Different theories on media effects on society

In this section, we

examine a range of ‘media effects’ theories, based on

categories of direct, indirect and limited effects.

Media effects: the various ways in which the media affects

or influences people.

1: Direct effects

Models that argue that the media has a direct and tangible

effect (usually a negative one) on behaviour are sometimes

called media-centric. Older forms of this model suggest a

relatively simple, direct and effective relationship between

media and the audience.

(a) Hypodermic

Hypodermic syringe or magic bullet models argue that

media messages are like a drug injected into the audience’s

mind. This implies that messages are transmitted and

received by an audience in ways that change or reinforce

their ideas and behaviour. Media messages, therefore, determine how audiences see and
understand the world in a directly measurable causal fashion: The media (cause) transmits
information and the audience reacts (effect) in a broadly predictable way

that can be directly attributed to the message received.

Audiences, therefore, are seen as passive receivers

rather than active interpreters of media messages.

This is based on the concept of mass society. Where

people are socially isolated, they have few strong

links to social networks, such as family, friends, work

colleagues or wider communities, that can provide

alternative sources of information and interpretation.

Audiences are receptive to whatever the media transmits

because their social isolation means they depend on it

for information.

(b) Cumulation theory is a variation of this basic idea that

suggests that media effects are cumulative, rather than

immediate. Prolonged exposure to violent films or games

can result in both changed behaviour and desensitisation.

The more someone is exposed to media violence, for

example, the less likely they are to be moved, shocked or

appalled by real violence.

(c) Transmission

Transmission models developed by Shannon and Weaver

(1949) suggest that the transmission process is split into

two parts:

■ the information source (such as a government

announcement)

■ the transmission source (such as a newspaper or

television report of the announcement).

Media messages can have different sources: direct

reporting might involve a newspaper printing a

speech made by a government minister, while indirect

reporting involves the speech being selectively

quoted to support a particular story. The source of

the message, in other words, will significantly affect

how it is received. It is also possible for audiences to

be indirectly affected by a media message through

their interaction with people who are directly affected.

These are people who pass on media messages through

conversation with those who have not personally

experienced them. This introduces concepts of noise

and interference – anything that distracts from

or interferes with the transmission of a message.

The media can introduce noise through selective

reporting, while audiences may receive the same

message in different ways, both directly and indirectly.

Transmission models are a more sophisticated

explanation of media effects than their hypodermic

counterparts because, although they suggest direct

effects, these are mediated and modified through

different channels and sources. This makes it more

difficult to measure the exact effect of the media.

Gauntlett (1998), however, suggests that all

transmission models have a basic flaw: they see

audiences as uncritical individuals, easily influenced

by whatever they read, see or hear. Gauntlett also

suggests that the empirical evidence for direct media

effects is weak, partly because most research takes place

under artificial conditions, such as a laboratory. These

do not adequately represent the real situations and

contexts in which people use the media (an ecological

fallacy):

■ Bandura et al.’s (1961) ‘Bobo doll’ experiment is

frequently cited as evidence that watching televised

violence produces violence in children. One of the

weaknesses of the study was that the children were ‘rated

for violence’ by adult assessors, which raises questions

about the objectivity of the research.

■ Belson (1978) also claims that prolonged exposure to

media violence produces violent behaviour in young

males. Hagell and Newburn (1994), however, found

a general lack of interest in television among young

off enders.

The focus of direct-effects models has also changed in

recent times. It has moved away from general audiences

and towards the idea of vulnerable audiences, children in

particular. The argument here is that their lack of social

experience and tendency to copy behaviour makes children

more susceptible to direct media effects (and copy-cat

violence in particular) than adults. Evidence for direct

effects tends to be anecdotal – the media claims, rather

than proves, a relationship between, for example, violent

behaviour and violent play. Gauntlett (1995) demonstrates

how even very young children may be media literate – they

have an understanding about the media and how it works.

For example, most children can distinguish between fictional

and factual representations of violence.

2: Indirect effects

Cultural-effects models suggest that while effects are

strong in the long term, they are slow, cumulative and

operate through the media’s ability to become part of

an audience’s cultural background. The more the media

plays a valued role in everyday interaction, the greater the

consumption, and the stronger the long-term influence.

-These models see the media as a cultural (or ideological)

institution whose primary role is to promote and police

cultural values. The media is an agent of social control

the ideas that it propagates decisively influence people’s

behaviour. Newbold (1995), for example, argues that the

media acts at the institutional (large group) level of society,

not at the level of individual beliefs. It exercises social control through its actions as a socialising
agency, advising
and guiding audiences and, by so doing, exercising a

hegemonic role.

(e) Cultivation: Cultivation theory suggests that television,

in particular, cultivates distinctive attitudes and orientations

in its audience over time, rather than directly determining

behaviour. People who watch a lot of television gradually

take on board the beliefs and attitudes to which they are

exposed. If crime is constantly portrayed on television,

people become fearful of crime in ways that are out of all

proportion to their risk of becoming a victim to it. For

Chandler (1995), the media ‘induces a general mindset’

around particular areas of social life, such as crime, taking

on a hegemonic role where some beliefs are encouraged and

others discouraged. Attitudes and behaviour do not change

overnight, however. Media effects are gradual, long term

and built up through a range of techniques:

■ the consistent promotion of particular ideas

■ the marginalisation of dissenting views

■ the repetition of ideas until they taken for granted (to the

point that, for example, ‘everyone knows’ crime

is increasing).

According to this perspective, the media leads people

towards particular ideas and ways of thinking. As Gerbner

et al. (1986) suggest: ‘The continual repetition of patterns

(myths, ideologies, “facts”, relationships, etc.) serve to

define the world and legitimize the social order’.

)f): Audience

reception theory is an example of this type of model. It

is based on the idea that media messages always have a

range of possible meanings and interpretations. Some of

these are intended by the sender (a newspaper owner or an

author, for example) and others are read into the message

by the audience. As Hall (1980) argues, even simple media

texts, such as an advert, involve:

■ encoding – the ideas the author wants an audience to

grasp

■ decoding – how an audience interprets or decodes the

message, depending on factors such as their social

background or the context in which the message is

received. A receiving audience always has some choice

about whether to accept or reject a message. Their

receptiveness, however, depends on a range of personal

and social factors. Hall suggests three main ways a

media message is read by an audience: hegemonic codes,

negotiated codes and oppositional codes.

■ Hegemonic codes: the audience shares the assumptions

and interpretations of the author and reads the message

in the way it was intended.

■ Negotiated codes: although the audience broadly shares

the author’s views, they modify their interpretation in the

light of their own particular feelings, beliefs or attitudes.

■ Oppositional codes: The audience is antagonistic

towards the author and therefore rejects the message.

-(Professional codes of presentation also package the

message in a recognisably professional format.) This basic

set of responses is, however, complicated by three further

media processes:

1 Agenda setting: McCombs and Shaw (1972) argue that

the media identifies and selects the ideas people are

encouraged to think about. It has the power to put

certain issues ‘up for discussion’ while attempting to

close down issues they do not want discussed.

2 Framing involves presenting ideas to audiences in ways

that suggest how they should be interpreted. Audiences

are primed to understand issues and ideas in terms of

what Simon and Xenos (2000) call ‘elite discourses’:

how media owners and controllers want their

audiences to understand an issue. This may involve,

for example, highlighting certain opinions while

marginalising or ignoring others.

3 Myth making: Gerbner (1994) argues that the media has

grown so powerful and pervasive in global societies that

it creates mythical realities for audiences who immerse

themselves in media content. The heavier an individual’s

media consumption, from watching television, reading

newspapers, surfing the web or social networking, the

more likely they are to be drawn into a ‘fantasy world’

of the media’s creation, such as believing crime and

violence are more prevalent than they actually are.

3; Limited eff ects:

Audio-centric or diffusion approaches

focus on how audiences use the media to satisfy particular

needs. These approaches suggest that the media has few,

if any, measurable effects, an idea neatly summarised by

Berelson et al.’s (1948) observation that ‘some kinds of

communication on some kinds of issues brought to the

attention of some kinds of people under some kinds of

conditions have some kinds of effects.’ Diffusion theories

focus on how media messages spread across an audience

through a trickle-down effect. Although messages originate

with media producers, they are received by an audience in

two ways:

■ directly, such as personally viewing a news broadcast

■ indirectly, through interaction with those who directly

received the message, other media sources reporting the

original message and so forth.

In other words, an original message is continually

relayed throughout an audience and, at each stage of

the retelling, the message may be subtly changed or

reinterpreted.

Two-step flow: Katz and Lazarfi eld (1955) suggest

a two-step flow model, in which messages fl ow in two

distinct steps:

1 From the media to opinion formers – people who directly

receive a message, such as a news report, are interested

enough to want to relay it to others and influential

enough for them to take note of the message.

2 From opinion formers to people in their social

network, those who receive the original message in

a mediated form – edited, condensed, embellished –

from people like family and friends (primary groups).

In this normative model of media effects, Katz and

Lazarfi eld argue ‘informal, interpersonal relations’

are the key to understanding how mass audiences

responded to media messages. Any behavioural changes

result from how messages are interpreted, discussed

and reinterpreted within primary groups, rather than

from any direct media influence. This idea is supported

by Shannon and Weaver’s concept of noise; the

original message easily becomes lost, over-simplified

and misrepresented through social interactions. In

this respect, Klapper (1960) concludes that mass

communication ‘does not serve as a necessary and

sufficient cause of audience effects’. Rather, it functions in

highly selective ways, in terms of:

■ perception – people notice some messages but not

others

■ exposure – people choose media messages consistent

with their beliefs

■ expression – people listen to the opinions of people

important to them

■ retention – people remember things that fit with their

beliefs and forget those that do not

■ selection – some messages are never relayed.

-Reinforcement Theory is related to flow/diffusion models

in that it focuses on the social context of media use. How

the media affects people depends on the social groups

to which they belong. Klapper, for example, argues that

people’s beliefs are related to their social groups (primary

groups being the most significant). One important role of a

secondary group such as the media was to reinforce, either

positively or negatively, the beliefs already formed. This

suggests a very limited type of ‘media effect’.

-Uses and gratifications: This model takes the

separation between media and audience a step further by

arguing that consumers pick and choose both media and

messages; they use the media for a range of gratifications.

McQuail et al. (1972) suggest four primary uses and

gratifications:

■ Entertainment – as a diversion from everyday life.

■ Social solidarity – talking about a shared experience,

such as seeing the same film or television programme

or playing the same online game, serves an integrating

function by making people feel they have things in

common.

■ Identity – to create or maintain a sense of ‘who we are’.

It is a resource, from reading lifestyle magazines to

maintaining a Facebook presence, used to construct and

maintain and project a sense of self.

■ Surveillance – providing news and information about an

increasingly complex world.

Severin and Tankard suggest another use – companion -

ship – when they found the heaviest media users were

those who were lonely or socially isolated.

Overall, therefore, the uses and gratification model

suggests the media is:

■ powerless, in terms of its ability to directly influence or

change behaviour

■ neutral, in the sense of not having any direct effect on

attitudes

■ unimportant as far as researchers are concerned, since

the object of study is the active audience rather than

the media.

Although the idea of active audiences is important in

understanding media effects, particularly as they relate

to old media, its significance may be overstated I unwarranted and unsupported primary significance
in

terms of how media messages are interpreted.

■ Diffusion models suggest the media has few, if any,

effects, yet advertisers spend billions each year

precisely because they believe the media has clear and

direct effects that can be measured in terms of sales.

two respects:

■ Stam (2000) claims that limited effects models

‘essentialise the audience’ by giving them an -