This document discusses the history and development of reception theory. It covers early uses of reception theory from the 1970s-1990s to analyze media content, the expansion of the theory beyond text to include semiotics and the understanding that environmental context influences reception. More recent developments mentioned include incorporating neuroscience findings and how reception models have been used to understand celebrity reception. The meaning derived from media depends on the relationship between the text and the reader's own background and experiences.

1. David Phillips Reception theory

2. Reception Theory Understanding the early theory of reception of text. Use of media content anaysis (1970's to 90's) Phillips 1995 Negotiated reception Expansion of theory from text to semiotic 1990's (Chandler) The understanding of environment and context as components of reception (neuropsychology) Using reception models such as celebrity Understanding of reception is changing because of neuroscience and the new brain sciences (listem to Vicky Tuck on Radio 4 and In Our Time last week).

3. Some early thoughts Reception theory is a version of reader response literary theory that emphasizes the reader's reception of a literary text. In literature, it originated from the work of Hans-Robert Jauss in the late 1960s. Reception theory was at its most influential during the 1970s and early 1980s in Germany and USA (Fortier, 2002: 132), amongst some notable work in Western Europe.

4. People are not passive This approach to textual analysis focuses on the scope for "negotiation" and "opposition" on the part of the audience. This means that a "text"—be it a book, movie, or other creative work—is not simply passively accepted by the audience, but that the reader / viewer interprets the meanings of the text based on their individual cultural background and life experiences. In essence, the meaning of a text is not inherent within the text itself, but is created within the relationship between the text and the reader.

5. What do we interpret from a message Stuart Hall stressed the role of social positioning in the interpretation of mass media texts by different social groups. In a model deriving from Frank Parkin's 'meaning systems', Hall suggested three hypothetical interpretative codes or positions for the reader of a text.

6. Reception models Dominant (or 'hegemonic') reading: the reader fully shares the text's code and accepts and reproduces the preferred reading (a reading which may not have been the result of any conscious intention on the part of the author(s)) - in such a stance the code seems 'natural' and 'transparent'; Negotiated reading: the reader partly shares the text's code and broadly accepts the preferred reading, but sometimes resists and modifies it in a way which reflects their own position, experiences and interests (local and personal conditions may be seen as exceptions to the general rule) - this position involves contradictions; Oppositional ('counter-hegemonic') reading: the reader, whose social situation places them in a directly oppositional relation to the dominant code, understands the preferred reading but does not share the text's code and rejects this reading, bringing to bear an alternative frame of reference (radical, feminist etc.) (e.g. when watching a television broadcast produced on behalf of a political party they normally vote against).

7. Uses and Gratification The basic theme of Uses and Gratifications is the idea that people use the media to get specific gratifications. This is in opposition to the Hypodermic Needle model that claims consumers have no say in how the media influences them. The main idea of the Uses and Gratifications model is that people are not helpless victims of all powerful media, but use media to fulfil their various needs. These needs serve as motivations for using media.

8. Uses and Gratification - people play and active role.... Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz devised their uses and gratifications model in 1974 to highlight five areas of gratification in media texts for audiences. These include: Escape — Some media texts allow the user to escape from reality. For example, video games. Social interaction — People create personal relationships with the characters in a media text. Potentially this could become dangerous if people do not question the reality of such texts. It also creates a common ground for conversation in people's every day lives. Identify — People often identify a part of themselves in a media text, either through character or circumstance. For example, hair style trends stemming from a magazine feature. This can go a long way in people's ideologies. Inform and educate — the audience gain an understanding of the world around them by consuming a media text, for example print and broadcast news. Entertain - consumed purely for entertainment purposes, meaning that text need not have any other gratifications.

9. Shared experience The basis for this hypothesis, that it is the sharing of subjective experience that is the fundamental element that underlies attachment drive and behaviour, requires an examination of the very basis and context of our living experience. It requires us to delve perhaps in a rather philosophical view, but one that appears to on quite solid ground.

10. The role of role models Fashion Celebrity WoM Association Sense of group and belonging Makes reception easy in social context

11. Evidence of the influence of mass media A single story has little effect Need for context Need for repetition All publicity is good publicity? Is this how propaganda works? David Fan says a free press is a defence against – but not complete.

12. The Authors Phillips, D (1995) Evaluating Press Coverage Kogan Page Hall, Stuart. "Cultural Studies: two paradigms" in Media, Culture and Society 2, 1980, 57-72. Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, 1997. Hall, Stuart. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse, 1973. Hall, Stuart. "Notes on Deconstructing the Popular" in People's History and Socialist Theory, London: Routledge, 1981, 227-49. Blumler, J. and E. Katz, The Uses of Mass Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1974. Bennett, Susan, eds. "Theatre Audiences, a Theory of Production and Reception" New York/London: Routledge, 1990. Fortier, Mark, ed2. "theory / theatre: an introduction" New York/London: Routledge (2002). Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. "Introduction to Reception Aesthetics." New German Critique 10 (1977): 29-63. Holub, Robert C. Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1992. Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Methuen, 1984. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978. Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Trans. Timothy Bahti. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1982.

13. Reception Theory did we learn? Understanding the early theory of reception of text. Use of media content analysis (1970's to 90's) Negotiated reception Expansion of theory from text to semiotic 1990's (Chandler) The understanding of environment and context as components of reception (neuropsychology) Using reception models such as celebrity Understanding of reception is changing because of neuroscience and the new brain sciences (listem to Vicky Tuck on Radio 4 and In Our Time last week).