Media Effects and Society

Elizabeth M. Perse, Jennifer Lambe

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781136992353
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Grounded in theoretical principle, Media Effects and Society help students make the connection between mass media and the impact it has on society as a whole. The text also explores how the relationship individuals have with media is created, therefore helping them alleviate its harmful effects and enhance the positive ones. The range of media effects addressed herein includes news diffusion, learning from the mass media, socialization of children and adolescents, influences on public opinion and voting, and violent and sexually explicit media content. The text examines relevant research done in these areas and discusses it in a thorough and accessible manner. It also presents a variety of theoretical approaches to understanding media effects, including psychological and content-based theories. In addition, it demonstrates how theories can guide future research into the effects of newer mass communication technologies.

The second edition includes a new chapter on effects of entertainment, as well as text boxes with examples for each chapter, discussion of new technology effects integrated throughout the chapters, expanded pedagogy, and updates to the theory and research in the text. These features enhance the already in-depth analysis Media Effects and Society provides.

1 Introduction: Do Media Have Effects?

One of the primary focuses of the study of mass communication has been the social, cultural, and psychological effects of media content and use. Despite Berelson’s warning in 1959 that our field was withering away, the study of effects has remained active and robust. Much of the empirical research published in the major mass communication journals concerns the effects of the mass media. There is no longer discussion in that literature about whether the media have effects or not; nor is our field as interested in identifying the different effects that media do have. Instead, most current research attempts to improve our understanding of media effects by refining our theoretical explanations of the processes by which media effects occur.

This chapter is an initial critical analysis of the effects of the mass media. It begins by presenting the domain of the study of effects, but then notes the limitations inherent in focusing on the media as a prime mover or cause for effects. Despite these limitations, though, it is important to focus our study on how media effects occur so that we can mitigate harmful effects and enhance positive ones.

What Kind of Effects do the Mass Media Have?

Media effects research focuses on the manifestations of the influence that the mass media have on people, institutions, society, and culture. Mass media have been hypothesized to have effects across a broad range of contexts. A quarter of a century ago, W. J. McGuire (1986) noted several of the most commonly mentioned intended media effects: (a) the effects of advertising on purchasing, (b) the effects of political campaigns on voting, (c) the effects of public service announcements (PSAs) on personal behavior and social improvement, (d) the effects of propaganda on ideology, and (e) the effects of media ritual on social control. He also pointed out the most commonly mentioned unintended media effects: (a) the effect of media violence on aggressive behavior, (b) the impact of media images on the social construction of reality, (c) the effects of media bias on stereotyping, (d) the effects of erotic and sexual material on attitudes and objectionable behaviors, and (e) how media forms affect cognitive activity and style.

More recent compilations of media effects research highlight other areas of media effects: (a) knowledge gain from educational television, (b) diffusion of innovations, (c) socialization to societal norms, (d) institution and industry changes to new technology, (e) the impact of perceived media influence, (f) stimulation of fear and other emotional reactions, and (g) effects on body image (Bryant & Oliver, 2009; Nabi & Oliver, 2009; Preiss, Gayle, Burrell, Allen, & Bryant, 2007). McQuail (2010) summarized the range of negative and positive effects on children, such as: (a) reduced time for play and exercise, (b) premature sexual knowledge and experimentation, (c) reduction of time spent on schoolwork, (d) learning prosocial attitudes and behaviors, (e) learning about the world beyond their direct experience, and (f) providing a basis for social connections with others.

There are other, less obvious and less studied possible media effects. Teachers and parents have been concerned that television viewing by children will take the place of reading, leading to lower reading skills and educational achievement (e.g., Ennemoser & Schneider, 2007). Even popular youth novels, such as the Harry Potter series, might not offset the appeal of television and video games (Rich, 2007). Scholars have found that exposure to television action programs was linked to adolescents’ risky driving (Beullens, Roe, & Van den Bulck, 2011; Buellens & Van den Bulck, 2013). Pediatricians have been concerned that the promotion of high-fat, high-sugar food in television advertising contributes to childhood obesity (Chou, Rashad, & Grossman, 2008). In response to these concerns, a few television networks (e.g., NBC and Telemundo) have reduced the number of ads for unhealthy food in educational children’s programming (Eggerton, 2007). Although there are few positive images of smoking on television programming now, smoking is still fairly common in movies. In Avatar, for example, Sigourney Weaver’s character climbs out of her suspended animation pod craving a cigarette. There is evidence that early exposure to smoking in G, PG, and PG-13 movies is linked to adolescent smoking (Titus-Ernstoff, Dalton, Adachi-Mejia, Longacre, & Beach, 2008). Legal scholars struggle with the industry’s responsibilities in instigating criminal behavior in particularly susceptible radio listeners, television and movie viewers, and listeners to popular music who imitate antisocial media actions (Cooper, 2007). Athletes are claiming to have learned tricks and techniques from playing video games (e.g., Suellentrop, 2010). NBC is starting to engage in “behavior placement,” attempts to “sway viewers to adopt actions they see modeled in their favorite shows” (Chozick, 2010). This past year, these placements highlighted environmental issues in “green-themed” programming.

A number of recent studies reveal a growing interest in other health effects of media use. A startling recent Australian longitudinal study links television viewing to early death (Dunstan et al., 2010). The sedentary nature of television viewing was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Dermatologists are concerned that reality program viewing leads to indoor and outdoor tanning (Fogel & Krausz, 2013). Cosmetic surgery makeover shows have been connected to young adults’ desires to undergo cosmetic surgery (Nabi, 2009). College students who watch reality television sexual relationship shows were more likely to engage in “one-night stands” (Fogel & Kovalenko, 2013). While there is evidence that television medical dramas can increase the audience’s knowledge about healthy behaviors (e.g., T. K. Lee & Taylor, 2014; Valente, Murphy, Huang, Gusek, Greene, & Beck, 2007), these medical dramas build plots around deviations from the norms of professional ethics and bioethics (Czarny, Faden, & Sugarman, 2010). Exposure to critical newspaper reports about clinical trials has been associated with lowered intention to participate in medical studies (Len-Rios & Qiu, 2007). Some physicians are seeing what they call a “House effect.” Patients self-diagnose rare conditions that they have seen on House and expect that their physician will run the same complex tests that House and his team routinely run (Persch, 2009).

The House Effect

Gregory House is the Sherlock Holmes of medical drama. Drug addicted, unable to form close personal relationships, he is interested in his patients only as diagnostic puzzles to be solved. He bends hospital rules and lies to his patients and his colleagues. He violates medical ethics regularly – failing to get informed consent before treatment or brazenly lying to patients and families to get them to sign consent forms. Thank goodness that most medical professionals are nothing like Dr. Gregory House. But, patients seem to be learning something about diagnosis from the program. Some doctors have identified a “House effect.” It seems that viewers of medical programs, like House, are becoming more familiar with medical technology and procedures. When they see House and his team routinely use uncommon techniques and tests to diagnose rare conditions and diseases, they expect their own doctors to also order costly and complex tests. Some even arrive at their doctor’s office convinced they have the same disease they’ve seen on the program. They are certain that their own symptoms match the rare diseases, allergies, and obscure forms of cancer that are the focus of the plots.

In real life, it can take years to diagnose an illness, simply because diagnoses are not always simple and absolute; there can be a lot of misdirection and uncertainty. Symptoms can be nonspecific (e.g., headache) and symptoms might not fit the “classic” or typical presentation of the disease. House and team, however, solve the puzzle within an hour. Real-life patients can become impatient and anxious and expect and demand more and more tests (just like on House).

Although there isn’t (yet) any research evidence of a House effect, it is clear that television can affect people’s beliefs about medicine. A plot on ER, for example, told the story about an African American teen who was diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure). The doctors counseled her to eat more fruits and vegetables and get more exercise. After watching the program, regular viewers of the program reported to follow those directions themselves (Valente et al., 2007). Medical shows like House (which will run in syndication for years) certainly will affect patient beliefs and expectations.

Scholars are uncovering the effectiveness of entertainment-education programming in bringing about prosocial effects. The appealing characters and dramatic narratives can foster parasocial relationships (e.g., feelings of friendships with characters, A.M. Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985), lead to involvement in the drama, and reduce resistance to persuasive messages and lead viewers to be more accepting of messages about such topics as teen pregnancy (Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010), breast cancer (Hether, Huang, Becky, Murphy, & Valente, 2008), and HIV (Lapinski & Nwulu, 2008).

Political effects of the mass media continue to interest media scholars. There are concerns that the politicalization of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings can damage the institution of the Supreme Court. After analyses of surveys before, during, and after the Alito nomination hearings, J. L. Gibson and Caldeira (2009) located significant decreases in perceptions about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. The increasing use of blogs and social networking sites for political campaigns (e.g., Plouffe, 2009), offer new directions for media effects on voting decisions. Scholars are still sorting out how news coverage affects solidarity and consensus during crises (D. M. McLeod, Eveland, & Signorielli, 1994), perceptions about political protest (Jha, 2007; D. M. McLeod, 1995), and on narcotization (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1948). Writers are asking whether the contentious and sometimes violent political discourse popularized on the 24-hour news stations stoked the 2011 shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others (e.g., Steinhauer, 2011).¹

In general, media effects are usually described as cognitive, affective, or behavioral (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976; Bryant & Zillmann, 2009; Chaffee, 1977). Cognitive effects are those that concern the acquisition of information: what people learn, how beliefs are structured (or restructured) in the mind, how needs for information are satisfied or not. These effects include concerns about what is learned as well as how much is learned. Whereas news and public affairs information is often the focus of cognitive effects, the cognitive impact of entertainment is also an important area of study. Affective effects involve the formation of attitudes, or positive or negative evaluations about something. Other areas of affective effects concern emotional reactions to media content, such as fright or amusement, or the development of feelings toward other objects as a result of media exposure, such as the generation of fear in society as a result of watching violent television programming. Behavioral effects are observable actions that are linked to media exposure. The most studied kinds of behavioral effects focus on anti- or prosocial behavior.

Media Effects Research is Thriving

Some of the first formal media effects studies were conducted in the 1920s when psychologists who were financed by the Payne Fund studied the effects of the movies (a new mass medium back then) on children. Since those earliest studies, scholars have published over 4,000 studies about the impact of the mass communication. To get some insight into the scope of that research, Potter and Riddle (2007) examined issues of 16 mass communication journals from a sample of issues over the years 1993–2005. They found that 962 articles reporting various media effects were published over that 12-year period – about a third of all the articles published in those journals. Not surprisingly, television was the focus of most of the studies (40.7%). Print media concerned 19.0% of the studies. Even in those early years, 12.5% of the studies examined the effects of the Internet. Cognitive (27.6%), behavioral (24.3%), and attitudinal effects (21.0%) were the most common focus of media effects research.

Media effects research is a theoretically rich field. Potter and Riddle (2007) identified 144 different theories featured prominently in the articles. Cultivation (our Chapters 6 and 7) was the most widely used theory. Other prominent theories include Third Person Effects (Chapter 4), Agenda Setting (Chapter 4), and Uses and Gratifications (Chapter 8). A summer 2012 update found these theories remain important to the study of media effects. A search of academic journal articles published in mass communication journals from 2006 through 2012 found that Cultivation was in the title or abstract of 39% of them; Third Person Effects was in the title or abstract of 31; Agenda Setting in the title or abstract of 87; Uses and Gratifications was in the title or abstract of 33. A Google Scholar search at that same time found many more mentions of these theories in that database. Cultivation Research was mentioned about 1,980 times, Third Person Effects was mentioned about 685 times, Agenda Setting was mentioned about 19,000 times, and Uses and Gratifications was mentioned about 5,960 times.

The Presumption of Media Effects

One of the first and most important assumptions of the study of mass communication has been the presumption that media and their content have significant and substantial effects. In 1922, Lippmann argued that mass communication could become the basis for people’s view of the world. About the same time, Lasswell (1927) considered mass communication as a tool for manipulation and social control. This focus on media effects continued throughout the middle part of the twentieth century with the applied (and theoretical) research of Lazarsfeld’s Office of Radio Research (later the Bureau of Applied Social Research). Concern about the negative impacts on children has been the basis of a “legacy of fear” (DeFleur & Dennis, 1994) and numerous government investigations and hearings that accompanied the introduction of each mass medium – movies, radio, comic books, and television (Rowland, 1983; Wartella & Reeves, 1985). Most recently, there has been a renewed political spotlight on television as a cause of violence in society, concerns that the Web is a source for premature sexual knowledge for children (because of indecent, sexually oriented content), and fears that the Internet supports terrorist activity (to recruit followers, coordinate activities, and as a repository for information about terrorist actions).

This presumption of media effects is easy to understand. It makes common sense that anything that consumes so much money ($882.6 billion in 2009, Welly 2009) and time (about 23% of the time we are awake, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009) must have some impact on our lives. Daily household television watching time is just over 5 hours a day (Nielsen, 2009) and the average person listens to the radio about 15 hours per week (Arbitron, 2009). Americans are watching more video online and on their mobile devices (Nielsen, 2009). We know from personal experience that movies can frighten us or make us cry, that children learn their letters and numbers from Sesame Street, integrate ideas and characters from movies and television programs into their play, and that much of the world seems to revolve around U.S. football during Super Bowl week. Even media conglomerates acquire a variety of media outlets to create synergy, or cross-media spinoffs and promotions of products and personalities (e.g., music produced from television programs American Idol and Glee, Disney’s presence in film, television, and retail).

It is important to realize, though, that there is a good deal of self-interest in promoting a belief in strong media effects. Media companies derive profit by promising that they are effective vehicles for advertisements or product placements, messages designed to persuade consumers to purchase. Although consumers rarely see them, advertising-supported media regularly promote themselves in trade publications as being able to “deliver” valuable demographic groups to advertisers. This notion of potent advertising effects is reinforced by the advertising business itself, which profits from advertising production and placement. Although advertisers are often reluctant to take credit for product trial (as in the case of underage alcohol or tobacco use), they do maintain that advertising leads to brand switching and/or reinforcement.

Some politicians, who use the media for reelection and to gain support for their political goals, seem to accept without question a view of strong media impact. During the 1980s, for example, Jesse Helms, a powerful Republican Senator from North Carolina, was interested in taking over CBS so that he could shape its news coverage (presumably to eliminate a liberal bias as well as to promote a more conservative agenda). During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Vice President Dan Quayle attempted to bring the issue of “family values” to the media and public agenda. One of his strategies was to show how the media legitimize unwed motherhood by depicting respected professional women, like the fictional television character Murphy Brown, becoming pregnant outside of marriage. The 1996 Republican candidate, Robert Dole, decried the violence in films (with Arnold Schwarzenegger standing at his side) and congratulated producers of films that promote wholesome values, such as Independence Day’s celebration of patriotism. In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigated complaints that the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy offered television networks advertising in exchange for embedding anti-drug messages in television programming.

Although some politicians are motivated to promote public interest and media responsibility, others see media as convenient and easily understood scapegoats for social problems. Although there certainly are reasons to be concerned ab...