Media: Audience models Flashcards
Methodological problems of researching media effects
-Cause and effect problems: Difficult to prove whether media causes certain behaviours, or if already aggressive/biased people choose certain media (e.g. aggressive people watching violent programmes).
-Multiple influencing factors: Hard to separate media influence from other social factors like upbringing, experiences, and knowledge - people interpret media differently.
-Identifying specific media sources: With so many types of media (TV, films, websites, social media), it’s difficult to know which specific media source is responsible for any effects.
-No control group: Impossible to know what people’s beliefs or behaviours would have been without media exposure (e.g. would they have held racist or sexist views anyway?).
-Media saturation: In today’s media-saturated society, everyone is exposed to media constantly, making it impossible to compare effects between exposed and unexposed groups.
Media effects model
-Passive models: assume the audience is passive in how they receive media messages & believe audience have little control/say in how they’re influenced by the media.
-Active models: assume audience have ability to reject the media’s message & suggest that audience are not simply passive in how they interpret the media’s message.
-However, there are individual differences (ie. a media text is polysemic - interpreted in many ways).
-Media is only one influence on how we think & behave & there’s other areas of socialisation that influence us.
Methodological problems of researching media effects
-Uncertain media is the cause of violence and aggression & not other social factors.
-Many exposed to the same media material but interpret it differently.
-It’s impossible to know which media may have influence someone as new media = wider range of media.
-Impossible to establish what peoples beliefs, values etc may be without media influence as society is media saturated.
Passive audiences: Hypodermic syringe model
-Media injects messages directly into audience who uncritically accept them.
-Audiences seen as passive, unthinking receivers of media content.
-Media messages (e.g., violence, sexism, dominant ideology) immediately impact audience behaviour.
-Linked to moral panics (e.g. London riots 2011 blamed on social media use).
Neo-Marxist view of HSM
Adorno & Horkheimer (Neo-Marxists):
-Media = “Culture Industry,” producing standardised content to manipulate masses.
-Popular culture makes people passive, creates false needs, supports capitalism.
Feminist view of HSM
-Orbach & Wolf:
Media promotes “beauty myth” and size zero ideal, linked to eating disorders & mental health issues.
-Dworkin & Morgan:
Pornography desensitises audiences, trivialises rape, increases tolerance for violence against women.
-Alternative View – Denmark (2007):
Pornography can improve sexual knowledge, attitudes, and relationships.
Supporting evidence for HSM
-Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment:
Children imitated aggressive behaviour after watching violent media.
-Copycat Violence:
Media blamed for inspiring crimes (e.g., James Bulger case linked to Child’s Play film).
-Desensitisation – Newson (1994):
Repeated exposure to media violence makes violence seem normal.
Media encourages identification with violent perpetrators.
Led to stricter censorship (e.g. 9pm watershed, age certificates).
-Trump & Brexit campaigns:
Targeted social media advertising showed media’s power to directly influence behaviour.
Criticisms of HSM: Active audiences
-Belief that all audiences are passive, with same characteristics and reactions.
-Reality: Audiences are diverse; responses vary based on social situations and experiences.
-E.g. young vs. older audiences, middle-class vs. working-class interpretations.
-Reactions to violence:
Some may be appalled and reject it.
Some may use it to channel violent fantasies safely.
Some may ignore it altogether.
Criticisms of HSM: Assumes audiences are gullible
-Suggests people are unthinking and passive.
-In reality, people are active thinkers with their own ideas.
-Audiences interpret and give personal meanings to media texts.
-Media use varies: entertainment, education, escapism, etc.
Criticisms of HSM: Overestimates media power
-Assumes media overrides all other socialising influences (e.g. family, peers).
-Neglects the impact of real-life experiences and other social factors.
-Minimal proof that media has immediate, powerful effects as the model claims.
Criticism of HSM: Catharsis theory
Fesbach & Sanger, 1971:
-Watching violent media can release aggressive energy safely.
-Study: Teenage boys who watched violent TV were less aggressive.
Criticisms of HSM: Scapegoating media
-HSM blames media for societal problems.
-Ignores other causes of violence/antisocial behaviour:
-Peer pressure
-Drugs
-Childhood trauma
-Mental illness
Active audiences
-Audiences are not homogenous and vary in social characteristics & personal experiences.
-These factors influence choices in the way they use media, what they use it for & how they interpret media texts.
Active audiences: 2 step flow model (Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955)
Suggests media effects are not direct - people respond in varied ways.
Media messages pass through two steps:
1. Opinion leaders are exposed to media content first.
2. Opinion leaders interpret and filter the content, then pass on their views to others in their social network.
-Opinion leaders = respected, influential individuals in social groups (e.g. friends, family, teachers).
-Audience members trust and internalise the opinions of these leaders.
-Messages become mediated - filtered and altered by opinion leaders.
-Recognises that audiences are active, and social networks shape responses.
-Information can spread further in a chain reaction, as group members pass on opinions.
-Highlights the importance of social context and group influence in understanding media effects.
Limitations of the 2 step flow model
-More than two steps: Media influence likely goes through multiple stages across different social groups (e.g., parents, friends, teachers all interpret differently).
-Assumes flow is still from media to audience: Still treats audiences as victims of media content, even if messages are filtered by opinion leaders.
-Overestimates audience vulnerability: Assumes people are easily manipulated by opinion leaders.
-Ignores people’s own views, opinions, and experiences.
-Divides audience into ‘active’ and ‘passive’ groups: Opinion leaders are seen as active, while others are passive followers.
-Does not explain why some become opinion leaders and others do not.
-Impact of new media: Rise of social media means more diverse sources of mediated messages.
-Traditional opinion leaders may be less influential due to variety of opinions from platforms like Facebook, blogs, YouTube, etc.
Cultural effects model: ‘drip drip’ effect (Neo-marxist)
-Media is a powerful tool for spreading capitalist ideas, norms, and values.
-Media content contains strong ideological messages reflecting the views of media owners and producers.
-Media promotes a preferred reading- a particular interpretation of events.
-People with no direct experience of the events are more likely to accept the preferred reading.
-People with direct experience are more likely to reject the preferred reading.
-Repetition of the preferred reading over time makes it part of culture — ‘drip drip’ effect (slow and subtle process).
-Model links to reception analysis and selective filtering, recognising audiences are not fully passive.
-Gradually, most people accept dominant ideology as common sense, establishing cultural hegemony.
Cultural effects model: Encoding/decoding & reception analysis (Neo-marxist)
-Media texts are deliberately encoded with hegemonic ideology by media producers, making the dominant viewpoint seem normal and natural.
-Audiences receive, decode, and interpret media texts, often in the way intended by producers (dominant reading).
-People interpret media in different ways:
-Preferred (dominant) reading: most accept media messages as legitimate and widely accepted (e.g., general support for the Royal Family).
-Oppositional reading: some reject the media message entirely (e.g., anti-monarchy views).
-Negotiated reading: audiences accept some parts but reinterpret others to fit personal views (e.g., disliking the Royal Family but enjoying celebrity gossip).
-Audience responses are influenced by factors beyond the media itself, such as personal experiences, education, social class, gender, and individual circumstances.
Cultural effects model: Selective filtering (interprevist approach)
-Media messages pass through several filters before they reach the audience (Klapper, 1960).
-Selective Exposure: people choose what to consume based on interests, education, and commitments. They might avoid content that clashes with their views.
-Selective Perception: audiences interpret messages differently. They may accept some messages and reject others (e.g., heavy smokers ignoring messages about health risks of smoking).
-Selective Retention: people tend to remember information that aligns with their existing views, and forget content that contradicts them.
Postman (1986) argues we now live in a “three-minute culture” where people have very short attention spans, making it harder for media messages to stick.
The GMG view
-Philo (2008) criticises encoding/decoding and selective filtering, emphasising media’s power in shaping audience views unless alternative information is available.
-1984/5 miners’ strike study: TV portrayed miners as violent; most people accepted this view, except those who witnessed picket lines firsthand.
-Media plays a key role in agenda-setting, focusing attention on specific topics and limiting access to alternative viewpoints.
-Philo (2012) argues that without alternative sources, criticizing dominant media accounts is difficult.
-Over time, media influences public opinion, encouraging acceptance of the dominant ideology via the drip-drip effect.
-Cultural effects model: Media transmits dominant ideology, but audience interpretation is shaped by factors like class, experiences, and values. Over time, media impacts views and behaviors.
Limitations of Cultural effects model
-Philo (2008) argues that reception analysis and selective filtering overstate audience agency, as media often shapes social attitudes and limits resistance.
-Assumes journalists always work within the dominant ideology, neglecting their ability to critique and challenge it.
-Selective filtering suggests audiences control their media response, but media’s repetitive messages can limit true choice, giving only the illusion of control.
-E.g. Audiences may criticise political debates but fail to question why certain parties or topics are prioritised, showing how media can limit perspectives even in seemingly open discussions.
Active audiences: The uses & gratification model
-Assumes the media has the weakest effect, with the audience being the most active.
-Blumier & McQuail (1968): Focuses on what people do with media, rather than what media do to people.
-McQuail (1972) & Lull (1990): Media is used to fulfill specific needs such as:
1. Diversion (escapism)
2. Personal relationships (meeting new people)
3. Personal identity (reinventing oneself)
4. Surveillance (keeping tabs on others)
5. Background wallpaper (background noise)
-Park et al. (2009): In a web survey of Facebook users, found people use online groups for diversion, personal relationships, identity, and surveillance.
Limitations of the Uses & gratifications model
-It overestimates the audience’s power to influence media content and underestimates the media’s influence on shaping choices and pleasures, often through advertising.
-It focuses too much on individual media use, ignoring the group dynamics that influence how media is consumed, unlike models like two-step flow and cultural effects.
-It overlooks wider social factors that affect audience responses, as common experiences and values can lead to similar reactions across large groups.
Conclusions on media effects
-Assessing media effects on audiences is complex, with many methodological challenges.
-PMs like Baudrillard argue that we live in a media-saturated society, where our worldview is shaped more by media than personal experience.
-Factors like gender, ethnicity, age, social class, and personal experiences influence how individuals engage with and interpret media.
-Media plays a significant role in socialising individuals but its impact varies.
-For some, media has significant effects: for others, unintended or minimal effects.
-This variability is particularly evident when discussing the media’s influence on violence.
Violence & the media
-Media violence is widespread across TV, films, games, and the internet, with interactive violence now possible through games and online content.
-Debates about whether media violence causes real-life violence have persisted, often fueled by moral panic.
-Research is divided: some studies link media violence to aggression (e.g., Newson, Anderson), while others (e.g., Cumberbatch, Newbur & Hagell) dispute the connection.
-Reviews suggest children understand media violence is fictional, and evidence for a link to real-world violence is weak.
-Ferguson’s research (2014) found no long-term links between violent media and societal violence, with violence actually declining despite more media exposure.
