INDEPENDENT QUALITATIVE

MEDIA ANALYSIS
Global Media Analysts
Asia Pacific North America South America UK/Europe

WHITE PAPER

Mass Media Effects

A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

Jim R. Macnamara

BA, MA, PhD*, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM

CARMA International (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd

1st floor, 87-97 Regent St Chippendale, NSW, 2008 Australia Facsimile: 61 2 9698 1109 Telephone: 61 2 9698 1110 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.carma.com Web: www.masscom.com.au

Macnamara, J. R. (2003). www.masscom.com.au/book/papers/mass_media.html

Copyright 2003

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________

The power of the media

The alleged power or influence of mass media has lead to extensive studies of media effects in areas ranging from political campaigns to portrayals of violence, pornography, racism and women. Governments and political parties have focussed on the mass media as sources of powerful influence. More recently, businesses and organisations have recognised the importance of the media not only as channels for advertising, but for their perhaps even more influential editorial content. Editorial in leading mass media has been shown to significantly affect stock prices; lead to corporate collapses; cause falls in sales; result in the resignation of senior officeholders even bring down Presidents. But effects of mass media are not well understood and often have been assumed rather than objectively researched. Prominent media academic James Curran says: The conviction that the media are important agencies of influence is broadly correct. However, the ways in which the media exert influence are complex and contingent (Curran, 2002, 158). Other media experts agree. Although representations most certainly do matter, their interaction is very complex as indeed are all the relationships between media and reality (Newbold, et al, 2002, 310). Before drawing conclusions concerning the possible implications of mass media content, it is important to understand the role and effects that mass media can have and how and when these occur.

simplistically described communication as transmitting a message from a sender to a receiver. In this view, power was thought to reside in texts and the producers; audiences were perceived as passive receivers of information (Newbold, et al, 2002, 25). The first stage of media audience research reflects strong impressions of the media as powerful, persuasive forces in society, Lull summarises (Lull, 2000, 98). Views of the media as powerful propaganda tools which were or could be unleashed on a hapless mass audience led to the Mass Manipulative Model of the media and underpinned later cultural hegemony and political economy views. In 1937, with the proliferation of radio, Antonio Gramsci proposed that ideological hegemony created through powerful mass media was used by the ruling class to perpetuate their power, wealth and status (Barr, Newmedia.com, 2000, 17). Marxist and neo-Marxist scholars such as Adorno & Horkheimer (1947, reprinted 1979; 1991), Marcuse (1972) and Habermas, 1962, reprinted 1989) saw the media as managers of opinion at the behest of the powerful (Curran, 2002, 45). The transmissional or hypodermic injection model of mass media dominated thinking during the first half of the 20th century.

Minimal or limited effects thinking on the media

Landmark research in the late 1950s and 1960s refuted many claimed effects of the media and showed media power was overestimated. Key studies were those of Katz & Lazarsfeld (1955) and Joseph Klapper (1960). Klapper concluded that mass communications ordinarily do not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects. He concluded instead that mass media were more likely to reinforce existing attitudes than change them or create new attitudes (Newbold, et al, 2002, 31; Curran, 2002, 132 & 159). His findings became

Early media effects thinking & theory

Early media research assumed direct effects, adopting a hypodermic injection concept of mass media, also described as the transmissional model based on the wellknown model of communication developed by Shannon and Weaver (1949) which

________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

known as Klappers law of minimal consequences and triggered a limited effects view of mass media (Curran, 2002, 132-133; Newbold, et al, 2002, 31). Klapper drew on cognitive dissonance theory of the 1950s as espoused by psychologist Leon Festinger who found that people resisted messages that were dissonant with their existing attitudes and accepted information which was consonant with their existing views (Grunig, 1984, 123). Research into media violence and pornography supported Klappers view. No clear correlations have been found between media violence and violent behaviour in 30 years of research. Studies of pornography in Denmark found no link to sex crimes and violence against women. In fact, following repeal of Danish prohibitions against written pornography in 1967 and the ending of film censorship in 1969, the number of sex-related crimes in Denmark declined (Merrill & Lowenstein, 1971, 149). Even today, the link between TV and film violence and actual violence in society remains a site of debate. Another approach which considered the influence of mass media to be limited was a pluralist view of society which emerged in the 1940s and was popular through the 1960s. Proponents of pluralism considered that there are many different centres of power in society and that natural checks and balances are achieved through countervailing forces (Newbold, et al, 2002, 31). Under pluralistic views, the power of the media was seen as limited and conditional, a power that was mediated by an ever-extending range of factors (Newbold, et al, 2002, 31). Another strain of media research which also rejected the direct effects thinking of earlier research and first introduced the notion of audience interpretation became known as the uses and gratifications perspective. Proponents of this theory claim that people use mass media to gratify human needs. Instead of asking what the media do to people, uses and gratifications research turned

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ the question around: what do people do with the media? (Katz, 1977 in Lull, 2000, 101) Uses and gratifications thinking about mass media continues today, although it has lost some favour as it is linked to functionalist theory which assumes people willingly engage with mass media and benefit from the experience. Functionalist mass media theory was advanced by influential American political scientist, Harold Lasswell (1948). He claimed that the media performed four basic functions for society: surveying the environment to provide news and information; correlating response to this information (editorial function); entertaining (diversion function); and transmitting culture to future generations (socialisation function) (Lull, 2000, 111). American sociologist Charles R. Wright took Lasswells view of media functions further by outlining manifest and latent (not apparent or unintended) functions as well as dysfunctions of mass media communication. Wright proposed that when the media alerted the public to a health risk, for instance, it was serving its news and information function, but if a public panic was created, this was a dysfunction of the media (Lull, 2000, 112).

Political economy & cultural studies views of the media

Political economy thinking of mass media saw the dominant political, financial and industrial institutions of societies having a direct effect on the ideological forces maintaining control, including the media (Newbold, 2002, 219). Mosco (1995) defined political economy as the study of the social relations, particularly the power relations, that influence the production, distribution, and consumption of resources, including communication resources (Newbold, et al, 2002, 22). Like Marxist thinkers, the radical political economy tradition continued to argue that the media were powerfully shaped by their

________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

political and economic organisation. (Curran, 2002, 113). This included media ownership, cross-ownership, monopolies, competition, public service broadcasting, and controls over quantity and content of advertising. In turn, political economy thinking argued that this political and economic structure influenced media audiences. Political economy views on the media saw the media as having a moral purpose and aiming at social action (Newbold, et al, 2002, 49). In this sense, political economy and later cultural studies views of the media reversed thinking that mass media had limited effects. However, they did not return to direct effects thinking. Rather, political economy and cultural studies started from the premise that reinforcement was not neutral. Moreover, they took the concept of reinforcement further arguing that reinforcement was the inevitable and contrived outcome of a system whose very purpose was to maintain order and to prevent change in societies that were riven by manifest inequalities (Newbold, et al, 2002, 34). Political economy theory saw mass media involved in the manufacture of consent a concept made famous by Naom Chomsky. McCombs (1977) in his agenda-setting theory argued that the effect of mass media was less to do with what people think and more what they think about ie. the media set the agenda of public debate and thinking. McCombs saw mass media as originators of influential messages rather than simply channels used by sources of information. Marshall McLuhans famous adage The Medium is the Message built on this thinking and further focussed attention on the mass media (Lull, 2000, 37). The medium is the message, often misunderstood in popular discourse, pointed to the production and representation processes of the mass media (eg. news selection, production techniques, etc) as fundamental in shaping the message. Previously, focus had been on the suppliers of

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ information and media had been viewed as a neutral channel. The weakness or Achilles Heel of political economy thinking about the media was exposed by the emerging fields of content analysis and audience research (Newbold, et al, 2002, 37). Whereas political economy theory focussed only on quantitative (often crude) mass media content methodology, assuming quantitative repetition was equivalent to semiotic or affective significance, new methods of qualitative content analysis began to consider the subtleties of narrative structure, characterisation and semiotics to determine likely meanings that audiences might take from texts. Cultural studies approaches to mass media borrowed from literary criticism and cinematic analysis and drew on linguistics and socio-linguistics. Cultural studies moved focus away from the structuralist traditions of Marx, Engels and Freud and introduced qualitative methods which examined how different readers interpreted texts differently. Even so, early neo-Marxist cultural studies saw mass media being used to influence or control audiences. However, they saw this as more subtle than direct control. Mass media, they argued, exerted influence through cultural hegemony. Hegemony is summarised by Lull as the power or dominance that one social group holds over others gained through a tacit willingness by people to be governed by principles, rules and laws which they believe operate in their best interests, even though in actual practice they may not (Lull, 2000, 51). Hegemony is a process of convergence, consent, and subordination. Ideas, social institutions, industries, and ways of living are synthesized into a mosaic which serves to preserve the economic, political, and cultural advantages of the already powerful. He adds: The mass media play an extraordinary role in the process (Lull, 2000, 54).

________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

That people do not necessarily see the hegemonic power of mass media is not surprising when the subtle process of hegemony is understood. Lull points out: The victims of hegemony dont realise they are being repressed through ideology (Lull, 2000, 73). Habermas (1989) proposed a variation on political economy thinking with his concept of mass media as a public sphere in which mass media function as a forum of public communication: a forum in which individual citizens can come together as a public and confer freely about matters of general interest (Newbold, et al, 2002, 22). However, Habermas concept of mass media as a public sphere of debate where reason and logic would prevail has been widely dismissed and seen as flawed because of its idealisation of public reason (Curran, 2002, 45) one could conclude nave. In summary, with the advent of cultural studies, media effects thinking evolved from force, to coercion to consent (albeit an engineered consent).

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ different things to different people in different situations. Post-Marxist cultural studies further turned attention to human agency (Connell, 1995, 9), drawing from anthropological and social research to specifically examine how audiences interpret media texts. Building on Stuart Halls important encoding-decoding model (Hall, 1973; Morley & Chen, 1996), and his concept of the critical reader (Hall, 1980), sociologists and modern media scholars point out that audiences actively construct meanings of (decode) media texts within a matrix of influences, rather than passively absorb pre-determined meanings imposed on them (Mumford, 1998, 121; Newbold, et al, 2002, 307). Hall (1973) suggested that a media producer may encode certain meanings into a text, based on a certain social context and understandings, but another persons reading (decoding) of it will be based on their own social context and understandings, and they are likely to interpret it differently (Morley and Chen, 1996; Gauntlett, 2002, 27). McQuail (1984) reversed the classic question of media effect from what effect do the media have on people to how do people use the media and thus helped turn around or modify previous assumptions of linearity and cause-effect in thinking about media and audiences (Newbold, et al, 2002, 45).

The ethnographic turn death of the author; birth of the reader

The ethnographic turn in social and cultural studies research brought a major shift in thinking about mass media effects. Early cultural studies approaches to mass media drew on literary analysis, linguistics and socio-linguistics (Newbold, et al, 2002, 307). A key influence was Roland Barthes concept of the death of the author which shifted emphasis from the authors intentions to the reader (Newbold, et al, 2002, 37). Early cultural studies ushered in what Curran terms a reconceptualisation of the audience as an active producer of meaning (Curran, 2002, 115). Socio-linguistic interpretations and semiological studies saw meaning as mobile rather than fixed and recognised socially situated meaning systems (Curran, 2002, 145). In simple terms, texts could mean

Cultural studies main contribution to media studies was the identification of intervening variables that influence the relationship between text and audience (Newbold, et al, 2002, 41). The new audience research conducted in modern cultural studies of mass media found diversity of meanings drawn by people from the media they consume and revealed contradictions in how people consume mass media. For example, people were found in research to be quite capable of conforming with prevalent social disapproval or depreciation of certain categories of text on one hand, while continuing to take pleasure from those same texts on the other (Newbold, et al, 2002, 38). ________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

In cultural studies approaches to mass media, texts are viewed as polysemic, which is to say that they offer the possibility of a diversity of reading, even if a preferred reading is inscribed within the text by its producers, Newbold, et al conclude (Newbold, et al, 2002, 45). Curran and others agree saying: the media have fractured meanings (Curran, 2002, 144; Newbold, et al, 2002, 24 & 39; Lull, 2000, 162). Audience reception analysis carried out by David Morley advanced theory of audience power by focussing on textual meaning not as messages implanted by either media producers or influential institutions as proposed by earlier Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories, but in more sophisticated and complex ways drawing on semiology and ideology. New thinking proposed interdiscursive processes in audience reception (Curran, 2002, 119). The rediscovery of audience power in revisionist reception studies was an important development in media effects theory (Curran, 2002, 145) and debunked media ideology leading to a more cautious assessment of media influence (Curran, 2002, 115). Fiske, one of the most outspoken cultural studies theorists, argued that it is the audience, not the, media, which has the most power (Gauntlett, 2002, 19 & Lull, 2000, 167). However, more recently, scholars have put the view that Fiske hopelessly romanticises the role of audience members (Lull, 2000, 168). British sociologist, Keith Tester argues that Fiskes work confuses the possibility that the audience might carry out oppositional readings of media texts with the claim that they actually do carry out such readings (Tester, 1994, 70; Lull, 2000, 168).

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ discussions and rather loose concepts of decoding (Curran, 2002, 119). Ethnographic methods of research such as discussion groups and participant observation, while widely acclaimed as a qualitative research method allowing direct first-hand data gathering, also contain inherent dangers through intervention by the researcher (eg. respondents playing to the camera or, in this case, the researcher) and through the researcher becoming too close to the audience (colloquially termed going native from early ethnographic studies of tribal cultures).

Contemporary theory of media effects a synthesis of views

Lull (2000) summarises what he calls three zones of indeterminancy of media effects which he identifies as (1) institutions which he claims are diverse; (2) technology which he holds is ultimately unmanageable (eg. a private video operator filming police beating black motorist Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1992); and (3) messages which he agrees are diverse and polysemic (open to multiple interpretations by different readers). Modern thinking on mass media recognises that identities cannot be viewed as being constructed by media representations alone (Newbold, et al, 2002, 311). As discussed by Barthes (1972), Hall (1973), Lovell (1980), Cook (1992), Woodward (1997), Mumford (1998) and a number of others, interpretations and perceptions are influenced by a multiplicity of factors such as race, nationality, ethnicity, social background, education, gender, sexuality, religion and inter-relationships such as family, peers and occupation or work groups, as well as media content. Curran adds that first-hand knowledge, wordof-mouth relaying others first-hand knowledge, sceptical dispositions towards the media and internal processes of logic also influence audiences reading of media texts (Curran, 2002, 121).

Also, reception analysis, while seen as a major advance in understanding how mass media and audiences inter-relate, relied heavily some say over-relied on group ________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

However, there are flaws in limited effects or minimal impact theories of mass media. Mass media do have significant impact for a number of reasons. Throughout most of the 20th century the trend in culture industry ownership was toward concentration in the hands of fewer and fewer multinational corporations Bagdikian notes (Bagdikian, 1997). Lull says the culture industries became part of a vast system of inter-related agencies (Lull, 2000, 191). At the same time, globalisation of mass media has led to a small group of powerful, mainly western, publishers and broadcasters distributing increasingly homogenised media content worldwide.

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ From the last quarter of the nineteenth century onwards, there was a cumulative process of de-Christianisation. Also, during the same period there was decline of the factory, trade union, church, local neighbourhood and extended family media academic, James Curran notes (Curran, 2002, 23). The decline of traditional sources of influence such as religion, family and work has led to other sources including mass media gaining influence, Newbold, et al and others propose (Newbold, et al, 2002, 306). Furthermore, Fiskes view that popular culture was serious social struggle and that popular culture is formed by everyday people resisting and evading dominant ideological and cultural forces (Lull, 2000, 167) has been rejected by many social and media researchers as overly optimistic. The obvious criticism of Fiskes work is that it is far too optimistic about the challenging impact of mainstream texts or, to be precise, the challenging consequences of peoples own unique readings of mainstream texts, Gauntlett says (Gauntlett, 2002, 28). As noted earlier, Lull says Fiske hopelessly romanticizes the role of audience members (Lull, 2000, 168).

Curran points out that audiences ability individually and collectively to make oppositional readings or interpretations of mass media content depends on their access to oppositional discourses (Curran, 2002, 158). A number of studies suggest that the influence of traditional sources for interpretation and meaning such as the family, the Church and work have declined in recent times (Grossberg et al, 1998). A clear indication of Fiske himself points out that, notwithstanding the decline of the Church as an influential the cautionary minimal consequences institution in many societies is shown in an finding of media research by Klapper and Australian report that religious orders have others, there is an overspill of meaning shrunk by one-third between 1981 and 1997. whereby, even when readers interpret their The 1996 Catholic Church Life Survey also own meanings from media texts, the reported that the number of Catholics meanings intended by the producers also get attending mass weekly declined by 10% through (Gauntlett, 2002, 24). between 1991 and 1996 and found less than half of 160,000 Catholics surveyed accepted Accompanying the decline in sources of without difficulty the Vaticans authority to alternative or oppositional discourse to mass teach certain doctrines (McGillion, 2003). media, modern mass media employ International evidence of this trend was found increasingly sophisticated methods (including in a Times Mirror Center for the People & the docu-drama and mockumentaries which Press survey which reported that the Church involve fiction made to look like factual had declined as a source of influence in the presentations of information, Reality TV, etc) US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany to maximize their semiotic efficacy. News and in all countries except the US it was rated media overtly claim to represent truth, facts lower than television and newspapers as a and reality. These trends, when combined, source of guiding and influential information result in substantial impact on media (Times Mirror Center for the People & the audiences. Press, 1994). ________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

In summary seven flaws can be identified in limited effects thinking on mass media: 1. Reinforcement is an effect Media reinforcement is itself a powerful and significant effect. By reinforcing the status quo and/or selective discourses, mass media exert a major influence in society. 2. Overspill of meaning While audiences read their own meanings off media texts (including rejecting some media messages), researchers such as Fiske (1989) propose that some media-produced meanings get through. In other words, mass media representations are not fully absorbed by audiences, but seepage occurs. 3. Lack of oppositional discourse Social and economic changes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have resulted in many audiences having lack of access to oppositional discourse. Studies shows that the influence of family, Church and work have declined in many developed western societies. At the same time, globalisation of mass media and media monopolies or oligopolies have homogenised media content and reduced the number of independent media capable of representing alternative or opposing views.

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ when they are broadcast to heterogeneous audiences, many media target specific demographic groups and package their content for those groups (eg. mens and womens magazines), resulting in homogenous audiences accessing increasingly homogenous content. 4. Short-term versus long-term effects Most media effects studies have examined only short-term impact of mass media content on audiences. Long-term cumulative effects have been little studied. Other fields of social and scientific research suggest that long-term exposure to influences results in cumulative effects. Long-term mass media representation, particularly repeated and consistent messages, may therefore have effects not detectable in short-term studies. The notion of intertextuality discussed by Kristeva (1980, 69) points to likely cumulative effects of mass media exposure. Kristeva refers to texts on two axes: a horizontal axis connecting the author and reader of a text, and a vertical axis on which the text is connected to other texts. Few if any audiences are exposed to only one media text. Most read one or more newspapers and several magazines, listen to radio, and watch several hours of television programming each day according to media research. Kristeva, cited in Culler (1981, 105), says every text is from the outset under the jurisdiction of other discourses which impose a universe on it.

Umberto Ecos concept of aberrant decoding is informative (Eco, 1965). Eco describes texts as open or closed and says that aberrant decoding is most likely to occur with open texts (Eco, 1981). Exemplars of open texts, which have a 5. The blurred boundaries of mediation While TV drama, comedy and movies are wide range of possible meanings are prima facie identifiable by audiences as literary works which use metaphor, not real because of canned laughter, symbolism and poetic expression. Mass music soundtracks, etc, news, current media texts tend to be closed because affairs, documentaries and, to some extent, they are written to formulaic journalistic talk-back radio programs are presented as styles and produced to programming though they are real. The advent of standards which are widely followed. Eco Reality TV is an extreme example of the believes aberrant decoding is less likely blurred boundaries between fact and or unlikely to occur with closed texts. fiction in mass media. Documentaries, Furthermore, while he argues that diverse mockumentaries and docu-drama are decodings can occur with mass media texts ________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

other media programming formats which present representation as fact or reality. The distinction between what is real and what is a mediated representation blurs for many audiences. This is further compounded by the next point. 6. Media self-promotion Mass media widely promote themselves as providers of the truth and some programs and newspapers make specific claims to present how it is, the one you can trust, etc. This promotion further erodes audiences critical abilities. 7. The vicious circle of media influence While audiences turn to other sources of information and discourse such as interpersonal relationships or institutions such as political parties, government bodies, organisations, etc, these too are media consumers often reacting to mass media representation. (A simple example is consumer telling a friend she/he has read that X is a good product. The friend may agree saying Yes, I have heard that too, which provides a reassuring third party endorsement for the consumer. However, the friend may have read the same media report.) Newbold, et al (2002) point out that in the 1990s and into the new millennium it is becoming more common for studies to integrate political economy and cultural studies traditions this has undermined any temptation to complacent acceptance of the polysemic openness of texts (Newbold, et al, 2002, 40).

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________ peer groups, the Church, etc. This evolution of media effects theory to a synthesis or integrated view is summarised in Figure 1. Newbold et al summarise: the tradition of media effects has undergone a number of transformations in the past two decades. These transformations may be summarised as movements away from transmissional models of effects towards a study of media within contexts of making of meaning, of culture, of texts and of literacy, in the interaction between media texts and media readers. Those who have asked how people make meaning from texts have had to look both at the ways in which texts are structured, and at the readers themselves (Newbold, et al, 2002, 46). Newbold, et al conclude that media texts, including representations, do not affect audiences in a simple and direct way, but rather that this process is complex, ambiguous and at times even contradictory (Newbold, et al, 2002, 308). McQuail summarises the evolution of mass media research as follows: In the early days of mass communication research, the audience concept stood for the body of actual or intended receivers of messages at the end of a linear process of information transmission. This version has been gradually replaced by a view of the media receiver as more or less active, resistant to influence, and guided by his or her own concerns, depending on the particular social and cultural context (McQuail, 1997, 142; Lull, 2000, 97). The answer to the age-old question of whether mass media create or reflect social reality is both according to modern researchers such as Lull (Lull, 2000, 165). James Curran says: the media are powerful ideological agencies, though not in the simplistic form of brainwashing proposed by members of the Frankfurt school (Curran, 2002, 165). Today, it is commonly appreciated that the media do not simply mirror reality even where that is their stated aim. Every form of representation involves selection, exclusion and inclusion (Newbold, et al, 2002, 16).

Most modern researchers accept that a synthesis of influences comprised of (a) the content mediated by the producers; (b) the semiotic complexity and efficacy of the medium; and (c) the reader shape meaning from media texts. The latter influence the Ethnographic turn in research recognises both internal factors in the reader such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, education level, socio-economic background, etc. and external factors such as influence of family, ________________________________________________________________________________

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________

MEDIA EFFECTS THEORIES

Direct Effects
Media assumed as all-powerful; audience as passive recipients

Minimal or Limited Effects Theory

Joseph Klapper, Katz & Lazarsfeld found most common impact of media communication was reinforcement, not change

Cultural Studies Neo-Marxist

Media seen as powerful agents for ideological hegemony by ruling elites & capitalism. Assumed major effects

Political Economy
Media seen as part of political & economic structure; agents of powerful institutions & capitalism. Assumed major effects

Political Economy Public Sphere Theory

Habermas proposed media were a public forum for all. This view widely dismissed as romanticized and naive

Cultural Studies New Audience Research

Ethnographic turn introduced recognition of audiences as active interpreters of texts and texts as polysemic. Shifted focus to audiences & viewed media as less influential

Synthesis of Views/Integrated Theory

Media are influential but through a matrix of factors including audience education, race, sex, religion, etc, access to alternative discourse (eg. family, peers) diversity of media, etc

Figure 1. Summary of evolution of media effects theory. Electronic media in particular are seen has having considerable influence. Lull comments: mass media, especially the electronic media, are unparalleled forms of social power even in the most stable societies. Electronic media are among the modern worlds most celebrated and effective conveyers of ideology and articulators of social rules. Media stimulate short-term patterns and long-term conventions that can affect an entire society. Lull adds: Despite concerns many people have about them, the mass media are among the most potent of modern-day authorities. The vast majority of people in the more developed countries all over the world say they trust television more than any other source of information (Lull, 2000, 93). Theory developed in public relations which is a sector with a vested interest in understanding the power of the media also sheds light on the likely effects of mass communication. While studies by Keith

________________________________________________________________________________

10

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

Stamm (1972) and others refute the domino view of mass communication which suggests that messages lead to attitudes which, in turn, lead to behaviour, US academic, James Grunig (1976, 1978, 1983) has developed what he terms situational theory of communication effects (Pavlik, 1987, 77-78; Grunig, 1984, 147-158). Grunig has found that mass communication can have significant effects on audiences, but it is contingent on a number of situational factors. He presents four important factors that determine the likelihood of mass communication having effects: (1) the level of problem recognition (does the audience understand and perceive there is a problem to be addressed); (2) the level of constraint recognition (does the audience feel empowered to do anything about it); (3) the presence of a referent criterion (previous experience or knowledge of the subject) and (4) level of involvement. If these situational factors are present, he argues that mass communication can have significant effects on audiences. Steven Chaffee proposed that there are at least 18 kinds of media effects and he and other mass communication academics such as Grunig suggest that social researchers have focused only on attitudinal or behavioural change, missing other important effects. Chaffee argues that media effects occur for two reasons because of specific content and simply because of the amount of time audiences spend with them, a factor taken up by social researcher Hugh Mackay who suggests that the main effect of media consumption is that it takes audiences away from other activities (eg. inter-personal relations) which might have affected them in other more constructive ways. Chaffee argues that media effects occur at three levels: cognitive (knowledge); affective (attitudes) and conative (behaviour) and that these can have effects in three spheres: on individuals; on interpersonal relations, and on larger social systems such as communities or societies. Thus, he calculates that 2 ways of affecting x 3 levels of effects x 3 spheres of effect = 18 areas of media effects (Grunig, 1984, 126).

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________

References
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1972). Dialectic of entertainment. New York: Herder and Herder. Adorno, T. W. (1991). The culture industry: selected essays on mass culture. London: Albert Britnell and Routledge. Barr, T. (2000). newmedia.com.au. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Barner, M. R. (1999). Sex-role stereotyping in FCCmandated childrens educational television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43, 551-564. Barthes, R. (1967). Systeme de la Mode. Paris: Seuil. Beavis, A. (2002). Foreword. In H. Mackay, Media Mania (pp. 9-11). Sydney: University of New South Wales. Cohen, S., and Young, J. (1973). The manufacture of news. deviance, social problems & the mass media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Cohan, S. & Hark, R. R. (Eds.). (1993). Screening the male: exploring masculinities in Hollywood cinema. London: Routledge. Coltrane, S. and Messineo, M. (2000). The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: race and gender imagery in 1990s television advertising. Sex Roles, 42, 5-6. Cook, J. (1980). The interpretive tradition. In M. Alvarado, & O. Boyd-Barrett (1992). Media education: An introduction (pp. 155-167). London: British Film Institute. Culler, J. (1981). The pursuit of signs: semiotics, literature, deconstruction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Curran, J. (2002). Media and power. London: Routledge. Curran, J. & Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). (1996). Mass media and society. London: Edward Arnold. Eco, U. (1965). Towards a Semiotic Enquiry into the Television Message. In J. Corner & J. Hawthorn (Eds.). (1980). Communication studies: An introductory reader (pp. 131-150). London: Edward Arnold. Eco, Umberto (1981). The role of the reader. London: Hutchinson. Fiske, J. (1989a). Understanding Popular Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Fiske, J. (1989b). Moments of television: neither the text nor the audience. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzuer & E. M. Warth (Eds.). Remote control: television, audiences and cultural power (pp. 56-70). London: Routledge. Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge. Fiske, J. (1991). Postmodernism and television. In J. Curran, & M. Gurevitch (Eds.). Mass media and society (pp. 55-56). London: Edward Arnold. Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender & identity. London: Routledge.

________________________________________________________________________________

11

Mass Media Effects A Review of 50 Years of Media Effects Research

Grossberg, L., Wartella, E. & Whitney, C. D. (1998). Mediamaking mass media in a popular culture. London: Sage Publications. Grunig, J. E. (1976). Communication behaviours occurring in decision and nondecision situations. Public Relations Review, 2 (2), 252-263. Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital. Journalism Quarterly, 55 (1), 109-118. Grunig, J. E. (1983). Communication behaviours and attitudes of environmental publics: Two Studies. Journalism Monographs, 81. Grunig, J. E. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gunter, B. (1995). Television and gender representation. London: John Libbey. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity. (Original work published 1962) Hall, S. (1973). Encoding/Decoding. Reprinted in S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 26-27). London: Hutchinson. Hall, S. (1977). Culture, media, and the ideological effect. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Mass Communication and Society (p. 332333). London: Edward Arnold. Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. & Willis, P. (Eds.). (1980). Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79 (pp. 128-38). London: Hutchinson. (Original work published 1973 as Encoding/decoding in television discourse) Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference (pp. 222-237). London: Lawrence and Wishart. Halloran, J. D. (1965). The Effects of Mass Communication. Leicester University Press. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York: Herder and Herder. Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence. New York: Free Press. Katz, E. (1977). Looking for trouble: social research on broadcasting. Presentation made to British Broadcasting Corporation, London. Klapper, J. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: a semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Lovell, T. (1980). Pictures of reality. London: British Film Institute. Lull, J. (2000). Media, communication, culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

A White Paper

________________________________________________________________________________
Marcuse, H. (1972). One dimensional man. London: Sphere. McCombs, M. (1977). Agenda setting function of mass media. Public Relations Review, 3 (4), 89-95. McCombs, M. (1994). The influence on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McGillion, C. (2003, February 1-2). Mass defection. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 33. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. McQuail, D. (1984). With the benefit of hindsight: reflections on uses and gratifications research. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 1 (2), VA: Speech Communication Association, 177-193. McQuail, D. (1997). Audience analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merrill, J. C. & Lowenstein, R. L. (1971). Media, messages and men. New York: David MacKay. Mosco, V. (1995). The political economy tradition of media research, Module 2, Unit 4 of the MA in Mass Communications. University of Leicester. Morley, D., & Chen, K. (Eds.). (1996). Stuart Hall: critical dialogues in cultural studies. London: Routledge. Mumford, L. (1998). Feminist theory and television studies. In C. Geraghty, & D. Lusted (Eds.). The television studies book (pp. 114-130). London: Arnold. Newbold, C., Boyd-Barrett, O. & Van Den Bulck, H. (2002). The media book. London: Arnold (Hodder Headline). Pavlik, J. (1987). What research tells us? Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Stamm, K. R. (1972). Environment and communication. In F. G. Kline & P. J. Tichenor (Eds.), Current perspectives in mass communication research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tester, K. (1994). Media, culture, and morality. London: Routledge. Times Mirror Center for People & the Press survey. (1994). Los Angeles Times, 16 March. Woodward, K. (ed.). (1997). Identity and difference. London: Sage/Open University. Wright, C. (1959). Mass communication. New York: Random House. * Jim Macnamara has spent 25 years working in and with the media as a journalist, public relations practitioner and media researcher. He holds a BA in journalism, media studies & literary studies; a MA by research in media studies; and is completing a PhD in media research in 2005. He is the author of nine books on the media, public relations and communication and numerous papers published in journals including the Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal; Strategic Communication Measurement in the US; and Journal of Communication Management in London. He is CEO of Asia Pacific office of media analysis firm, CARMA International.

________________________________________________________________________________

12