THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION

THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION

Now that we have looked at different media research frameworks and types of effects measured, let us turn to some specific theories that have guided mass communication research over the years. In their current versions, most contemporary theories are heavily cognitive in nature, By this we mean that they view information processing as constructive; that is, people do not literally encode and retrieve information that they read or hear in the media (or anywhere else). Rather, as they comprehend, they interpret in accordance with their prior knowledge and beliefs and the context in which the message is received. Comprehension of a TV program emerges through a continual interaction between the content of the program and the knowledge already in our minds. The mind is always actively thinking about what we see or hear and those thoughts become an important part of the constructive process of comprehension.

Social Cognitive Theory (Social Learning, Observational

Learning, Modeling)

This approach initially grew out of stimulus-response behaviorist (S-R) psychology as “social learning theory” by social psychologist Albert Bandura and his associates in the 1960s (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, 1963; Bandura & Walters, 1963; Tan, 1986). We learn behaviors by observing others performing those behaviors and subsequently imitating them. The relevance to media occurs when the media model becomes the source of observational learning. Over the years this model has increasingly stressed personal agency and cognitive processes.

There are four subfunctions for observational learning from media (Bandura, 2001, 2002). First, someone must first be exposed to the media example and attend to it. Second, he or she must be capable of symbolically encoding and remembering the observed events, including both constructing the representation and cognitively and enactively rehearsing it. Third, the person must be able to translate the symbolic conceptions into appropriate action. Finally, motivational processes develop by internal or external reinforcement (reward) for performing the behavior. For example, a person’s

29 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

violent behavior could be reinforced if the behavior impressed others, or if the person enjoyed the behavior or received a monetary gain as a result.

Social cognitive theory was initially developed in the context of studying the effects of violent media models on behavior (see chapter 9), Although that is still the most studied application, the model has other applications as well, as in the modeling of sexual, prosocial, or purchasing behavior. For example, children randomly assigned to view high-risk behaviors on TV were more likely to later self-report their own tendency to engage in risk- taking behaviors themselves (Potts, Doppler, & Hernandez, 1994). Such reported risk-taking was reduced by viewing a safety educational videotape showing high-risk behavior and its negative consequences (Potts & Swisher, 1998). See Bandura (2001, 2002) for a recent description of the social cognitive model.

Cultivation Theory

This approach looks at the way that extensive repeated exposure to media (especially television) over time gradually shapes our view of the world and our social reality. It was initially developed by George Gerbner and his colleagues in the Cultural Indicators research project at the University of Pennsylvania. See Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, and Shanahan (2002) and Morgan and Signorielli (1990) for overviews of the theory, and Signorielli and Morgan (1990) for a collection of papers using the approach.

One of the major constructs of cultivation theory is mainstrearning, the homogenization of people’s divergent perceptions of social reality into a convergent mainstream. This apparently happens through a process of construction, whereby viewers learn facts about the real world from observing the world of television. Memory traces from watching TV are stored relatively automatically (Shapiro, 1991). We then use this stored information to formulate beliefs about the real world (Hawkins & Pingree, 1990; Hawkins, Pingree, & Adler, 1987; Potter, 1989, 1991a, 1991b; Shrum & Bischak, 2001). When this constructed world and the real world have a high degree of consistency, resonance occurs and the cultivation effect is even stronger.

In terms of methodology, cultivation research usually compares frequent (“heavy”) and infrequent (“light”) viewers of television through correlational methods. A typical study finds that the world view of heavy viewers is more like the world as presented on television. For example, people who watch a lot of violent TV believe the world to be a more violent place (mean world syndrome) than it really is (Signorielli, 1990). There is also a greater variance of views among the light viewers, suggesting that an effect of watching a lot of TV is to inculcate a sort of middle-of-the-road view. For example, people who watch a lot of TV are less likely to be either extremely

Research and Theory in Mass Communication 30

liberal or extremely conservative politically, whereas the political views of light viewers run the entire ideological spectrum. Mainstreaming pulls deviants from both directions back to the middle.

The social reality cultivated through mainstreaming takes many forms, including understanding of gender roles (Morgan, 1982; Morgan & Shanahan, 1995; Preston, 1990), political attitudes (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1984; 1986; Morgan, 1989), estimations of crime risk (Shrum, 2001; Shrum & Bischak, 2001), understanding of science and scientists (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1981b; Potts & Martinez, 1994), health beliefs and practices (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1981 a), attitudes toward the environment (Shanahan & McComas, 1999; Shanahan, Morgan, & Stenbjerre, 1997), adolescent career choices (Morgan & Gerbner, 1982; Morgan & Shanahan, 1995), effects of prolonged viewing of talk shows (Rössler & Brosius, 2001), and views of the elderly (Gerbner, Gross, Signorielli, & Morgan, 1980) and minorities (Gross, 1984; Volgy & Schwarz, 1980). Cultivation theory has also been applied cross culturally (e.g., Morgan, 1990; Morgan & Shanahan, 1991, 1992, 1995).

There is considerable methodological and theoretical concern about the specific nature of the cultivation process. For example, Potter (1991b) argued that the cultivation effect really involves several components, some of which operate independently. Shapiro (1991) looked at the process of the formation of memory traces from television and its later effects on the construction of one’s world view. Tamborini and Choi (1990) looked at the frequent failure of non-U.S. data to strongly support cultivation theory and suggested some reasons for this. Cultivation theory generally focuses on the cumulative effect of many repeated images. However, some images may be far more influential than others. For example, Greenberg’s (1988) drench hypothesis says that a highly respected popular TV character at the top of the ratings can have far more impact than a dozen other characters seen and identified with by far fewer viewers.

In spite of being very influential, cultivation theory is not without its critics. Several studies show that careful controls of certain other sociodemographic and personality variables tend to reduce or eliminate cultivation effects (Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Hirsch, 1980; Perse, 1986; Potter, 1986; Wober, 1986). Second, cultivation studies have been criticized on conceptual and methodological grounds, including concerns about response biases and problems with the measuring instruments (Hirsch, 1980; Perse, 1986; Potter, 1986, 1993; Schneider, 1987; Schuman & Presser, 1981; Wober, 1978; Wober & Gunter, 1986). There have also been criticisms of some of the assumptions underlying cultivation theory. For example, it seems to assume, without demonstration, that the messages of TV are essentially uniform (Hawkins & Pingree, 1981) and that viewers accept what they see as perceived reality (Slater & Elliott, 1982).

31 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

See A.M.Rubin, Perse, and Taylor (1988) for a review of the methodological critiques of cultivation theory and Potter (1993) for a review of conceptual critiques.

To deal with some of these concerns, some have reinterpreted cultivation theory in line with a uses and gratifications approach, stressing the active mental activity of the viewer while watching TV (Levy & Windahl, 1984; A.M.Rubin & Perse, 1987; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986). Whatever cultivation, in fact, occurs then grows out of the active information processing and the construction of reality performed by the viewer. Another approach has been to stress more cognitive variables, especially the encoding and storage in memory, in an attempt to increase the rigor and predictability of cultivation theory (Shrum, 2002; Tapper, 1995). Finally, considering cultural differences in media and societal factors, and the degree of congruity between the two, can help to predict cultivation in some areas but not in others (e.g., Morgan & Shanahan, 1995).

Socialization Theories

Taking an approach similar to cultivation theory, various socialization theories (see Heath & Bryant, 1992, for discussion) stress how prolonged exposure to media comes to teach us about the world and our role in it. For example, Meyrowitz (1985) and Postman (1982, 1985) argued that children are socialized into the role of adults far earlier in the age of television than had been the case for several hundred years previously. Television is the window through which children learn about the world of adults, which is no longer kept secret from them. The effect of television thus is a homogenization of developmental stages: children become more like adults, and adults become more like children. This has numerous social implications beyond the world of media. For example, children and adults dress more alike, talk more alike, and go to more of the same places. No longer do only children wear t-shirts and only adults swear. Similar blurring of the dichotomies of masculinity-femininity and politician-citizen are also posited and attributed to electronic media, with the effects of increasing androgynous behavior and holding political candidates to personal standards.

Another socialization theory focuses on conditions leading to maximal media socialization influence. Van Evra (1997) argued that the cumulative media effects on children are the greatest when the purpose of viewing is diversion and when they perceive the media content to be realistic, perhaps due to lack of a critical thinking mode present during the viewing. Socialization effects are especially strong on frequent viewers who have few information alternatives and relevant life experience available. For example,

a boy who watches lots of sitcoms for entertainment and perceives as

Research and Theory in Mass Communication 32

realistic the portrayals of ethnic groups with whom he has little personal contact is likely to be heavily affected.

The media, particularly television, are extremely important socializing agents for national and cultural socialization (Rosengren, 1992). Children’s perceived reality about the culture they live in is, in part, a media creation. This socialization role of television may be especially crucial in cases where

a child lives in a different culture than that into which he or she was born. In an interesting study comparing U.S. and international children residing in the United States, Zohoori (1988) found that the foreign children found TV more interesting, spent more time watching it, identified more with TV characters, and used TV more for learning than did their U.S. counterparts. Consistent with cultivation theory, they also expressed stronger beliefs in the social reality portrayed by television. That is, the perceived reality of TV seemed to them more real, consistent with the fact that they had fewer life experiences in that culture on which to draw. Adult immigrants also draw heavily on television to learn about the United States, both before and after their arrival (Chaffee, Nass, & Yang, 1990). See Box 2.2 for some examples of how three very different societies use television as a socializing agent.

Socialization theories discuss the impact of media in very broad strokes. As such, they have been useful in helping us to appreciate the complexity and pervasiveness of media and their effects. They have, however, been criticized for needing greater specificity and more serious consideration of prevailing social and historical trends. See especially Kubey’s (1992) critique of Meyrowitz (1985) for a careful development of this sort of argument.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

The uses and gratifications perspective places much emphasis on the active role of the audience in making choices and being goal-directed in its media- use behavior (Blumler, 1979; Blumler & Katz, 1974; Palmgreen, 1984; Rosengren, Wenner, & Palmgreen, 1985; A.M.Rubin, 2002; A.M.Rubin & Windahl, 1986; Windahl, 1981). The experience and effects of media depend, in part, on the uses one is putting those media to and the gratifications one is receiving from them. For example, the experience of watching a horror film will be very different for someone who is experiencing much empathy with the victim than for someone who is being superficially entertained by the suspense of the plot. Watching CNN Headline News or reading USA Today may be a very different experience for someone trying to be entertained than for someone trying to be seriously informed on the details of a political candidate’s positions.

33 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

BOX 2.2