4.

2 Message Construction

I explained in our first class that in the nineteen sixties communication scientists started
to pay more attention to message construction and deconstruction under the influence
of semiotics and literature studies. We adopted from literary theory the idea that
everything that communicates something is a ‘text’ that can be ‘read’. The most
influential model from semiotics was perhaps this nineteenth century model by
Ferdinand de Saussure in which he explained that a sign was made up of two things.
First of all, a signifier, which is the form of the sign. Secondly, the concept it represents,
the signified. The word: ‘love’ is a set of black lines to a white background, in this case on
your computer screen. That’s the signifier. The signified is the concept of love. If we take
a traffic light. The signifier is a red light hanging over the road. The signified is the idea
that you have to stop. But, the process of giving meaning to this sign, in other words 'the
signification', is not the same for everyone. Although it’s quite clear for most people that
they have to stop for a red light, for Judith it also means that she will arrive late at her
job interview. She will react very differently to the red light than Meg, who was not in a
hurry at all. Semiotics tells us that there are two levels of signification: Denotation and
connotation. Denotation is the first order of signification, the explicit meaning of a sign,
in this case a red light. Connotation is the second level of signification, it is what the
denotation represents, all associated meanings, in this case it means stopping, but is also
results in anger and frustration for Judith because she might be late at her interview. We
can easily imagine different people reacting very differently to this sign, adding their
own unique background to the signification process. So embedded in this model is the
idea of polysemic messages. Messages with a different meaning for different people.
Some signs have a widely shared connotation. On a denotative level it’s a black little
drawing against a white background. On a conative level most people will recognize this
as the representation for the ladies room. Of course on a very personal level the
connotation will still vary depending on how bad someone needs to go. The Jacobson
model from 1960 is a clear example of how these ideas were adopted by communication
scientists. It combined the well-known transmission perspective, sender, message, and
receiver, with several of the elements we just discussed, but with a different name. Each
message, according to the Jacobson model refers to something outside of the message: a
context. A red traffic light refers to the concept of stopping. A love letter refers to the
concept of ‘love’. Another new element was the explicit mention of the ‘code’ of a
message, which is the form that a message takes, in semiotics the ‘signifier’. So, in our
two examples the codes are a red light and a letter consisting of words written in a
specific language. This latter code requires a complicated skillset. One has to be able to
read but also know the specific language in which it was written. Then, when the explicit
meaning was read, the individual audience member can add his or her own associations
to the signification process. Creating a unique outcome on a receiver level.

4.3 Active Audiences

The idea that message deconstruction requires certain skills, and varies from person to
person depending on their background, knowledge and predispositions, certainly
supposes a lot of audience activity. Traditionally the audience was seen as massive,
uniform and passive. Unable to select or block messages. Therefore media organizations
and advertisers, whenever they commissioned an audience study, were mostly
interested in how many people were exposed to a message. They basically wanted to
know their so called ‘reach’ since how many people you reach is an important indicator
of the economical worth of advertising space. Advertisers paid more for a spot in media
with a high reach. But, when gradually the idea of the powerful audience came into
sway, reach became a more complicated concept. Instead of the simple definition
‘amount of people that are exposed to a message’ Roger Clausse proposed the following
hierarchy of reach. First the ‘message offered’, let’s say I’m doing a direct mail campaign.
This level of reach would be the amount of letters that I sent out, the second level is
‘message receivable’, the amount of people that have a mailbox and are therefore able to
receive my letter, thirdly ‘message received’, this is the amount of people that actually
received my letter. Please note that this is the traditional definition of reach. On a fourth
level is message registered, since we can imagine many people will throw away this
letter they didn’t ask for without reading. And fifthly ‘message internalized’ the highest
level of audience activity, everyone who read the letter and thought about it.
Commercially the highest level of audience activity, internalization, is worth more to
advertisers and hence media organizations than merely the people who receive a
message. So not only scientists, but also market researchers were very interested in
audience activity and the question how and why people select certain messages for
consumption. Why they choose to be part of an audience. This was also something new,
compared to the traditional passive audience paradigm, that people choose to be an
audience member, they made conscious decisions about which media to use and they
did this to fulfill their media-related needs, because they wanted to be informed,
entertained, pass the time, belong to a group or any other reason. This idea of an active
audience that was aware of their media-associated needs was already studied in the
early 1940’s. In the sixties the theme was rediscovered and made explicit in the Uses and
Gratification theory. Many important scientists like Katz, Blumler and McQuail made use
of this theory and further explored the issue. They focused on the needs of audience
members. Primarily they tried to answer the question Why people use certain media.
This theory sees people as actively seeking out the media that suit their needs best. If I
want to laugh I’ll watch a sitcom on tv. For an evening of safe suspense, you might pop in
a DVD of some exciting new detective series or read an exciting book or comic book. The
point is, everyone is aware of which media serve their needs best. So the next person
might not choose a book but will reach the same goal by using a computer game. So, we
choose the media that fit our needs. If you want to know something about
communication science one person might read a book on the topic and the other will
follow this MOOC.

4.4 Selective Processing

Uses and Gratification studies taught us that people were actively seeking out media to
fulfill their needs. It makes sense that when people are able to open themselves up to
specific content, they can also close themselves off to certain messages. Closing oneself
off to messages may be seen as a coping mechanism. Scientists who studied the brain
discovered that, since we are constantly bombarded with sensory input, in order to
make sense of the world around us, and not get overwhelmed, we have become very
adept in blocking unnecessary input and at the same time selecting and amplifying
relevant data. Note that these processes are usually unconscious, meaning that they also
occur when we do not intend to filter out information. A simple example of this, in a
crowded room our brain will filter away background noise and conversations that we
are not interested in, focusing on the people we are talking to. Amplifying their voice and
blocking other sounds. But if someone in one of those other conversations would
suddenly drop our name, we would probably hear that. Because our brain knows that
we are interested when people start talking about us! Hastorf and Cantril studied this
phenomenon in 1954. They asked several university students from Princeton and
Dartmouth to count the amount of violations in a Princeton-Dartmouth football game.
Princeton students reported more Dartmouth violations and Dartmouth students had
‘seen’ more Princeton violations. Both groups, despite the fact that they had to observe
seemingly simple and objective facts, had processed the message in a different way,
filtering out unwanted information – whenever their own team made a violation – and
amplifying information that corresponded with their predispositions. These and similar
findings later led to the proposal of the so called Hostile Media Effect. In 1982, the first
major study of this phenomenon was undertaken by Vallone, Ross and Lepper. Pro-
Palestinian students and pro-Israeli students were shown the same news and asked to
count the amount of pro- and anti-Israeli and pro- and anti-Palestinian references. Both
sides found that the media were biased against their side. Pro-Israeli students counted
more anti-Israel references and fewer pro-Israel references than the students who
favoured the Palestinians. And vice versa. These studies indicate that there is an actual
difference of perception between members of the same audience. They see, hear,
remember and process messages differently on a subconscious level. This is called a
cognitive bias. We think we are objectively watching the news or a sports game but in
reality our mind is already serving as a filter. Making selections and blocking out
unwanted information. There are many reasons for this. We’ll discuss some of them in
the next section of our MOOC.

4.5 Cognitive Shortcuts

The study of cognitive biases tells us that we process information subjectively.

Sometimes to the extent that our perceptions get distorted, clouding ‘simple and
objective’ facts like the amount of violations in a football match. Having cognitive biases
is in many cases a very effective and healthy phenomenon because people simple can
not handle balanced processing of all input. Can you imagine being conscious all the time
of all your senses? You’ll probably be overwhelmed in seconds! Therefore it’s great that
our mind is able to subconsciously make all of these processing decisions. Although we
may be inclined to see biases as limitations, we could also view them as cognitive
shortcuts since they speed up information processing. Perhaps the best known theory
about cognitive biases is the theory of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance is a
theory from psychology that explains how people handle conflicting feelings, ideas or
beliefs. I’ll explain with an example. Roger feels he is a well-read intellectual. His friends
start talking about the classic book War and Peace. Everyone has read it except Roger.
The belief that he is a well-read intellectual clashes with the fact that he is the only one
amongst his friends who hasn’t read this classic. The theory predicts that Roger will try
to avoid the discomfort of this cognitive dissonance. He can do this in three ways.

1) By making one of the discordant factors less important,

2) By adding new elements to his beliefs that make the picture fit, or, in other words,
create consonance,

3) And finally by changing one clashing factors.

So, to avoid cognitive dissonance Roger could say: Well, who cares if I’m well read. It’s
not that important! Or: Not having read one classic hardly makes me illiterate! Or, he
could create consonance by adding new elements to his beliefs. For instance by thinking
that, being an intellectual, he obviously hangs out with other well-read intellectuals. It’s
therefore not surprising that his friends have read the classic. Finally he could change
his view: either by thinking 'Apparently I’m not that well-read' or thinking 'War and
Peace is actually greatly overestimated as a work of literature'. The theory explains how
people balance their beliefs with reality. Sometimes this can lead to enormous opinion
changes. The classic example of this is the fable of the Fox and the Grapes by Aesop. In
the English translation: “Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high
on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away,
the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.'” Aesop
sums up the moral of the story. “People who speak disparagingly of things that they
cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves”. The fox had clearly
reduced cognitive dissonance by changing his beliefs, which was the third option, and
deciding that the grapes he had craved before were actually sour. On a side note, this is
also the origin of the expression ‘sour grapes’.

4.6 Central and Peripheral Route

A very different theory that makes use of the cognitive shortcut idea is the Elaboration
Likelihood Model or ELM in short. It was proposed in 1979 that information can be
processed through a central or a peripheral path. When recipients process via the
central route they think about a message extensively. The message passes through the
different processing stages. The peripheral route however is a shortcut. It’s activated by
so called ‘peripheral cues’ like humor, credibility of the source, fear, or desire. The
theory tells us that persuasive attempts should take into consideration the
predispositions of the audience, specifically

a) the motivation to understand a message and

b) the ability to understand that message.

An example: Let's say Tom wants to buy a car. He wants the best one out there within his
price range so he is a) motivated to compare information on cars. And also let’s assume
Tom is b) able to understand the information that different brochures and websites give
him. Because Tom is both motivated and able, the central route of persuasion will
probably yield the best persuasive result. Having sexy models on the hood of his car will
less likely persuade him. His friend Charles is also looking for a car. He is perhaps able to
compare cars but actually not so motivated to go through all of these sites and
brochures, like Tom is. Therefore the peripheral cue of the sexy model will perhaps
work on him. These are just some examples of many theories on cognitive shortcuts. It’s
important for every student of communication to understand to some degree how and
why cognitive shortcuts work. Every one has them. Because, even though cognitive
shortcuts do not always lead to the best logical outcome, they save a lot of time and
energy.

4.7 Getting Through the Filter

In the previous sections we talked about message construction and audience activity.
We saw that people - contrary to the traditional mass audience paradigm are actually
quite adept at selecting the messages they want to process. Both on a conscious level, by
selecting specific media for consumption and an unconscious level because of cognitive
shortcuts. We all have our own shortcuts or filters based on our personal background,
experiences, interests et cetera. But studies also suggest different ways in which our
cognitive shortcuts are actually influenced by mass media. So maybe in some ways, our
filters are not so personal and unique after all. Some messages for instance, go through
our filter because the media tell us that they are important, that we should concern
ourselves with them, and form some sort of opinion on them. Last week I discussed the
agenda-setting theory, which proposes exactly this. The media don’t tell us what to
think, but they do influence what we think about. McCombs and Shaw asked people, in
their study of the 1968 presidential election in the United States, what the most
important election issues were. Interestingly enough, the results corresponded to a large
extent with the amount of attention these items were given by the local and national
news. Of course we could assume that news professionals were keen observers of public
opinion and therefore the news media serve as a mirror of the public agenda. But
McCombs and Shaw suggested the exact opposite. That the amount of media attention
influenced the public agenda. They called this theory Agenda Setting. The idea in its
simplest form is that media tell us which (news) events are important, who important
people are and where important things happen. It is usually used in relation to the news,
but can also be used in other ways. Since the seventies, many studies have added to our
knowledge of agenda-setting. One important later addition to the theory is the concept
of priming. Scholars noticed that people, when asked to evaluate political candidates,
use the criteria that the media give attention to. This is called priming. And I will explain:
if the media would give a lot of attention to, let’s say the near-extinction of pandas. Then
people are primed to connect this item with their evaluation of political candidates so
basically they will start with asking “What is politician x view on panda extinction and
how does he or she plan to battle it?”. If the media give a lot of attention to something
else, like the economy than people will link this to their evaluation. A movie review can
also prime the potential audience, if the review goes on and on about the special effects
of a movie, then the audience is more likely to include the special effects in their
evaluation process. If the review focuses more on the storyline, than the audience is
primed to pay attention to that. Well, you can see how this is an addition to agenda-
setting, the media don’t persuade people to think this or that, but they do influence what
people think about, when evaluating. Of course some items won't receive any media
attention at all. This has become a separate field of study within communication science
called Gatekeeping. It is, simply put, the study of how the filtering process of the media
works. Gatekeeping theory addresses the question why some items are let through the
‘gate’ while others are filtered out. Finally, media professionals who can make the
decision to admit topics through the gate, or keep them from the media agenda, are
called gatekeepers. So before messages can reach our own personal filter, they are first
filtered by gatekeepers in the media. If you think about it, it’s a miracle that messages
reach us at all.

4.8 Encoding, Decoding, and the Construction of Meaning

We talked this week about a lot of different aspects of message construction and
processing. I want to end with Reception Theory, because it bridges this week’s
perspective with the cultural approach that we will discuss next week. Stuart Hall is
often mentioned as one of the frontrunners of reception theory, also known as reception
analysis or audience reception. It’s a theory that focuses on how the recipient receives
and gives meaning to a message. Hall, influenced by Semiotics, saw communication as a
negotiation between sender, text and receiver. A communicator ‘encodes’ a message
with meaning. Recipients take meaning from that message. Hall called this ‘decoding’.
We talked before about the use of codes and signs in a text. In a way the reader
‘negotiates’ with the text, relying on his or her knowledge, experiences, cultural
background et cetera. This negotiation can lead to different outcomes, the principle of
polysemic messages: The idea that messages can be interpreted by many people in many
different ways. The opposite of polysemic messages are monosemic messages, messages
that have only one meaning. Umberto Eco uses the terms, Open or Closed texts. Perhaps
it would be more useful to see the distinction between Open and Closed texts, as a
dimension. Where some texts leave more room for interpretation than others. A math
formula is relatively closed, while an abstract painting is relatively open. Likewise a
painted portrait is considered more open than a photo portrait. But an abstract painting
would in comparison be even more open. It’s all relative. To explain his views further
Hall came up with the encoding/decoding model in which he explains the different ways
a receiver can decode a message. Let’s say Rose publishes a brochure. Rose is a
conservative politician, and argues in her pamphlet for more use of nuclear energy as an
alternative for the use of fossil fuels. There is going to be an election on this and Rose
want people to vote for her. The pamphlet is read by Jake. The sender, politician Rose,
has some intent when she encoded or composed her message. If Jake completely
internalizes the message and decodes it in the way Rose intended, he agrees and is going
to vote for her. This is the ‘preferred reading’. According to reception theory this is more
likely to occur when Jake and Rose share a cultural background. For instance if Jake is
sympathetic towards the conservative party. If there is a higher cultural proximity
between sender and receiver, there is also a higher likelihood of a preferred reading
taking place. Of course, Jake could also partly decode it in the preferred way, and also
reading it partly different. Stuart Hall called this a ‘negotiated reading’. For instance, Jake
could agree with Rose's arguments, but he decides to vote for someone else. A third way
of decoding this message would be total rejection by Jake. He reads Rose’s pamphlet but
completely disagrees and he concludes Rose is completely wrong and doesn’t deserve
his vote. This is an ‘oppositional reading’. This is more likely to occur if Jake and Rose
are, culturally, further apart. If for instance Jake is a supporter of liberal politics. You can
see that implicit in Reception Theory is the idea that communication serves as both a
carrier, reflection and producer of culture. This theory therefore bridges this week’s and
next week’s topics. The construction and signification approach and the cultural
approach actually complement each other. I want to end this week's MOOC by
emphasizing that in fact these two perspectives are intertwined. We'll discuss this
further next week, when we talk about the cultural approach. I hope to see you then.