From your limited experience, define media effects.

Levels of Assessment of Media Effects

Generally, media effect could be assessed at many different levels. They include at:

1.individual level

2.family level

3.reference group

4.community group

5.societal group and

6.cultural group

One needs to point out that different approaches to the assessment of the impact of the media can be used. At the individual level, for instance, scholars might be concerned with media effects on attitudes, beliefs or behaviours, or examination of media effects on perceptions of reality, on level of anxiety, on moral judgement, on predispositions to commit a crime, and on many other dimensions of the way we think, feel or act. (Black et al 1995: 36).

Black and his group also noted that “some scholars are more concerned with the short-term or transitory effects of media; others strive to determine whether the media have more durable or long term effects. Sometimes, the positive, beneficial or prosocial effects of media are examined, but more often, concerns are with the negative, detrimental or anti-social consequences of using media”. The authors noted further: “some people examine media effects simply for the purpose of better understanding the roles and consequences of media in the society. Others examine media effect in order to know how to utilize media more effectively to achieve specific goals. Still, others consider media impact in order to administer or regulate media or to better formulate public policy regarding media”.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2

Which of the levels above do you think media effects could be assessed the most?

4.0CONCLUSION

This unit has been able to show that the mass media alone should not be blamed or praised for any disruption or betterment in the social communication process. Rather, the unit maintains that both the media

204

and the society at large should be responsible for such alteration in the social process.

Those who tend to hold the mass media solely responsible are those who exaggerate the influence of media and center widespread public concern on negative media effects. This is because they thought that it was possible to study effects more objectively than media uses could be studied. They chose to focus their efforts on developing what they thought would be definitive, powerful ‘explanations for the consequences’ of media use. They didn’t see as much purpose or value in describing and cataloguing people’s subjective reasons’ for using media (Baran & Davies 2003: 258).

The position of this unit is that such effects research is one sided because media cannot serve their intended function unless people make certain uses of their content. Mass media can only transmit any information successfully, only if enough audience members are willing and able to make certain uses of the content. In other words, without the society, which responds or interacts with the mass media, the mass media cannot single-handedly alter the social process. The position here subscribes to the uses and gratifications approach and sharply contradicts that of the effects theories.

One needs to point out, however, that rather than taking a one sided position, that is, ‘uses’ against ‘effects’, it is worthwhile to consider the new research directions which seek to harmonise the ‘uses and ‘effects’ approaches. Windahl (1981) argued that a merger of ‘uses and gratification’ and the ‘effects’ traditions was overdue and proposed what he called a ‘uses and effects’ model that viewed the product of the use of media content as ‘conseffects’ (cited in Baran & Davies) 2003: 268)

Blumer (1979), while presenting his ideas on how the uses and gratifications effect approaches could be harmonized writes:

How might propositions about media effects be generated from… gratifications? First, we may postulate that cognitive motivation will facilitate information gain...

Second, media consumption for purposes of diversion and escape will favour audience acceptance of perceptions of social situations in line with portrayals frequently found in entertainment materials... Third, involvement in media materials for personal identity reasons is likely to promote reinforcement effects.

In essence, while one could aligned oneself with one position against the other, it appeals to intellectual reasoning to pursue the new direction

205

which Windhal refers to as ‘conseffects’. With these, orientations into the role of the media in the society would be harmonized.

5.0SUMMARY

This unit has been able to establish the effect of mass media in the society. It looked specifically at what the media do to people and what people do with the media. The unit also examined the different levels of assessment of media effects concept.

6.0TUTOR–MARKED ASSIGNMENT

Most people believe that the media is to be blamed for the disruption in the society. Do you agree? Give reasons.

7.0REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS

Baran, S.J. (2002). Introduction to Mass Communication. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bitner, R. (1989). Mass Communication: An Introduction. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

Sambe J.A. (2005). Introduction to Mass Communication Practice in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.

206

UNIT 4 MEDIA EFFECTS THEORIES

CONTENTS

1.0Introduction

2.0Objectives

3.0Main Content

3.1Media Effect Debate/issues

3.2Limited Effects Tradition

3.3Powerful Effect tradition

3.4Uses and Gratification Concept

3.5Cultural Effects Tradition

4.0Conclusion

5.0Summary

6.0Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0References/Further Readings

1.0INTRODUCTION

This unit examines different traditions/paradigms that explain the effects of the media on people and the society. The unit is subdivided as follows:

1.Media Effect Debate/issues

2.Limited effects tradition

3.Powerful Effect tradition

4.Uses and gratification concept

5.Cultural effects tradition

2.0OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

∙explain media effects issues and debate

∙explain the various paradigms and traditions in the mass media effects studies.

3.0MAIN CONTENT

3.1The Mass Media Effect Debate

Despite the obvious impactful nature of the mass media, at least to a lay man, there exist sharp arguments and counter arguments about the presence, strength and operation of effects. In other words, school of thoughts exist as regard to the limited or minimal effects of the mass media. The arguments and their counter arguments are presented below

207

as organized by Stanley Baran, associate professor of communication (in Baran 2004: 416 – 417).

1.Media content has limited impact on audiences because it is only makebelieve people; it isn’t real.

Counter-arguments

News is not make-believe (at least it’s not supposed to be) and as such people are supposed to take it seriously.

Most film and television dramas are intentionally produced to seem real to viewers, with documentary-like production techniques such as hand held cameras and uneven lighting.

Much contemporary television programmes like talkshow and reality shows are expressly real. E.g Gulder Ultimate Search.

Advertising is supposed to tell the truth

Before they develop the intellectual and critical capacity to know what is not real, children confront the world in all its splendor and vulgarity through television and what television effects researchers call the early winded. To kids, what they see is real.

To enjoy what we consume, we willingly suspend disbelief that is, we willingly accept as real what is put before us.

2.Media content has limited impact on audiences because it is only

Counter-arguments

News is not play or entertainment

Even if media content is only play, play is very important to the way we develop our knowledge of ourselves and our world.

3.If media have any effects at all they are not the media’s fault; media simply hold a mirror to society and reflect the status quo, showing us and our world as they already are.

Counter-arguments

Media hold a very selective mirror. The whole world in all its vastness and complexity cannot possibly be represented, so media practitioners

208

must make choices. In other words, some things are over-represented in the media, others under-represented and still others disappear altogether.

4.If media have any effect at all it is only to reinforce pre-existing

values and benefits. Family, church, school, and other socializing agents are much better.

Counte-rarguments

The traditional socializing agents have lost much of their power to influence in our complicated and fast-paced world. Moreover, reinforcing effects are not the same as having no effect. If the media can reinforce the good in our culture, media can just as easily reinforce the bad.

∙If media have any effects at all they are only on the unimportant things in our lives, such as fads and fashion.

Counter-argument

Fads and fashion are not unimportant to us. The car we drive, the clothes we wear, and the ways we look help define us; they characterize us to others. Infact, it is central to our self definition and happiness. If media influence only the unimportant things in our lives, why are billions of dollars spent on media efforts to sway opinion about social issues such as universal health care, nuclear power and global warming.

3.1.1 The Mass Media Effect Issues

There is no way one can make a comprehensive study of media effects without channeling one’s discussion towards salient issues that border on media effects. The issues are:

1.Violence

2.Drugs and alcohol

3.Political campaign and rating

Violence

The main issue here is that media, especially TV, exposes people to violent acts which make them behave violently. In other words, there is a causal relationship between televised violence and anti social behaviors. Baran asserts: “The prevailing view during the 1960s was that some media violence affected some people in some ways some of the time… for normal people, that is, those who were not predisposed to

209

violence – little media violence affected few people in few ways little of the time.

Compelling arguments had however, been marshaled to exonerate the press from receiving all the blame for anti social behaviours of television viewers. In the words of Klapper (1960) “mass communication does not ordinarily serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effect but rather, functions through a nexus of mediating factor.

Drugs and Alcohol

The issue of drugs and alcohol is closely related to that of violence in that both blame the media for exposing people unnecessarily to drugs and alcohol. The U.S department of Health and Human services and National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism report that “the preponderance of evidence indicates that alcohol advertising stimulates higher consumption of alcohol by both adults and adolescents” and that “there is sufficient evidence to say that alcohol advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to overall consumption and other alcohol related problems in the long term”.

In the same vein, the (American) National Institute on Media and the Family (2002) reports that:

1.By the time teenagers reach driving age, they will have seen 75000 alcohol ads

2.Beers ads are a strong predictor of adolescents’ knowledge, preference and loyalty to beer and of their intention to drink.

3.Young people report more positive feelings about drinking and their own likelihood to drink after watching alcohol commercials.

4.56% of children in grades 5 through12 say that alcohol advertising encourages them to drink

5.10 million people ages 12 to 20 report drinking “in the last month”

6.7 million are classified as “binge drinkers”

7.The average age of first alcohol use is 13.1 yrs old.

Political Campaign and Rating

One major issue under effects of political exercise is the fact that media have the power to influence the electorate on who to vote and not to vote for. In other words, the media can set agenda for the public as regards political directions.

The popular presidential debate on NTA and AIT, especially during the 2007 general elections in Nigeria was the one in agreement with the

210

notion that the candidates, through the media can be heard and listened to thereby underscoring the power of the media during electioneering campaigns.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1

To what extent do media influence or mould your opinions on issues of public importance?

3.2Limited Effects Paradigm

Limited effects theories are of the view that the effects of media on the people are not total or too much but limited in proportion and weight. Paul Lazarsfeld was a very important researcher who contributed much to the development of Limited effects studies during his work at the Columbia Bureau of Applied Social Research. The most famous of the studies he conducted was that into voting behaviour carried out in the 1940s and which led him to develop the highly influential Two Step Flow Model of mass communication.

As a result of his research, Lazarsfeld concluded that the media actually have quite limited effects on their audiences. This view of the media is common to many of the researchers in the US. Hovland, for example, whilst showing what variables can be altered to make a communication more or less effective, also places considerable emphasis on those factors, especially social factors such as group membership, which limit the persuasiveness of the message. Consequently, this view of the media is often referred to as the 'limited effects' paradigm or tradition.

In Towards a Sociology of Mass Communication (1971), McQuail summarises some of the main findings of the research which confirms this 'limited effects' view:

3.'persuasive mass communication is in general more likely to reinforce the existing opinions of its audience than it is to change its opinion' (from Klapper (1960))

4.'people tend to see and hear communications that are favourable or congenial to their predispositions' (from Berelson & Steiner (1964))

5.'people respond to persuasive communication in line with their

predispositions and change or resist change accordingly' (from Berelson & Steiner (1964))

Consequently:

211