NON-FICTION.materials / 17. Processes and Models of Media Effects

.doc

Скачиваний:

Добавлен:

08.02.2016

Размер:

125.95 Кб

Скачать

☆

<<< < Предыдущая 12 / 22

Source-Receiver Relations and Effect

As has been noted, trust in and respect for the source can be conducive to influence. There have been several attempts to develop theories of influence taking account of relationships between sender (or message sent) and receiver. Most of these theories refer to interpersonal relations. One framework has been suggested by French and Raven (1953), indicating five alternative forms of communication relationship in which social power may be exercised by a sender and influence accepted by a receiver. The underlying proposition is that influence through communication is a form of exercise of power that depends on certain assets or properties of the agent of influence (the communicator).

The first two types of power asset are classified as reward and coercion, respectively. The former depends on there being gratification for the recipient from a message (enjoyment, for instance, or useful advice); the latter depends on some negative consequence of non-compliance (uncommon in mass communication). A third type is described as referent power and refers to the attraction or prestige of the sender, such that the receiver identifies with the person and is willingly influenced, for affective reasons.

Fourthly, there is legitimate power, according to which influence is accepted on the assumption that a sender has a strong claim to expect to be followed or respected. This is not very common in mass communication but may occur where authoritative messages are transmitted from political sources or other relevant institutional leaders. This type of power presumes an established relationship between source and receiver that predates and survives any particular instance of mass communication. Finally, there is expert power, which operates where superior knowledge is attributed to the source or sender by the receiver. This situation is not uncommon in the spheres of media news and advertising, where experts are often brought in for explanation, comment or endorsement. Examples of exploitation of all five types of media power can be found in advertising and informational campaigns, and more than one of these power sources is likely to be operative on any given occasion.

A rather similar attempt to account for effects (especially on individual opinion) was made by Kelman (1961). He named three processes of influence. One of these, compliance, refers to the acceptance of influence in expectation of some reward or to avoid punishment. Another, identification, occurs when an individual wishes to be more like the source and imitates or adopts behaviour accordingly (similar to 'referent' power). A third, internalization, describes influence that is guided by the receiver's own pre-existing needs and values. This last-named process may also be described as a 'functional' explanation of influence (or effect), since change is mainly explicable in terms of the receiver's own motives, needs and wishes.

Katz (1960) recommended this approach to explaining the influence of mass communication in preference to what he considered to have been dominant modes of explanation in the past. One of these he described as an 'irrational model' of humanity, which represents people as prey to any form of powerful suggestion. An alternative view depends on a 'rational model', according to which people use their critical and reasoning faculty to arrive at opinions and acquire information. This would be consistent with a view of the individual as sovereign against propaganda and deception. Katz found both views mistaken and less likely than a 'functional' approach to account for communicative effect, thus giving most weight to the needs of receivers and to their motives for attending to communication. He argued that communication use helps individuals to achieve their objectives, maintain a consistent outlook and retain their self-esteem.

The Campaign

Basic features

There are many different kinds of campaign. These include: public information campaigns designed to benefit the recipient on matters such as health and safety or to provide a public service; election campaigns for parties or candidates; advocacy campaigns for a particular cause; campaigns in developing countries for some aspect of 'modernization'; and commercial advertising. These types are likely to differ not only in terms of goals, but according to the norms and rules, the degree of social support they enjoy, the methods and strategies applied and also the relative significance of the media contribution relative to other resources (e.g. economic incentives or personal contact). Campaigns have specific and overt aims and a limited timespan. The population targeted for influence is usually large and dispersed.

The summary presentation in Box 17.2 draws attention to key features of the general process. First, the originator of the campaign is almost always a collectivity -a political party, government, church, charity, pressure group, business firm, and so on - rather than an individual. The known position in society of the source will strongly affect its chances of success in a campaign. Secondly, campaigns are also often concerned with directing, reinforcing and activating existing tendencies towards socially approved objectives like voting, buying goods, raising money for good causes or achieving better health and safety. The scope for novelty of effect or major change is thus often intrinsically limited, and the media are employed to assist other institutional forces.

Box 17.2 Typical elements and sequence of a public campaign

Collective source
Socially approved goals
Several channels
Many messages
Variable reach of target group
Filter conditions
Variable information processing
Effects achieved
Evaluation

Thirdly, a campaign usually consists of many messages distributed through several media, with the chances of reach and effect varying according to the established nature of the channels and the message content. A key consideration is the degree to which the identified target group within the public as a whole is actually reached. A distinctive feature of many campaigns is that they aim to redistribute a limited amount of public attention, action or money (thus a zero-sum condition). This applies especially to advertising, but it is also true of politics and, in practice, to most fund-raising for charitable purposes.

Filter conditions

There is a set of 'filter conditions' or potential barriers that can facilitate or hinder the flow of messages to the whole or chosen public. Several of these have already been discussed and they are to some extent predictable in their operation, although only in very broad terms. Attention is important because without it there can be no effect, and it will depend on the interest and relevance of content for the receivers, on their motives and predispositions, and on channel-related factors. Perception matters because messages are open to alternative interpretations, and the success of a campaign depends to some extent on its message being interpreted in the same way as intended by the campaign source. Research has indicated the occurrence of 'boomerang' effects - for instance, in attempts to modify prejudice (for example, Cooper and Jahoda, 1947; Vidmar and Rokeach, 1974) - and it is a constant preoccupation of commercial and political campaigners to try to avoid counter-effects which will aid the 'opposition'. Unwanted side-effects also occur in campaigns to raise money for good causes. For instance, appeals on behalf of the Third World may also create an image of incompetence and inferiority of the region or peoples involved (Benthall, 1993).

Motivation also plays a part, especially the variable of type and degree of expected satisfaction on the part of the audience member that can influence either learning or attitude change. The revival of an interest in audience motives and in the 'uses and gratifications' approach more generally was influenced by the search for better prediction and explanation of effect processes (Blumler and McQuail, 1968). These 'filter conditions' together determine the composition of the public reached, and the success of a campaign is ultimately dependent on a reasonable 'fit' between the composition of the planned 'target' public and the actual public reached.

Personal influence

The group situation of the receiver can mediate the effects of campaigns that originate 'outside' the many groups to which people belong, according to age, life circumstances, work, neighbourhood, interest, religion, and so on. Group allegiance, or its absence, has consequences for whether messages are noticed and then accepted or rejected. In the study of mass media effects the concept of 'personal influence' acquired early on a high status (Gitlin, 1978). While the concept is relevant to any effect, it originated in the study of campaigns, and the circumstances of medium-term and deliberate attempts to persuade and inform are most conducive to the intervention of personal contacts as sources of influence. The underlying idea of personal influence is a simple one; its originators expressed it, in the course of their research into the 1940 US presidential election campaign (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944: 151), as follows: 'ideas often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population'.

Thus, two elements are involved. The first is the notion of a population stratified according to interest and activity in relation to media and to the topics dealt with by mass media (in brief, 'opinion leaders' and 'others'). The second is the notion of a 'two-step flow' of influence rather than direct contact between 'stimulus' and 'respondent'. These ideas were further developed and elaborated by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955). While confirming the importance of conversation and personal contact as accompaniment to and perhaps modifier of media influence, subsequent research has not yet clearly shown that personal influence always acts as a strong independent or counteractive source of influence on the matters normally affected by mass media.

It has become clear that the division between opinion 'leaders' and 'followers' is variable from topic to topic; the roles are interchangeable, and there are many who cannot be classified as either one or the other (and may thus be outside the scope of group influence) (Robinson, 1976). It also seems probable that what occurs is as likely to be a multi-step as a two-step flow. It is also clear that direct effects from the media can and do occur without 'intervention' from opinion leaders, and it is highly probable that personal influence is as likely to reinforce the effects of media as to counteract them (see Bandura, 2002; Chaffee and Hochheimer, 1982), although such sources of influence operate spontaneously and are not easy to manipulate for planned communication.

In whose interest?

Another dimension that should also be kept in mind is that campaigns can differ according to what Rogers and Storey (1987) call the 'locus of benefit'. Some campaigns purport to be in the interests of the recipient (such as health and public information campaigns), while others are clearly on behalf of the sender - most commercial advertising and most 'propaganda'. This does not necessarily give the former a decisive advantage, if they fail to meet other basic conditions of success (like reaching the intended target audience or choosing the right message), though it may endow them with advantages of receiver trust and goodwill.

There is no easy way of summarizing the results of campaign research, beyond remarking that some campaigns do seem to succeed (Mendelsohn, 1973) and others to fail (Hyman and Sheatsley, 1947). Partial failures and partial successes account for most cases in the research literature and probably in reality (Windahl et al., 1992). Rogers and Storey (1987: 831) conclude in relation to campaigns that the 'shifting conceptualization of communication effects and communication process has led to recognition that communication operates within a complex social, political and economic matrix and that communication could not be expected to generate effects all by itself.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a general introduction to the question of media effects and their measurement. That media have effects is not in doubt, although it is difficult to establish when and to what degree an effect has occurred or is likely to occur. This difficulty is not primarily due to methodological obstacles, although these do exist. It mainly arises from the very number and variety of possible effects and of the facts and conditions that relate to the occurrence of effects. Not least problematic is the fact that effects, when they do occur, involve not only the actions of communicators, but the orientations and actions of the audience. Most effects are in some degree interactions between senders and receivers. Many longer-term effects of mass media do not involve the initial or immediate audience at all, but are the secondary responses of others.