Published on

A quick history of audience research used for a college visit

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Audiences |Effects | Research 1
  2. 2. Social conditioning Ivan Pavlov (1901) Dogs, bells & whistles = salivation
  3. 3. Hypodermic syringe !   AKA Magic Bullet !   After Schramm (1961/1982) !   Mass media are so powerful they can 'inject' their messages into the audience !   AKA propaganda around WW1
  4. 4. Social Cognitive Theory !   Albert Bandura (1959-77) !   ‘Bobo’ doll tests !   Many variations !   3 groups of children (aged 3-6) !   Rooms with toys !   Adult attacking bobo doll
  5. 5. Social Cognitive Theory !   Children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to show imitative aggressive behaviour themselves. !   Subjects exposed to the non-aggressive model, or no model at all, showed little imitative aggressive behaviour
  6. 6. Social Cognitive Theory !   Problems !   Rather simple experiments !   Isolate variables and test response !   Establish the (artificial) conditions to test the response !   Draw conclusions about society? !   Audience as too PASSIVE
  7. 7. Uses & Gratifications !   “Even the most potent of the mass media content cannot ordinarily influence an individual who has 'no use' for it in the social and psychological context in which he lives. !   The 'uses' approach assumes that people's values, their interests, their associations, their social rôles, are pre- potent, and that people selectively 'fashion' what they see and hear to these interests” (Katz, 1959 in McQuail, 1971)
  8. 8. Gratifying needs 1.  Surveillance •  the need for knowledge 2.  Personal identity •  our dis/likes and comparisons 3.  Personal relationships •  TV facilitates discussion; acts as a ‘friend’ 4.  Diversion •  escapism, entertainment, relaxing (emotional release & sexual arousal)
  9. 9. Gratifying needs !   Problems: !   Highly individualistic !   Little attention paid to media form and content !   Ignores meanings attached to media !   Presumes the media are always functional !   Audience as too ACTIVE
  10. 10. Reception Studies Stuart Hall (1973) Encoding/Decoding model
  11. 11. Encoding/Decoding model Media professionals Media audiences Technical skills Viewing skills Established practices Diverse interests Constructed Deconstruct
  12. 12. Texts ‘mean’ different things !   Texts are polysemic (can be read multiple ways) !   There exists a ‘preferred reading’
  13. 13. Real audiences? David Morley (1980) Nationwide Audience Tested Encoding/Decoding model with real people
  14. 14. Schoolboys Black FE Bank managers students Apprentices Shop stewards Trade union officials Trainee Teachers HE Arts Students
  15. 15. Recent investigations Tanya Byron (2008) Concerned about safety of young people online
  16. 16. Media effects? Negative claims still made Often based on ‘dodgy’ claims
  17. 17. Questions !   Do we agree or disagree with the claim that the media ‘effects’ us? !   What kind of form do these ‘effects’ take? !   Is it possible to measure these ‘effects’? How would we do it? !   What kind of variables or approaches need to be taken into account if we want to explore audience research fully?
  18. 18. Further Reading !   Daniel Chandler has a series of useful essays summarising the major arguments !   Cultivation Theory: !   Encoding/Decoding: !   Nationwide Audience: ! !   David Gauntlett also summarises many of the problems with claims around media effects !  10 Things Wrong With The Effects Model: !   Also, Tanya Bryon’s report into children and new technology has a useful appendix by Prof David Buckingham: ! %20Review%20for%20the%20Byron%20Review.pdf