Communication Theory

The difference? See the picture on page 360.

Theory – a statement of relationship among concepts that is explanatory or (in the best sense) predictive.

• theory is abstract, i.e. abstractness occurs at different levels to make better theory
• theory has rigor, with clear language for understanding
• theory is testable – if it’s not testable it doesn’t have much use

• it’s rigorous as there are many steps to understand
• there’s method, in that theory is based on observation, prediction, and testing
• objective – based on real-world observation of reality
• open – the scientist explains what is done

Pure science starts with theory, applied through a hypothesis, set up observations (making sure that the process is rigorous and objective), analyze observations, then come to a conclusion. Theories can come from pure conceptualization, prior observation or a mixture of the two. No theory is ever settled because we cannot test every set of circumstances in which a theory is held to be true.

Mass communication research began in the late 1800s after the rise of the newspaper. There had been some recognition in the late 1700s of mass society. Yet by the late 1800s, this anonymous mass was no longer obeying the rules. It was assumed that mass society is susceptible to persuasion, e.g. in WW I, propaganda convinced British researchers of the possibility of massive effects (if not very sophisticated)

Mass Society Theory – media are corrupting influences that undermine the social order and average people are defenseless against it (this is an example of grand theory designed to explain everything)

The first effects research was conducted on WW I propaganda by Harold Lasswell, who attempted to determine how to apply it to an advertising campaign strategy. Lasswell described communication as answering the following questions:

Who?
Says what?
Through which channel?
To whom?
With what effect?

Lasswell operated under a "Magic bullet" or "Hypodermic needle" theory. He was not worried about exposure, just that content appeared in the media. He assumed massed media has a very strong, mostly negative effect. He presumed that a powerful, immediate message would be able to motivate change in behavior (sans intermediary).

In the Payne Fund studies, the first large scale general focus social science study found effects, but not as clear cut as they assumed.

After the "War of the Worlds," the radio industry funded Cantril, whose research produced mixed effects. This challenged the assumption that everyone got the message. About one in 10 Americans heard the broadcast. Of these, one in three thought that something was wrong with the broadcast. Most quickly figured it out. Those who didn’t thought America had been invaded by Martians or the Nazis.

Paul Lazarfeld came up w/ limited effects theories, e.g. the People’s Choice study, which followed the magic bullet study, but made the distinction that media were politically based. Lazarfeld recognized the relation between content and media, but he didn’t ask how much, how frequent or what type of exposure the subjects had to media. He looked at when people’s attitude changed, and found minimal impact on political voting behavior.

   World War II brought more concern of the propaganda effects on the American soldier, causing the US to produce the “Why We Fight” propaganda films.

Carl Hovland led this psychological research funded by the Office of War Information and found that the films were not effective in changing minds, though they were good at providing background information or maintaining morale.

In other words, certain appeals are more effective than others. Person to person persuasion is more effective than mediated persuasion, and lesser educated individuals seemed more influenced by media than higher educated individuals.

Lazarfeld’s “Personal Influence” study came up with the idea of the “Two-step flow”, i.e. people get their information from opinion leaders about political ideas (no TV in that time)

 The biggest problem with the limited effects model was the challenge to the magical bullet theory because most researchers believed in powerful effects, and thus were unwilling to accept a model that there was no powerful effect. Though the data supported the idea of limited effects, most researchers in the field looked for powerful effects.

Hidden paradigm

• belief in powerful effects
• belief in passive, differentiated audience
• belief in negative effects

Research shows no evidence supporting direct, short-term change, so researchers changed their outlook.

1. Agenda setting effect is about building an agenda, not changing an agenda
1. Shaw and McCombs found the media may not tell you what to think, but tell you what to think about
2. Looks at space or time devoted to story, placement in the medium, consistency across media
2. Attitude- persuasion studies focus on building new attitudes or behaviors and reinforcement
1. Dissonance theory (p. 365) argues that people experience discomfort when confronted by new or conflicting information. They work to reduce that discomfort through:

                                                               i.      Selective exposure – people only watch/read/listen to messages consistent w/ pre-existing beliefs

                                                             ii.      Selective retention – people only remember messages consistent w/ pre-existing attitudes and beliefs

                                                            iii.      Selective perception – people interpret messages in manner consistent w/ attitudes and beliefs

2. Reinforcement theory argues that a nexus of mediating factors (church, family and school) acted as a socializing force for many people. However, after 1960, it was hard  to ignore media’s impact
2. Uses and Gratifications/dependency analysis challenges the idea of a passive audience with the idea of an active audience.
1. Media doesn’t do things to people; people do things with media
2. Media simply gives people what they want – a copout for media programmers

Media then turned to cultural theories: 

Symbolic interaction: cultural symbols are learned through interaction and then mediate that interaction, i.e. People give things meaning and that meaning controls their behaviors

Social construction of reality theory argues that people who share a culture also share an ongoing correspondence of meaning, i.e. things seem the same to you and me. Highway symbols are usually interpreted the same way.

George Gerbner’s cultivation analysis looks at long-term rather than short-term effects, i.e. Television cultivates a reality for those watching it. Gerbner argued TV blurs the traditional distinctions of people’s world view, blends people’s realities into the cultural mainstream, and bends that mainstream reality to its own and its sponsors institutional interests.

Critical Cultural theory (based in neo-Marxist theory) argues that people are oppressed by those who control the mass media. It looks at broad, culture-wide media effects from an openly avowed left-leaning orientation. The goal is to instigate change in government media polices at the least, and to effect wholesale change in media and cultural systems at best. Can be seen in the Frankfurt School, British Cultural Theory and News production research.

WHAT EFFECTS?

VIOLENCE

Under what circumstances? Albert Bandura’s social learning replaced repetition/reinforcement, e.g. the Bobo doll (p. 379). But are we being densensitized?

DRUGS and ALCOHOL (p. 381-382)

GENDER and RACIAL STEREOTYPING (p. 383)