Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Review-Of-Media-Effect-Theories-And-T 👈

1. MPHMG-101 (Theory)
A Review of Media Effect Theories and their extension to Digital Media
Shariq Jalal
Abstract: This paper reviews different media effect theories at different span of time and the
common trends and perceptions related to it in those periods. Each of these periods have
specific conditions through which media may produce effects on certain individuals.
The paper will inspect the most important media effect theories and try to map their effects
from early theories being unidirectional to later theories being more complex and having
reciprocal interactions. Prominent contributors to the field and related media theorist will also
be discussed. At the end, the paper will discuss the possibility of extending media effect
theories to digital media and its limitations.
Introduction: A Historical Perspective
Media Effect Theories are at the core of Communication Research. Discussions and concern
over the impact of media over individuals, groups and communities are as ancient as the
media forms themselves. One may say that the impact of non-mediated persuasive
communication may even date back to hundreds of years to ancient Greek Civilization but
this paper is concerned with the mediated and primarily communications taking place
through mass communication devices. Mass communication refers to the process of sending
messages by a complex organization to a relatively huge, heterogeneous and scattered
audience (Dominick, 1983). This kind of communication is called as ‘mediated
communication’ and is comprised of a mechanical or electronic device which acts a mediator
between the source and receiver. According to Joseph R. Dominick the main point of
separation of interpersonal communication and mass communication is the involvement of
machines and digital processes.
The importance of media effect theories can be seen in our daily lives and we are surrounded
by media sounds and symbolic images. All our significant information or opinion formation
is because of one media or the other. Advertisements and public relations are also concepts
which are intertwined with media and its effect theories. Commodity fetishism which is
linked with the goods carrying a personal and social meaning is the result of media effect
through the intervention of advertising (Jhally,2006). Marcuse (1964) in his famous work
‘One-Dimensional Man’ questions the mass media and their effects as techniques of
information and entertainment or manipulation and indoctrination. He speaks of
rationalization of consumerist culture by mass media and its powerful effects. Golding and
Murdock builds on the work of Willis and Fiske theorizes that mass media influences its

2. 2
users to sustain and bring forth prevailing relations of domination. These relation of
domination lies in the capitalistic society with a hierarchy of relation having elites at the top.
Appadurai (1990) while discussing globalization and its cultural flows presents us with the
concept of ‘mediascapes’ which focusses on the power of mass media through its
increasingly global reach and how different communities of the world gets attached and
effected by it to form an ‘imagined world’ where truth and fiction becomes inseparable from
each other.
Media Effect Theories are historically related to evolution of humankind and its technical
progress. First mass produced medium in the form of printing material came into being with
the evolution of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1438 (Thompson, 1995). This printing press
caused several effects which can be remotely linked with media effects theory. First of all, it
made printing of 200 copies of Bible in Latin. This large-scale printing was in some way
responsible of resurgence of Christianity in Europe. Second, the generation of public opinion
is also in some way credited to the discovery of printing press. Through print, circulation of
ideas took place far and wide breaking the boundary of time and space. Enlightenment era
was a clear example of this as how democratization of knowledge took place after printing,
and people started having a public opinion and challenge the ideas of elites. It was due to
print revolution that the critics of Christianity, Government and Bourgeoisie rose at several
places. (Palmer et al., 2008)
1604 is the year when first newspaper in the world was published in Germany by the name
‘The Relation’. It was categorized as newspaper because it was published at regular interval
with a series of current news and was accessible to public.
The concept of ‘Print Capitalism’ and ‘Imagined Communities’ also came into being through
the process of print (Anderson, 1983). This concept was not directly related to media effect
theories but in some ways, shows the power of the earliest mode of mass communication i.e.
print media and its production of several significant notion which deal in human perception
of ideas like nationalism etc.
With the advent of industrial revolution came the industrialized mass media especially radio
and later television. Television has been a more dominant source of mass communication
than radio when it comes to media effect studies as it involves our audio-video senses than
only audio sense as in the case of radio. Since television has visual element in it, various
important semiotic studies involving repetitive images for media effect have been done on it
like Gerbner (1969), Fiske (1985) etc. Gerbner proposed the idea of Cultivation Theory
which states that the more time people spend in watching television the more they believed
that their reality aligns with the reality projected in television. This theory shows the high
visual impact of television.
Different Phases of Media Effect Theories
Media effect theories have been developed and shaped by different circumstances of a
particular time and space. It’s also effected by different regimes, technological advances of
the period, events in history and social sciences.

3. 3
Denis McQuail (1987) has divided media effect theories into four phases. Therefore, further
in the paper I would be discussing these phases one by one, incorporating significant points
from other authors as well.
First Phase: Significant Effect Phase
This phase took place in early twentieth century (around 1920s) when radio and film were
powerful means of mass communication. Press, radio and films were credited with shaping
one’s opinion, beliefs, ideas and attitudes which could be fashioned more or less according to
the will of their controller (Bauer and Bauer, 1960). This view was not scientifically
established but was based by looking at the huge popularity of mass media of those times and
its interference in everyday life and public affairs.
Some of the early practical examples of this phase were propaganda model by authoritarian
regimes at the time of first world war. Use of mass media for pursuing people through
advertisement was another example of this era. In United States, certain systemic studies
using surveys were conducted to know the influence of mass media in 1920s and 1930s.
Some books were also written about the power of mass media for propaganda (Lasswell,
1927 and O’Donnell, 1999)
“Magic Bullet” or “Hypodermic Needle” theory was the most important theory of this
time. This theory states that messengers shoot messages which come from a source and effect
the receiver. Harold Lasswell who was the most popular theorist of this phase used Freudian
Psychology to mention that individuals in society can be controlled by a minority of people
through the effectiveness of propaganda model. The audience of his phase was considered as
acting involuntarily to the effects of mass media. This phase focused on ‘structural features
of mass media’ and its content like involuntary visual attention to the screen, sounds, etc.
which are made to capture attention and to evoke emotional feelings like fear, happiness and
so on. This phase was also called as direct effect phase.
Second Phase: Minimal/Limited Effect Phase
This phase started in late 1930s with some empirical studies which were concerned with the
influence of films on children and young people. This phase was concentrated on “personal
influence” (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). Further Joseph Klapper (1960) who was a student of
Lazarsfeld, argues that mass media had no direct influence on its audience but simply
strengthened predisposition. This era continued till 1960s and specific studies were carried
out which defined effects of particular content of media and films for planned persuation.
Hovland et al. (1949) examined a series of experiments which demonstrated the use of film
materials for conditioning the American military recruits to support the aim of Second World
War.
In post war world, the media effect studies became more empirical and sophisticated. Now
the researchers included demographic information like age, sex and education psychological
and social dispositions, other potential variables and important rationale for selecting a
particular kind of media. This phase made mass media more modest and not all that powerful

4. 4
in causing any unplanned or unintended effect. Joseph Klapper summarized this period by
publish his study in 1960 stating that mass communication works along with a nexus of
intermediately factors to produce enough cause of audience effects. This phase showed that
there was no direct link between mass media stimulus and audience response but media was
operation in the pre-existing social and culture structure of a particular society. Those who
were using media for commercial and political gains did not agree to this phase much.
This phase was seen as audience centered where media effects the audience depending upon
their individuality. Uses and Gratification theory (Blumler and Katz, 1974) belonged to this
phase.
Third Phase: Strong effect rediscovered
This phase is different from the first and second phase as it takes long term effects of media
as significant. Noelle Neumann (1973) who discovered ‘Spiral of Silence’ theory is a major
contributor to this phase and called this phase as ‘return to powerful mass media’ This phase
deals in media effects of television in 1950s and 1960s when it had arrived. Researchers in
this period criticized psychology based methods and instead vouched for long term media
effects. Due to this reason, this phase was also called Cumulative effect phase. This
cumulative media effects are not based on single or couple exposure but a series of multiple
exposure of media over a period of time. This prolonged exposure makes the audience
believe the content they consume. Cumulative effects are based on repeated themes and
frames presented across mass media. Agenda setting (McCombs and Shaw, 1972) which
states that the mass media has the capacity to set the agenda for the audience because of the
consistency in coverage of a particular news topic. Cultivation theory (Gerbner and Gross,
1976) where the television presents its viewers content which is quite different from reality
but the heavy viewers of television starts believing those content. These theories point out the
pervasiveness of media content in a person’s life due to repeated exposure.
Fourth Phase: Negotiated effect or Cognitive transactional effect
This phase started in late 1970s and laid importance on social constructivist model (McQuail,
2009). This is called so because media is primarily associated with construction of reality and
the audience would decide that whether to accept media’s construction or not. Media
provides a pre-decided meaning to certain events to its audiences but it is up to audiences to
accept those meanings or not. Audience can offer resistance to this depending upon their
personal experience, social-cultural surroundings etc. This is break from all-powerful mass
media model and provides a shift to qualitative, deeper and ethnographic methods than
quantitative methods for analysis. This phase has two main core theories. First is about the
media’s construction of reality and second is about audience’s construction of social reality
and their positioning in it which is in interaction with construction by media. In this way,
there is a continuous negotiation of power between audience and media. Example of this
phase is the interaction of media with social movements for environmental, peace or
subaltern/women issues. Media selectively chooses a movement’s messages, motto, demands
and activities to give it a particular frame on which audience mental construction of

5. 5
movement takes place. These constructions are built by many arbitrations, agreements and
disagreements within the media or news organizations (Zoonen, 1992). An example of this is
the recent protests at Jamia Millia Islamia university against the brutalities of Delhi police in
the campus but the majority of media corporations gave it a communal frame and demonized
the image of students to their audiences. The audience who knew the fact about the incident
reacted in a neutral way but many of them were swayed away by the television news
reportage.
This constructivist approach does not negate all earlier media effect theories and phases but is
persistent with a good deal of earlier media theories yet it departs from most theories in its
methodology and critical analysis of events. Negotiated effect approach can be practiced in
gauging media influence in construction of ideology, public opinion, social attitudes and
political preferences.
In the regard of media effect phases, it is worth mentioning Carey (1988) who states “It can
be argued that the basic reason behind the shift in the argument about the media effects from
a powerful to a limited to a more powerful model is that the social world was being
transformed over this period.” Significant effects were there at a time when world was
entangled between two world wars, whereas minimal effect came to a more peaceful world of
1950s and 1960s until the peace was again disrupted by upheaval in the society through
economic malaise, social crimes, etc.
Rosengren and Windahl (1989) proposed the difference in evidence of the effect of television
may account for the fact that television was different in content and as a social experiment in
1980s as compared to 1950s (at the time of first effect research). Its effectiveness also
changed with difference in societies. Even in today’s globalised world with new socio-
cultural norms it has changed extensively, providing us with the obvious outcome that media
and its effects are not constant over time and various places.

6. 6
Idea of Polysemy in media effects tradition
By mid 1980s Television was considered as a tool for cultural means rather than a tool for
ideological hegemony (Saenz, 1992). This idea comes when the individualization and power
of selectivity with the audience came into forefront. Now the idea of television messages and
content was replaced by television text and intertextuality, audiences by semiotic interpreter
and viewing of television as reading practices and so on.
John Fiske (1986) presented the idea of polysemy, related to television, referring it as
subjective openness of media text to multiple interpretations. Polysemic text can apply a
number of different meanings to different audience members. He said that a text can appeal
to different audience members only if there is a common ideological framework that all
members can recognize and use, even if multiple members are opposed to it. Fiske remarked
that all the common text must have a basis of dominant social convention shared by its
member audience. Fiske gave the concept of “semiotic excess” which implies as having
excess or surplus of signifiers in the text that do not refer clear signified. In this way, the
degree of polysemy in a text is related to the extent of semiotic excess in the text. The more
semiotic excess, the more interpretation possible of the text. Thus, polysemy is not a
character of a media text (whether the text have polysemy or don’t have it) but it is there in
every text having a variable amount of presence.
Polysemy concept is important in two ways. First, after the fourth phase of media effect
theories where there is a kind of negotiation between the media effect and audiences based on
the socio-cultural context, polysemy plays an important role for media’s audiences (specially
television) in interpretation of the meaning of the media text according to their own cultural
and social upbringing and surrounding. Secondly, in the study of signs and symbols
(semiotics), it holds relevance and merge the content of media with semiotics. In this regard
the concept of encoding-decoding (Hall,1973) in culture studies also plays an important role
Extending Media Effect Theories to a Digital Era
One of the most significant development in media and communication landscape from the
past few decades is the advent of digital media also called as new media. Castells (2007)
gave the concept of ‘mass self-communication’ which can be applied to merge the media
effect theories with digital media. The idea of mass self-communication shares the concept of
self- selectivity with mass communication (Castells, 2007). Mass self-communication
recognizes that media content can be generated by the user whereas mass communication
research focuses on content reception mostly. So, while extending the concept of media effect
theories to digital media we can use the theory of mass self-communication to bridge these
two concepts in some possible ways.
Digital media technologies allow both phenomenon to happen, that is media content
reception and media content generation which leads to the experience of “self-generated
media effects” (Valkenburg and Peter, 2013). Self-generated media effects are caused by
self-generated media content, on the behaviour, attitudes and cognition. Self-generated media
effects are divided into two types, direct and indirect. In direct self-generated media effects

7. 7
the contents which are created by the creator effect herself/himself. For example, if someone
is posting some kind of content for social help on social networking sites it gives the creator
of this post a kind of welfare or public service feeling. In indirect self-generated effects, the
effects of the self-created content on the behaviour and believes of the generator occur
indirectly through feedbacks, comments, etc. of others. For example, the supporting
comments of others may enhance the welfare or public service feeling indirectly (of creator)
as mentioned in previous example.
In media effect research, it is believed that the audience tend to select those content which are
in agreement with their own beliefs and attitudes (Klapper,1960) avoiding material which
disagree with their beliefs. Same theory applies to digital media content that self-selected
materials have greater effects than content of other people or content with which a person
does not agree (Valkenburg and Peter, 2013)
Valkenburg, Peter and Schouten (2006) states that the self-esteem of adolescent gets
influenced by their online profiles on social networking sites. Adolescents used to improve
their online profile through the feedback they got from their peers. These improved profiles
received more positive feedbacks and likes which in turn boasted the self-esteem of
adolescents. In this way, the online communicative behaviour had effect on real time
behaviour through the improvement of self-esteem.
Social psychology through the self-perception theory can explain the direct self-generated
media effects. It says that people infer their own behaviour and attitudes by retrospectively
observing their behaviour (Bem, 1967, 1972). It is generally accepted that the attitudes and
cognition precedes one’s behaviour. In self-perception theory, it is argued that individuals
inherit their beliefs and attitudes from their prior behaviour. Hence, this theory when applied
to the direct self-generated media effects, individual’s online communicative behaviour can
be analyzed and understood to influence not only beliefs and attitudes of others or audience
online but also their own.
Applying popular media effects theories to digital media is not that easy because of the
difference in nature as compared to traditional media, as digital media is continuously
evolving.
Schulz and Roessler (2012) while discussing the scope of spiral of silence theory for online
world stated the hybridity of the internet by defining it as space where “social and mass
media communication coincide” They believe that the theory is useful in connection with
digital media but “faces severe limitations because the climate of opinion is perceived very
subjectively”
Cultivation theory by Gerbner is also suited to online media (Morgan, Shanahan and
Signorielli 2009). But again, it is a theory specifically developed for television, which is
“temporary rather than timeless, particular rather than universal, a historically and culturally
specific phenomenon” (Livingstone 2004, 76)
While considering the media effect theories in regard to digital media, we cannot just
indiscriminately extend them to digital media because of underlying difference in their nature
but can definitely take some crucial aspects from media effect theories. Above some of the
specific effect theories for online media have been discussed (Direct and Indirect effects)
which may shed some light about the effect online media has on its users.

8. 8
Conclusion
In this paper, we reviewed media effects scholarship that moves back and forth between an
interpretation of significant and minimal effects which further moves to an increasingly
sophisticated effect theories with social context as one of the determining factor. We
identified that effect theory evolved from a simple model of persuasion and transmission
(persuasion model) and has further brought in the analytical construct of audience motivation
and inclination (active audience model), then socially situated context and its relevancy for
prolonged period of time, in the mass media effect model (social context model) and the
impact of media messages on the cognition and salience of audience and in this way
organising their beliefs and opinions (cognitive effect model). With the coming up of digital
age, a new and fast-growing field on effect theories for online media is emerging. With
digital age its turning out that media can be the message, medium and the messenger and this
type of collapse in media demarcations is creating conditions for media effects theories to be
more complicated. Earlier it used to be clear cut boundary between the creative content, non-
fiction and advertising but now with digital age this has been challenged. With this a
multimedia consumer effect is coming into being where different forms of media in the
physical world like movies, music and games are compressed in the digital space. The media
landscape is achieving new heights of complexity and to define media effect in this age is
like shooting a moving as well as evolving target.
Although this new media effect literature does not connect much to its predecessors of
traditional media but it does find some common ground to establish a link with it. These new
advancements in the media technology may demand modification or improvement of media
effect theories and new ways of thinking.

9. 9
Bibliography
1. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive
dissonance phenomena. Psychological review, 74(3), 183.
2. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing
foundations of political communication. Journal of communication, 58(4), 707-731.
3. Carey, J. W. (2008). Communication as culture, revised edition: Essays on media and
society. Routledge.
4. Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. OUP Oxford.
5. Castells, M. (2010). Communication power: Mass communication, mass self-
communication, and power relationships in the network society. Media and society, 3-
17.
6. Fiske, J. (2010). Introduction to communication studies. Routledge.
7. Fiske, J. (1985). The semiotics of television.
8. Fiske, J. (1986). Television: Polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 3(4), 391-408.
9. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass
communication.(Studies in social psychology in World War II), Vol. 3.
10. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and
communication technologies. The communication review, 7(1), 3-14.
11. Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced
industrial society. Routledge.
12. McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & Mcleod, J. M. (2009). Political communication
effects. In Media Effects (pp. 244-267). Routledge.
13. McQuail, D. (2009). Mass Communication Theory (Six Edition).
14. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up With Television:
Cultivation Processes In Bryant, J., &Oliver, MB (Eds.).(2009) Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (3rd)(pp. 34-49).
15. Neuendorf, K. A., & Jeffres, L. W. (2017). Media Effects: Accounts, Nature, and
History of. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1-13.

10. 10
16. Neuman, W. R., & Guggenheim, L. (2011). The evolution of media effects theory: A
six-stage model of cumulative research. Communication Theory, 21(2), 169-196.
17. Potter, W. J., & Riddle, K. (2007). A content analysis of the media effects
literature. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(1), 90-104.
18. Rosengren, K. E., Windahl, S., Johnsson-Smaragdi, U., Sonesson, I., Flodin, B.,
Hedinsson, E., ... & Jönsson, A. (1989). Media matter: TV use in childhood and
adolescence. Ablex publishing.
19. Schulz, A., & Roessler, P. (2012). The spiral of silence and the Internet: Selection of
online content and the perception of the public opinion climate in computer-mediated
communication environments. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 24(3), 346-367.
20. Singer, J. B. (2018). Transmission creep: Media effects theories and journalism
studies in a digital era. Journalism Studies, 19(2), 209-226.
21. Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media.
Stanford University Press.
22. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects
model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243.

11. 11
Appendix 1
Chronology of Media Effect & Related Theories
Name of theory & Description Year Contributed by
Theory of Crowds- Suggests
that the crowd mentality takes
over individual mentality
1895 Gustave Le Bon
Propaganda & Media
Influence- Usage of mass media
to manipulate people in order to
gain their confidence
1927 Based on Sigmund Freud
behavioural theory. Used
by many media scholars
Hypodermic Needle- Mass
Media has a direct and powerful
effect on its audience
1930 Harold Lasswell
Mass Deception- Culture
Industry through the false idea
of happiness lures people
1940 Adorno & Horkheimer
Two Step Flow Theory- Most
people form their opinion
through opinion leaders who are
influenced by mass media
1944 Paul Lazarsfeld
Communication Model- Who
Says What, in which Channel, to
whom, with what effect
1948 Harold Lasswell
Uses and Gratification
Theory- Active role of media
users/audience in choosing
media as per their usage.
1960 Blumler & Katz
Agenda setting theory – What
public thinks is set about by
media
1968 McCombs & Shaw
Media Ecology- Analysis of
media, technology &
communication and their effect
on human environment.
1968 McLuhan
Framing Theory- Creation of a
particular frame by mass media
for information/news provided
by it.
1974 Goffman
The Spiral of Silence- Society
or social group may isolate a
person due to her/his difference
of opinion. Such individual thus
remain silent.
1974 Elisabeth Noelle-
Neumann

12. 12
Theory of Cultivation- Long
term and ubiquitous effect of
media.
1974 Gerbner and Gross
Priming Effect- Media effecting
perception of people in this way
their judgement is affected.
1982 Iyengar, Peters, and
Kinder
Third Person Effect- Audience
think that they remain
unaffected by media effect while
others are effected.
1983 W. Phillips Davison
Communications as Culture-
Study of cultural changes
brought about by
communication
1988 James W. Carey