Notes_YKT114

THEORY: DEFINITION

“Theories are stories about how and why events occur…. Scientific theories begin with the assumption
that the universe, including the social universe created by acting human beings, reveals certain basic and
fundamental properties and processes that explain the ebb and flow of events in specific processes”
(Turner, 1998, p. 1).

“A theory consists of a set of interrelated propositions that stipulate relationships among theoretical
constructs and an account of the mechanism or mechanisms that explain the relationships stipulated in
the propositions” (Berger, 2005, p. 417).

Theoretical Approaches: Four Major Categories of Communication Theory

1. Postpositivist Theory- This type of theory is based on empirical observation guided by the scientific
method. Post-positivist theory is similar to those set by physical scientists for their theories: explanation,
prediction, and control. It serves to explain, predict, and control social behavior. However, it recognizes
that humans and human behavior are not as constant as elements of the physical world for the social
world does have more variation than the physical world. Its epistemology; knowledge is advanced
through the systematic, logical search for regularities and causal relationships employing the scientific
method. Postpositivist communication theory, is theory developed through a system of knowledge
advanced through the systematic, logical search comprising of explanation, prediction, and control. Such
inquiry/procedure resembles the scientific approach.

2. Cultural Theory- Cultural theories seek to understand how and why a particular behavior occurs in the
social world. Cultural theory seeks to understand the relationships between individuals, environments,
institutions and everyday activities. Cultural Theory: Social Hermeneutics Making sense of unknown
cultures or, is about human understanding. Tries to understand how: -events “in another person’s world
make sense to themselves, -how their way of life coheres and has meaning and value for the people who
live it” (1992, p. 23). -Symbolic expression, text, philosophy etc. Hermeneutic theory is the study of
understanding, especially through the systematic interpretation of actions or texts. Hermeneutics
originally began as the study or interpretation of sacred works. As it evolved over the last two centuries,
it maintained its commitment to the examination of “objectifications of the mind” Cultural Theory:
Interpretive Theory Interprets the meaning of texts for the agents that produce them and the audiences
that consume them. People construct an image of reality based on their own preferences and prejudices
and their interactions with others (Schutt, 2009, p. 92). As such, cultural theory’s epistemology, how
knowledge is advanced, relies on the subjective interaction between the observer (the researcher or
theorist) and his or her community. Knowledge is specific to the interaction of the knower and the
known.

3. Critical Theory- Critical theory is openly political (therefore its axiology is aggressively value-laden). It
assumes that by reorganizing society, we can give priority to the most important human values. Critical
theorists study inequality and oppression. Their theories do more than observe, describe, or interpret;
they criticize. Critical theories view “media as sites of (and weapons in) struggles over social, economic,
symbolic, and political power (as well as struggles over control of, and access to, the media
themselves)”. Critical theory’s epistemology argues that knowledge is advanced only when it serves to
free people and communities from the influence of those more powerful than themselves. Its ontology,
however, is a bit more complex. The assumption that some aspects of the social world are deeply
flawed and in need of
transformation. By reorganizing society, we can give priority to the most important human values. The
aim is to gain knowledge of that social world so they can change it. This goal is inherently and
intentionally political because it challenges existing ways of organizing the social world and the people
and institutions that exercise power in it. According to critical theory, what is real, in the social world is
the product of the interaction between structure (the social world’s rules, norms, and beliefs) and
agency (how humans behave and interact in that world). When elites control the struggle, they define
reality (in other words, their control of the structure defines people’s realities). When people are
emancipated, they define reality through their behaviors and interactions (agency).

4. Normative Theory- The theory explaining how a media system should operate in order to conform to
or realize a set of ideal social values.

i. Authoritarian theory- The theory asserts all forms of communication under the control of
the government, authorities or the elites. Information is controlled by the state or the
authorities. The intellect of a common is greatly undermined. Criticism on ruling elites is not
tolerated. Efforts are taken to curb the freedom of press like licensing, approval of content
prior to publication and punishments etc. Authoritarian theory depicts one-way
communication, there is no feedback allowed from the public

ii. Soviet Communist Theory- The function of press is to bring about societal change by
influencing communist values and denouncing democratic regimes. Promoting communism,
aims, goals and objectives set by the communist party, media is owned by the
representatives of the communist state while thus tightly controlling information. The
government undertakes or controls the total media and communication to serve working
classes and their interest. The state has absolute power to control any media for the
benefits of people putting end to private ownership of the press and other media. The
government media provide positive thoughts to create a strong socialized society as well as
providing information, education, entertainment, motivation and mobilization. Journalist or
press should support the leadership rather than a watchdog. Soviet media theory is a two-
way communication at the same time the whole media is controlled or works under the
leadership. This media theory allows restriction based on the nation interest rather than
personal. However, if the leadership is wrong, the whole nation will suffer.

iii. Social Responsibility Theory- While the press has a right to criticize the government and
other institutions, it also has responsibility to preserve democracy by properly informing the
public. This means that the press is not free to do as it wills but is obligated to respond to
society’s needs. This theory functions on the principles of media responsibility to balanced
development. In this sense, government interference is limited despite some degree of
government control of the media, particularly in imposing regulations. This theory promotes
diversity, pluralism, serves the powerless while is said to be suitable for media practitioners
and the audience.

iv. Libertarian Theory- Media or press is given absolute freedom to publish anything at any time
and acts as a watchdog. Media is supposed to be privately owned. The theory believes in
freedom of thought, expression, information and individualism. There is no control of
authority and everybody has the right to voice their opinion. There is also no censorship and
government must not hold any power to control and suppress media. Media is separate
from the government. There is a flow of all kinds of information which means that news
from all
 sides are available. Expression of thoughts is inevitable. All of the people are subjected to
interpret and decide which information they need and the authenticity of the information.
Rationality of human beings makes them able to do so. The press should not restrict any
information, even criticizing the policies. Though media has enormous power, abuse of
power can be dealt legally. However, the media is accountable to the law of the country,
follows a code of conduct while encouraging many sides to a story. the media functions on a
Laissez- faire approach. The theory allows the freedom to report on the government. The
theory sees the public as rational beings who can decide for themselves what is good and
what is bad. The press belongs to the public and which gives the freedom to advertisers and
corporations to influence the press.

Concepts of Libertarian Theory of Mass Communication

Is one of the Normative Theories of mass communication where media or press is given absolute
freedom to publish anything at any time and acts as a watchdog. The libertarian theory is just the
opposite of the Authoritarian theory of mass media where information is controlled by the state or the
authorities. In libertarian theory, media is supposed to be privately owned. The theory believes in
freedom of thought and individualism. There is no control of authority and everybody has the right to
voice their opinion. There is also no censorship and government must not hold any power to control and
suppress media. There is a flow of all kinds of information. All of the people are subjected to interpret
and decide which information they need and the authenticity of the information. Rationality of human
beings makes them able to do so. The press should not restrict any information, even criticizing the
policies. Though media has enormous power, abuse of power can be dealt legally.

Strengths/Contribution of Libertarian Theory of Mass Communication

i. Transparency- Media can give true information without any control. Transparency is the quality
of being easily seen through, while transparency in a business or governance context refers to
being open and honest. As part of corporate governance best practices, this requires disclosure
of all relevant information so that others can make informed decisions. Transparency has
frequently been advocated as an effective way to combat the ongoing decline of trust and
credibility in the news media. A central rationale supporting information disclosure and
providing direct access to journalists and news organizations is that the audience will be able to
ascertain which journalism it can trust to be true or which journalism. It should be for the
people- It functions with democracy. There is freedom of information and individualism. No
censorship of any kind is to be done. There is high competition among alternative ideas and
thoughts. Media have a responsibility to report the truth in our government and report the facts
to the public. This is a role that is upheld by journalists across the country and determines the
stability of the credibility and legitimacy in their writings. From informing and educating to
acting as a helping hand in the balance of power, journalism is a vital aspect of a democratic
society. The media industry will forever play a dynamic role in government as it continues to
evolve.

ii. Freedom of expression- In libertarian theory, there is freedom of thought and expression. All
individuals can express their opinions and thoughts in the media openly. The media accepts a
Laissez-faire approach in which there are not many set rules that they have to follow. They can
work as they want. However, media is accountable to the law of the country. Media must follow
a code of conduct. Free, independent and pluralistic media based on freedom of information
and expression is a core element of any functioning democracy. Freedom of the media is in
fact
 essential for the protection of all other human rights. Instances of torture, discrimination,
corruption or misuse of power many times have come to light because of the work of
investigative journalists. Making the facts known to the public is often the first, essential step to
start redressing human rights violations and hold governments accountable. A free press can
inform citizens of their leaders’ successes or failures, convey the people’s needs and desires to
government bodies, and provide a platform for the open exchange of information and ideas.
When media freedom is restricted, these vital functions break down, leading to poor decision-
making and harmful outcomes for leaders and citizens alike.

iii. Check and balance- There is absolute freedom to media, media plays the role of a watchdog.
Media checks the government and the state authorities and also prevents corruption. The
government does not own the media and media is a different body in the functioning of the
state. Hence, media has an eye on government officials. It serves as a balance of power in a
democracy. It keeps elected politicians in check and holds them accountable for their actions
while in office. It also prevents anyone from gaining too much power, as the press is free to
criticize anyone in a governmental role. Checks and balances are the mechanisms which
distribute power throughout a political system – preventing any one institution or individual
from exercising total control. The words ‘checks’ and ‘balances’ are typically used together, but
can be thought of as referring to subtly different (though overlapping) things. Checks are the
mechanisms which allow political institutions to limit one another’s power – for example by
blocking, delaying or simply criticising decisions. Balances, meanwhile, ensure that a wide
variety of views and interests are represented in the democratic process. This includes
structures like federalism, or broader features of democratic functioning such as the existence
of multiple political parties. Checks and balances play two key roles. First, they limit the power
of the majority to act without regard to the views or interests of others. They ensure that the
perspectives of those who are in the minority on a given issue are represented – for example, by
guaranteeing that opposition voices are heard in the process of law-making. Second, at a more
practical level, they ensure that policy is tested and behaviour supervised. This helps to improve
the quality of decision-making, and prevent behaviour which might threaten the integrity or
reputation of the political system. Checks and balances play a vital role in a modern democracy.
They prevent power from being concentrated too much in one part of the governing system,
and help to avert the problems that can arise when decisions are taken without proper scrutiny
or when high standards of behaviour are not enforced.

iv. Constructive debate- The theory encourages healthy competition of thoughts among the
thoughts and ideas. Media encourages pluralist truths like both side of the same story. Media
presents reporting form several sides to come to the decision-making point. Whatever that
certain parties/politicians carry-out or implement isn’t necessarily to be accepted by the public.
Media bring such issues/initiatives to attention in order to create awareness while prompting
discussion at all levels of the society. Here, media does not work to set the agenda (agenda
setting theory) but to bring forth topics of public interest so that the topic is discussed for its
positive and negative consequences. Here, those in support of an idea will face those who are
against the idea while some will sit on the fence. Media reporting then brings about voices from
the public, NGOs, interested and affected stakeholders to the attention of those in power.

---End---
SOURCE THEORIES (HOW THE MEDIA INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION)

Agenda Setting Theory- The Creation of What the Public Thinks Is Important

Source: McCombs and Shaw (1968)

History and Orientation

Agenda setting describes a very powerful influence of the media – the ability to tell us what issues are
important. Media institutions have the power to present images to the public. Investigating the agenda
setting function of the mass media, McCombs and Shaw assessed the relationship between what voters
in one community said were important issues and the actual content of the media messages used during
a campaign. McCombs and Shaw concluded that the mass media exerted a significant influence on what
voters considered to be the major issues of the campaign.

Core Assumptions and Statements

Core: Agenda-setting is the creation of public awareness and concern of salient issues by the news
media. Two basis assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting:
(1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it;
(2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more
important than other issues.

Agenda-setting theory seems quite appropriate to help us understand the pervasive role of the media
(for example on political communication systems). However, different media have different agenda-
setting potential.

Statement: Bernard Cohen (1963) stated: “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling
people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.”
Media Dependency Theory

Media Depends on the Social Context

Conceptual model Source:

Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1976)

History and Orientation

Dependency theory integrates several perspectives:
1. First, it combines perspectives from psychology with ingredients from social categories theory.
2. Second, it integrates systems perspectives with elements from more causal approaches.
3. Third, it combines elements of uses and gratifications research with those of media effects traditions,
although its primary focus is less on effects per se than on rationales for why media effects typically are
limited.
4. Finally, a contextualist philosophy is incorporated into the theory, which also features traditional
concerns with the content of media messages and their effects on audiences.

Core Assumptions and Statements

Dependency theory proposes an integral relationship among audiences, media and the larger social
system. This theory predicts that you depend on media information to meet certain needs and achieve
certain goals, like uses-and-gratifications theory. But you do not depend on all media equally. Two
factors influence the degree of media dependence. First, you will become more dependent on media
that meet a number of your needs than on media that provide just a few. The second source of
dependency is social stability. When social change and conflict are high, established institutions, beliefs,
and practices are challenged, forcing you to reevaluate and make new choices. At such times your
reliance on the media for information will increase. At other, more stable times your dependency on
media may go way down. One’s needs are not always strictly personal but may be shaped by the culture
or by various social conditions. In other words, individuals’ needs, motives, and uses of media are
contingent on outside factors that may not be in the individuals’ control. These outside factors act as
constraints on what and how media can be used and on the availability of other non-media alternatives.
Furthermore, the more alternatives and individual had for gratifying needs, the less dependent he or she
will become on any single medium. The number of functional alternatives, however, is not just a matter
of individual choice or even of psychological traits but is limited also by factors such as availability of
certain media.
Framing Theory

Framing theory suggests that how something is presented to the audience (called “the frame”)
influences the choices people make about how to process that information. Frames are abstractions that
work to organize or structure message meaning. The most common use of frames is in terms of the
frame the news or media place on the information they convey. They are thought to influence the
perception of the news by the audience, in this way it could be construed as a form of second level
agenda-setting – they not only tell the audience what to think about (agenda-setting theory), but also
how to think about that issue (second level agenda setting, framing theory).

Framing techniques per Fairhurst and Sarr (1996):

i. Metaphor: To frame a conceptual idea through comparison to something else.

ii. Stories (myths, legends): To frame a topic via narrative in a vivid and memorable way.
iii. Tradition (rituals, ceremonies): Cultural mores that imbue significance in the mundane,
closely tied to artifacts.
iv. Slogan, jargon, catchphrase: To frame an object with a catchy phrase to make it more
memorable and relate-able.
v. Artifact: Objects with intrinsic symbolic value – a visual/cultural phenomenon that holds
more meaning than the object itself.
vi. Contrast: To describe an object in terms of what it is not.
vii. Spin: to present a concept in such a way as to convey a value judgement (positive or
negative) that might not be immediately apparent; to create an inherent bias by definition.

Framing is in many ways tied very closely to Agenda Setting theory. Both focus on how media draws
the public’s eye to specific topics – in this way they set the agenda. But Framing takes this a step
further in the way in which the news is presented creates a frame for that information. This is
usually a conscious choice by journalists – in this case a frame refers to the way media as
gatekeepers organize and present the ideas, events, and topics they cover.

Towards Agenda Building

Related with the agenda-setting theory, agenda-building theory is a dynamic and continuing process that
differentiated groups of certain societies aimed to change or impose their interest should have the
priority into public policymakers (Ciftci, 2021). While agenda-setting theory emphasizes the power of the
media in setting the public and the policy agenda, the agenda-building theory posits a reciprocity
between the media and other sources or society in general in building the public and the policy agenda.
Agenda- building theory seeks to answer the question of who builds the media agenda, the public
agenda, and the policy agenda. Agenda building focuses on how news coverage both reflects and shapes
the priorities of government officials, decision-makers, and elites (Baumgartner & Jones 1993). Agenda
building requires an under- standing of the ways in which different subgroups in a population
become aware of and
eventually participate in, political conflicts, whether the issues are initiated by groups in the general
public or by political leaders. Examples of agenda building is public agenda which consist of issues which
have achieved a high level of public interest and visibility. A public agenda consists of all issues which:
(1) are the subject of widespread attention or at least awareness;
(2) require action, in the view of a sizeable proportion of the public; and
(3) are the appropriate concern of some governmental unit, in the perception of community members.

---End---
Gate Keeping Theory

Gatekeeping is the process through which information is filtered for dissemination, whether for

publication, broadcasting, the Internet, or some other mode of communication. Kurt Zadek Lewin (1890-

1947) presented this theory. He was a German and great Psychologist and pioneer in Social Psychology.

He developed the concept in the field of psychology called psychological “field” and “life space” in order

to understand human behavior and its important consideration of total life space. His studies are more

based on understanding a person’s own world, physical, mental and social through frequent

conversation between his pre-memories, desire and his goals.

The concept of gatekeeping

The Gatekeeper decides what information should be moved to a group or individual and what

information should not. Here, the gatekeepers are the decision makers who letting the whole social

system. The gatekeeper has its own influence as social, cultural, ethical and political. Based on personal

or social influences they let the information to the group. Through this process the unwanted, sensible

and controversial information is removed by the gate keeper which helps to control the society or a

group and letting them in a right path. In home mother plays the vital role and she has to decide what

their kid’s needs and what should avoid.

In news medium editor play vital role. He has to decide what kind of news items will publish and what

should not. Every day the news channel receives various news items from all over the world. The

channel have its own ethics and policies through this the editor decide the news items for publish or

aired. In some cases, few news items are rejected by the editor due the organizations policy or the news

items which are not suitable for publish. The process of gatekeeping is elaborated in figure below;
Importance of Gatekeeping

Gatekeeping plays a crucial role in the media and communication industries, especially in present era of

fake news, as it determines which information, news, and messages reach the public and which ones are

excluded or given less prominence. The importance of gatekeeping can be understood through the

following points:

Selective Information Flow: Gatekeeping helps control the flow of information by filtering and selecting

what is deemed newsworthy or relevant. Media organizations, journalists, editors, and other

gatekeepers act as mediators between information sources and audiences, ensuring that only certain

stories, perspectives, and narratives are presented to the public. This selection process shapes the

public's understanding of events and issues, influencing their opinions and behaviors.
Agenda Setting: Gatekeeping influences the agenda-setting function of the media. By determining which

stories receive attention and coverage, gatekeepers shape the public's perception of what is important.

They have the power to prioritize specific topics, events, or perspectives, setting the agenda for public

discourse and political discussions. In this way, gatekeeping influences societal priorities, public opinion,

and policy agendas.

Framing and Interpretation: Gatekeepers also play a role in framing news stories and information.

Framing involves selecting certain aspects of an issue, highlighting them, and presenting them within a

particular context or narrative. Gatekeepers decide how news stories are framed, which can influence

how audiences interpret and understand the events. This framing power allows gatekeepers to shape

public discourse, shape perceptions, and potentially influence public opinion on various social, political,

and cultural issues.

Quality Control: Gatekeeping serves as a quality control mechanism within the media industry.

Gatekeepers, such as editors, fact-checkers, and journalists, are responsible for verifying the accuracy,

credibility, and reliability of information before it is disseminated to the public. This function helps

maintain professional standards and safeguards against the spread of misinformation and

disinformation.

Ethical Responsibility: Gatekeepers hold an ethical responsibility to provide the public with accurate,

diverse, and balanced information. They are expected to adhere to journalistic ethics, such as fairness,

accuracy, and impartiality. By exercising responsible gatekeeping, media organizations can uphold their

role as trusted sources of information, ensuring public trust and confidence.

Influence on Public Opinion: Gatekeeping influences public opinion formation and social discourse. The

information that reaches the public through media channels can shape people's attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors. Gatekeepers' decisions on what to include or exclude can impact the public's understanding

of societal issues, influencing public opinion and fostering critical thinking or ideological polarization.
Uses and Gratification Theory

Theorists Elihu Katz, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch (1974) presented a systematic and

comprehensive articulation of audience members’ role in the mass communication process. They

formalized their thinking and identified Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT). The theory holds that

people actively seek out specific media and specific content to generate specific gratifications (or

results). Theorists in Uses and Gratifications view people as active because they are able to examine and

evaluate various types of media to accomplish communication goals. Researchers in Uses and

Gratifications Theory ask the question, “What do consumers do with the media?” This audience-

centered media theory underscores an active media consumer. Considering that this overarching

principle contradicts the views offered by other media theorists and other theoretical perspectives, it is

important to trace the theory’s development.

Assumptions of Uses and Gratification Theory

Uses and Gratifications Theory provides a framework for understanding when and how individual media

consumers become more or less active and the consequences of that increased or decreased

involvement. Many of the assumptions of UGT were clearly articulated by the founders of the approach

(Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). They contend that there are five basic assumptions of Uses and

Gratifications Theory:

 The audience is active, and its media use is goal oriented.

 The initiative in linking need gratification to a specific medium choice rest with the audience

member.

 The media compete with other sources for need satisfaction.

 People have enough self-awareness of their media use, interests, and motives to be able to

provide researchers with an accurate picture of that use.

 Value judgments of media content can only be assessed by the audience.

Table: Needs gratify by the media (electronic, print, digital & social media)

Cognitive needs: People use media for acquiring knowledge, information, facts, etc. Among the

audience, some have the thirst to acquire intellectual and academic knowledge. This is not a

very common phenomenon. Different people have different needs. For example, quiz programs

on television give on factual knowledge; to know about current affairs people need to watch the

news regularly; search engines on the internet are also very popular since people can browse for

any topic easily under the run with no time restriction.

Affective needs: It includes all kinds of emotions, pleasure and moods of the people. People use

the media, say television, to satisfy their emotional needs. The best example would be when

people get emotional or sometimes even cry for a sad scene while watching the movie/soap

opera.

Personal Integrative needs: This is the self-esteem need. People use media to reassure their

status, gain credibility and stabilize. So, people watch television and assure themselves that they

have a respectable status in society. For example, people watch advertisements in the media

like
jewellry ads, furniture ads, apparel ads, etc. and buy these products so that they can change

their lifestyle. Hence the media helps them to do so.

Social Integrative needs: It encompasses the need to socialize with family, friends and relations

in society. For social interaction nowadays, people do not seem to gather socially during

weekends instead they have turned to social networking sites on the internet such as Facebook,

Twitter, and Tumblr etc. to satisfy their needs. Another example is people may start watching a

particular programme, not because they have any self-interest, but because their

neighbour/friend watches it such that both the parties may have something in common to

discuss. Tension free needs: People sometimes use the media as a means to escapism from the

real world and to relieve tension and stress. For example, people tend to relax while watching

television, listening to the radio, surfing the internet, etc. In fact, media has the power to grab

the audience’s mind since it makes them feel connected with the situation and characters

emotionally.
Cultivation Theory

Gerbner first used the term cultivation in 1969; however, Cultivation Analysis, as a discrete and

powerful theory, did not emerge for a number of years. It evolved over time through a series of

methodological and theoretical steps by Gerbner and his colleagues and, as such, reflects that

development. During the 1960s, interest in media effects, particularly effects of television, ran

very high. The federal government was concerned about media’s influence on society, especially

media’s possible contribution to rising levels of violence among young people. In 1967 President

Lyndon Johnson ordered the creation of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention

of Violence. It was followed in 1972 by the surgeon general’s Scientific Advisory Committee on

Television and Social Behavior. Both groups examined media (especially television) and their

impact (especially the effects of aggression and violence). Gerbner, a respected social scientist,

was involved in both efforts. After consistent observations on violence index Gerbner and

colleagues described cultivation as:

“Television and other media play an extremely important role in how people view their world. In

today’s society, most people get their information from mediated sources rather than through

direct experience. Therefore, mediated sources can shape a person’s sense of reality. This is

especially the case with regard to violence. Heavy television viewing cultivates a sense of the

world as a violent place, and heavy television viewers perceive that there is more violence in the

world than there actually is or than lighter viewers perceive.”

Assumptions of theory

In advancing the position that mediated reality causes consumers to cultivate their own social

reality, Cultivation Analysis makes a number of assumptions. Because it was and still remains

primarily a television-based theory, these three assumptions speak to the relationship between

that medium and the culture:

 1. Television is essentially and fundamentally different from other forms of mass media.

2. Television shapes our society’s way of thinking and relating.

3. The influence of television is limited.

Mainstreaming and resonance

How does television contribute to viewers’ conceptions of social reality? The process of

cultivation occurs in two ways. One is mainstreaming. Mainstreaming occurs when, especially

for heavier viewers, television’s symbols dominate other sources of information and ideas about

the world. As a result of heavy viewing, people’s constructed social realities move toward the

mainstream- not a mainstream in any political sense, but a culturally dominant reality that is

more similar to television’s reality than to any measurable, objective external reality. Heavy

viewers tend to believe the mainstreamed realities that the world is a more dangerous place

than it really is, that all politicians are corrupt, that teen crime is at record high levels, that

African American families are all on welfare, that illegitimate births are skyrocketing, and so

forth.

Mainstreaming means that heavy television viewers of different cocultures are more similar in

their beliefs about the world than their varying group membership might suggest. Thus, African

Americans and European Americans who are heavy television viewers would perceive the world

more similarly than might be expected. As Gerbner (1998) states, “Differences that usually are

associated with the varied cultural, social, and political characteristics of these groups are

diminished in the responses of heavy viewers in these same groups.

The second way cultivation operates is through resonance. Resonance occurs when things on

television are, in fact, congruent with viewers’ actual everyday realities. In other words, people’s

objective external reality resonates with that of television. Some urban dwellers, for example,

may see the violent world of television resonated in their deteriorating neighborhoods. As

Gerbner (1998) notes, this provides “a ‘double dose’ of messages that ‘resonate’ and amplify
cultivation”. The social reality that is cultivated for these viewers may in fact match their

objective reality, but its possible effect is to preclude the formation of a more optimistic social

reality; it denies them hope that they can build a better life.

The Mean World Index

A product of Cultivation Analysis is the Mean World Index, which consists of a series of three

statements:

1. Most people are just looking out for themselves.

2. You can’t be too careful in dealing with people.

3. Most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance.

Cultivation Analysis predicts that agreement with these statements from heavy and light viewers

will differ, with heavy viewers seeing the world as a meaner place than light viewers. It also

predicts that the amount of television viewing is the best predictor of people’s answers,

overwhelming other kinds of distinctions among different people—for example, income and

education. Gerbner and his colleagues demonstrated the efficacy of their Mean World Index in a

study that showed heavy viewers were much more likely to see the world as a mean place than

were light viewers. Better-educated, financially better-off viewers in general saw the world as

less mean than did those with less education and income. But in testing the power of television,

the researchers demonstrated that heavy viewers from the better-educated, better-off groups

saw the world as being as dangerous as did low-income and less-educated people. In other

words, heavy viewers held a mainstreamed perception of the world as a mean place, regardless

of factors such as education and income.

Cultivation researchers see this as evidence that television content is a factor in the construction

of social realities for heavy viewers, regardless of individual or social differences. Gerbner and

his associates identify a number of other areas where the two types of viewers might differ.

They
include their beliefs about the likelihood of involvement with a violent crime, their fear of

walking at night, and their perceptions of law enforcement. The findings are intriguing. First,

they found that people with light viewing habits believed that about 1 in 100 will be a victim of

violence; heavy viewers of television predicted that about 1 in 10 will be involved in violence.

Second, they found that more women than men were fearful of walking alone at night and that

heavy viewers overestimated the amount of violent crime. Third, heavy viewers felt that 5

percent of the culture is involved in law enforcement, whereas light viewers felt that 1 percent is

involved. Important to the logic of Cultivation Analysis is that the responses of the heavy viewers

mirror quite accurately the results of content analyses of television, where violence is usually

recorded in heavy doses: Because violence is so common on television, heavy viewers are more

likely to be fearful or mistrustful of the real world.

Face Negotiation Theory

Face Negotiation Theory was first conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985. The theory was born

as a result of Ting-Toomey’s frustration with the interpersonal conflict communication theories

that were popular in the 1980s. At that time, theories emphasized the value of self-disclosure

and conflict confrontation. Strategies often employed by collectivist cultures were ignored or

viewed as undesirable or ineffective. These directives did little to improve communication and

conflict resolution between cultures with differing styles. Ting-Toomey began working to provide

a more complete theory.

Face Negotiation Theory is based on the underlying assumption that, regardless of their culture,

people are all concerned with saving face. The theory attempts to explain the reasons behind

the different ways people from different cultures handle conflict. According to Face Negotiation

Theory, this occurs because people of different cultures have different priorities when it comes

to saving face, and they have different ideas of what constitutes saving face.

Assumptions of face negotiation theory

A number of assumptions of Face-Negotiation Theory take into consideration the key

components of the theory: face, conflict, and culture. With that in mind, the following guide the

thinking of Ting-Toomey’s theory:

1. Self-identity is important in interpersonal interactions, with individuals negotiating their

identities differently across cultures.

2. The management of conflict is mediated by face and culture.

3. Certain acts threaten one’s projected self-image (face).

The first assumption highlights self-identity, or the personal features or character attributes of

an individual. In a discussion of face, it is observed that when people meet, they present an

image of who they are in the interaction. This image is “an identity that he or she wants to

assume and
wants others to accept”. Self-identity includes a person’s collective experiences, thoughts, ideas,

memories, and plans. People’s self-identities do not remain stagnant but rather are negotiated

in their interactions with others. People have a concern with both their own identity or face

(self- face) and the identity or face of another (other-face).

The second assumption of Face-Negotiation Theory relates to conflict, which is a central

component of the theory. Conflict in this theory, however, works in tandem with face and

culture. Conflict can damage the social face of individuals and can serve to reduce the relational

closeness between two people. As she relates, conflict is a “forum” for face loss and face

humiliation. Conflict threatens both partners’ face, and when there is an incompatible

negotiation over how to resolve the conflict (such as insulting the other, imposing one’s will, and

so forth), the conflict can exacerbate the situation. Ting-Toomey states that the way humans are

socialized into their culture influences how they will manage conflict. That is, some cultures, like

the United States, value the open airing of differences between two people; other cultures

believe conflict should be handled discreetly.

A third assumption of Face-Negotiation Theory pertains to the effects that various acts have on

one’s face. Incorporating politeness research, Ting- Toomey asserts that face-threatening acts

(FTAs) threaten either the positive or the negative face of the interactants. FTAs can be either

direct or indirect and occur when people’s desired identity is challenged. Direct FTAs are more

threatening to the face of others, whereas indirect FTAs are less so.

Contextual dimension of society/culture

Culture can be organized around two ends of a continuum: individualism and collectivism. At

one end is a culture that places a premium on the value of individual identity; at the other end is

a culture that values group identity. Individualistic cultures are “independent self” cultures, and

collectivistic cultures are “interdependent self” cultures. Cultures across the world vary in
individualism and collectivism (Table 26.1). These two dimensions play a prominent role in the

way that facework and conflict are managed.

Individualistic Culture is a cultural context that places emphasis on the individual over the group.

Individualism refers to the tendency of people to highlight individual identity over group

identity, individual rights over group rights, and individual needs over group needs. Individualism

is the “I” identity (I want, I need, and so forth). Individualism emphasizes individual initiative.

Individualistic values highlight freedom, honesty, comfort, and personal equality, among others.

Collectivistic culture is a cultural value that places emphasis on the group over the individual.

Collectivism is the emphasis of group goals over individual goals, group obligations over

individual rights, and in-group needs over individual wants. Collectivism is the “we” identity (we

can do this, we are a team, and so forth). People in a collectivistic culture value working together

and viewing themselves as part of a larger group. Collectivistic societies, consequently, value

inclusion. Collectivistic values emphasize harmony, respecting parents’ wishes, and fulfillment of

another’s needs, among others.

Conflict Styles/Strategies

An Important factor influencing a person’s behaviour is the culture he belongs to. From his

childhood, the person lives in this perspective created by the culture. Conflict styles differ with

the culture and through socializing; the individual tends to reflect the particular culture while

negotiating a conflict. Generally, there are two aspects in which conflict styles are classified.

People belonging to individualistic culture try to maintain a face so as to preserve one’s own

face while in a collectivistic society, people maintain a face for the sake of the society. Based on

these dimensions, there are five types of conflict styles

Domination: An individualistic approach to make decisions by dominating or controlling

Avoiding: A collectivistic approach of staying away from the conflict

Obliging: A collectivistic approach of giving up

Compromising: An individualistic approach to negotiate to come to a solution

Integrating: an individualistic approach to work together to reach a solution

Social Penetration Theory

Altman and Taylor (1973) believe that people’s relationships vary tremendously in their social

penetration. From husband–wife to supervisor–employee to golf partners to physician–patient,

the theorists conclude that relationships involve different levels of intimacy of exchange or

degree of social penetration. The authors note that relationships follow some particular

trajectory, or pathway to closeness. Furthermore, they contend that relationships are somewhat

organized and predictable in their development. Because relationships are critical and “lie at the

heart of our humanness”, Social Penetration theory attempt to unravel the simultaneous nature

of relational complexity and predictability. It states that interpersonal relationships evolve in

some gradual and predictable fashion. Social penetration theorists believe that self-disclosure is

the primary way that superficial relationships progress to intimate relationships. Although self-

disclosure can lead to more intimate relationships, it can also leave one or more persons

vulnerable.

Assumptions of social penetration theory

Social Penetration Theory, has enjoyed widespread acceptance by a number of scholars in the

communication discipline. Part of the reason for the theory’s appeal is its straightforward

approach to relationship development. Following are the assumptions:

1. Relationships progress from nonintimate to intimate.

2. Relational development is generally systematic and predictable.

3. Relational development includes depenetration and dissolution.

4. Self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development.

The Onion Analogy

An individual can be compared to an onion, with the layers (concentric circles) of the onion

representing various aspects of a person’s personality. The outer layer is an individual’s public

image, or that which is available to the naked eye. Reciprocity, or the process whereby one
person’s openness leads to the other’s openness, is a primary component in SPT. Reciprocity has

been shown to be significant in both established and new relationships. penetration can be

viewed in two dimensions: breadth and depth. Breadth refers to the number of various topics

discussed in the relationship; breadth time pertains to the amount of time that relational

partners spend communicating with each other about these various topics. Depth refers to the

degree of intimacy that guides topic discussions. The discussion above is illustrated in figure

below.

Stages of Social Penetration

Orientation Stage: Revealing Bit by Bit

The earliest stage of interaction, called the orientation stage, occurs at the public level; only bits

of ourselves are revealed to others. During this stage, comments are usually on the cliché level

and reflect superficial aspects of individuals. People usually act in socially desirable ways and are

cautious of disturbing any societal expectations. Individuals smile pleasantly and react politely in

the orientation stage.

The Exploratory Affective Exchange Stage

This stage is an expansion of the public areas of the self and occurs when aspects of an

individual’s personality begin to emerge. What was once private now becomes public. This stage

is comparable to the relationships that has with casual acquaintances and friendly neighbors.

Like other stages, this stage includes both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. People might begin

to use some catch phrases that are idiosyncratic to the relationship. There is a small amount of

spontaneity in communication because individuals feel more relaxed with each other, and they

are not as cautious about blurting out something that they may later regret. Also, more touch

behavior and more affect displays (such as facial expressions) may become part of the

communication repertoire with the other person.

Affective Exchange: Commitment and Comfortability

This stage is characterized by close friendships and intimate partners. The affective exchange

stage includes those interactions that are more “freewheeling and casual” in that

communication is frequently spontaneous and individuals make quick decisions, often with little

regard for the relationship as a whole. The affective exchange stage represents further

commitment to the other individual; the interactants are comfortable with each other.

Stable Exchange: Raw Honesty and Intimacy

The fourth and final stage, stable exchange, is ultimately attained in many relationships. The

stable exchange stage pertains to an open expression of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that

results in a high degree of spontaneity and relational uniqueness. During this stage, partners are

highly intimate and synchronized; that is, behaviors between the two sometimes recur, and

partners are able to assess and predict the behavior of the other fairly accurately. At times, the

partners may tease each other about topics or people. This teasing, however, is done in a

friendly manner.
Spiral of Silence Theory

The media’s influence on public opinion is what Elisabeth Noelle- Neumann studied, dating back

to the 1930s and 1940s. It was in the early 1970s, however, that she conceptualized the Spiral of

Silence Theory. The Spiral of Silence Theory suggests that people who believe that they hold a

minority viewpoint on a public issue will remain in the background where their communication

will be restrained; those who believe that they hold a majority viewpoint will be more

encouraged to speak. Because of their enormous power, media have a lasting and profound

effect on public opinion. Mass media work simultaneously with majority opinion to silence

minority beliefs on cultural and social issues in particular. A fear of isolation prompts those with

minority views to examine the beliefs of others. Individuals who fear being socially isolated are

prone to conform to what they perceive to be the majority view. Every so often, however, the

silent majority raises its voice in activism.

Assumptions of spiral of silence theory

With public opinion as backdrop to the theory, there are three assumptions of the Spiral of

Silence Theory. Noelle-Neumann has previously addressed these assertions:

1. Society threatens deviant individuals with isolation; fear of isolation is pervasive.

2. This fear of isolation causes individuals to try to assess the climate of opinion at all times.

3. Public behavior is affected by public opinion assessment.

Noelle-Neumann believes that human beings have an aversion to discussing topics that do not

have the support of the majority. To test this assumption, consider interviewing people on

campus about a controversial issue such as physician-assisted suicide. If straw polls in campus

newspaper show that almost 70 percent of the campus opposes this, then according to the

theory, students, faculty, and staff are probably going to be less inclined to speak out in favor of

the practice. A willingness to speak out may have more to do with one’s convictions and an

assessment of overall
trends in society. That is, if there is a liberal climate on campus, there may be more willingness

to speak out; if a conservative climate exists, people may feel less inclined to offer their

opposition. These three assumptions are important to consider to further delineate Noelle-

Neumann’s theory. The figure below, illustrates several concepts and themes emerging from the

theory’s assumptions. Personal opinions, a fear of being alone in those opinions, and public

sentiment lay the groundwork for discussing the remainder of the theory. Each of these areas is

influenced by a powerful part of society: the media.