What do communication scholars mean when they speak of media effects?

Define and outline

the development of this concept and its various emphases over time

The Media is a very powerful tool in society, It is used as a primary method to transmit

culture ,norms values and ideologies for different sects in society.In this essay Media effects will

be defined ,as well as the development of this concept. Growing concern over the negative

impact of mass media on the behaviour of children in the 1920 sparked Communication research,

as a result of clamoring from scholars and critics that motion pictures was indeed contributing to

the negative behaviors observed in children and society in general. Media effects refers to the

many ways individuals and society may be influenced by both news and entertainment mass

media, including film, television, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, websites, video games,

and music.

The evolution of media effects has been studied by many scholars throughout the years. Many of

these early communication research focusing on media were designed to explain the process of

message dissemination which were simple, one-way, and linear (Shannon & Weaver,

1949),reiterating that the medium or message causes a emotional, or psychological response as

the effect (Bryant & Thompson, 2002, pp. 4–5). In 1960, Joseph Klapper summarized what was

then known about the social impact of mass communication. In contrast to many researchers,

Klapper downplayed the potential harmful effects of the media. He concluded that the media

most often reinforced an individual’s existing attitudes and predispositions. Klapper’s viewpoint,

which became known as the minimal effects position, was influential in the development of a

theory of media effects. Moreover, in the 1950s and early 1960s, concern over the antisocial

impact of the media shifted to television. Experiments on college campuses by Bandura and
Berkowitz (summarized in Comstock & Paik, 1991) showed that aggressive behavior could be

learned by viewing violent media content .This was reiterated George Gerbner’s(1980)

cultivation theory which states that “persistent long term exposure to TV content has measure

effects on the perpetual world of audience members.”

In the early part of the 20th century, concerns about political propaganda, manipulation by the

elite and the rising popularity of electronic media led to the popular reference to the

“hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” theories, suggests the media transmit ‘messages’

ideas,information beliefs,that are then picked upon and acted upon by the

audience(recievers).Media messages are then portrayed as strong drugs or potent weapons that

would have powerful effects on a helpless audience (Lasswell, 1927; Lippmann, 1922).

However, while these theories explained some behavior, they did not account for the different

responses individuals may have to the same media source. This was highlighted by Curren’s

argument (Media and Power, 2002) that: The conviction . . . the media are important agencies of

influence is broadly correct. However, the ways in which the media exert influence are complex

and contingent’. Hence it can be difficult to conclusively tell what would be harmful for

individuals given that the effect that the media has varies from person to person.

In the 1950’s and 60’s, empirical research began to uncover the moderating power of

predispositions and peer groups, concluding that the media’s impact was small – often referred to

as “limited effects” theory (Klapper, 1960; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944). In the 1970’s

and 80’s, prominent scholars began to look more closely again at the media’s relationship to

knowledge, opinion, attitudes, and levels of violence, concluding that media effects could be

significant in some cases,

en if not “all powerful.” Scholars also came to agree that some vulnerable groups, such as

children, may be more heavily influenced by media than others (Bryant & Thompson, 2002;

McCombs & Shaw, 1972; McLuhan, 1964).

For example Belson’s study (Television Violence and the Adolescent Boy, 1978) is also cited as

evidence that prolonged exposure the violence in the media produces violent behaviour (in

young males). Hagell and Newburn (‘Young Offenders and theMedia’, 1994) argue that a

general lack of interest in television (violent or otherwise) among young offenders had a

pacifying effect on behaviour. This discovery raised questions such as If the media has direct

and immediate effects ,and why are some people immune to these effects?According to the

Cumulation theory, for example, media effects can be cumulative, rather than immediate. Thus,

prolonged exposure to violent films or computer games, for example, can result in behaviour

change and, in the case of violence, desensitization (in other words, the more you are exposed to

violent images, the less likely they are to stimulate you, so the viewer seeks out more violent

material to experience more thrill and adventure to satisfy his or her desires. Other forms of

media content became prominent such as pornography in media and how it affected individual

behaviour . Frank Longford, for example, a celebrated anti-pornography campaigner in the 1960s

and 1970s who visited numerous strip clubs and viewed hard-core pornography and was

unaffected by the explicit images .Consequently Marcia Forbes posits that it is noteworthy that

children, adolescents and adults will all react differently to media and media violence. This

relates to, among other things, their level of maturity by way of their stage of psychological,

emotional and moral development. It is well established that children are not always able to

differentiate reality from fantasy. In the same way, people seem able to view violent media

content without necessarily imitating the violence they see depicted. Hence it is evident that it is
indeed difficult to measure how media consumption may affect a person’s thoughts, emotions, or

behaviors whether direct or indirect. It proves even more difficult to research when taking into

consideration demographics such as age, race, and socioeconomic status to harder-to-measure

variables like environment, upbringing, values and previous experience.

.Communication scholars have traditionally fallen into two camps understood media effects in

one of the following groups – functionalists, who believe the media audience tends to be in

control and active, and critical/culturalists who believe the audience has less control and is

therefore more passive. According to Windahl (1981), a primary difference between the

traditional effects approach and the uses and gratifications approach is that a media effects

researcher usually examines mass communication from the perspective of the communicator,

whereas the uses and gratifications researcher uses the audience member as a point of departure.

Windahl argues for a synthesis of the two approaches, believing that it is more beneficial to

emphasize their similarities than to stress their differences. He has coined the term conseffects of

media content and use to categorize observations that are partly results of content use in itself (a

viewpoint commonly adopted by effects researchers) and partly results of content mediated by

use (a viewpoint adopted by many uses and gratifications researchers .This phenomenon may

vary from country to country, Rather than concerning itself with what the media does to people.

The uses and gratifications approach has its roots in the 1940s, when researchers became

interested in why people engaged in various forms of media behavior, such as radio listening or

newspaper reading. These early studies were primarily descriptive, seeking to classify the

responses of audience members into meaningful categories. For example, Herzog (1944)

identified three types of gratification associated with listening to radio soap operas: emotional

release, wishful thinking, and obtaining advice. Berelson (1949) took advantage of a New York
newspaper strike to ask people why they read the paper. The responses fell into five major

categories: reading for information, reading for social prestige, reading for escape, reading as a

tool for daily living, and reading for a social context. These early studies had little theoretical

coherence; in fact, many were inspired by the practical needs of newspaper publishers and radio

broadcasters to know the motivations of their audience in order to serve them more efficiently.

According to (Blumer&Katz 1974) the gratifications theory looks at what people do with media

(its functions), positing that individuals actively choose the media they use and do so with

specific goals in mind. Practitioners of the uses and gratifications theory study the ways the

public consumes media. For example, an individual may be watching Rising stars whilst

commenting on the show’s facebook page simultaneously tweeting or posting on instagram. The

Internet is used to seek out entertainment, to find information, to communicate with like-minded

individuals, or to pursue self-expression. Each of these uses gratifies a particular need, and the

needs determine the way in which media are used. By examining factors of different groups’

media choices, researchers can determine the motivations behind media use.

A typical study of the gratification theory explores the motives for media consumption and the

consequences associated with use of that media. By studying how and why people watch while

using Twitter, scholars suggest people are using the Internet as way to be entertained and to

connect with friends. Researchers have identified a number of common motives for media

consumption. Many Individuals use the internet for varying reasons these include relaxation,

social interaction, entertainment, arousal, escape, and a host of interpersonal and social needs. In

Jamaica Thirty-eight per cent of Jamaicans use the Internet at least once each day.

This, according to an islandwide survey conducted by Professor Hopeton Dunn of the Mona

School of Business' Telecommunications Policy Management Programme between November

2010 and January 2011. Moreover by examining the motives behind the consumption of a

particular form of media, researchers can better understand both the reasons for that medium’s

popularity and the roles that the medium fills in society. For example Professor Dunn’s research

highlighted the fact .The most popular uses of the Internet were for sending and receiving email,

which 77 per cent reported doing in the past 12 months, whereas social networks was the second

most popular activity, with 72 per cent of respondents reporting using websites such as Facebook

and Twitter and lastly educational use was third with 65 per cent.

A study of the motives behind a given user’s interaction with Facebook, for example, could

explain the role Facebook takes in society and the reasons for its appeal.

The Functionalist approach makes the assumption that open and active media choices are

available to all individuals. This was clarified in Dunn’s research where he posited that he study

surveyed 2,200 Jamaican households and individuals. Almost 16 per cent of the respondents had

access to the Internet at home , with startling findings that only 24 per cent of the Jamaican

population has access to a computer at home. Moreover, the study showed that the majority of

Jamaican Internet users are between 15 and 34 years old. Among households, 53 per cent were

shown to have access to fixed broadband, while 34 per cent have access to mobile broadband.

Seventy five per cent of mobile phone users said they are aware of mobile Internet but have

never used it. Fourteen per cent of those who access the Internet do so via their mobile phones.

The troubling aspect is how few Jamaicans are using the Internet to transact business and

increase productivity and efficiencies. Indeed, the Global Information Technology Report of

2010-2011 noted a decline in Internet penetration and usage for productive enterprise in Jamaica.
It ranked Jamaica 73 in the world. That ranking places us among the top 10 worst countries as it

relates to access and use of the Internet for business transactions.

The culturalist on the other hand critiques the functionalists as the use of gratification theory fails

to account for the socio –cultural factors. According to Ross &Nightingale (2003) Jamaica is

media-saturated and the media in Jamaica are saturated with certain kinds of messages. Of note

is that "US-produced programmes appear to be significantly ahead in their violence quotient

when compared with the output of industrialised countries" Importantly, it is predominantly US

programmes which Jamaican audiences consume.

The media may not affect what people think, but may affect what they think about, through the

choice of which topics to cover and what to emphasize. Control of the flow of information is

often referred to as “gatekeeping,” and is based not only on media professionals’ perceptions of

what is important, but also on time and space limitations.

Agenda setting theory proposes that “the public agenda or what kinds of things people discuss,

think, and worry about (and sometimes ultimately press for legislation about) is powerfully

shaped and directed by what the news media choose to publicize” (Larson, 1994). The media

have powerful agenda-setting and framing roles. They strongly determine what the public thinks

about and discusses (agenda setting) and how the public perceives the issues (framing). The sub-

text of the Pickersgill interview is the pervasive media view peddled to the public of inherent

corruption, evasiveness, and tendency to lie of politicians.

But, as we have seen, in many countries the public thinks the same of journalists. This means

that if the news media decide to give the most time and space to covering the budget deficit, this

issue will become the most important item on the audience’s agenda. If the news media devote
the second most coverage to unemployment, audiences will also rate unemployment as the

second most important issue to them, and so on. Agenda setting research examines the

relationship between media priorities and audience priorities in the relative importance of news

topics. (Cohen, 1963; Lippmann, 1922)

The notion of agenda setting by the media can be traced back to Walter Lippmann (1922), who

suggested that the media were responsible for the “pictures in our heads.” Forty years later,

Cohen (1963) further articulated the idea when he argued that the media may not always be

successful in telling people what to think, but they are usually successful in telling them what to

think about. Lang and Lang (1966, p. 468) reinforced this notion by observing, “The mass media

force attention to certain issues. . . . They are constantly presenting objects, suggesting what

individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about.”

The first empirical test of agenda setting came in 1972 when McCombs and Shaw (1972)

reported the results of a study done during the 1968 presidential election. They found strong

support for the agenda-setting hypothesis. There were strong relationships between the emphasis

placed on different campaign issues by the media and the judgments of voters regarding the

importance of various campaign topics. This study inspired a host of others, many of them

concerned with agenda setting as it occurred during political campaigns. For example, Tipton,

Haney, and Baseheart (1975) used cross-lagged correlation to analyze the impact of the media on

agenda setting during statewide elections. Patterson and McClure (1976) studied the impact of

television news and television commercials on agenda setting in the 1972 election. They

concluded that television news had minimal impact on public awareness of issues but that

television campaign advertising accounted for increased audience awareness of candidates’

positions on issues.
 Bibliography

Weaver, A. (1998). Net worth. Working Woman, 23(1), 20

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University

Press

Bryant, J., & Thompson, S. (2002). Fundamentals of media effect

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis.

Communication Research, 21(4), 516–546

Klapper, J. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication,

26(2),

Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda technique in World War I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan. (reprint, 1965). New York: Free Press.