Limited Effects Media Theories

Introduction

Media messages do not have direct effects on the audience. This is because
we have individual differences; what appeals to Mr. A may not appeal to Mr.
B. More so, people perceive media messages differently because they have
different psychological dispositions, past experiences, cultural expectations
and social relationships. Many mass communication researchers like Paul
Lazarsfeld and Joseph Klapper never supported the idea that mass media
messages have direct effect on the audience (as assumed by the magic bullet
theory). Their refusal to support the theory gave rise to the law of minimal
consequence, which means that there is limited effect of mass media
messages. Baran (2002), however, classified all the theories into the limited
effects theory era. Klapper (1960) formulated several generalisations on the
effects of the media. His research shows that:

Mass media ordinarily, do not serve as a

necessary and sufficient cause of audience
effects, rather, they function through a nexus
of mediating factors and influences. These
mediating factors render mass
communication as a contributory agent in a
process of reinforcing the existing conditions.
Mass media alone cannot be the sole cause of
audience change; they must work with other
variables or factors before they can have
effects on the audience-members.

The import of Klapper's assertion is that mass media messages are

minimally powerful; they have limited effects on the audience-members.
This, therefore, implies that media are no longer the tools of manipulation

52
and oppression or fear. Only few people are open to psychological
manipulation of media; media are relatively powerless in shaping public
opinion due to individual and group differences among people. Thus, media
messages must work in line with the pre-existing attitudes of the audience-
members before they can have direct effect on them. The messages must be
consistent with the needs, interests, beliefs, attitudes, etc. of the audience if
they must have direct effect on them. The theories hold that the audience is
made up of different people with their different characteristics. People are
different in terms of attitudes, personality and lifestyles. Individuals perceive
things differently. Based on these factors, the mass media audience will
respond differently to the same message from the radio, television,
newspapers, magazines, etc. What Mr. A likes is not what Mr. B will like.
Research has shown that people are all different in their psychological make-
up, while the entire audience share the behaviour pattern of their culture,
every individual has a different cognitive structure of needs, perceptions,
beliefs, values, attitudes, skills, etc. Thus, media messages must be in line
with the following variables before they can have direct effect on the
audience-members:

i Selective Exposure: The notion of selective exposure holds that an

audience's interpretation of media is influenced by their own personal beliefs
(Asemah & Nwaoboli, 2022). People selectively expose themselves to media
messages. This screening aspect depends on many factors; such as: reach of
media, accessibility, age, cultural acceptability, taboos, etc. Individuals
expose themselves to selected messages and because of this it is difficult for
other messages to have effect on them. The effect of the message depends on
the type of message audience-members expose themselves to. Messages
people do not expose themselves to, cannot have effect on them. The media
cannot change the attitude of audience-members if other factors more
fundamental are not inclusive. The mere fact that we have selective exposure
makes it difficult for media messages to have effect on the audience-
members. People tend to expose themselves to those mass communication
messages, which are in agreement with their attitudes and interests. It is an
irrefutable fact that people seek out those information which only cater to
their own interests, beliefs and boost their own ego, while avoiding those
ones that are contrary to their own dispositions and attack their self-image.
This determines which newspapers to subscribe to or read, which television
stations to tune to and which programmes to watch. Baran (2002) ''opines that
selective exposure or attention is the process by which people only attend to
those media messages consistent with their pre-existing attitudes and
beliefs.''

53
ii. Selective Perception: This predicts that people will interpret
messages in a manner consistent with their pre-existing attitudes and
beliefs. This is the tendency to interpret communication messages in terms
of one's existing attitudes. People of distinct psychological characters see
media content in different ways; this depends on factors such as age, values,
family and opinions. Selective perception is influenced by social
relationships. Each of us tend to perceive and decode communication
messages in the light of our previous experiences and current dispositions-
our needs, moods and memories. The way Mr. A perceives things is different
from the way Mr. B perceives. People selectively perceive media messages.

iii. Selective Retention: This is the ability of an individual to retain

certain messages in his mind, while ignoring others. This is influenced by
various psychological factors such as choices, values, culture and emotions
(Ajagbe & Asemah, 2021). This theory assumes that people remember best
and longest those messages that are consistent with their pre-existing
attitude and beliefs. People tend to retain messages that are useful to them
when they are exposed to a certain medium. The mass media audiences do
not retain everything; they only retain and remember the important details
and as such, it becomes difficult for those ones not retained to have any
effect on them. Two people cannot have the same interest. The different
mass media audiences have their different interests. None of the audience
can remember all the messages received either through the electronic or
print media. People tend to forget some messages more quickly than others.
We remember accurately those messages that are favourable to our self-
image than messages that are unfavourable.

iv. Selective Attention: People select which information to pay

attention to at any given time. The messages that do not arrest the attention
of the audiences will not have direct effect on them. This explains why
advertisers use all kinds of gimmicks to catch and retain audiences'
attention.
These selective processes help us to select what information we
consume, remember and interpret in personally important and idiosyncratic
ways. They work in a rather complex ways and not in isolation. The media
are full of competing messages. The process of screening vast amount of
information in which one has no interest through mental filters is called
selective attention, for example, an adult will be more tuned to listening to
the news, while a child would rather watch a cartoon show.

54
Uses and Gratifications Theory

Elihu Katz first introduced the uses and gratifications theory when he came
up with the notion that people use the media to their benefits. The perspective
emerged in the early 1970s as Katz and his two colleagues, Jay Blumler and
Michael Gurevitch continued to expand the idea. This theory was
contemporary because it contradicted older views that assumed the audience
was a passive group. ''The uses and gratifications approach views the
audience as active; meaning that they actively seek out specific media and
content to achieve certain results or gratifications that satisfy their personal
needs'' (Rossi, 2002). The uses and gratifications theory of the media is one of
the theories of mass communication that call attention to what people do with
the media rather than what the media do to people (Edegoh, Asemah &
Nwammuo, 2013). It originated in the 1970s as a reaction to traditional mass
communication research, emphasising the sender and the message; stressing
the active audience and user instead (University of Twente, n. d). The uses
and gratifications theory is a mass communication theory that tries to
understand why people actively seek to go after certain forms of media to
seek specific needs. The uses and gratifications theory originated from the
functionalist perspective on mass media communication (Luo, 2002, cited in
Karimi, Ehsani & Ahmad, 2014) and it might be characterised by an
inductive method for developing classifications of different motivations and
functions of media use (Ruggiero, 2000; Weiser, 2001, cited in Karimi et al
2014). The approach springs from a functionalist paradigm in the social
sciences; it presents the use of media in terms of the gratifications of social or
psychological needs of the individual (Blumler & Katz 1974, cited in
Chandler, 1994).
The theory, which is also called ''utility theory'' seeks to explain what
function a particular kind of media content serves in a particular
circumstance. The theory seeks to investigate what people do with
communication content, instead of what the communication content does to
them. Folarin (1998) notes that the theory perceives the recipient as actively
influencing the effect process, since they selectively choose, attend to,
perceive and retain the media messages on the basis of their needs and
beliefs. The focus according to Folarin (1998) was shifted from media
production and transmission functions, to the media consumption function.
During the era of limited effects theory, the researchers turned their focus to
media consumers to further explain how influence is limited. The new body
of thought that resulted was called the uses and gratifications theory which
claimed that media do not do things to people; rather people do things with

55
the media. In other words, the influence of media is limited to what people
allow it to be. Uses and gratifications approach also postulates that the media
compete with other information sources for audience's need satisfaction. As
traditional mass media and new media continue to provide people with a
wide range of media platforms and contents, it is considered one of the most
appropriate perspectives for investigating why audiences choose to be
exposed to different media channels. That is, why is it that people like some
media contents and dislike others? The approach emphasises audiences'
choice by assessing their reasons for using a certain media to the disregard of
others, as well as, the various gratifications obtained from the media, based
on individual social and psychological requirements (Severin & Tankard,
1997).
Thus, uses and gratifications theory emphasises motives and the self-
perceived needs of audience members. Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch (1974)
argue that different people can use the same communication message for
different purposes. The same media content may gratify different needs for
different individuals. There is not only one way that people use the media
contents. Contrarily, there are as many reasons for using the media as there
are media users. Basic needs, social situations and the individual's
background, such as experiences, interests and education, affect people's
ideas about what they want from media and which media best meet their
needs. That is, audience-members are aware of and can state their own
motives and gratifications for using different media.
Wimmer & Dominick (2000) point out that ‘‘uses and gratifications
theory takes the view of a media consumer. It examines how people use the
media and the gratifications they seek and derive from their media
behaviours.’’ Uses and gratifications researchers assume that audiences are
aware of and can articulate their reasons for consuming various media
contents. Most mass communication theories talk about the effects of mass
media on people; they are aimed at answering the question, what do the
media do to the people? Uses and gratifications theory on the other hand
seems to answer the question, what do the people do with the media? In other
words, instead of the question, what type of effect occurs and under what
condition? Uses and gratifications theory asks the question, who uses which
content from the media and under what conditions and for what reason? That
is, what do people use the media for? The question it is asking is why do we
use some contents and not use others. It is not every message we expose
ourselves to. Why is it that people do not expose themselves to all media
messages?

56
 The theory talks about reciprocal gesture between the media and
media consumers. The media are useful to the society and the society is also
useful to the media; hence we call it uses and gratifications theory. The theory
is a reaction theory. Reaction because it started as a question; researchers
asked why certain things were being talked about (effects) and others
neglected (uses). Bernard Berelson conducted research and the topic of the
research was, ''what does missing the media mean to you''? It became obvious
from the different responses he got that people use the media to satisfy their
needs. He, therefore, concluded that the society use the media to satisfy their
purposes. The uses and gratifications theory, therefore, reminds us that
people use the media for many purposes. In 1972, McQuail, Blumler &
Brown suggested the following individual needs categories:

i. Diversion Needs: The media can be used to divert attention from

loneliness, anxiety, troubles, etc. Radio, television, newspapers, etc. serve as
the means of emotional release. When you are emotionally disturbed, you
can use mass media to divert these emotions.

ii. Personal Relationship Needs: The mass media serve as substitutes

to our friends, husbands, children and wives not around us. This means
substitutes of media for companionship.

iii. Personal Identity/Individual Psychology Needs: Psychologically,

everybody wants to look important. Because of the need to look important,
people buy tapes, newspapers, magazines, television and video machines.
We use the media for value reinforcement and self-understanding.

iv. Surveillance Needs: People use the media to survey the environment
so as to know what is happening within and without. With the mass media,
people can monitor trends. This enables the people to get the information that
may help accomplish certain tasks.
In 1973, Katz, Gurevitch and Hass discovered thirty-five needs
satisfied by the media, but they decided to categorise them into five (5):

i. Cognitive Needs: People use the media to acquire knowledge, get

information and know issues and personalities around them. Every human
being has cognitive needs; the media are always there to give all you want to
know.

ii. Affective Needs: Affective is gotten from affection. It talks about the

57
desire for something good, nice and beautiful. The mass media provide all
these fashions. If you want beautiful things, you can use the media.
Friendship, love, etc. are all under affection. Affection has to do with
anything good that you appreciate emotionally and naturally. Thus, people
use the media for emotional and pleasurable experience.

iii. Personal Integration Needs: People want to personally belong to a

particular group, belief, norm, value and race. Every normal human being
needs a good status to be highly respected. If one cannot get there, one uses
the media to reach that social status.

iv. Social Integrative Needs: It is to enable you have contact with your
friends, family, etc. At a social level, you want to be used to what your friends
are used to. You want to be part of your society.

v. Tension Release Needs: It has to do with the way you use the media
to divert emotion from your ways whenever you are angry. It is almost
synonymous with diversion need. If you have an appointment with
somebody, you will be anxious to see the person; there will be a kind of
tension in you; you can pick up a novel and start reading so as to release the
tension in you. Every human being is subjected to a tension.
Five basic assumptions were stated in a study of Katz, Blumler &
Gurevitch in 1974. The five assumptions provide a framework for
understanding the correlation between media and audiences. They are:

i The audience is conceived as active. That is, an important part of

mass media use is assumed to be goal oriented. Patterns of media use
are shaped by more or less definite expectations of what certain kinds
of contents to offer the audience- member.

ii. In the mass communication process, much initiative in linking need

gratifications and media choice lies with the audience-members. This
places a strong limitation on theorising about any form of straight-
line effect of media contents on attitudes and behaviour.

iii. The media compete with other sources of need satisfaction. The
needs served by mass communication constitute, but a segment of the
wider range of human needs and the degree to which they can be
adequately met through mass media consumption certainly varies.

iv. Methodologically speaking, many of the goals of mass media use can

58
 be derived from data supplied by individual audience-members. That
is, people are sufficiently self-aware to be able to report their interests
and motives in particular cases or at least, to recognise them when
confronted with them in an intelligible and familiar verbal
formulation.

v. Value judgements about the cultural significance of mass

communication should be suspended, while audience orientations
are explored on their own terms.

Applicability of Uses and Gratifications Theory

Uses and gratifications theory provides an analytical framework for
explaining consumer motivations for media usage. Thus, it can be applied in
various areas of research; it can be applied in research that has to do with the
utilisation and adoption of the media; for example, uses and gratifications of
social media among youths, women, advertising practitioners, public
relations practitioners, etc. This is because as noted by Ruggiero (2000), the
theory explains the gratifications consumers seek in a particular medium and
their perceptions of, and affinity for that medium and its content. Roy (2009)
notes that the theory acknowledges individual use and choice and that
different people can use the same medium for different purposes. Other areas
where the uses and gratifications theory can be applied include research on
influence of instructional television programming on youths, exposure of the
audience to the mass media and many other related areas.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Uses and Gratifications Theory

Uses and gratifications theory has its strengths and weaknesses. One of the
strengths is that it served an important function in the development of mass
communication theory by stressing the reciprocal gesture of the mass
communication process. That is, scientists began to take seriously the idea
that people are important in the process; they choose content, they make
meaning and they act on that meaning; another strength of the uses and
gratifications theory is that it indicates what the audience can do with a
particular mass medium. This is because the media cannot manipulate the
audience, thereby making them independent in selection of information; the
audience-member will either accept or reject the media content if it is not in
line with what they want.
The theory allows the individual to identify him/herself; that is,
individuals can make their own meanings from the content from the media
without being forced to think in a certain way. Another strength of the theory

59
lies in its flexibility and descriptive power; it vividly discusses how people
use the media to satisfy their various needs and purposes. For example, in
1984, McQuail presented the idea of “user taste” when examining the
selection of media, which proposed that users select media based on
personal preferences and that media are simply a means to reaching an end
goal. The theory has the ability to adapt to changing technologies in the
communication spectrum. The primary strength of uses and gratifications
theory is its ability to permit researchers to investigate mediated
communication situations via single or multiple sets of psychological needs,
psychological motives, communication channels, communication contents
and psychological gratifications within a particular or cross-cultural context
(Lin 1996, cited in Chigona, Kamkwenda & Manjoo, 2008).
However, because the uses and gratifications theory emphasises
audience- members' motives for making specific consumption choices and
the consequences of that media intentional use, it is sometimes seen as being
too apologetic for the media industries. In other words, when negative media
effects are seen as the product of audience-members' choices and uses, the
media industries are absolved of some responsibility for the content the
producer carries. Media simply give people what they want. This theory is
also criticised because it assumes not only that people know why they make
the media content choice they do, but also that they can clearly articulate
those reasons to uses and gratifications researchers. The theory ignores the
fact that much media consumption is unintentional- when we read the
newspapers for election news, we cannot help, but see advertising messages.
It is highly individualistic, taking into account only the individual
psychological gratifications derived from individual media use. The social
context of the media use tends to be ignored. This overlooks the fact that
some media use may have nothing to do with the pursuit of gratifications.
The use may be forced upon us. The theory ignores the cultural role of the
media in shaping people's media choices and uses. The theory does not
provide much successful prediction or casual explanation of media choice
and use. Since it is indeed that much media use is circumstantial and weakly
motivated, the approach seems to work best in examining specific types of
media where motivation might be presented. There is relatively little
attention paid to media content. Researchers only attend to why people use
the media, but less, to what meanings they actually get out of their media use.
Despite the wide range of choices available to users, they have no control
over the media and what it produces. What they consume is solely prepared
by gatekeepers and may include their influences and perception.

60
Agenda Setting Theory

The theory of agenda-setting can be traced to the first chapter of Walter

Lippmann's 1922 book, Public Opinion. Lippmann argues that the mass
media are the principal connection between events in the world and the
images in the minds of the public. Without using the term "agenda-setting,"
Walter Lippmann was writing about what we today would call "agenda-
setting." Following Lippmann, in 1963, Bernard Cohen observed that the
press "may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think,
but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about. The
world will look different to different people," Cohen continues, "depending
on the map that is drawn for them by writers, editors and publishers of the
paper they read. As early as the 1960s, Cohen had expressed the idea that later
led to formalisation of agenda-setting theory by McCombs and Shaw. Thus,
in 1922, Walter Lippmann's book on Public Opinion set the stage for the
theory of agenda setting by arguing that “the news media construct our view
of the world (Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, 2009). Lang & Lang (1966)
reinforced this notion by observing that the mass media pay attention to
certain issues, they are constantly presenting objects, suggesting what
individuals should think and have feelings about.
Agenda-setting theory was formally developed by Max McCombs
and Donald Shaw in a study on the 1968 American presidential election. In
the 1968 Chapel Hill study, McCombs and Shaw demonstrated a strong
correlation coefficient between what 100 residents of Chapel Hill, North
Carolina thought was the most important election issue and what the local
and national news media reported was the most important issue. By
comparing the salience of issues in news content with the public's
perceptions of the most important election issue, McCombs and Shaw were
able to determine the degree to which the media determine public opinion.
Since the 1968 study, published in a 1972 edition of Public Opinion
Quarterly, more than 400 studies have been published on the agenda-setting
function of the mass media and the theory continues to be regarded as
relevant (Anonymous, n. d). The theory was, therefore, proposed by
McCombs and Shaw in 1972/1973. Agenda setting theory as noted by Ikpe
(2012) metamorphosed from hypothesis to a theory and the rule has changed
from agenda setting to agenda building. The major assumption of the theory
is that the media set agenda for the public to follow. The theory holds that
most of the pictures we store in our heads, most of the things we think or
worry about, most of the issues we discuss, are based on what we have read,
listened to or watched in different mass media (Asemah & Asogwa, 2012;

61
Asemah, Edegoh & Nwammuo, 2013; Edegoh, Asemah & Udeh-Akpe,
2013; Ogwo, Nnaemeka & Asemah, 2013; Santas, Asemah & Jumbo, 2020).
The media make us to think about certain issues, they make us to think or feel
that certain issues are more important than others in our society. The agenda
setting theory argues that the media may not tell us what to think, media may
tell us what to think about.
Thus, in choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff and
broadcasters play an important part in shaping public agenda. Thus, readers
not only learn about a given issue, but how much importance to attach to the
issue by the amount of information in a news story and its position
(Anwumabelem & Asemah, 2021; David & Asemah, 2021; Omoevah,
Oladele & Asemah, 2022). The media agenda-setting theory of McCombs &
Shaw (1972, p. 177), cited in Olaoye, Enyindah & Asemah, 2022)
established that the mass media could influence their audiences. Readers
learn about a given issue and how much importance to attach to the issue
from the amount of information in a news story and its position
(Anwumabelem & Asemah, 2021). Based on their study of the media's roles
in the 1968 presidential election, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw
wrote in (1972) that:

In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom

staff and broadcasters play an important part in
shaping political reality. Readers learn not only
about a given issue but, how much importance to
attach to the issues from the amount of information
in a news story and its positions.

Wimmer & Dominick (2000) observe that the theory on agenda

setting by the media proposes that the public agenda or what kinds of things
people discuss, think and worry about is powerfully shaped and directed by
what the media choose to publicise. This means that if the news media chose
to give the most time and space to covering HIV/AIDS, this issue will
become the most important item on the audiences' minds. The foregoing
implies that the media ''play drums and when they play their drums,'' we
begin to dance to the tune of their music. It is, however, worthy to note that
the issues raised by the media change from time to time and it is because the
society is dynamic. So many events transpire in our society on daily basis.
Thus, as events happen at different times, the issues raised by the media
change. Folarin (1998) notes that the agenda setting theory implies that the
mass media pre-determine what issues are regarded as important at any given
time in a given society; agenda setting theory does not ascribe to the media

62
the power to determine what we actually think, but does ascribe to them the
power to determine what we are thinking about. The elements involved in
agenda setting according to Folarin (1998) include: the quantity or frequency
of reporting; prominence given to the reports through headlines display,
pictures and layout in newspapers, magazines, films, graphics or timing on
radio and television; the degree of conflict generated in the reports; and
cumulative media specific effects over time. As noted by Griffin (2000, p.
360):
McCombs and Shaw believed that the mass
media have the ability to transfer the salience of
items on their news agendas to the public
agenda. They are not suggesting that broadcast
and print media make a deliberate attempt to
influence listener, viewer or reader opinions on
issues. Reporters in the free world have a
deserved reputation for independence and
fairness, but McCombs and Shaw say that we
look to news professionals for cues on where to
focus our attention, we judge as important what
the media judge as important.\

The above assertion shows that the mass media, whether print or
electronic, set agenda for the public to follow. Thus, the media raise salient
issues in our society and people begin to think along that line. This also
implies that whatever the media regard as important is what the members of
the public regard as important. If the media for example, devote more of their
time and space to the coverage of insecurity in our society, that becomes the
most important issue that the members of the public will think and worry
about.
Going by the agenda setting theory, the mass media, whether print or
electronic, can change the views of social reality of its individual audience-
members by indicating which issues are being discussed by the candidates,
those that will be discussed by friends in the future and those that will be
discussed or used by other voters. Thus, what the agenda setting theory is
saying is that people tend to think about issues raised by the media and forget
those issues that bother them most. Agenda setting theory as noted by Ikpe
(2012) presents certain attractive features; namely:

a. It reaffirms the power of the press, while still maintaining that

individuals have freedom to choose what to pay attention to. This implies that
the press has effect on the audience-members. This is why the agenda setting

63
theory is classified under the media effect theory. Thus, the theory is seen as
that which discusses how mass media messages change people's attitudes.
However, individuals have the right to choose what to accept and what not to
accept. This is because as earlier noted, agenda setting theory is not an
attempt at forcing the audience–members to accept the programmes or
activities that are carried out by the mass media.

b. Mass media agenda and public agenda are a close match. Baran
explains that there is a close relationship between what the media are
presenting and public agenda. This implies that what the people think about
may end up being the issues that are being raised by the media. Thus,
McCombs and Shaw believe that the hypothesised function of the media is
responsible for the almost perfect correlation found between media and
public ordering of realities; that is, media agenda is equal to voter's agenda.

c. Who are the people most affected by media agenda? Going by the
agenda setting theory, the people who have a willingness to let the media
shape their thinking have a high need for orientation. Others refer to this as an
index curiosity. This implies that if you have a feeling towards something,
you will be curious to know what the media will say about the issue. That is,
those who worry about things taking place in our society are likely to be more
curious to hear what the media write concerning such issues.

d. Which issues are presented by the media? The media, whether print
or electronic, present the issues that are controversial in our society; that is,
issues that are burning. They present issues that generate positive or negative
reactions among the members of the society. They present chronic social
issues. These chronic issues are more dependent on media coverage to raise
public consciousness and conscience. Such issues in Nigeria include: Niger
Delta Militancy, Boko Haram, kidnapping, power supply in Nigeria,
examination malpractice, strike in the University system, waste disposal,
child trafficking, HIV/AIDs, malaria and armed

e. Framing. This implies the process of transferring the salience of

attributes. The foregoing implies that the media actually draw up frames;
they frame issues as they affect the society and people think along that line.
Media frame is a centre-organising idea for news contents that supplies a
context and suggests what the issue is, through the use of selection,
emphasis, exclusion and elaboration. These four nouns suggest that the
media not only set the agenda for what issues, events, etc. for a candidate,
that is most important, but they also transfer the salience of specific attributes
belonging to those potential objects of interests (Ikpe, 2012).

64
f. Who set the agenda for the agenda setters? The public build the
agenda. Thus, Griffin (2000, p. 368) notes that ''the public set the agenda for
the agenda setters. The media cannot just raise issues without such issues
taking place in the society.'' For example, without kidnapping in the society,
the media cannot raise the issue of kidnapping. Thus, it is the activities that
the people carry out that the media set agenda from. Thus, members of the
public carry out certain activities which will now draw the attention of the
media. Nothing gets put on the media agenda without the occurrence of such
activity in the society. It is, however, worthy to note that agenda setting has
gradually moved from agenda setting theory to agenda building theory.

Applicability of Agenda Setting Theory

The theory comes under the limited effect theory. It is used in most areas of
communication research, especially the researches that deal with media
messages and their influence on the audience. It can be used in areas like
political advertising or political communication generally. For example,
political advertising and voters' decision in Delta State, Nigeria, online
political public relations and its impact on voters' decision, media coverage
of role back malaria, media coverage of HIV/AIDs, media coverage of
Federal Government of Nigeria and ASUU conflict, newspaper coverage of
NAFDAC campaign against fake and counterfeit drugs and newspaper
coverage of Boko haram activities.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Agenda Setting Theory

Agenda setting theory has predictive power due to the fact that it anticipates
that if the masses are frequently exposed to the same media, the probability of
them thinking alike of issues or having the same opinion about issues is very
high. More so, the theory has an organising power. This is to say that most
people see the same issues as important. It also helps to arrange the already
known knowledge of the media effects. It has explanatory power because it
explains why most people go for one particular piece of information (Caeser,
The theory, however, has its limitations. First and foremost, media
users may not be as ideal as the theory assumes. People may not be well-
informed, deeply engaged in public affairs, thoughtful and sceptical; instead,
they may pay only casual attention to public affairs and remain ignorant of the
details. For people who have made up their minds, the effect is weakened.
News media cannot create or conceal problems; they may only alter the
awareness, priorities and salience people attach to a set of problems.
Research has largely been inconclusive in establishing a causal relationship
between public salience and media coverage (Caeser, 2010). The news media

65
do not create or set the agenda for the public to follow, rather, critics say that
the real world events set agenda for people to follow. This implies that as
events are taking place in our society, people begin to discuss such issues.
Therefore, the media only take a cue from such events that have happened or
happening in our society and report such activities after which people begin
to think about them. But the argument is that the real world event set the
agenda for both the media and the public to follow.
Critics argue that the media are just the mirrors that reflect these
issues that take place in our society; that is, the news media only reflect these
real world events. Griffin, however, said that McCombs and Shaw ascribed
to broadcast and print media or journalism the significant power to set the
public's practical agenda or priorities. This has, however, been revealed that
it is not always possible; as the media may not be able to set the political
priorities for the public to follow. The media agenda affects the salience of
some issues for some people. This implies that the media can only have
effect on some people or can only affect some people in their issues. Griffin
(2000, p. 370) notes that ‘‘agenda setting as a concept is not limited to the
correspondence between salience of topics for the media and the audience.
More so, the theory pays too much attention to news and political campaigns
to the neglect of other programmes and contents of the mass media like
documentary, drama, vox pop and features.’’ The agenda setting theory
comes from a scientific perspective because it predicts that if people are
exposed to the same media, they will place importance on the same issues.

Framing Theory

To frame is to highlight some characteristics of a seen reality in a

communicative text in order to support a specific issue description, causal
interpretation, moral judgement and/or therapeutic prescription for the item
described (Entman, 1993, p. 52, cited in Chukwu & Asemah, 2021).
According to Goffmann, cited in McQuail (2010), ''a frame is needed to
organise otherwise fragmentary items of experience or information.'' The
idea of a frame in relation to news has been widely and loosely used in place
of terms such as frame of reference, context, theme and news angle (as cited
in Bossey & Asemah, 2021). Framing theory indicates that the manner in
which messages are presented to the audience by the media influences the
choices the audience make about processing the information received
(Mohammed & Asemah, 2021). Thus, framing theory is a philosophical
postulation that explains the way in which news content is typically shaped
and contextualised by journalists and it is helpful in the coverage of media
stories (McQuail, 2005, cited in Aigbefoh & Asemah, 2021).

66
 The concept of framing is related to the agenda-setting tradition, but
expands the research by focusing on the essence of the issues at hand, rather
than on a particular topic. The basis of framing theory is that the media focus
attention on certain events and then place them within a field of meaning.
Framing is an important topic since it can have a big influence and, therefore,
the concept of framing expanded to organisations as well (University of
Twente, 2010). The theory was first put forth by Goffman in 1974. Goffman
(1974) argued that people interpret what is going on around their world
through their primary framework. Goffman was the first to concentrate on
framing as a form of communication and defined “framing” as a “schemata
of interpretation” that enables individuals to locate, perceive, identify and
label occurrences or life experiences. Robert Entman modernised this
definition by specifying that “to frame a communicating text or message, is
to promote certain facets of a perceived reality and make them more salient in
such a way that endorses a specific problem definition, causal interpretation,
moral evaluation and/or a treatment recommendation (Entman, 1993, cited
in Cissel, n. d). According to McQuail (2005, p. 555), There are two ways
through which framing theory can be seen and applied in communication
research. These are individual and media frames. The individual frame
means individual's cognitive understanding of a given situation, media frame
deals with the words, images, phrases and presentation styles used in the
media outlet about an issue. The choice of those words depends on the
content producers, their media outlet and of course, their perception about an
issue (Baran & Davis, 2012).
This framework is regarded as primary as it is taken for granted by the
user. Its usefulness as a framework does not depend on other frameworks.
Framing is in many ways tied very closely to agenda setting theory. Both
focus on how media draw the public's eye to specific topics – in this way, they
set the agenda. But framing takes this a step further in the way in which the
news is presented to create a frame for that information. This is usually a
conscious choice by journalists – in this case a frame refers to the way media
as gatekeepers organise and present the ideas, events and topics they cover.
Thus, framing is the way a communication source defines and constructs any
piece of communicated information. Framing is an unavoidable part of
human communication as we all bring our own frames to our
communication. Entman (1993) observes that ''framing theory is talking
about selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition- regional, political or religious, causal interpretation,
moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.''
In
essence, framing theory suggests that how something is presented to the

67
audience (called “the frame”) influences the choices people make about how
to process that information. Frames are abstractions that work to organise or
structure message meaning. The most common use of frames is in terms of
the frame the news or media place on the information they convey. They are
thought to influence the perception of the news by the audience, in this way it
could be construed as a form of second level agenda-setting – they not only
tell the audience what to think about (agenda-setting theory), but also how to
think about that issue (second level agenda setting, framing theory) (Mass
Communication Theory, n. d).
This implies that communication itself comes with a frame. The
elements of the communication frame include: a message, an audience, a
messenger, a medium, images, a context and, especially, higher-level moral
and conceptual frames. The choice of language is, of course, vital, but it is
vital because language evokes frames-moral and conceptual frames. Thus,
media framing is seen as the way in which information is presented to its
audiences.
In framing theory, there are issues of frame-building and framing
setting. The former is associated with internal and external factors in the
media organisation such as owners, editorial policy and reporters'
ideological and political leanings that in one way or the other, influence the
structural qualities of media content and portrayal of issues. These factors
play a vital role in gate keeping what to publish, while the latter (internal
factors) to frame-building occurs in a continuous interaction between
journalists and other newsmakers such as politicians and government
officials. These collectively work together to manifest in the text represented
in the media. This implies that there are social forces that influence the
promulgation of frames in news messages. These forces, in the process of
frame, that influence frame building, come from organisational formation
and rules, standardised professional guidelines and individual journalists'
socio-political understandings and predispositions. Thus, there is a strong
correlation between the roles of gate keeping concept and framing research.
According to Baran & Davis (2012), ''framing theory challenges the
widely accepted notion that journalism can or should be objective. Instead,
the theory implies that journalism should aim at providing a forum in which
ideas about the social world are routinely presented and debated.'' As it is
now, the forum is dominated by social institutions (like media) having the
power to influence frames routinely used to structure news coverage of the
social world. These institutions are able to promote frames that serve to
reinforce or consolidate an existing social order and to marginalise frames
that raise questions about or challenge the way things are (Baran, 2012).

68
 Indeed, Goffman (1979), cited in Ooko (2014) had observed that
most news is about frame violations. Media will tend to report deviationsfrom
what is considered ''normal'' which often happen to be events that unsettle
the elite or political class. By doing so, Goffman explains, ''they serve as
protectors of the status quo.'' Whenever external forces threaten the status
quo, news stories will provide detailed coverage of the disruption. Butmost
importantly, as observed by Gans (1979), cited in Ooko (2014), they almost
always document how elites go about restoring order. Finally, Goffman
argues that ''frames offer individuals, routine patterns of dealing ormaking
sense of happenings in the social world.'' Anything that causes disruption to
these frames creates discomfort among people, hence their resistance to
change. This summarises the power of frames, once adopted. They have an
incredible ability to make us see only what we have tuned ourminds to see,
thus blinding us to realities or other truths, be it in health or other social
problems (Ooko, 2014).

Applicability of Framing Theory

The theory, just like agenda setting theory also comes under the powerful
effect theory. It can be used in areas like media framing of Boko haram
activities, media framing of electioneering campaigns, media framing of
religious crisis and political crisis.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Framing Theory

The strength of the theory is that it is simple to comprehend. However,
McComb argued that framing cannot be seen as a theory on its own, but
rather a part of agenda setting theory or better said, framing is just second-
level of agenda setting theory. Thus, he sees it as a repetition of agenda
setting theory. However, his view was debated and contested by many media
and communication theorists, especially in their attempts to provide clear
cutline between framing, agenda setting and priming. Lee (2010); Scheufele
& Tewksbury (2007) and Weaver (2007) believed that there is point of
convergence and divergence between framing, agenda setting and priming.
They maintained that agenda setting and priming are more similar than with
framing.

Media Dependency Theory

Media dependency was developed by Sandra Ball-Rokeach and Melvin
Defleur in 1976. The theory is grounded in classical sociological literature
positing that media and their audiences should be studied in the context of
larger social systems (Syallow, 2015). The media dependency theory became

69
the initial mass communication theory that considered its audience as an
active part of the process of communication. ''The theory developed from the
follow-up of researches from the parent theory (uses and gratifications
theory), which is considered an expansion.'' Sandra and Melvin indicated
that the basis of the dependency theory comes from an ecological model
(Syallow, 2015). They perceived a complex of web links encompassing the
mass media and the audiences. The society has various parts that interact
with each other. Each link in the chain is a separate entity. They come
together to form the larger mass media which is composed of radio, print,
television and internet. Because of the need for more information, people
depend on mass media for this more information; people have different goals
that they would want to satisfy and media always have a solution for them
(Syallow, 2015). For example, during elections, people would want to know
how their political candidates are fairing in terms of votes and the most
viable place to source for this information is through the media. Apart from
this, Defleur and Ball-Rokeach noted how political candidates depend on the
media to communicate their message; in Western society, it would be
impossible for politicians to reach people in direct meetings (Syallow, 2015).
Media dependency theory is a systematic approach to the study of the
effect of mass media audiences and social systems (Yang, 2021, cited in
Omoteh, Liman & Asemah, 2021). The key idea behind this theory is that
audiences depend on media information to meet their needs and goals and
that, social institutions and media systems interact with audience to create
needs, interests and motives in the persons. The degree of dependence is
influenced by the number of information functions and social instability. The
basis of media influence resides in the relationship between the larger social
systems, the media's role in that system and audience relationship to the
media. The degree of our dependence on the media and their content is the
key variable in understanding when and why media messages alter audience
beliefs, feelings or behaviour (Yaroson & Asemah, 2008, cited in Asemah &
Anatsui, 2012). Dependency theory integrates several perspectives; first, it
combines perspectives from psychology with ingredients from social
categories theory. Second, it integrates system perspectives with elements
from more causal approaches. Third, it combines elements of uses and
gratifications research with those of media effects traditions, although its
primary focus is less on effects per se than on rationales for why media
effects typically are limited. Finally, a contextual philosophy is incorporated
into the theory, which also features traditional concerns with the content of
media messages and their effects on audiences. Research generated by this
theory tends to be more descriptive than explanatory or predictive. Sandra

70
Ball Rokeach and Melvin Defleur, as noted by Syallow (2015) in their
dependency theory assumed that the degree of dependency on media is
directly proportional to:

i. The capacity of a medium to satisfy the needs of an individual as

much as possible. A person /society will be highly dependent on a
medium if it meets a greater percentage of his needs than if it meets a
smaller percentage. According to Littlejohn (2002), people will
become more dependent on media that meet a number of their needs
than on media that provide only a few ones. If a person finds a
medium that provides him with several functions that are central to
his desires, he will be more inclined to continue to use that particular
medium in the future. Thus, if the radio satisfies more of your needs
than other mass communication channels like television, newspaper,
magazine and internet, you are likely to depend on it than these other
media.

ii. Social stability. During a period of an extreme social change, such as

elections, people are called to reassess their values, beliefs and
practices and consider other new choices. In such instances, the
degree of dependence goes up drastically because there is need for
strong advice. Therefore, media become a focal point for getting
such information to guide its audience; when the situation stabilises,
people's reliance on the medium decreases.

iii. As an active component of the communication process. Audiences

select their ideal media based on individual needs and other external
factors such as: culture, social, political and economic conditions.
This indicates that an individual will be less dependent on a medium
if there are more alternatives, also non media ones, to satisfy his/her
needs.

iv. The psychological traits of an individual may also determine the

level of dependence on media. The media are aware of their ability to
create a dependent relationship with their target audience; hence they
use this power to achieve their goals.

Media dependency theory which is also known as media system

dependency theory, has been explored as an extension of or an addition to the
uses and gratification theory; though, there is a subtle difference between the
two theories. That is, media dependency looks at audience goals as the origin

71
of the dependency, while the uses and gratifications approach emphasises
audience needs. Both, however, are in agreement that media use can lead to
media dependency. The intensity of media dependency depends on how
much people perceive that the media they choose are meeting their goals. See
the diagram below.

72
Applicability of Media Dependency Theory
The theory is relevant in several areas of research like citizen journalists and
the coverage of activities in the society; the role of media in crisis
management, health reportage, the media and educational development,
media in politics, etc. The theory can also be applied in studies on media
campaigns and HIV/AIDS, malaria, ebola and other forms of diseases.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Media Dependency Theory

The theory is well organised and has been put in a way that anyone can
understand; it integrates microscopic and macroscopic theory. Microscopic
theories are those theories that focus on how individuals and social groups
use media to create and foster forms of culture that structure everyday life,
while macroscopic theories focus on how social elites use their economic
power to gain control over and exploit to propagate hegemonic culture as a
means of maintaining their dominant position in social order; they are called
political economy theories because they place priority on understanding
how economic power provides a basis for ideological and political power
(Syallow, 2015). It explains the role of media during crisis and social change.
This theory gives a clear explanation of how media play an important role
during crises and this makes it easy to understand why media are quite vital
during this period (Syallow, 2015).
However, the theory is difficult to verify experimentally. As much as
the theory explains how an audience becomes quite dependent on the media
for information, it is quite hard to proof this practically, as the information
being sought varies from one individual to another (Syallow, 2015). Meaning
and power of dependency are unclear; it is also quite hard to measure the
amount of addiction one has on media. First of all, there are different kinds of
media; namely: print, electronic and internet, hence the importance varies
with each kind and measuring each is tricky (Syallow, 2015). It lacks power
in explaining long-term effects (Syallow, 2015).

Spiral of Silence Theory

Noelle Neumann propounded the theory in 1984. The theory assumes that
individuals and groups tend to suppress their private opinions under pressure
from the fear of isolation. According to the theory, if the majority of people
hold an opinion opposite mine, then I may be hesitant to voice my opinion in
public. This is especially true if I perceive that my opinion is likely to lose
more support in the future (Shoemaker, Breen and Stamper, 2000; Malaspina,
2013).
It argues that due to their enormous power, the mass media have a
lasting effect on public opinion. The theory maintains that mass media work

73
simultaneously with majority public opinion to silence minority beliefs on
cultural issues. A fear of isolation prompts those with minority views to
examine the beliefs of others. Individuals who fear being socially isolated
are likely to conform to what they perceive to be a majority view. The theory
says that to a large extent, the media create opinions and that ideas,
occurrences and persons exist in public awareness partially, only if they are
lent sufficient publicity by the mass media and only in the shapes that the
media ascribe to them. This, therefore, implies that majority of the people
see issues just the way the media see them. The spiral of silence theory
explains why people often feel the need to conceal their opinions and views,
when they fall within the minority of a group. People will be unwilling to
publicly express their opinion if they believe they are in the minority. They
will also be more vocal if they believe they are a part of the majority. Thus,
the more marginalised you become, the less you speak and so spiral into a
fully marginal position. This works because we fear social rejection and
when a person appears to be rejected, others will back away; fearing being
rejected because they associate with the rejected person. It also makes
marginalisation a powerful way of eliminating political and social
competition.
Noelle (1984) notes that the mass media play a large role in defining
the opinion environment and this is because of the fact that mass media are
everywhere; media institutions are scattered everywhere; they constantly
report events happening in the society. Based on this, the majority of the
people tend to forget the opinion they hold about an issue, thereby looking at
it from the angle the media view it. Thus, the media are seen as operating to
limit individual's selective perception. This explains why Orewere (2006)
notes that the media may restrict individual's selective perception and that
the more they do so, the more silent minority voices become and the more the
dominant voice of the status quo is reinforced. Folarin (1998) sums up the
spiral of silence theory thus:

Since society rewards conformity and punishes

deviance, the fear of isolation constrains people to
conform to share judgement- as umpired by the
mass media. Thus, the theory holds that the mass
media, especially the television encourages those
whose opinions are gaining ground to make more
noise, while those whose opinions are losing
ground fall silent for fear of isolation and ridicule.
Journalists do not consciously manipulate public
opinion; it is just that they tend to see issues and

74
 persons from a specific perspective and to adopt
common values in presenting them.
Minguzzi (2014) notes thus:
Spiral of silence theory describes as a dynamic
process, the predication about public opinion in
mass media which gives more coverage for the
majorities in the society and gives very less
coverage for minorities; in this social
environment, people have fear of rejection to
express their opinion or views and they know well
what behaviour will make a better likelihood. It is
called fear of isolation. Being part of the minority,
people lose their confidence and silent or mute to
express their views because of the fear of isolation
or they feel alone or unsupported and sometimes,
the minorities withdraw their expressed opinion
from public debates to secure themselves from the
majority; maximum numbers get more vocal
space in the society and lesser number become less
vocal space or become silent.

The theory has the following assumptions:

· Individuals who perceive that their own opinion is accepted will

express it, while those that do not, suppress their views.

· People adjust their opinions according to their perceptions to avoid

being isolated.

· Innovators, change agents and the avant-garde do not mind being

isolated so, they are unafraid to voice differing opinions.

Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory is based on four main principles:

i. Society threatens individuals with isolation and so cohesion in the

social collective must be constantly ensured by a sufficient level of
agreement on values and goals.

ii. Individuals fear becoming ''social isolates.''

75
iii. People constantly assess the climate of opinion through their
personal relationships and through the media, in order to maintain
a high level of awareness concerning the social consensus.

iv. Based on their perception of the climate of opinion, people will be

willing or reluctant to speak out (Malaspina, 2013).

Applicability of the Spiral of Silence Theory

The spiral of silence theory has mostly been appreciated by scholars of
political communication and has been studied in several forms to test the
willingness of individuals to speak out about controversial topics. The theory
can be applied in studies on media and public opinion, this is because people
fear social isolation and, therefore, are hesitant to voice their unpopular
opinions.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Spiral of Silence Theory

Spiral of silence theory has both micro level and macro level explanatory
process. The theory raises important questions concerning the role and
responsibility of news media and it is dynamic. However, research indicates
that people fear isolation in their small social circles more than they do in the
population at large. Within a large nation, one can always find a group of
people who share one's opinions. However, people fear isolation from their
close family and friends more in theory. Research has demonstrated that this
fear of isolation is stronger than the fear of being isolated from the entire
public, as it is typically measured. Scholars have also questioned whether
personal characteristics have an influence on whether a person will willingly
speak out. Naturally, if one has a positive self-concept and lacks a sense of
shame, that person will speak out regardless of how he or she perceives the
climate of public opinion. Another influence critics give for people choosing
not to speak out against public opinion is culture. The culture that a person
lives in greatly affects the willingness to speak out. Some cultures are more
individualistic, which would support more of an individual's own opinion,
while collectivist cultures support the overall group's opinion and needs. It
ignores possible demographic in cultural differences in the silencing effect.

Knowledge Gap Theory

Phillip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and Clarice N. Olien proposed the
theory in 1970. They believed that every member of the society does not
evenly acquire the increase of information in society. People with higher
socio-economic status tend to have a better ability to acquire information.

76
This has brought about two groups- a group of better educated people who
know more about things and those with low education who know less. The
theory, therefore, says that the spread of news in a society can bring about an
increase in gap between people of lower and higher socio-economic status.
The attempt to improve people's life might not always work the way it is
planned (Asemah, 2011a). Mass media may have the effect of increasing the
different gaps between members of a social class. In this theory, knowledge is
treated as any other commodity which is not distributed equally throughout
the society and the people at the top of the ladder have more easy access to it.
Knowledge gap theory is concerned mainly with “information” and
“knowledge” and emphasises that knowledge is not distributed equally
throughout society; there are haves and have-nots with regard to information
just as material wealth information is very important in our society because
any developed country depends on well-informed citizens (Naveed, 2015).
Matei (2012) notes that:
Knowledge gap hypothesis proposes that more
information does not always mean a better
informed public or at least that not all members of
the public will be better informed to the same
degree. To the contrary, as some members of the
public might become better informed, some might
in fact lag farther behind in terms of knowledge
about important issues of the day. In other words,
the slopes of the curves of information gain are
more abrupt for some and flatter for others. The
angle of the slope seems to be determined by
socio-economic status. The final outcome of this
process is that as we add more educational and
information resources, the ones that have better
chances to absorb them will get much more out of
them than those that have lesser socio-economic
resources.
The foregoing implies that the more media information increases in
our social system, the more the knowledgeable in our society gets more
knowledge, thereby creating a gap between the more educated and less
educated. The infusion of messages into our society widens the gap between
the rich and the poor. This is because those who have access to news are the
wealthy people. They are the ones who can afford to install satellite dishes in
their homes, they can afford to install internet services, they have money to
buy newspapers and magazines on daily basis and because of this, they

77
increase in knowledge than the poor people who do not have the money to
acquire all these information media. Thus, those who listen to news are the
rich ones, while the poor ones are always looking for what to eat. Tichenor et
al (1970), cited in Orewere (2006) note that higher socio-economic
segments of a population acquire information from the mass media faster
than do lower socio- economic segments; thus, increasing the differences in
the amount of knowledge held by the two segments. Any attempt to use
media to equalise the distribution of knowledge within a social system seems
doomed not just to fail, but to increase inequalities. Folarin (1998) concurs
when he noted that the knowledge gap theory asks two basic questions: how
is the knowledge distributed in the society and how do the media influence
that distribution?
Folarin (1998) further notes that as media output grows in a given
society, so will the knowledge gaps between privileged and under-privileged
social groups increase. Contrary to what would be the normal expectation,
the theory maintains that increase in media output, rather than even out
differences between the information- rich and the information poor, actually
accentuates those differences, since those at the higher socio-economic
levels acquire information much faster and much more easily than those at
the lower levels. Fortunately, however, knowledge gap theorists recognise a
ceiling at which the gaps may level out as the information become “seated”
while the information under-nourished continue to search till they catch up
with the former. Orewere (2006), however, notes that researchers list a
number of factors that have been posited, usually as post hoc explanations to
account for widening and narrowing of the knowledge gap. These according
to Orewere have been reduced to three categories of causal factors that may
account for knowledge gap phenomena. The causal factors are:
· Transituational deficits on the part of one of the population segments
under consideration, which implies that there is lack of
communication skills on the part of the population.

· Group differences in perceived relevance and or motivation to

acquire the information under study.

· Ceiling effects imposed either by the message content or by the

information of concern.

Tichenor et al (1970), however, identified five major reasons for

justifying knowledge gap. The reasons are:
· People of higher socio-economic status have better communication

78
 skills, education, reading, comprehending and remembering
information.

· People of higher socio-economic status can store information more

easily or remember the topic from background knowledge.

· People of higher socio-economic status might have a more relevant

social content.

· People of higher socio-economic status are better in selective

exposure, acceptance and retention.

· The nature of the mass media itself is that it is geared towards persons
of higher socio-economic status.

Applicability of Knowledge Gap Theory

Knowledge gap theory is applicable in political communication; this is
because the theory holds that when new information enters a social system
via mass media, it is likely to exacerbate underlying inequalities in
previously held information. Specifically, while people from all strata may
learn new information as a result of a mass media campaign, those with
higher levels of education are likely to learn more than those with low levels
of education and the informational gap between the two groups will expand.
The results of the analysis show that knowledge gaps do not always grow
over the course of presidential campaigns and that some events, such as
debates, may actually reduce the level of information inequality in the
electorate.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Knowledge Gap Theory

Knowledge gap theory has been implicit throughout the mass
communication literature. It clearly explains how media information leads to
gap in knowledge between the rich and the poor; it explains that people with
more education tend to have better developed cognitive and communication
skills, broader social spheres, with more and more diverse social contacts
and a greater amount of stored information than their counterparts with less
education. Although, the majority of research supports the proposition that
the higher the education, the greater the knowledge of various topics, the
knowledge gap hypothesis specifies that this relationship should be
moderated by the level of media publicity a given issue receives. Few
knowledge gap studies, however, treat media publicity as a variable.

79
Because time-trend analyses indicate knowledge differentials fluctuate over
time, most one-shot studies offer a brief and potentially misleading snapshot
of knowledge gaps. A new, vital area for knowledge gap researchers to
understand is the role of the family in socialisation patterns related to
learning. Because policy decisions have played a major role in increasing
inequality and knowledge gap research has policy implications, researchers
should include more dialogue with policymakers.

80