Media Effects Theories & Concepts

1. Selective Processes—This perspective on how humans “see” the world is based on individual
differences of upbringing, race, gender, socioeconomic status, life experiences. Individuals are exposed
to different experiences and influences—some profound (like nationality or gender) and some subtle (like
bigtown/smalltown)—that help shape how they see and make sense of the world, people, issues, culture,
society. The result of these differences is that people perceive and interpret the world differently.
Recognizing shared perceptions of the world is essential to understanding how individuals form
communities.

• Selective Exposure: Based on how we see the world, individuals tend to pay attention to different kinds
of information that is more or less relevant and familiar to their own experience. This concept also relates
to the media choices we make—which news sources we read & view (e.g., Fox News or PBS News Hour,
NPR or Rush Limbaugh, Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News), entertainment viewing (TV, movies—
Dexter or CSI, Girl with the Dragon Tatto or Disney), music (Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith). The media
choices we make influence our perception of reality.

• Selective Perception: As a result of these difference background and formative influences, as well as
media choices, individuals see and make sense of the world differently; we all create our own meanings
of events around us, filtering information that reaches us through our own prejudices and prior
knowledge, framing information so that it makes sense in our own context.

• Selective Retention: Some information flies right past us; some sticks. We tend to remember best the
information that confirms our beliefs and values, and forget the information that contradicts our values
and beliefs.

2. Gatekeeping—There are gatekeepers in any communication system—interpersonal, written, mass

communication. These are elements that make constant decisions about what information is or isn’t
important enough to pass along—what information gets through the “gate” from the sender of a message
to a receiver of that message. Not only does gatekeeping occur in deciding the end message (e.g., what
stories get into the newspaper), but also as a reporter decides what stories to cover, what sources to
interview, what questions to ask, and what parts of her reporter’s notebook are important enough to make
it into the story. So there is both “front-end” gatekeeping as a media message is created, and a “back-
end” gatekeeping as an editor decides what stories to put in the paper, on what page, with what headline,
and what part of the reporter’s story gets edited out. Clearly, individual perceptions of the world and what
things are important in it (selective perception) are in play in this process. The ultimate gatekeeper in the
mass communication process is the news reader/viewer—what do they think is important/relevant enough
to permit through the “gates” of their conscious minds? In this context (and under agenda-setting, below),
the media do not reflect “reality”; they filter, shape and construct a “reality.” (Remember the principles of
media literacy.)

• Review Project Censored

3. Agenda-Setting—This theory holds that although the mass media can’t tell us what to think, the media
are stunningly successful at telling us what to think about. That is, through their selection or de-selection
of what is “news” (gatekeeping), the mass media serve to create an agenda for social discourse. When
there were only three major national TV networks, and some 70-80% of Americans watched them nightly,
a very clear national agenda of what’s most important was created. Even in such a monopolistic and
dominated mass media system, the networks couldn’t make people think in certain ways (because of
individual selective perception), but they were and are able to focus attention of some issues while
ignoring others. (The Project Censored story is an illustration of what stories did not make the public’s
agenda/consciousness.) Examples of how agenda-setting worked in society include: The OJ Simpson
murder trial; the Clinton impeachment hearings following Zippergate; WMDs and the Iraq War/War on
Terrorism. Consider the implications of agenda-setting for public policy debate and creation of laws.
Another question: Who sets the agenda for the media agenda-setters?

• Read: Historical dates & examples of agenda setting

4. Framing—This theory concerns how news and information are “framed” or presented once through the
news “gate” and on the public agenda. A media “frame” is the central organizing idea for a news story that
supplies a context and emphasizes certain aspects of a story while minimizing or ignoring others. As
media literacy theory tells us, media messages are constructions or representations of “reality.” It is
impossible for a media message to be anything more than a summary or representation of the world.
Thus, the question for message consumers is always: “What aspects of this story are not being told?”
“What information lies outside the ‘frame’ of this message?” and, perhaps most importantly, “What might
be the intent (ideological, intentional or inadvertent) of the senders (gatekeepers) of this message?” So
framing suggests that the bottom line in news coverage is not just what to think about (agenda-setting),
but how to think about it, based on how the story is presented. Framing is not a conspiracy to skew the
news (although it can be done that way); individuals, based on their selective perceptions, not only select
different things as important, but inevitably frame them in different ways to conform to how they see the
world. But what is the effect of that framing on the receiver of those messages, and on the larger society?

• Read: Media's framing of issues and events often leads audiences to specific conclusions & influences
the choices that they make

• Frames (Robert Entman, 1993)

a. Frames determine whether most people will notice a story

b. How they understand the story and evaluate the story

c. How they respond to the story

• Framing Strategies in News

a. Placement: Front page, above or below the fold, lead story on network news, etc.

b. Headlines: Influence whether people decide to read the story and ultimately, how they interpret the
story after reading it.Example: Example: “Media Coverage of Muslims Bombs”

c. Repetition: How often is the story repeated. Example: "The Dean Scream"

d. Length of story: How much column space, minutes in broadcast story.

e. Word choice: Language choices are very powerful in influencing public perceptions and
interpretations. Examples:

• Katrina flood victims captioned "Looting" vs "Finding"

• "Illegal aliens" vs. "Undocumented immigrants"

f. Images: Research demonstrates that we remember images much longer than the words we read.

Examples:

• Time vs. Newsweek covers of OJ Simpson's mug shot.

• Time vs. Newsweek covers of Elian Gonzales

• Toppling of Saddam statue in Iraq

g. Omissions: "[F]rames simultaneously direct attention away from other aspects. Most frames are
defined by what they omit as well as include (Entman, p. 54).

Example:

• Lack of news coverage of missing African American teenage girls. Click here.

• The Pictures of War You Aren’t Supposed to See

5. Cultivation Theory—The images and impressions and topics (and how they are framed) that appear
in the mass media serve to “cultivate” in all of us certain impressions of the world. These messages and
the way they are framed—if they are a stable set of images consistent over time—may serve to change
our own individual perceptual frame of the world around us. The mass media build and maintain a stable
set of images—stories about our culture, our society, who we are—that govern our lives and how we see
the world, and influence the decisions we make. Ultimately, mass media messages in sufficient
accumulation may influence our behavior, attitudes, decisions and life choices. This has wide implications
for both individuals and for societies. One example is Gerbner’s “mean world syndrome,” in which
research found that heavy viewers of news tended to perceive the world as a more dangerous and scarier
place than light TV viewers. Based on the amount and kind of stuff we include in our mass media diets,
we may over time start to “cultivate” new perceptions of people, ideas, issues, etc., with which we have
little direct involvement. In short, the cultivate media “reality” may become more real to us over time than
real reality. This has important implications for mass media producers and consumers, and for the society
in which we live—advertising, consumerism, society anxiety, racism, sexism, etc.

© Dr. Edward C. Pease

"Since the 1950s, children have been exposed to ever-increasing amounts of television, and because the
increase has been gradual, it has avoided intense scrutiny by the scientific community for potential
adverse effects. It is similar to the situation in which a frog, when thrown into hot water, jumps out
immediately because he knows it is toxic to him. But if you take the same frog and place it on the stove
and heat it slowly, he will stay in the pot until he is turned into soup."
 William Hayes, president, New Jersey Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1996

• Read: Creating Perceptions of Life from Reality Television

Cultivation Theory Definition: Long-term exposure to media may affect how we perceive the world. TV
reality may seem more real than our actual life experiences. These images and perspectives work to
“cultivate” how we see and think about the world, people and issues.

Central Concepts:

• How media build and maintain a stable set of images about society—the stories of our culture.

• These images influence our lives—how we perceive reality.

• Media images influence the decisions we make.

These mediated perceptions of the world and the opinions we form and decisions we make—may
influence our attitudes and ultimately, the choices we make.

Example #1:

1. Stable set of images: Iraq possessed WMD and Saddam Hussein had direct links to al Qaeda and the
September 11 terrorist attacks.

2. Influence our lives—how we perceive reality: Iraq and Saddam Hussein are terrorist threats to the U.S.

3. Influence our decisions: Support the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.

4. Decisions influence our behavior: Vote for candidates who supported the 2001 invasion and occupation
of Iraq.

Example #2:

1. Stable set of images: Excessively thin women as the ideal body size.

2. Influence our lives— How we perceive the reality: Thin women are more popular, happy, successful,
get the guy.

3. Influence our decisions: Need to diet, exercise to lose weight.

4. Decisions influence our behavior: Begin dieting in effort to look more like media ideal, may become
obsessive dieter, exerciser.

• Also may influence how we feel and act towards others-whether they conform to media ideal

6. Third Person Effect Theory (TPE)—Rather than examining media effects in terms of how media may
effect the way individuals think about issues and people, TPE theory examines our beliefs about how
media effects us and others. In other words—rather than taking the approach that media affect our
perceptions, TPE considers how our perceptions shape our ideas about media effects. Research shows
that most of us have the perception that media will not have its strongest impact on us—but on other
people. In other words, media will influence other people—but have little influence over me personally.
One result of this attitude/perception, according to research, is that people who have this perception, tend
to overestimate media’s potential impact on others and underestimate potential impact on self. Another
result of individuals’ perception that media will significantly influence others, is that these individuals are
more likely to believe media need to be restricted and censored in order to avoid the media’s harmful
effects on others