[ home ]

 PSYC3006  Cultural Psychology and the Media

Lecture 17: Social construction and the media effects debate 
© Dave Hiles, March 2004


(1) The psychology of media effects

Media effects is the idea that the media, in all of its many forms, has an effect on human behaviour. On how we think, on how we see the world, on how we see ourselves, etc. It is a research topic within social psychology with a fairly long history - one that has recently been heavily criticized. For example, the social constructionist perspective would stress the discursive rather than the causal aspects of media images, i.e. the mean making processes involved.

Task: At the start of this lecture, let us think of some of the possible ways in which the "Media" may be thought to influence our behaviour.

Here are some possible responses:

-  anti drugs campaigns
- food "panics" - eggs, BSE
-  AIDS awareness
-  contraception, road safety, etc
-  political/economic agendas
-  exposure to images of violence, sex, etc
-  images of attractiveness, ideal body image, normality, etc
-  benign exposure to fashion, style, (publicity, hyping, etc)
- censorship of the INTERNET
-  entertainment (ie. it was Goebbels who agued that the most powerful form of propaganda was ENTERTAINMENT).

In this lecture we will focus on the issue of media effects with particular reference to images of violence, which has been the contentious issue within film studies.


(2) Violence and the mass media
see Gauntlett (1995; 1998)

Stated briefly:

The media effects model: representation of violence in the mass media violence causes violence in society

Some issues raised by Gauntlett:

- the desensitization hypothesis
- the ‘zombie’ hypothesis
- cultivation effects
- new directions in effects research
- panic vs. programmes


(3) Empirical research of mass media and violence
There has been a long history of the empirical study of "media violence":

Laboratory studies - Feshbach (1955; 1961); Berkowitz (1963); Bandura (1962; 1965); Borden (1975).

Field studies - Feshbach & Singer (1971); Leyens et al (1975); Parke et al (1977).

Natural/found experiments - Hennigan et al (1982); Milavsky (1988); Messner (1986).

Correlational studies -

Longitudinal panel studies -

Meta-analysis - Paik & Comstock (1994).


(4) The Critical Perspective

"One of the reasons we have made so little progress in our mitigating of violence is that we have determinedly overlooked the elements in it that are attractive, alluring and fascinating." Rollo May (1972, p.165)

Some observations:

-  there is a large body of criticism of effects research
-  why the focus on violence?
-  moral panics, scapegoating - the long tradition
-  the focus on visual representation
- the eschewing of context
- the focus on children
- Barker & Petley’s (1997) comments on Newson (1995):

 how does common sense operate?
 how can we tell the message of a film?
 how can we understand media influence?
 what exactly is media violence?

Theoretical issues:

- No consideration of a Social Constructionist approach
- Postmodernist issues
- A Cultural Psychology perspective and a discursive approach

Joseph Klapper's (1960) approach to the typical role of the media in effecting change
It is worth noting Klapper’s early proposals for not taking an over-simplistic view of media effects:

(1) the mass media are not normally enough to produce change - they contribute in association with other influences and factors;
(2) normally, the role of mass communication is that of reinforcing the status quo - maintaining behaviours, values, beliefs;
(3) when the mass media produce change rather than reinforcement, it is social factors that become active towards change, or become inoperative in their reinforcing role;
(4) the degree of change is effected by the nature of the medium, the persuasive message, the social climate, etc.

David Gauntlett’s criticism of the effects model
Gauntlett has been particularly critical of the media effects debate, and is especially critical of the research conducted by psychologists. He has recently summed up his position as follows:

"Media ‘effects’ studies - by which we mean those studies which seek to identify a particular 'effect' which is the result of exposure to a particular type of media content - have had a most unusual history .The majority of this research has been centred, predictably enough, on the question of whether watching violence on screen will lead individuals to be aggressive in real life. On the one hand these studies have been quite popular, with newspapers and politicians always eager to have more of them, and with several (usually American) academics always eager to build entire careers on producing them. On the other hand they have been entirely useless, showing nothing except the somewhat interesting fact of their own redundancy.

"The central problem for these studies is that isolating one particular thing, such as TV viewing or magazine reading, as the cause of a person's behaviour is basically impossible. The idea that a bit of media content ‘'made’ somebody do something will always seem silly, for the perfectly good reason that, as we all know, the influences upon any decision to do something are a complex combination of many elements, including previous experiences, opinions, values and suggestions from various sources. It might seem overhasty to dismiss these studies out of hand. Instead one could consider each piece of research in some detail, as I tried to do once in a whole book dissecting these studies (Moving Experiences, 1995). But to do that is really to take these studies much too seriously. Their individual flaws were often curious, amusing and a bit depressing, but would not usually be worthy of much attention, were it not for the fact that ‘media effects’ continues to be a subject of much public discussion - and also because some ‘experts’ like to cheekily claim that the case for negative media effects has been proved. (On a UK television discussion about screen violence in 1994, for example, American psychologist Leonard Eron confidently told the audience that in the USA this was no longer an issue for debate: ‘The search for media effects is over,’ he declared, asserting that ‘conclusive proof’ had finally persuaded everyone that media content could have a clear and identifiable influence on people’s behaviour. This claim was, of course, not true). For this reason it remains important to be able to look at the studies themselves - to show, for what it's worth, that they don't show anything" (Gauntlett, 2002, p. 28-29).

David Gauntlett (1998) provides a hard-hitting critique of ‘Ten things wrong with the effects model,’ with particular relation to violence and children. This summary comes from Burton (1999), to read the full paper: http://www.theory.org.uk/effects.htm

  1. The effects model tackles social problems backwards. It does not start with the social violence which is the point of reference and then work towards media usage.
  2. The effects model treats children as inadequate. Largely as a result of assumptions made from within theories of psychological development, it is assumed that children do not or cannot ‘cope’ with media violence. Research that deals with children’s responses suggests otherwise.
  3. Assumptions within the effects model are characterised by barely concealed conservative ideology. Most noise about media violence is made by commentators who demonstrably start from a conservative position on the potential of media for encouraging violence.
  4. The effects model inadequately defines its own objects of study. Definitions of what is anti-social or violent behaviour in media are sometimes partial and highly questionable.
  5. The effects model is often based on artificial studies. The methodology of study - eg the artificiality of laboratory experiments - may undermine the conclusions.
  6. The effects model is often based on studies with misapplied methodologies. Inconsistencies and false correlations are cited by Gauntlett as examples.
  7. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence. Research is dominated by attention to fiction, rather than looking at news and violence, for example.
  8. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses. Just as people interviewed about media effects tend to deny these, so also researchers themselves take a superior, detached attitude to effects on themselves and how these may influence their work.
  9. The effects model makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media. Assumptions about a clear message from the media, as well as about the detached ability of the researchers to identify that message, ignore the complexity of meanings produced and then adduced by media users.
  10. The effects model is not grounded in theory. Assumptions about effects are simplistic and too often founded on assertions. Contexts, reasons for media behaviour, and other questions about what is going on are largely ignored.


(5) Empirical vs. Discursive research
Rachel Shaw (2000) offers this comparison:

  Empirical Approach Discursive Approach
Aim To establish a causal law linking viewing violence in the media with violent behaviour in society To understand the experience of violence per se; watching media violence and encounters with violence in real life.
Method To observe behaviour through experiments, field studies, longitudinal studies, surveys, etc. To discursively analyse accounts of people’s experiences of violence.
    Assumptions That watching media violence is harmful and may result in societal decline. That violent films provide entertainment and can be a source of pleasure: paradoxical to real life violence. That the experience of violence is contextualised.
Findings The Effects Discourse: watching media violence can result in increased aggression and therefore increased violent behaviour. The Existential Needs Discourse: watching media violence satisfies an existential need safely in fantasy rather than in reality.
Why media
violence?		 Increased use of media violence represents a society lacking in moral judgment that believes violence is an appropriate solution to life’s problems. Violence is viewed as a negative component of human existence that should be eradicated. Violence has endured through the centuries perhaps demonstrating an intrinsic human fascination with violence. Film and television violence is the latest medium through which violence can become entertainment. Violence is viewed as a positive expression of emotions in which humankind finds some kind of pleasure and satisfaction

 

(6) Viewing violence in context
Annette Hill's (1997) study found that:

  • The process of viewing violence is a self-conscious activity.
  • The viewing environment signifies an awareness of context.
  • Viewers gauge their own response to violence by monitoring the response of others.
  • Audience awareness is closely linked with physical and emotional responses.
  • Anticipation when viewing violence is a key factor in the range of response. Shared anticipation and enjoying the challenge of anticipation play an important role.
  • Laughing at violence is recognised as different to other laughter.
  • There is awareness that men and women react differently to representations of violence.

Men Viewing Violence (1998) Broadcasting Standards Commisssion.
This involved a study of men watching soap opera, television drama, documentary, feature film, sport. With respect to feature films (Basic Instinct, Under Siege) broadcast on television, the issue of textual context is raised:

The violence was " . . neither seen as believable nor as affecting but as a device to liven up the action."

"One of the films had been edited for television broadcast. For these respondents, such censorship was unnecessary because neither the violence the violence nor its context was seen as believable."

 

[ Top of Page ]

[ home ]