Post on 14-Jan-2015
description
The persistence case of ‘media effects’ research�
1
The importance of audience research data
Commercial broadcasters Politicians Policy planners Regulators Health care professionals Academics Technology companies Content producers The general public
2
5% 13%
18%
31%
19%
14% Audience
share
0-16
17-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55+
The media terrain is wide…
Books Art Film Television Internet Video games Music Comics
3
Different stakeholders = different interests
4
Time consuming, costly and complex
5
Myths
6
7
Myths
‘The history of audience research is littered with the corpses of studies that have tried and failed to demonstrate, once and for all, a cause and effect relationship between media message and receiver behaviour’ (Ross & Nightingale, 2003: p9)
8
Sensitive to ideological objections
9
Effects Research
10
A few useful background texts
11
The direction of effects research
12
The direction of effects research
‘despite decades of work in which researchers have tried to demonstrate the cause-effect relationship, it has never actually been possible to isolate out the specific influence of media from the other factors, including individual pathology, on human behaviour’ (Ross and Nightengale, 2003: 72)
13
The basic historical trajectory
Effects Now? Encoding / Decoding
Uses and Gratifications
Passive Active Autonomous? Interactive?
Socially situated
14
4 phases (see McQuail, 1993, 2010)
Phase 1 – media as all-powerful Phase 2 - media as all-powerful challenged Phase 3 – powerful media revisited Phase 4 – negotiating media meaning
15
Phase 1 – media as all-powerful
1900-1930s Media as a top-down model of communication From the power elites to ‘the masses’
16
Phase 1 – media as all-powerful
Ivan Pavlov Physiologist 1901 ‘Conditional reflex’ Classical conditioning
17
The tail wagging the dog?
19
Phase 2 - media as all-powerful challenged
1930s-1950s Studies into voting patterns Studies into juvenile delinquency Acknowledgment of multiple variables Impact of positivism Influence of behaviourism
20
Phase 2 - media as all-powerful challenged
B.F. Skinner Behaviourist Schedules of reinforcement Operant Conditioning Chamber (aka the Skinner Box) Cause and effect
21
Phase 3 – powerful media revisited
1960s longer-term effects more subtle shifts in comprehension diversity in motivations of media use George Gerbner’s cultivation analysis theory
24
Phase 3 – powerful media revisited
Albert Bandura 1961-63 Social learning theory The Bobo Doll Experiments Exposure to aggressive modelling
25
Phase 3 – powerful media revisited
Criticisms? Ferguson (2010) suggest the Bobo Doll studies are not studies of aggression at all • Children were motivated to imitate the adult
in the belief the videos were instructions. • Children were motivated by the desire to
please adults rather than genuine aggression. • The external validity of the study noting that
Bobo Dolls are designed to be hit.
27
Phase 4 – negotiating media meaning
1970s onwards Focus on media message construction and how audiences deconstruct these An examination of what audiences did with media, rather than what the media did to audiences Qualitative research Ethnography
28
What happens next?
A new dimension? More cause and effect? Brain science? Neuroscience + psychology?
29
Summary
Models have changed Cyclical arguments, claims and counter-claims Identification? Addition? Desensitisation? Morals?
30
The biggest problem?
• The research approach: – Content analysis? – Physical stimuli? – Trend analysis? – Closed question surveys? – Participant observation? – Focus groups? – Ethnography?
31
Images
The tartanpodcast, 2009, Social Media Outposts M. Mackenzie, 2008, Top Secret Codeword Data $PHPhoto, 2008, Time is Money FrozenCapybara, 2007, Wait, where am I again? Ramkarthikblogger, 2009, Direction Nina Leen (LIFE), 1964, B F Skinner training a rat Holah.co.uk (date unknown), bobo2 Mal Cubed, 2005, MB1NR-3 A. Diez Herrero, 2007, creative commons -Franz Patzig-
33