Step 2

🌟 READ
Extent of influence: Theories

Theories of influence exist to explain the extent of media influence. Here are a range of theories describing the extent of media influence and audience agency. Theories are often specific to a particular medium or platform while other theories are more general in their application. When a theory was developed doesn’t necessarily limit its application to contemporary media. In recent years, older theories such as Parasocial Theory, Agenda Setting Function Theory and the Two-Step Flow Theory have been used by researchers and theorists to understand the relationship between social media platforms and audiences.

  • General Aggression Model. Developed by Brad Bushman The General Aggression Model suggests playing violent video games results in the learning, rehearsal and reinforcement of aggressive knowledge structures. It cultivates aggressive beliefs and attitudes, perception, expectations, behaviour scripts and desensitises, leading to aggressive personalities and violence. This theory was developed to explain how violent media might lead to violence and aggression in the real world.

  • Two-step Flow Theory. A diffusion model of influence, suggesting that people are more likely to be influenced by ‘opinion leaders’, people who are more connected to the media than their peers and pass on media messages. Opinion leaders are active and exist throughout society in all different classes and socioeconomic groups. Lazarsfeld’s book The People’s Choice, which examined the 1940 presidential election found that people are more likely to be influenced by ‘opinion leaders’ than campaign advertising. In the paper ‘Who says what to whom on Twitter’, researchers found that the flow of information on Twitter, supports the two-step flow of information.

  • Cultivation Theory. According to George Gerbner, the media—particularly television—contributes to the audience’s perception of social reality. Because it is so pervasive, it dominates our view of the world, cultivating attitudes which were once acquired elsewhere. Cultivation Theorists don’t deny that audiences can be active but are susceptible to the gravitational pull of mainstream television. Gerbner and other researchers have conducted numerous studies to determine whether people who watch more television perceive reality differently to those who don’t and whether this reflects a televised view of the world. Gerbner’s research found that crime on television is ten times more than in real life, resulting in a more dangerous view of reality. Cultivation analysis considers the total exposure to television over time. It considers the contribution that television makes to our culture and social reality. Critics say that people are also likely to be influenced by other factors.

  • Propaganda Model. The Propaganda Model, developed by Noam Chomsky Edward S Herman in their book Manufacturing Consent, suggests that the mass media is owned and controlled by powerful organisations which serve their own commercial interests. News is shaped by five ‘filters’: ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, anti-Communism and fear. Media institutions encourage a preferred reading of media texts which is shaped by commercial, right wing interests. Audiences are not passive and are capable of dissent. Some have suggested that the rise of the internet means that large commercial organisations no longer have absolute control of the media. Herman argues that this exacerbates the problem.

  • Agenda Setting Function Theory. The Agenda Setting Function Theory was developed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972 as a result of their study of North Carolina voters during the 1968 presidential election campaign. This study found a correlation between issues that voters believed were important and issues that the media gave prominence to. McCombs and Shaw argued that the media uses a number of cues to indicate the importance of an issue. On the front page of a newspaper, for example, the importance of a story is indicated by the size of its heading. Likewise, a story that appears on the front page is more important than a story that appears on page five. According to this theory, the media has the power to focus public discussion on particular issues. Again, the theory suggests the media can’t tell us what to think but it can tell us what to think about.

  • Filter Bubbles. The term Filter Bubble was coined by Eli Pariser in the book ‘The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You’. He suggests that the transparent algorithms customising content on Facebook and Google mean users are more likely to see content consistent with existing beliefs and attitudes. As a consequence, users of these services are less likely to see information that will challenge their view of the world.

  • Parasocial Theory. Parasocial Theory was developed by Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl in their article ‘Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction’. They suggest that the media, particularly television, allows audiences to develop a close relationship with celebrities or performers. Horton and Wohl called these parasocial relationships and argued that through repeated exposure people develop perceived friendships with fictional characters, personalities and celebrities. They suggested that television dramas insinuate the audience into their action and that talk shows create the illusion of intimacy. More recently, media theorists have examined how audiences form parasocial relationships with people online including bloggers, podcasters, influencers or vloggers.

  • Reverse Agenda Setting. The idea of reverse agenda setting is part of the original Agenda Setting Function Theory. McCombs and Shaw argued that public interest may drive journalists to report on particular issues. The idea of reverse agenda setting has become particularly important in the age of social media.

  • The Reinforcement Theory. In 1960, theorist Joseph Klapper published The Effects of Mass Communication in which he proposed the Reinforcement Theory. Klapper argued that the mass media does not have the ability to influence audiences, suggesting it is more likely to reinforce existing beliefs than change them. Klapper argued that people’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviour are more likely to be influenced by their family, schools, communities and religious institutions. He argued that the only time the media could influence people was when the media introduced a new idea or concept. Klapper also pointed out that there are particular attitudes and beliefs that the mass media is particularly unlikely to change, such as racial and religious tolerance.

  • Spiral of silence. Developed by Elizabeth Noelle-Newman in 1974, the Spiral of Silence suggests that mass media play a significant role in defining dominant opinion. People with oppositional views are afraid to express these ideas because they fear social isolation. Audiences are active but they will not express views other than those that are dominant or rising for fear of isolation. Looking at attitudes to controversial topics, Noelle-Neumann’s research showed the closer someone’s opinion is to dominant beliefs, the more likely they are to express these views. Likewise, the further these beliefs are from public opinion, the more likely they are to remain silent. The Spiral of Silence has a narrow focus, looking specifically at public opinion and how the mass media influences our willingness to become involved in public debate.

  • Spreadability. Henry Jenkins explored the idea of spreadability in the book Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. Jenkins argues that audiences shape the flow of communication. The message of the book is relatively simple: if it doesn’t spread, it’s dead. According to Jenkins, audiences have power. They are the ones who determine what spreads. Content that spreads is content that succeeds. Jenkins argues that this power is reshaping the way that we think about law, politics and economics. People interact by sharing meaningful content with each other. Jenkins suggests that there isn’t a single reason why we share content: it might be engaging, worthwhile, of interest to friends or family, or communicate something about ourselves. Jenkins argues that when content spreads it gets remade. it might be literally remixed or transformed into something else by the way it is used in different conversations.

  • Uses and Gratification Theory. Early thinking about communication theories focused on what the media does to people. The Uses and Gratification Theory, which was developed by Elihu Katz and Jay Blumler in a 1974 collection of essays titled The Uses of Mass Communication, concerns itself with what people do with the media. This theory proposes that audiences are active participants in the communication process. They choose media texts to gratify their own needs – such as the need for information, personal identity, integration, social interaction or entertainment. Uses and Gratification researchers maintain that the best way to find out about media use is by asking the audience because they are self-aware and can explain their reasons for using media. According to this theory, texts are open and audiences are active. The Uses and Gratification theory suggests that audiences actually have power over the mass media. For example, if they choose not to watch a particular program it won’t rate and will be taken off the air.

🌟 Activity: Media theories

  1. With a partner, use the articles and videos below to learn about the above communication theories. Remember, you can also do additional research on the theory! Produce a summary for the class using the Communication Theory: Summary sheet. This should include:

    1. Name of the theory.

    2. Name of the theorists

    3. Key works (such as books or articles).

    4. A description of what the theory suggests about the extent to which media and audiences influence.

    5. A discussion of the theory’s strengths and weaknesses (including whether it is applicable to contemporary communication).

    6. A list of vocabulary to use when discussing the theory.

🌟 Communication Theories: Further Reading


👉🏻 Important Information when evaluating evidence

🌟 READ + TAKE NOTES
Extent of influence: Public opinion

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 raised questions about the extent of media influence, particularly the influence social media and fake news can have on democratic elections. There are some who argue that social media puts power in the hands of audiences, giving unprecedented power to engage in activism and sway public opinion. Conversely, some argue that the algorithms that curate our online experience and online communities lead to ideological segregation that reinforces existing beliefs.

Filter Bubbles and Spreadability are two contrasting theories that help to describe contemporary thinking about the influence of media.

The term Filter Bubble was coined by Eli Pariser in the book ‘The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You’. He suggests that the algorithms customising content on sites like Facebook and Google mean users are more likely to see content consistent with existing beliefs and attitudes. Users are therefore less likely to see information that will challenge their view of the world. Because users don’t see these algorithms and may be unaware of their existence, it is argued that it is particularly difficult to break free from filter bubbles. A study conducted by Facebook and published in Science challenged the notion of filter bubbles. The study found that how much cross-cutting content individuals were exposed to depended largely on who their friends are and what information those friends choose to share. This is further influenced by the news feed ranking of this content and what individuals choose to read. The study concluded that individual choice influenced exposure to cross-cutting content more than algorithms.

Conversely, communication theorist Henry Jenkins proposes the idea of spreadability in his book ‘Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture’. Jenkins argues that audiences shape the flow of communication. The message of the book is relatively simple. Audiences, according to Jenkins, have power because they decide what spreads. And, in today’s world, content that spreads is content that succeeds. Or, as Jenkins puts it, if it doesn’t spread it’s dead.

🌟 Complete
Activity: Unpacking the evidence

  1. Read the following articles:

    1. Don’t blame the election on fake news. Blame it on the media.

    2. The Spread of True and False News Online

    3. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook

    4. Arab Spring: new media, new journalism, same old tensions?

    5. Social Media Made the Arab Spring, But Couldn't Save It

  2. Make a series of cue cards for you revision, including:

    1. Name of the study or article.

    2. Names of researchers.

    3. Nature of the study and its findings.

    4. A brief evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses.

🌟 Complete
Activity: The George Floyd Protests

On May 25, 2020 African American man George Floyd was murdered when a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for almost eight minutes. A video of the murder, which circulated widely on social media, was the catalyst for international protests about police brutality.

  1. With a partner, read the following articles:

    1. George Floyd's death shows the power of social media as the US continues to grapple with racial tensions

    2. How citizen journalists, cell phones and technology shape coverage of police shootings

    3. Blackout Tuesday: the black square is a symbol of online activism for non-activists

    4. The importance of social media in instigating social change

    5. How the pandemic changed social media and George Floyd’s death created a collective conscience

    6. ‘BLACK OUT TUESDAY’: PROTEST FOOTAGE REPLACED WITH EMPTY SCREENS

  2. Script and present a 60 second video blog on the following topic: The George Floyd protests demonstrate that the power has shifted from the mainstream media to audiences. Do you agree?

🌟 READ + TAKE NOTES
Extent of influence: Violent video games

In August 2019, President Donald Trump suggested that the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio were caused by “gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace” and contribute to a “culture that celebrates violence”. A 2020 statement from the American Psychological Association warned that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that violent video games lead to violent and aggressive behaviour.

The statement follows decades of studies, news articles and opinion pieces which all suggested that violent video games led to violent behaviour. It has been suggested that violent gameplay results in both copycat behaviour and desensitisation and may have a negative influence on vulnerable audiences such as children. It has been argued—by commentators including retired military psychologist David Grossman—that the interactivity of video games essentially trains young people to be violent and aggressive in the real world. This assertion is supported by researchers like Brad Bushman of the Ohio State University whose studies overwhelmingly find a link between video games and violence. Bushman is one of the researchers behind the General Aggression Model which attempts to synthesise decades of research into a single model explaining this behaviour.

Critics of this position often argue that video games offer players an opportunity for catharsis, providing an outlet for aggressive thoughts and violent tendencies. In a similar vein, the Entertainment Software Association in the US found that almost 155 million Americans play video games. The rising popularity of video games correlates with a decline in violent crime throughout America since 1994. Christopher J Ferguson is an academic and researcher whose work supports the notion that video games do not lead to real world violence.

🌟 Complete Activity: Thinking about video game violence

Watch the following videos about video game violence:

🌟 Complete Activity: Unpacking the evidence

  1. With a partner, read one of the following studies and present your summary to the class.

    1. Video game violence is not the problem – the real world that inspires it is

    2. APA warns against linking violent video games to real-world violence

    3. APA reaffirms stance on video games and violent behaviour

    4. Screen in the Machine: What brain imaging studies tell us about the impact of violent media

    5. Do television and electronic games predict children's psychosocial adjustment?

    6. Twenty-Five Years of Research on Violence in Digital Games and Aggression

    7. Behavioural and Psychological Involvement of Online Video Gamers: Building Blocks or Building Walls to Socialization?

    8. Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report

🌟 Complete Activity: Are video games really that bad?

‘Are video games really that bad?’ is a documentary made by BBC Horizons in 2015. The documentary looks at the research around the effect of video games on aggression, interviews key players in the field and replicates experiments from the field. The documentary is available on services such as Clickview and TV4Education.

  1. Watch the documentary 'Are video games really that bad?' In a shared document, take notes under the headings of Positive, Negative, Interesting, make a note of the evidence that exists about the nature and extent of video games.


Violent Video Games: Evaluating evidence