Expert answer:Media and Culture Theory

Solved by verified expert:After studying the assigned reading The Handbook of Communication Science, Second Edition: Chapter 15: Mass Media Effects,considering one of the five categories of media effect theories mentioned in the article (learning, socialization, selective exposure, selective presentation, and perceived effects—remember, these are the categories, not the names of the theories themselves) identify one of the theories listed in the article and answer the following questions or prompts. But, do not include the questions in the essay.A) Does media directly influence individuals? Explain your answerB) Which of the mass communication theories do you feel most accurately portrays your media experiences? Why? Be sure to provide an example that supports your opinion.C) How involved should the government be in protecting us from media effects? Where do you draw the line between free speech and indecency? Is censorship ever warranted? Support your responses with research from the Learning Resources. Use APA in-text citations where necessary, and cite any outside sources that you use. Create an APA Bibliography at the end of your document.Submit your response in the file submission area for this assignment. If you choose to “add a file” by attaching a MSWord document, please also copy and paste your response into the comments area. Word count: 400 to 500.
hdbk_commsci_n15.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The Handbook of Communication
Science
Mass Media Effects
Contributors: Robin L. Nabi & Mary Beth Oliver
Edited by: Charles R. Berger, Michael E. Roloff & David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen
Book Title: The Handbook of Communication Science
Chapter Title: “Mass Media Effects”
Pub. Date: 2010
Access Date: October 29, 2017
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412918138
Online ISBN: 9781412982818
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412982818.n15
Print pages: 255-272
©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of
the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE
Copyright © 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Mass Media Effects
The study of mass media effects has a long and storied history that predates the existence of
the communication discipline itself. Yet, its breadth and scope have made it challenging for
the area to gain coherence. This chapter’s goal is to review the historical roots of media
effects research and the most popular theoretical perspectives that have emerged to date.
After discussing the state of the literature, including the limitations or controversies within
each tradition, we identify some potentially fruitful avenues for future theory development.
Historical Roots
Although interest in the effects of mediated messages can arguably be traced to long before
the 20th century, it was the advent of technologies allowing for mass production and
distribution of messages, electronic media in particular, that stimulated more systematic
interest in the production, content, and selection of such messages and, of course, the effects
they have on the audiences that consume them (Schramm, 1997). This interest was
generated from a range of academic disciplines, including journalism, sociology, political
science, psychology, and advertising, that converged to form the foundation of current
academic interest in the study of mass media. First, we discuss general schools of thought
that have influenced the development of the modern-day study of media effects and then turn
to particular scholars whose works raise conceptual ideas fundamental to the most widely
examined media effects paradigms.
Influential Schools of Thought
Four broad schools of thought have been frequently referenced in mass communication
research (see Bryant & Miron, 2004). The Chicago school of sociology emphasized notions of
pragmatism and humanism. The Vienna Circle focused on logical positivism and thus
motivated the emphasis on logical reasoning and empirical evidence to validate theory. British
cultural studies and the Frankfurt school’s critical theory both focus on issues related to the
role of cultural products (such as media messages) in creating and perpetuating social and
political ideologies. They are distinguished in that critical theory emphasizes the conveyance
of the dominant ideology, whereas cultural studies emphasizes negotiated meaning on the
part of audiences. Although each of these four approaches has greatly influenced lines of
media effects research, as we will soon see, the logical positivist approaches have become
increasingly emphasized in more contemporary media effects research. Indeed, as we look at
the more influential scholars’ works in the 20th century, we see the roots of some of the most
influential theories from the past several decades.
Influential Scholars
As Wilbur Schramm (1997) describes in his posthumously published memoir, there are a few
notable scholars whose work may be viewed as foundational to the modern study of media
effects. He begins with Harold Lasswell, a product of (and later contributor to) the Chicago
school. By affiliation, Lasswell was a political scientist perhaps most famous for his summary
of the communication process as “who says what to whom through what channel and with
what effect ” (Lasswell, 1948). His contributions might be summarized as helping to
understand how to assess media content (e.g., via more thoughtful content analyses),
propaganda (and more specifically the use and effects of symbols), and consideration of the
Page 2 of 19
The Handbook of Communication Science
SAGE
Copyright © 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
role of mass communication in informing and socializing audiences and influencing society’s
response to that information.
Paul Lazarsfeld, a sociologist in the famed Columbia Bureau of Applied Social Research,
engaged in extensive audience-centered research. His interests focused on audience
attention and selectivity. That is, who listens to what messages, why they listen, and what
they do with that information. In addition to his contributions in advancing social science
research, he expanded media research to consider effects of radio, film, and TV in addition to
print media and interpersonal communication. Thus, beyond looking at news and information,
he opened the investigations into more entertainment-based media.
Kurt Lewin, the German social psychologist who spent much of his career at Iowa, is perhaps
best known for his notion of “lifespace” or the complete psychological environment (including
needs, goals, beliefs, memories, unconscious influences, etc.) in which people operate and,
by extension, the influence of groups on individual behavior. His ideas that these forces
invariably conflict laid the foundation for research relating to dissonance, frustration and
aggression, and especially group dynamics.
In sharp contrast to Lewin’s methodological approach, Carl Hovland, a psychologist central to
the Yale School for Communication, focused on experimental work related to the persuasive
effect of specific message and audience characteristics, including message argument, source
credibility, personality traits, and fear arousal. Thus, his work on propaganda is the foundation
for the contemporary study of persuasion. As Schramm (1997) characte ri zes it, Hovland
approached communication from a learning theory perspective with an ultimate interest in
understanding not simply human cognition and attitudes but, more important, human
behavior.
Surely there are other scholars we could point to as influential in the field, but what is
interesting about the set that Schramm (and editors Chaffee and Rogers) highlighted is that
although their names might not be directly attached to central theories of media effects, their
ideas were clearly influential to those theories’ development. The notions of learning,
socialization, attention, selectivity, consistency, and group dynamics, in addition to the
methods of content analysis, survey research, and experi mental approaches, are central to
the research to which we now turn.
Influential Theoretical Paradigms in the Study of Media Effects
With the literally hundreds of theoretical perspectives applied to the study of media effects, it
is a daunting task to identify those that are most influential. Fortunately, recent analyses of
the extant literature aid us greatly in this task, and despite different sampling strategies, they
arrive at very similar conclusions.
Content Analyses of the Extant Literature
In their content analysis of 1,806 articles published in the three leading mass communication
journals between 1956 and 2000 (Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of
Communication, and Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media), Bryant and Miron (2004)
document that despite the fact that more than 600 theories, models, paradigms, and schools
of thought were noted, only 26 were referenced 10 or more times, and only 5 were referenced
more than 30 times. These 5 include uses and gratifications, agenda setting, cultivation,
social learning, and Marxism. In their follow-up content analysis of every issue of six journals
Page 3 of 19
The Handbook of Communication Science
SAGE
Copyright © 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
between January 2001 and May 2004, they found similar results, with framing, agenda
setting, cultivation, mediation models, the third-person effect, uses and gratifications, selective
exposure, and social cognitive/ learning theory as the top 8 “theories,” each cited at least 10
times. Particularly noteworthy, across both content analyses, nearly half of all articles merely
referenced theory (48% and 47%, respectively), and 26% simply used theory as the
framework for empirical study. About 12% to 13% involved theo retical critique or comparison,
and only the remaining 13% to 14% involved theory construction.
These results were largely echoed in Potter and Riddle’s (2007) more recent content analysis
of effects articles in 16 journals in the odd years between 1993 and 2005. In their sample,
they identified 144 different theories referenced across the 336 articles. Similar to Bryant and
Miron (2004), Potter and Riddle found that a substantial portion of the research—65%—failed
to be guided by theory. Within the studies that mentioned theory, only 12 theories were
mentioned in more than 5 articles, and of these, the most commonly cited were the thirdperson effect (cited in 7.4% of the articles), agenda setting (7.1%), and uses and gratifications
(5.7%).
These studies paint a somewhat discouraging picture of the media effects research landscape
—one that is at best as likely to mention any theory as not, one that uses theory as a
framework only a quarter of the time, and one with little attention to theoretical development.
Even for the most commonly studied theories, there is little systematic attention and critical
examination. Indeed, many of the “theories” that Bryant and Miron (2004) and Potter and
Riddle (2007) identify may be better characterized as interesting phenomena, replicable
relationships among variables, or models of effects rather than theories per se (see Pavitt,
Chapter 3, this volume).
Because these studies suggest a set of paradigms arguably most worthy of our attention, our
focus will be so directed, and in the interest of simplicity, we will refer to them as media effect
theories throughout the chapter, with the above caveats in mind. Rather than simply
discussing these theories, though, we will concentrate on the previously noted concepts that
reflect critical components in the process of mediated communication and then match them to
the most commonly referenced theories in the extant literature. Thus, we divide the literature
into five categories, with prototypical theories offered for each: learning (social cognitive
theory), socialization (cultivation analysis), selective exposure (uses and gratifications),
selective presentation/perception (framing, agenda setting), and perceived effects (e.g., thirdperson effect). In discussing these theoretical approaches, we address the essence of each
perspective’s predicted effects, the mechanisms that explain the effects process, and
limitations or controversies raised within each domain.
Learning Theories
Learning theories refer to those processes by which media consumers acquire knowledge,
information, and behaviors. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; later extended and
renamed social cognitive theory) is perhaps the most widely known and cited in media
research, although other examples include the knowledge gap hypothesis (Tichenor,
Donohue, & Olien, 1970) and Piaget’s (1921) stage theory of cognitive development, both of
which made it onto Bryant and Miron’s (2004) “top 26” theories list.
Social Cognitive Theory. Social cognitive theory (SCT) revolves primarily around the functions
and processes of observational learning (Bandura, 1986, 2002). That is, by observing others’
behaviors, including those of media figures, one may develop rules to guide one’s own
Page 4 of 19
The Handbook of Communication Science
SAGE
Copyright © 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
subsequent actions or be prompted to engage in previously learned behavior. According to
Bandura (1986, 2002), observational learning is guided by four processes, which are
moderated by observers’ cognitive development and skills. First, attention to certain models
and their behavior is affected by source and contextual features, such as attractiveness,
relevance, functional need, and affective valence. Second, retention processes focus on the
ability to symbolically represent the behavior observed and its consequences, along with any
rehearsal of that sequence. Production focuses on translating the symbolic representations
into action, reproducing the behavior in seemingly appropriate contexts, and correcting for any
errors based on the feedback received. Finally, motivational processes influence which
symbolically represented behaviors are enacted based on the nature or valence (positive or
negative) of the reinforcement. As observational learning occurs via symbolic representations,
the effects are potentially long lasting, and self-efficacy is believed to be central to behavioral
performance.
SCT, as applied to media contexts (Bandura, 2002; Stiff, 1986), suggests that for viewers’
behaviors to be positively affected, the audience must pay attention to attractive models who
are displaying relevant behaviors. To the extent that positive behaviors are portrayed (e.g.,
practicing safe sex), the model’s behavior should be positively reinforced (e.g., through
displays of positive outcomes, such as greater interest by the sexual partner or enhanced
self-respect). To the extent that negative behaviors are portrayed (e.g., practicing unsafe sex),
the model’s behavior should be negatively reinforced (e.g., through displays of negative
outcomes or experiencing negative affect, such as guilt or regret).
Limitations and Critique. SCT has received extensive support in numerous interpersonal
contexts and is frequently cited to explain the effects of both positive and negative media
depictions. For example, SCT is invoked as the theoretical explanation for the success of
entertainment-education, or the embedding of prosocial messages into entertainment
programming to influence the attitudes and behaviors of resistant audiences (Singhal &
Rogers, 1999). Conversely, studies of violence often reflect the assumption that the way in
which violence is portrayed (e.g., with or without consequences, performed by heroes or
villains) will influence viewers’ acceptance of violence and the likelihood of using violence to
solve problems in their own lives.
Despite the support for SCT, it has some notable limitations. First, it is rather complex,
incorporating an array of concepts and variables. As a result, SCT is not easily tested. Indeed,
although many scholars reference SCT in their media effects work, very few actually test it via
manipulating attraction to behavioral models, positive and negative rewards, self-efficacy, and
so on. Also, measuring some of the theory’s key constructs is challenging. Thus, although it is
intuitively appealing and social learning is well supported, SCT is frequently not tested
directly. In fact, there is some reason to believe that it may not be as readily transferable to
the media environment as is often assumed, as audiences’ expectations about how events
unfold in fictional realms versus in reality may differ (see Nabi & Clark, 2008). Thus, future
research that attempts to model the process of media influ ence according to SCT and to
determine appropriate concept operatio nalizations and measurement would be most
welcome.
Socialization Theories
Socialization theories focus on the acquisition of the norms and values of one’s social group.
Along with parents, peers, and schools, the media are considered one of the foremost agents
of socialization. Although critical/cultural theories arguably focus extensively on issues of
Page 5 of 19
The Handbook of Communication Science
SAGE
Copyright © 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
socialization, the most popularly cited theory in this domain is cultivation analysis, which offers
a more social scientific approach to the phenomenon.
Cultivation Analysis. Cultivation analysis, or cultivation theory as many now call it, asserts that
common conceptions of reality are cultivated by overall patterns of TV programming to which
communities are exposed regularly over long periods of time (Gerbner, 1969; Gerbner, Gross,
Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, 2002). Gerbner and his colleagues propose that compared
with light TV viewers, heavy viewers are more likely to perceive the world in ways that mirror
reality as presented on TV rather than more objective measures of social reality. Researchers
have tested and found support for the cultivation hypothesis in a range of contexts, including
racism, gender stereotypes, alienation, and so on (see Morgan & Shanahan, 1997). However,
a substantial proportion of cultivation research has focused on TV violence and its effects on
perceptions of real-world incidences of crime and victimization (see Potter, 1993, for a review).
Numerous content analyses have documented that the number of violent acts on American
network TV greatly exceeds the amount of real-world violence. In turn, heavy TV viewers (a)
overestimate the incidence of serious crime in society (i.e., first-order effects, or prevalence
estimates) and (b) are more likely to believe that the world is a mean place where people
cannot be trusted and are just looking out for themselves (i.e., second-order effects, or
attitudes; Gerbner et al., 2002; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980).
Beyond these basic effects, moderators of the cultivation effect have been identified. Most
notable among them is personal experience (Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Shrum & Bischak,
2001; J. B. Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986), which has been proposed to have two possible
effects. Resonance suggests that cultivation effects may be amplified in situations where
viewers have more real-world experience, whereas mainstreaming suggests that TV exposure
might override differences in perspectives that might ordinarily result from personal
experiences (e.g., Gerbner et al., 2002). In addition to personal experience, the cultivation
literature has revealed several other moderators of the cultivation effect, including viewing
motivations (e.g., Carveth & Alexander, 1985), attention level, need for cognition (Shrum,
Burroughs, & Rindfleisch, 2005), elaboration styles (Shrum, 2001), and personality traits (Nabi
& Riddle, 2008).
Although originally a more sociologically based theory, cultivation theorizing has taken a
decidedly psychological turn in recent years. In particular, Shrum and his colleagues offer
evidence that overestimates of crime prevalence are likely the result of heuristic processing,
which allows TV-based constructs to enjoy higher accessibility in the minds of heavy viewers
(e.g., Shrum, 1995, 2001). That is, because heavy viewers are recently and frequently
exposed to certain common images and themes on TV, those themes become more
accessible in memory and thus more influential in making judgments (e.g., violence
prevalence estimates).
Limitations and Critique. Although cultivation theory has generated a wealth of data, and
though meta-analyses suggest a small but consistent cultivation effect on social reality beliefs
(r= .09; Morgan & Shanahan, 1997), this theory has also generated a great deal of debate
within the academic community. Some of the criticisms include the assumption of uniformity in
media portrayals, the assumed linear relationship between TV viewing and beliefs, lack of
clarity regarding the relationship between first- and second-order beliefs, potential problems
with nonfalsifiability, difficulty in establishing causal relationships, and difficulty in accounting
for selectivity in exposure and interpretation of media content (Doob & Macdonald, 1979;
Hirsch, 1980, 1981; Potter, 1993). In addition, cultivation analysis, as originally conceptualized
by Gerbner …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades