Introduction
Since the media are a main source of information, education and entertainment in our everyday lives, people are incessantly exposed to a number of messages from various media sources. It will became clear that discussion of the media was usually expressed in terms of whether and how the media could influence media audiences or have specific effects on publics. Same issues and concerns of media effects recur as each new media arrives. Although some communication researches have found and theorized this phenomenon, there is no consensus of view about the nature and the size of media effects. (McQuail, 1994)
Mainstream media researchers tend to assume that powerful media messages act directly on media audience, which is passive and powerless- the so called “hypodermic” model of effects. This approach has often been challenged, most recently by the theory of the “active” audience, which arguing that audiences use media messages to satisfy various individual needs and produce meaning according to their own already established beliefs.
In fact the hypodermic model has been exposed as too simplistic since growing experience and research, but this should not mean that we totally dismiss the question of media effects. The main debates about media effects will be discussed in this essay, which begins by defining the concept of “hypodermic” model of effects, and continues by analysing other three theories of media effects. Finally, an overall analysis of media effects will be examined.
Hypodermic / stimulus response model of effects
This origin media effects theory is usually located in 1930s Germany and associated with the work “Frankfurt School” by Adorno and Horkheimer. This work theorized the possible effects of modern media, especially in response to Germany fascism’s use of radio and film for propaganda purposes. The Frankfurt School promoted a “hypodermic” model of media effects, which emphasised the power of the media. The word “hypodermic” clearly implies that how the media affect their audiences: the media work like a “syringe”, which directly “injects” meanings into audience’s mind; or rather like a “drug” therefore the audience is deeply drugged and addicted by powerful media massages. (Branston & Stafford, 1999) In other words, “hypodermic” model of media effects suggests that powerful media messages act directly on media audience, which is passive and powerless.
A famous example of this model is Nazi Germany’s propaganda during the Wars. German corporate capitalists owned and controlled new media in order to restrict cultural life and create what they called “mass society”. The concept of “mass society”, which originally suggested by Nazi propaganda machine, offered a view of the contemporary world as composed of fragmented individuals who were subject to powerful propaganda messages. (Philo, 1990) Nowadays, the media can be called “mass media” or “mass communication” so as to emphasise the size and scale of media operation. Moreover, beliefs about the direct effects of media had also been proved by another key instance. In November 1938, Orson Welles produced a U.S. radio version of a story by H.G. Wells called The War of The Worlds. This programme was like a news report, which panicked people who swallowed everything they heard on the radio.
Although the use of media by war propagandists, by dictatorial states and by the Russia new revolutionary regime in the inter-war years all appeared to confirm that the media could be immensely powerful, there is no consensus of opinion that support the media have direct effects on audience. Since the extension of media research in the post war period, the relation between media message and audience’s belief has been found to be more complex than a simple stimulus response. Many other theories and approaches to the media effects have been developed since then. There are another three important models of media effects, which challenged the “hypodermic” model: “tow-step flow”, “uses and gratification” and “encoding/ decoding” model of effects.
Challenges of “hypodermic” theory:
Two step flow / socially mediated model of effects
The “hypodermic” model of media effects was first challenged by subsequent work- “two step flow” model of media effects in the 1940s, which highlighted the importance of interpersonal influence within groups of audience in communication process.
Although some might argue that mass media are an effective way of persuading audience for political leaders such as Hitler, Roosebelt, Stalin, and Musolini, there is a considerable evidence to suggest that people were not influenced by politicians’ messages in election campaigns. Katz & Llazarsfeld (1955) researched on factors that influenced voting behaviour and argued that the media played very limited part in the process of opinion formation. The main influence was that of key people-“opinion leaders” within communities, who were important shape how messages were received by the mass. (In Newhold, 1997)
Moreover, Newbold (1997) explained that “opinion leaders” seemed to be distributed in all groups on every social and economic level and had great influence on their fellows. Therefore, messages seems to flow from the media to “opinion leaders”, and from them to the less active population. (Newbold, 1997: 128)
In addition, according to Klapper’s (1960) view that mass media influence audience only indirectly and reinforce the effects from other factors, “opinion leader” can be seen as a factor which influences media effects. In other words, “two step flow” model suggests that the media are not very powerful; messages are effective only indirectly through the interpersonal agency of “opinion leaders” amongst the audience. This theory focused on the individual as member of one or more primary groups in their social context. Therefore it was also called “socially mediated” model of effects.
Uses and gratifications model of effect
It seems that the “hypodermic” theory only concerned what the media do to people but ignored the power of individual audience. On the contrary, the “uses and gratification” model emphasised how people choose and use media messages to satisfy various individual needs.
According to Philo (1990), the “uses and gratification model” assumed that the individuals “value and interests led to a selected perception and shaping of what was seen and heard. What was taken from the media might depend on individual preferences and psychological needs. (Philo, 1990: 4) For example, the programme “who wants to be millionaire?” might be attractive to one person for its entertainment while someone else might be interested in it for the information which it contains.
Moreover, Tudor (1997) argued that people were rarely passive recipients of media messages because they were able to produce meaning with their own already established beliefs. (Tudor, 1997: 176) In other words, small groups or individuals are consciously using particular media message to gratify certain needs and interests. Far from being passively injected by the media, the audience here is free to reject, use or even play with media meaning as they choose.
In addition, it can be argued that the media had very little or no effects on audiences. Since people selectively exposed themselves to media messages and interpreted them in many different ways according to their own prejudices, the effectiveness of the media was decreased.
Encoding / decoding model of effects
Another systematic theory- encoding / decoding model was formulated by Stuart Hall (1980), which used semiotic approaches to analyse media effects. This model allows both for the power of media to “affect” audience and for the power of people to choose what to be “affected”.
Hall (1980) emphasized that two factors were influential in the process of meaning produce. On one hand, communicators choose to “encode” messages for ideological and institutional proposes and give a “preferred reading”. On the other hand, receivers (“decoders”) are not obliged to accept messages but can and do resist ideological influence by applying different or oppositional readings, according to their own experience and value. (McQuall, 1994: 53) McQuall (1994) also gave a more systematic analysis on this encoding/decoding process. He claimed that the media “construct” social formations and history itself by framing images of reality in a predicable and patterned way, and the people in audiences “construct” for themselves their own view of social reality and there place in it. (McQuall, 1994: 331)
In other words, what Hall arguing is that either the media or the audience is absolutely powerful but both of them can influence the effects. The meaning “decoded” by audiences are not necessarily those intended by the message producers. People may accept, modify or reject meanings “preferred” by the text via their own knowledge and experience. To illustrate this further, there is the case of news reports. For example, in the recent report of fire-fighters” strike, journalists might assume a consensus amongst their audience that strike should not be used in resolving industrial disputes. However, this “preferred” meaning was not likely to be interpreted by all groups in the society; it may be accepted by upper class but rejected by lower working class.
Final analysis on media effects theories
After comparing with above four theories on media effects, it is easy to found that they were developed in a logical order: each of theory is more systematic than the previous one. From “hypodermic” model, which only concerned the media, to “two-step flow” model, which considered audiences as a certain group, and then to “uses and gratification” model, which focused on individual audience, and finally to “encoding/decoding” model, which concerned both the media and the audiences. However, I would argue that neither of them provides a comprehensive view on media effects.
The evidence shows that in modern media generation, media effects can be shaped by several factors. According to Klapper (1960), “mass communication does not ordinarily serve as a necessary or sufficient cause of audience effects, but rather functions through a nexus of mediating factors”. (In McQuall, 1994: 329) That is to say, the media are unlikely to be major contributors to the effects as several factors can influence the effects. It is also believed that media effects variable from source, content, channel, receivers and social environment. (McQuall, 1994: 339) I clarified these influential factors as: inside the media, within the audiences, and external factors.
Inside the media
Although the “uses and gratification” model offered a view that audiences choosing and interpreting specific messages according to their own interests and needs, this model does not come to terms with the complexity either of what is being sent by the media or of the cultures within which the messages are being received. (Philo, 1990: 6) In other words, the power of the media is represented in media content and choices. For instance, media messages which come from an authoritative and credible source will be relatively more effective. As to content, effectiveness is associated with repetition, consistency and lack of alternatives. Moreover, how people understand media messages depends on their own already established beliefs. Serious doubt can be raised against this are: where do the pre-existing belief come from and how may they alter in relation to new information? ((Philo, 1990: 6)
Within the audiences
The only emphasise of the power of the media in “hypodermic” theory is open to doubt. There are significant audiences to suggest that audiences play an important role in decoding process. It is believed that audience’s response to a particular media message may be different according to receivers as a certain social group or as individual. Firstly, different response occurs in different social categories within which the receiver can be placed, such as age, gender, class, race, occupation, religion. Defleur (1970) indicated that “members of a particular category will select more or less the same media content and will respond to it in roughly equal ways”. (In McQuall 1994: 339) The “two-step flow” model and “opinion leader” can be located in this level. Secondly, different response occurs in individual difference, such as personality, interest, knowledge background, and attitude. According to Defleur noted, “media messages contain particular stimulus attributes that have differential interaction with personality characteristics of audience members.” (In McQuall 1994: 339) Therefore, different people selectively exposed to media messages and interpreted them in many different ways.
External factors
Although the “encoding/decoding” model seems to be the most systematic theory which compared with other three, it ignored some external factors. It is believed that media effects are being strongly shaped by the circumstances of time and place, and influenced in an interactive way by several “environmental” factors, including the interests of government and law-makers, the activities of pressure groups and propagandists, technological development, the ongoing concerns of public opinion, education. (McQuall 1994: 328) To illustrate this further is the case that since media messages are transmitted via certain social (cultural) environment, they must rely on conventions and restrict meanings to support the “consensus value” of a dominate ideology.
Conclusion
There are, to conclude, four models of media effects have been analysed as above. “Hypodermic” theory, which assumed that media messages were directly “injected” into audience’s mind, was dominated during the 1930s. It is the earliest attempts, which see mass media as an effective way of influencing people’s thoughts and behaviours. During the last fifty years of the 20th century, the studies on media effects increasingly insisted that we recognize audience diversity and see people as “active” rather than passive receivers of media images. Audience members are conscious of the fact that they make choices and produce meanings depend on their interests and needs.
Although the further works such as “tow-step flow”, “uses and gratification” and “encoding/ decoding” model on media effects has challenged “hypodermic” model by different degree, this should not mean that we totally dismiss the effectiveness of the media. In fact, the media effects are very complex, which can be mediated by several factors, such as the media, the audiences and some external factors.
__________________________
This is just a sample dissertation (dissertation example) on Mass Media. If you need a high-quality custom written dissertation – feel free to contact our professional custom dissertation writing company which provides college and university students with custom Undergraduate, Master’s, MBA and Ph.D. dissertations, thesis papers and research proposals at an affordable cost. Any topics. Any deadlines. Get professional dissertation help right now!