Wikipedia

User:Rebeccashumway/sandbox

< User:Rebeccashumway

Article Info

edit

Media influence
Article has been flagged since 2012 to be rewritten entirely since it is "written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts." Over 4,000 resources for search term "media influence" and 400 available resources for related search term "media effects theory" at FIU library. I'd like to explore the interchange between media and society: Does media reflect society or does society reflect media? It's also a great link to my major, since I'm a communications major studying advertising.

Workflow

  • Outline
    • Read books
      • Add key quotes to appropriate sections
      • Add paraphrasing sentences
  • Start splicing and editing article

New Outline for Article

edit

Only bold will appear in article outline. The remainder are for my own sake.

  1. Introduction
    1. Media effects vs. media influence: definitions
  2. History
    1. Powerful media effects phase
    2. Limited media effect phase
    3. Rediscovered powerful media effects
    4. Negotiated media effects phase
    5. New media environment phase
  3. Typology
    1. Macro- versus micro-level media effects
      1. Micro-level
      2. Macro-level
    2. McQuail's mass communication theory
  4. Key media effects theories
    1. Media effects on individuals
      1. Third-person
      2. Priming
      3. Social learning
      4. Behavior changes
        1. Media violence [The question of media violence - Barrie Gunter || Media Effects] Merge: Media-influenced violence
          1. Television
          2. Video Games [Violent video games and aggression: why can't we find effects? - Sherry || Mass Media Effects Research]
        2. Media fright [Fright reactions to mass media - Joanne Cantor || Media Effects]
        3. Sexually explicit material [The impact of sexually explicit media - Harris || Media Effects] [Effects of sexually explicit media - Mundorf, Allen, et al || Mass Media Effects Research]
        4. Advertising [Media effects on advertising - Stewert and Ward || Media Effects]
          1. Health effects [Effects of media on personal and public health - Brown and Walsh-Childers || Media Effects] [Meta-analyses of mediated health campaigns - Snyder || Mass Media Effects Research] [An analysis of media health campaigns for children and adolescents: do they work? - Parcell, Kwon et al || Mass Media Effects Research] Merge: Media effects on nutrition
          2. Body image Merge: Media effects on body image
          3. Children and adolescents [The effects of advertising on children and adolescents: a meta-analysis - Desmond and Carveth || Mass Media Effects Research]]
    2. Media effects on masses
      1. Agenda setting in the news [News influence on our pictures of the world - Maxwell Combs || Media Effects] [Mass media and voter turnout - Miron and Bryant || Mass Media Effects Research]
        1. Framing
          1. Journalists as "gatekeepers" [Gatekeeping in Transition]
            1. Counterpoint
        2. Internal considerations in news media outlets
          1. Newspaper ownership bias [On the role of newspaper ownership on bias in Presidential campaign coverage by newspapers - D'Alessio and Allen || Mass Media Effects Research]
          2. Individual media workers role
            1. Gender, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. dictate media creators output [Chapter 5 || Mediating the Message]
          3. Media routines [Chapter 6 || Mediating the Message]
          4. Economic logic: dictate and constraints
            1. Entertainment vs. substance [Chapter 7 || Mediating the Message]
      2. Molding social reality
        1. Cultivation
        2. Minorities [Minorities and mass media: 1970s to 1990s - Greenburg and Brand || Media Effects]
        3. Gender stereotyping [Effects of gender stereotyping on socialization - Oppliger || Mass Media Effects Research]
  5. Digital media effects Merge: New Media
    1. Scattered media sources
      1. Hinder gatekeeping efforts [Gatekeeping in Transition]
    2. Social aspect [Media Effects]
  6. Features of current media effect studies[27]
    1. Selectivity of Media Use
    2. Media Properties as Predictors
    3. Media Effects Are Indirect
    4. Media Effects Are Conditional
    5. Media Effects Are Transactional

Key media effects theories

edit

Micro-level media effects

edit

These media effects studies examine media influence on individuals.

Third-person

edit

Individuals often mistakenly believe that they are less susceptible to media effects than others. About fifty percent of the members in a given sample are impervious to the third-person effect, either accurately estimating or even overestimating their influence.[1] This can allow an individual to complain about media effects without taking responsibility for their own possible effects.[2] This is largely based on attribution theory, where "the person tends to attribute his own reactions to the object world, and those of another, when they differ from his own, to personal characteristics."[3] Standley (1994) tested the third-person effect and attribution theory, reporting people are more likely offer situational reasons for television's effect upon themselves, while offering dispositional reasons for other members of an audience.[4]

Priming

edit

This is a concept derived from a network model of memory used in cognitive psychology. Information is stored in this model as nodes, clustered with related nodes by associated pathways. If one node is activated, nearby nodes are also activated. This is known as spreading activation. Priming occurs when a node is activated, causing related nodes to stand by for possible activation. Both the intensity and amount of elapsed time from the moment of activation determine the strength and duration of the priming effect.[1]

In media effects studies, priming describes how exposure to media can alter an individual's attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs. Most media violence research, a popular area of discussion in media effects studies, theorizes that exposure to violent acts may prime an individual to behave more aggressively while the activation lingers.[2]

Social learning

edit

Miller and Dollard (1941) began this theory by their findings that individuals do not need to personally act out a behavior to learn it; they can learn from observation.[5] Bandura (1977) expanded upon this concept, stating that audiences can learn behaviors from observing fictitious characters.[6]

Media violence

edit

The effects of media violence upon individuals has many decades of research, starting as early as the 1920s. Children and adolescents, considered vulnerable media consumers, re often the target of these studies. TMost studies of media violence surround the media categories of television and video games.

The rise of the motion picture industry, coupled with advances in social sciences, spurred the famous Payne Fund studies and others. Though the quality of the research has been called into question, one of the findings suggested a direct role between movies depicting delinquent adolescents and delinquent behaviors in adolescents. Wertham (1954) in his book, Seduction of the Innocent, later suggested that comic books influenced children into delinquent behaviors, provided false worldviews and lowered literacy. This research was too informal to reach a clear verdict, and a recent study suggests information was misrepresented and even falsified, yet it led to public outcry resulting in many discontinued comic magazines.[7]

Television's ubiquity in the 1950s generated more concerns. Since then, studies have hypothesized a number of effects.

Behavioral effects include disinhibition, imitation and desensitization.

  1. Disinhibition, a theory that exposure to violent media may legitimize the use of violence, has found support in many carefully controlled experiments. Men exposed to violent pornography behave more aggressively towards women in certain circumstances.[8]
  2. Imitation theory states individuals may learn violence from television characters. Bandura's Bobo doll experiment, along with other research, seems to indicate correlation even when controlling for individual differences.[9]
  3. Desensitization refers to an individual's habituation to violence through exposure to violent media content, resulting in real-life implications. Studies have covered both television and video game violence.[10]

Cognitive effects include an increased belief of potential violence in the real world from watching violent media content, leading to anxiety about personal safety.[11]

Media fright

edit

[Fright reactions to mass media - Joanne Cantor || Media Effects]

Sexually explicit material

edit

[The impact of sexually explicit media - Harris || Media Effects] [Effects of sexually explicit media - Mundorf, Allen, et al || Mass Media Effects Research]

Advertising

edit

[Media effects on advertising - Stewert and Ward || Media Effects]

  1. Health effects [Effects of media on personal and public health - Brown and Walsh-Childers || Media Effects] [Meta-analyses of mediated health campaigns - Snyder || Mass Media Effects Research] [An analysis of media health campaigns for children and adolescents: do they work? - Parcell, Kwon et al || Mass Media Effects Research]
  2. Body image Merge: Media effects on body image
  3. Children and adolescents [The effects of advertising on children and adolescents: a meta-analysis - Desmond and Carveth || Mass Media Effects Research]]

Macro-level media effects

edit

These media effects studies examine media influence on an audience aggregate.

Cultivation

edit

Not all media effects are instantaneous or short-term. Gerbner (1969) created cultivation theory, arguing that the media cultivates a "collective consciousness about elements of existence."[12] If audiences are exposed to repetitive themes and storylines, over time, they may expect these themes and storylines mirrored in real life.[2]

Agenda setting in the news

edit

There are two primary areas of media agenda-setting: (i) the media tells us the news and (ii) tells us what to think about the news. Press coverage sends signals to audiences about the importance of mentioned issues, while framing the news induces the unsuspecting viewer into a particular response. Additionally, news that is not given press coverage often dissipates, not only because it lacks a vehicle of mass communication, but because individuals may not express their concerns for fear of ostracization; this further creates the spiral of silence effect.

Framing
edit

News outlets can influence public opinion by controlling variables in news presentation. News gatherers curate facts to underscore a certain angle. Presentation method—such as time of broadcast, extent of coverage and choice of news medium—can also frame the message; this can create, replace or reinforce a certain viewpoint in an audience. Entman (2007) describes framing as "the process of culling a few elements of perceived reality and assembling a narrative that highlights connections among them to promote a particular interpretation." Not only does the media identify supposed "causes of problems," it can "encourage moral judgments" and "promote favored policies." [13][2]

One long-term implication of framing, if the media reports news with a consistent favorable slant, is that it can lend a helping hand to certain overarching institutions of thought and related entities. It can reinforce capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism, individualism, consumerism, and white privilege. [14] Some theorize this bias may reinforce the political parties that espouse these thought paradigms, although more empirical research is needed to substantiate these claims.[13]

Media outlets contend that gatekeeping, or news filtering that may result in agenda-setting and specifically framing, is inevitable. With a never-ending, near-limitless amount of information, filtering will occur by default. Subcultures within news organizations determine the type of published content, while editors and other news organization individuals filter messages to curate content for their target audience.[15]

The rise of digital media, from blogs to social media, has significantly altered the media's gatekeeping role. In addition to more gates, there are also more gatekeepers. Google and Facebook both cater content to their users, filtering though thousands of search results and media postings to generate content aligned with a user's preferences.[16] In 2015, 63 percent of Facebook and Twitter users find news on their feeds, up from 57% from the previous year.[17] With some many "gates" or outlets, news spreads without the aid of legacy media networks. In fact, users on social media can act as a check to the media, calling attention to bias or inaccurate facts.There is also a symbiotic relationship between social media users and the press: younger journalists use social media to track trending topics.[16]

Legacy media outlets, along with newer online-only outlets, face enormous challenges. The multiplicity of outlets combined with downsizing in the aftermath of the recession makes reportage more hectic than ever. One study found that journalists write about 4.5 articles per day. Public relations agencies play a growing role in news creation: "41 percent of press articles and 52 percent of broadcast news items contain PR materials which play an agenda-setting role or where PR material makes up the bulk of the story."[18] Stories are often rushed to publication and edited afterwards, without "having passed through the full journalistic process." Still, audiences seek out quality content—whichever outlet can fulfill this need may acquire the limited attention span of the modern viewer.[16]

Spiral of silence
edit

Individuals are inclined to prevent sharing or amplifying certain messages because of a fear of social isolation and a willingness to self-censor. As applies to media effects studies, some individuals may silence their opinions if the media does not validate their importance or viewpoint. This spiral of silence can also apply to individuals in the media, who may refrain from publishing controversial media content.[19]

News influence
edit

[News influence on our pictures of the world - Maxwell Combs || Media Effects] [Mass media and voter turnout - Miron and Bryant || Mass Media Effects Research]

Molding social reality
edit

Discuss cultivation theory as basis

  1. Minorities [Minorities and mass media: 1970s to 1990s - Greenburg and Brand || Media Effects]
  2. Gender stereotyping [Effects of gender stereotyping on socialization - Oppliger || Mass Media Effects Research]
Internal considerations in news media outlets
edit

Legacy media outlets, along with newer social media outlets, face enormous challenges. The multiplicity of outlets combined with downsizing in the aftermath of the recession makes reportage more hectic than ever. One study found that journalists write about 4.5 articles per day. Public relations agencies play a growing role in news creation: "41 percent of press articles and 52 percent of broadcast news items contain PR materials which play an agenda-setting role or where PR material makes up the bulk of the story." [cite a comprimised 4th estate]

  1. Newspaper ownership bias [On the role of newspaper ownership on bias in Presidential campaign coverage by newspapers - D'Alessio and Allen || Mass Media Effects Research]
  2. Individual media workers role
    1. Gender, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. dictate media creators output [Chapter 5 || Mediating the Message]
  3. Media routines [Chapter 6 || Mediating the Message]
  4. Economic logic: dictate and constraints
    1. Entertainment vs. substance [Chapter 7 || Mediating the Message]

Molding social reality

edit
  1. Minorities [Minorities and mass media: 1970s to 1990s - Greenburg and Brand || Media Effects]
  1. Gender stereotyping [Effects of gender stereotyping on socialization - Oppliger || Mass Media Effects Research]

Digital media effects

edit

Scattered media sources

edit

Hinder gatekeeping efforts [Gatekeeping in Transition]

Social aspect

edit

[Media Effects]

  1. ^ a b Mass Media Effects Research: Advances Through Meta-Analysis. Routledge. 2006-08-31. p. 82, 55. ISBN 9780805849998.
  2. ^ a b c d Media Effects (60502nd edition ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 2012-01-03. p. 73, 76. ISBN 9781412964692. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ Heider, F. (2013-05-13). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Psychology Press. p. 157. ISBN 1134922183.
  4. ^ Standley, Tracy Collins (1994-01-01). Linking Third Person Effect and Attribution Theory. Southern Methodist University.
  5. ^ Miller, N. E. & Dollard, J. (1941). "Social learning and imitation". APA PsycNET. Yale University Press. Retrieved 2016-03-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Bandura, Albert (1994). "Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication" (PDF). Erlbaum. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
  7. ^ Tilley, Carol (2013). "Seducing the Innocent: Fredric Wertham and the Falsifications that Helped Condemn Comics". www.academia.edu. Information and Culture: A Journal of History. Retrieved 2016-03-30.
  8. ^ Malamuth, Neil (1981). "Rape Proclivity Among Males" (PDF). Journal of Social Issues. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
  9. ^ "Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992". APA PsycNET. Retrieved 2016-03-30.
  10. ^ Carnagey, Nicholas L.; Anderson, Craig A.; Bushman, Brad J. (2007-05-01). "The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43 (3): 489–496. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.003.
  11. ^ Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Routledge. 1994-01-03. p. 184. ISBN 9780805809183.
  12. ^ Gerbner, George (1969-06-01). "Toward "Cultural Indicators": The analysis of mass mediated public message systems". AV communication review. 17 (2): 137–148. doi:10.1007/BF02769102. ISSN 0001-2890.
  13. ^ a b Entman, Robert M. (2007-03-01). "Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power". Journal of Communication. 57 (1): 163–173. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x. ISSN 1460-2466.
  14. ^ Budd, Mike; Craig, Steve; Steinman, Clayton M. (1999-01-01). Consuming Environments: Television and Commercial Culture. Rutgers University Press. p. 175. ISBN 9780813525921.
  15. ^ Shoemaker, Pamela J.; Vos, Timothy (2009-09-10). Gatekeeping Theory. Routledge. ISBN 9781135860608.
  16. ^ a b c Vos and Heinderyckx (2015-04-28). Gatekeeping in Transition. Routledge. pp. 12, 175, 10, 115, 175, 110. ISBN 9780415731614.
  17. ^ "New Pew data: More Americans are getting news on Facebook and Twitter". Nieman Lab. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
  18. ^ Lewis, Justin; Williams, Andrew; Franklin, Bob. "A COMPROMISED FOURTH ESTATE?". Journalism Studies. 9 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/14616700701767974.
  19. ^ Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1974-06-01). "The Spiral of Silence A Theory of Public Opinion" (PDF). Journal of Communication. 24 (2): 43–51. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x. ISSN 1460-2466.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rebeccashumway/sandbox&oldid=712964774"