• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Media Effects
 

Media Effects

on

  • 6,661 views

A brief summary of the research deployed in 'media effects' debates.

A brief summary of the research deployed in 'media effects' debates.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,661
Views on SlideShare
6,655
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
102
Comments
1

2 Embeds 6

http://www.slideshare.net 5
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • this is very interesting to know. nice presentation. ritu
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Media Effects Media Effects Presentation Transcript

  • Media effects research Jim Barratt 10 October 2006
  • Aim
    • Introduction to media effects research, with a
    • focus on violence.
    • Part one
    • Types of effects
    • Historical context
    • Hypotheses
    • Methods
    • Public debate
    • Other approaches
    • Part two
    • Clips:
    • Violence
    • TV debate
  • Types of media effects
    • Negative
    • e.g. aggression
    • Positive
    • e.g. 'pro-social behaviour'
    • (Influences
    • Negative: 'moral decline', body image, stereotyping etc.
    • Positive: informed democracy etc.)
  • Historical context
    • 1930s: Payne Fund studies
    • 1960s: Behavioural science
    • 1980s: Moral crusade
  • Hypotheses (1)
    • Imitation
    • Social Learning Theory- Bandura et al (1960s). Children
    • learn by imitating significant others.
    • Identification
    • As above but viewers more likely to imitate characters they
    • identify with.
    • Triggering
    • Media provide cues for behaviour, e.g. violence rather than
    • talk used to resolve conflict.
  • Hypotheses (2)
    • Instigation (arousal)
    • Viewing arouses people and when levels of arousal reach a
    • peak it results in an outburst of violence.
    • Desensitisation
    • Viewers' responses to real life violence are dulled by
    • exposure to media violence.
    • Disinhibition
    • Everyone has a propensity for violence but we are
    • socialised to inhibit our impulses. Media weaken our
    • inhibitions.
  • Hypotheses (3)
    • Reinforement
    • In contrast this theory says only certain people have a
    • violent disposition and the media reinforce this
    • propensity.
    • This has found the strongest support in the
    • research literature, but causality is hard to prove:
    • Are violent people more likely to watch violent films
    • (i.e. correlation), or do violent portrayals increase violent
    • tendencies (i.e. causality)?
  • Hypotheses (4)
    • Cultivation - an ideological effect
    • Gerbner et al (1970/80s): media cultivate in viewers a
    • particular view of the world, including about levels of
    • violence and crime (e.g. leading to a greater fear of crime).
    • Catharsis - pro-social effect
    • Feshbach and Singer (1970s): following Aristotle, drama
    • provides a safe outlet for venting aggression etc. without
    • resorting to violence.
  • Methods (1)
    • Laboratory studies
    • 'From the point of view of testing scientific theories in a rigorous
    • manner…experimental laboratory studies are without doubt the
    • method of choice' (Eysenck and Nias, 1980)
    • Pros
    • Can control experimental conditions;
    • Use of control groups;
    • Can be easily replicated.
    • Cons
    • Artificial conditions (i.e. not 'real life');
    • Heavy reliance on undergraduate students as participants;
    • Experimenter effects (e.g. coercion).
  • Methods (2)
    • Surveys
    • e.g. Parliamentary Group Video Enquiry, 1983.
    • Pros
    • Provides insights into self-reported viewing habits and opinions about violence;
    • Sampling enables statistical generalisation.
    • Cons
    • Self-reported behaviour may be unreliable due to poor recollection, desire to please the researcher or avoid being seen in negative light;
    • Can only establish correlation between viewing habits and violence, not causation;
    • Questions must be unambiguous and not leading.
  • Methods (3)
    • Natural or found experiments
    • e.g. Hennigan et al (1982), which looked at different uptake rates of TV
    • in the USA in late 1940s/early 1950s compared with local crime rates.
    • Pros
    • Wholly naturalistic research conditions.
    • Cons
    • Cannot control confounding variables (e.g. cinemagoing in the Hennigan study);
    • Difficult to find proper experimental controls.
  • Methods (4)
    • Longitudinal studies
    • e.g. Children in the Community study (Johnson et al, 2002), which
    • found aggressive individuals are more likely to be heavy TV viewers.
    • Pros
    • Can measure change over time and longer-term 'effects'.
    • Cons
    • Tend to be survey or interview based, reliant on self-reported data.
    • Can establish a correlation not causality.
  • Public debate
    • Prevailing view in public discourse:
    • Media are powerful, audiences are passive
    • 'Television is a powerful medium, and young people are
    • uniquely susceptible to it' (Strasburger, 1995)
    • Other key element: the protection of children and calls for greater censorship
  • Other approaches
    • The growth of reception studies, which look at audience interpretation, coupled with what is known as the 'ethnographic' turn in research has led to a reappraisal by media academics of the audience as 'active'.
    • Work by researchers like David Buckingham (IoE) and Sonia Livingstone (LSE) has revisited the child audience to find out what they make of the media they consume.
    • This tradition is not without its own challenges (not least a reliance on children's accounts of their behaviour) but it does shift focus from censorship to media education.
  • http://www.BiggerPictureResearch.net