57), 57-76.

Thumma, S., & Travis, D. (2007). Beyond megachurch myths. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.
Twitchell, J. B. (2004). Branded nation: The marketing of megachurch, College, Inc.,

and Museumworld. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Urista, M. A., Qingwen, D., & Day, K. D. (2009). Explaining why young adults use

MySpace and Facebook through uses and gratifications theory. Human

Communication, 12(2), 215-229.

U.S. churches to watch. Church relevance: creating relevant effective ministries.

Retrieved from http://churchrelevance.com/resources/churches-to-watch/

Watson, J., J.B., & Scalen, J.,Walter H. (2008). ‘Dining with the devil’: The unique

secularization of American evangelical churches. International Social

Science Review, 83(3), 171-180. Retrieved from

94
 http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=36120281&site=ehost-live

Wilson, E. (1958). The problems and gratifications of launching a world poll. Public

Opinion Quarterly. 182-183.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research: An introduction.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Windahl, S. (1981). Uses and gratifications at the crossroads. In G. C. Wilhoit & H. de

Bock (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 174-185). Beverly

Hills: Sage.

Wise, K., Alhabash, S., & Park, H. (2010). Emotional responses during social

information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior &

Social Networking, 13(5), 555-562. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0365

Wolfe, K. M. and M. Fiske. (1949). Why children read comics. Communications

research, 1948, eds. P. F. Lazarsfeld and F. N. Stanton. New York, Harper.

Wuthnow, R. (2003). All in sync: How music and art is revitalizing American religion.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press.

Wyche, S., Haye, G., Harvel, L., & Grinter, R., (2006). Technology in spiritual

formation: An exploratory study of computer mediated religious

communications. New York City: New York. ACM.

95
2013’s top ranked churches in America. Church Relevance: Creating relevant effective

ministries. Retrieved from http://churchrelevance.com/resources/top-churches-in-

america/
96
Kenthea Albert-Leigh Joan Fogenay

Department of Journalism – Media Studies

University of Nevada Las Vegas

Las Vegas, Nevada 89154

702-302-1409

EDUCATION

Aug. 2010 to Dec. 2013

M.A. Journalism – Media Studies

University of Nevada Las Vegas

Aug. 2005 to May 2009

B. A. Journalism – Media Studies

University of Nevada Las Vegas

WORK IN PROGRESS

Fogenay, K. (2013). A Christian Mega Church Strives for Relevance: Examining social

media and religiosity (formatting is under review).

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

Fogenay, K. (2011, February). “Gleeks” (Fans of the TV show, “Glee”). Paper

presented at the West Popular and American Culture Associations (FWPCA/ACA) 23rd

Annual Conference., Las Vegas, Nevada.

97