14 Theories of Media Processing and...

C h a p t e r

14

2 4 8

Theories of MediaProcessing and Effects

At the turn of the last century (i.e., from the19th to the 20th), a discussion of communica-tion media would have been a short one indeed.The only media of communication with anywidespread use at that time were face-to-face in-teraction and print sources such as books andnewspapers. Since then, however, the number ofmedia types and sources has exploded. In a typi-cal day, you likely access multiple media includ-ing newspapers, radio, network and cable orsatellite television, the Internet and World WideWeb, telephone (both cellular and landline),electronic mail, video and audiotape, and the listgoes on. Oh yes, and we still talk to each otherin face-to-face conversations! In short, the vol-ume of communication we are involved in hasincreased substantially, as has the variety ofchannels through which we send and receivemessages. It is not surprising, then, that socialscientists have been extremely interested in howcontact with these media affects our beliefs, atti-tudes, interaction, and other behaviors.

In this chapter, we consider theories that dealprimarily with the ways individuals access andprocess media content and the ways contactwith mass media sources influences those indi-viduals. We discuss three major theoretical ap-proaches: social cognitive theory, uses andgratifications theory, and media systems depen-dency theory. Before we move on to these theo-retical frameworks, however, it is important to

put them in historical context. Thus, we firsttake a brief historical trip through the study ofmedia effects, concentrating on some importantdevelopments that occurred during the middle ofthe 20th century.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIA EFFECTS RESEARCH

Basic textbooks on mass communication (e.g.,DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989; McQuail, 1994)point to a number of important developments inthe history of mass communication. DeFleur andBall-Rokeach (1989) chart the movement from“the age of signs and signals” to “the age ofspeech and language” to “the age of writing” to“the age of print.” These ages, not surprisingly,span thousands of years of human development.However, not until “the age of mass communica-tion” was ushered in by widespread distributionof newspapers (in the 19th century), by thedevelopment and popularization of motionpictures (at the turn of the 20th century), bythe invention of radio and its adoption in manyhouseholds (1920s through 1940s), by the in-vention and diffusion of television (1950s and1960s), and by the exploding use of the Inter-net (1990s and beyond) could commentatorsreally see the reach of communication mediato mass audiences. Today, the power of the

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 248

media is enormous. As Downing, Mohammadi,and Sreberby-Mohammadi (1995, p. xvi) sum-marize, the “media present us with often over-whelming amounts of information and images,about ourselves and about other people. Theyserve to define what is of political concern, ofeconomic importance, of cultural interest to us.In short, we live in what is often described as amedia culture.”

The history of mass communicationresearch—that is, the study of how the mediaeffect our lives—began in earnest in the 1920sand 1930s. During this time period, newspapercirculation increased and hence reached a wide-spread audience, motion pictures and other me-dia were used extensively for national and socialpropaganda (e.g., during World War I), and ra-dio use was reaching a peak in the everyday livesof Americans. Thus, it is not surprising that so-cial scientists wanted to understand the effects ofthese media on the way people thought and be-haved. A recounting of the explanations of thetime will undoubtedly oversimplify thoseviews (see Lang & Lang, 1993);however, it is important toconsider the develop-ment of ideas abouthow the mass media in-fluence us in order toput current theories intoproper focus. In the nextfew sections of this chapter,then, we chart the changes in scholarlyapproaches to media effects throughout the 20thcentury.

The Bullet and the Needle

In the 1920s and 1930s, scholars were concernedwith making sense of the influence of bothwartime propaganda and what were seen aswidespread effects of radio and newspapers onthe attitudes of individual citizens. The words ofHarold Lasswell, a prominent mass communica-tion researcher during this time, reflect thethinking of that time period. In Propaganda Tech-niques in the World War, Lasswell (1927) wrote,

But when all allowances have been made and allextravagant estimates pared to the bone, the factremains that propaganda is one of the most pow-erful instrumentalities in the modern world. . . .In the Great Society it is no longer possible tofuse the waywardness of individuals in the furnaceof the war dance; a newer and subtler instrumentmust weld thousands and even millions of humanbeings into one amalgamated mass of hate andwill and hope. A new flame must burn out thecanker of dissent and temper the steel of bellicoseenthusiasm. The name of this new hammer andanvil of social solidarity is propaganda.(pp. 220–221)

Thus, the view of media effects that devel-oped during the 1920s and 1930s was one of verystrong effects, for only a very powerful influencecould “meld thousands and even millions of hu-man beings into one amalgamated mass.” Thisview has been labeled, in retrospect, by thememorable monikers of the magic bullet effectand the hypodermic needle effect. In short,

these views see the mass media as capableof shaping public opinion and

swaying behavior in what-ever direction is preferred

by the communicator.The media are seen towork as a magic bullet

or a hypodermic needle,shooting the desires of

the source directly into thethoughts, attitudes, and subsequent be-

haviors of the receivers.The magic bullet theory seems quite simple

and straightforward, but several points about thisview of the media bear mentioning. Specifically,this view brings with it not only assumptionsabout the media (as a strong needle and power-ful bullet) but also assumptions about the audi-ence. The audience in this formulation is seen asa mass society. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach(1989) chart the development of this view of so-ciety, primarily through the work of sociologistsin the 19th and early 20th centuries. Thesescholars (e.g., Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer,and Emile Durkheim) looked at the increasing

C H A P T E R 1 4 T heories of Media Processing and Effects 2 4 9

“This isthe mass society as

conceptualized by early theorists—an audience of undifferentiated individuals

very open to the influence of strong andpowerful leaders, or strong and

powerful media.”

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM 49

complexity of society through industrialization,urbanization, and other factors and concludedthat individuals were becoming isolated and thusunable to form meaningful connections of com-munity with each other. This view of the masssociety emphasized the following characteristics(DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989, p. 159):

■ Individuals are presumed to be in asituation of psychological isolation.

■ Impersonality prevails in individuals’interactions with each other.

■ Individuals are relatively free from thedemands of binding informal socialobligations.

Individuals in this conception of society wereseen as easy targets of the magic bullets from themedia. Individuals in a mass society were discon-nected, or atomized; hence, the powerful mediacould affect them directly and strongly. In view-ing the audience as isolated and impersonal, themedia were seen as having a uniform and power-ful impact on all members of society. Picture inyour mind the classic pictures of crowds of Ger-man citizens, saluting as one in political gather-ings as Adolf Hitler rose to power. This isthe mass society as conceptualized by earlytheorists—an audience of undifferentiated indi-viduals very open to the influence of strong andpower leaders, or strong and powerful media.

Alternatives to Strong Effects

The magic bullet and hypodermic needle theo-ries proposing strong effects of the mass mediadid not hold sway for long, however. Several fac-tors served as an impetus to change thinking inthis regard. First, on philosophical grounds, thepicture of the individual as the unthinking andeasy dupe of the media was untenable for manycommentators. Scholars were uncomfortablewith this view of the public as powerless, whiledemocratic ideals and beliefs about the strengthof the individual held sway in much of the West-ern world. Second, theoretical developments inpsychology and sociology discredited the view of

the individual inherent in theories of mass soci-ety. These developments emphasized both cog-nitive and social factors that needed to beconsidered when looking at how messages fromthe media might influence individual attitudesand behaviors. Finally, empirical research intothe effects of the mass media on individuals pro-vided data that were contrary to the strong ef-fects model. Because of these philosophical,theoretical, and empirical developments, schol-ars began to look for factors that reduced the ef-fects of the media, and the era of the limitedeffects model was ushered in.

The initial concept that media had limited ef-fects was based not as much on a model of mediacontent, then, but on shifting views about thenature of the audience. In the parlance of basicpsychological theory, a strong effects paradigmcan be viewed as a simple stimulus-response (S-R) model. That is, the stimulus (i.e., the me-dia in the magic bullet or hypodermic needlemodel) instigates a direct response in the indi-vidual (i.e., in the form of an attitude, belief, orbehavior). In this model, no intervening processcomes between the stimulus and the response.However, in the middle of the 20th century, avariety of alternatives to the basic S-R modelwere developed in psychology, and related ideasin mass communication research followed suit.In the most basic sense, these are labeled S-O-Rmodels, in which some factor of the organism(O) or person is seen as coming between thestimulus and the response. In considering themass media, these S-O-R models look atthe ways media have selective influence on theresponses of individuals. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1989) have outlined three types ofprocesses that replaced strong effects paradigm ofthe magic bullet theory in the middle of the20th century (Figure 14.1).

Figure 14.1 highlights several factors thatmight come between the magic bullet of the me-dia and the responses of individuals. For exam-ple, the factor of individual differences suggeststhat the media might influence people with dif-ferent personalities, different needs, or at differ-ent stages of development in different ways. For

2 5 0 P A R T 3 Theories of Communication Contexts

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 250

example, a four-year-old boy might love PowerRangers on Saturday morning cartoons, whilehis twin brother is frightened by these imagesand prefers Barney and Baby Bop. These differ-ences are likely to be based on simple differencesin temperament. Second, the media could influ-ence various groups of people in different ways,differences based on social categories. For exam-ple, a sexually suggestive music video couldbe differently attractive—and have differentinfluences—on audiences of college age stu-dents, their retired grandparents, and theirbrothers and sisters in elementary school. Third,social relationships and interpersonal communica-tion could influence the effects that media haveon individuals. These social relationships mightinfluence effects through having the media in-fluence the opinions of those who then influ-ence family and friends. This effect (what ElihuKatz, 1957, called the “two-step” flow) can beseen in the way “buzz” for hot new televisionshows spread their popularity. Or, social relation-ships might influence the effect of the media aswe talk about media in the process of consump-tion. For example, teenage girls might leafthrough magazines together, sharing perceptionsand opinions. Or parents might opt to watchcontroversial programming with their children,so they can help kids process the content andunderstand its implications.

Thus, as Figure 14.1 illustrates, mass commu-nication scholars began to explore how thepower of the media was limited or influenced bya variety of factors. Much of this research wasscattered and haphazard, however, as scholarslisted and investigated the factors that might

limit strong effects. However, in the 1960s, ideasabout the interplay between audience and mediabegan to coalesce into several specific theoreti-cal traditions. The first theory we consider here,social cognitive theory, takes the most specificlook at the psychological processes that influ-ence the relationship between mass mediacontent and behavioral reactions of audiencemembers.

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

As media theorists moved away from the strongeffects models of the magic bullet injecting itscontent into the undifferentiated mass audienceand toward limited effects models, many scholarsrelied on psychological theories that distin-guished between S-R models and S-O-R models.In other words, theorists began to ask aboutwhat human qualities—in particular, what psy-chological qualities—came between the stimulusof the media message and the audience’s re-sponse. One of the most obvious conceptualiza-tions for this role of the organism (i.e., the “O”)is to see people as learners who could thinkabout the content of the media and whosethinking could then make a difference in the ac-quisition of new attitudes and behaviors. Thus,turning to learning theories as a way to under-stand media effects made a great deal of sense inthe middle of the 20th century.

Early psychologists in the behaviorist mode(e.g., John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner) wereconcerned with the extent to which human ac-tion is a conditioned response to external stimuli.


Individual differenceS

S Social categorieswith subcultures

Social relationshipsS

R

R

R

Figure 14.1 Selective Influence Theories of Mass Media Effects.Source: From DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach, 1989, p. 196.

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 251

This behaviorist point of view—represented byprocesses labeled as operant conditioning—is an S-R model that suggests that humans learn by be-ing rewarded (e.g., receiving positive reinforce-ment) or punished (e.g., receiving negativereinforcement) when they respond to a particularstimulus. For example, imagine that a child bitesher nails. Her parents might paint her nails withbitter nail polish so that she will have a bad tasteexperience every time she tries to bite them. Thisis negative reinforcement. Or a parent mightpromise a reward like a new toy—positivereinforcement—if the nails are grown to a partic-ular length. By directly rewarding and punishingbehavior, the parents are hoping the child willlearn the preferred behavior.

However, operant conditioning is an ineffi-cient way to learn things. Imagine, for instance,that we had to learn about the dangers of en-countering fire only through direct reward andpunishment when confronted with a stimulus:The hospitals would be full of burn victims! Itsimply doesn’t make sense to presume thateveryone has to learn everything through directexperience. Thus, it seems obvious that humanslearn in other ways, and one of the most impor-tant alternative routes to learning is throughwatching others who are demonstrating behav-iors (and perhaps being rewarded or punished forthose behaviors) and then imitating those be-haviors. As Bandura (1977b) argues,

Observational learning is vital for both develop-ment and survival. Because mistakes can producecostly, or even fatal, consequences, the prospectsfor survival would be slim indeed if one couldlearn only by suffering the consequences of trialand error. For this reason, one does not teachchildren to swim, adolescents to drive automo-biles, and novice medical students to performsurgery by having them discover the appropriatebehavior through the consequences of their suc-cesses and failures. The more costly and hazardousthe possible mistakes, the heavier is the relianceon observational learning from competentexamples. (p. 237)

The concept of learning through observationand imitation was first proposed in the psycho-

logical literature by N. E. Miller and Dollard(1941). These researchers posited that if humanswere motivated to learn a particular behavior,they would be able to learn by observing modelsand then be positively reinforced by imitatingthose models. That is, a child might observe an-other child playing with an unfamiliar toy. Theobserving child could then imitate the observedchild and be rewarded by the pleasures of play.These ideas were the first version of social learn-ing theory.

Since these early ideas were proposed aboutthe role of imitation in the acquisition of behav-ior, theoretical thinking about social learninghas developed. The leader in the development ofsocial learning theory (relabeled in the 1970sand 1980s as social cognitive theory) has beenAlbert Bandura. Bandura’s first key ideas in thearea (Bandura, 1962) further developed Millerand Dollard’s earlier ideas about imitative learn-ing. In more recent publications, Bandura haselaborated on the process of social learning andon cognitive and behavioral factors that influ-ence the learning process (see, e.g., Bandura,1969, 1977a, 1977b, 1986, 1994, 1995). In thenext few sections, we outline some of the keycomponents of social cognitive theory and thendiscuss how this theory has been instrumental instudying the effects of mass media presentationson individuals in the audience.

Key Concepts in Social Cognitive Theory

As should already be clear, the key concept insocial cognitive theory is the notion of observa-tional learning. When there are “models” in anindividual’s environment—perhaps friends orfamily members in the interpersonal environ-ment, people from public life, or figures in thenews or entertainment media—learning can oc-cur through the observation of these models.Sometimes the behavior can be acquired simplythrough the modeling process. Modeling, or im-itation, is “the direct, mechanical reproductionof behavior” (Baran & Davis, 2000, p. 184). Forexample, when a father teaches his daughter


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 252


how to tie her shoes by demonstrating the tech-nique over and over again, this is a simple mod-eling process. In addition to interpersonalimitation processes, modeling processes can alsobe seen with regard to media sources. That is,you might learn a new trick for rolling out piedough simply by watching a cooking show ontelevision. But there are times when simplemodeling is not enough to influence or changebehavior. In these cases, social cognitive theo-rists turn to the basic operant conditioning con-cepts of rewards and punishments, but placethose concepts in a social learning context.

Baranowski, Perry, and Parcel (1997) statethat “reinforcement is the primary construct inthe operant form of learning” (p. 161). Rein-forcement processes are also central to sociallearning processes. In social cognitive theory, re-inforcement works through the processes of in-hibitory effects and disinhibitory effects. Aninhibitory effect occurs when an individual seesa model being punished for a particular behavior.Observing this punishment will decrease thelikelihood of the observer performing that samebehavior. For example, social cognitive theorywould predict that when we observe criminals ontelevision being incarcerated for their misdeeds,we will be less likely to engage in crime. In con-trast, a disinhibitory effect occurs when an in-dividual sees a model being rewarded for aparticular behavior. In this situation, the observerwill be more likely to perform the behavior. Forexample, if a documentary focuses on an individ-ual who has received public commendation forworking with the homeless, social cognitive the-ory would predict that the observer will be morelikely to volunteer in a local homeless shelter.

The effects posited here depend not on actualrewards and punishments but instead on vicari-ous reinforcement. According to Bandura(1986), vicarious reinforcement works becauseof the concepts of outcome expectations andoutcome expectancies. Outcome expectationssuggest that when we see models being rewardedand punished, we come to expect the same out-comes if we perform the same behavior. As Bara-nowski et al. (1997) state, “People develop

expectations about a situation and expectationsfor outcomes of their behavior before they actu-ally encounter the situation” (p. 162). That is,there is the expectation of jail time for breakingthe law. Furthermore, individuals attach value tothese expectations in the form of outcome ex-pectancies. These expectancies consider the ex-tent to which any particular reinforcementobserved is seen as a reward or a punishment.The outcome expectancy for jail time would un-doubtedly be negative, but social cognitive the-ory also considers the possibility that differentthings are rewarding to different people and thatthe value of the reward to the particular individ-ual will influence the extent to which sociallearning will occur. For example, an individualwatching the homelessness documentary mightbe extremely shy and hence not see public com-mendation as a reward for public service.

This is the basic process of learning posited insocial cognitive theory. However, several otherconcepts posited in the theory will influence theextent to which social learning takes place. Oneimportant addition to the theory has been theconcept of identification with the model in themedia. Specifically, social cognitive theory ar-gues that if an individual feels a strong psycho-logical connection to a model (i.e., if he or shefeels a sense of identification with the model),social learning is more likely to occur. Accordingto White (1972), identification “springs fromwanting to be and trying to be like the modelwith respect to some broader quality” (p. 252).That is, if a child wants to be like a favoritesports hero, he might imitate that sports hero interms of clothing and food choices.

Social cognitive theory also considers the im-portance of an observer’s ability to perform aparticular behavior and the confidence the indi-vidual has in performing the behavior. This con-fidence is known as self-efficacy (Bandura,1977a), and it is seen as a critical prerequisite tobehavioral change. Think back again to our ex-ample of learning a new way to roll out pie doughfrom a cooking show on television. Social cogni-tive theory would argue that learning from themodel would not occur if an individual had

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 253

always bought pre-formed pie crusts and had al-ways believed that making and rolling out piedough was an incredibly difficult task best left toprofessional pastry chefs. It is likely that this indi-vidual would not have the necessary level of self-efficacy regarding pie dough to effectively learnfrom the model in the cooking demonstration.

Social Cognitive Theory and the Communication Media

To this point, we have sketched out some of thebasic ideas proposed in social cognitive theory.Learning occurs when an individual observes amodel performing a behavior and being re-warded or punished for that behavior. From thisobservation, the learner develops expectanciesabout what will happen when he or she performsthe behavior and these expectancies will influ-ence learning and subsequent behavior. How-ever, this learning will be moderated by theextent to which the individual identifies withthe model and the extent to which the individ-ual feels a sense of self-efficacy about performingthe modeled behaviors.

From this basic framework, the applicationsof social cognitive theory to research in the massmedia should be clear. That is, in today’s society,many of the models that we learn from are thosewe see, hear, or read about in the mass media.These models might be people who we observeon news and documentary shows. They might becharacters we see in dramatic presentations onthe big or small screen or read about in books.Or they might be singers or dancers who we hearon the radio and CDs or who we see in musicvideos. In short, there are a plethora of modelsin the media who are consistently being re-warded or punished for their behavior, and manymedia theorists believe that children and adultschange their behaviors based on the observationof these models.

One area in which social cognitive theory hashad a strong impact is in the study of media vio-lence. Gunter (1994) reviews the research onthe impact of media violence on children andadults and concludes that there is a great mix ofevidence regarding the effects of violent media

depictions on the behaviors, attitudes, and cog-nitions of viewers. Social cognitive theory, mostconcerned with behavioral effects, would suggestthat depictions of violence could lead to eitherincreases or decreases in violent behavior, de-pending on whether the behavior of the modelwas rewarded or punished, and depending on theextent to which the viewer identified with themodel. Indeed, early research by Bandura (1962)and Berkowitz (1964) supported the basic linkbetween watching violent behavior and model-ing that behavior in interaction. However, re-cent research has added complexity to thisequation, arguing that issues such as preexistingaggressive tendencies, cognitive processing ofthe media, realism of the media depictions, andeven diet can affect the extent to which individ-uals “learn” violence from the media (see Potter,1997, for review).

The application of social cognitive theory tothe study of televised violence considers howmedia can have unintended consequences onmembers of the viewing audience. However,communication scholars and action researchershave also considered more purposeful applica-tions of social cognitive theory. For example, agrowing number of scholars are now joining theconcepts of entertainment and education in con-sidering how entertainment messages can beused to bring about behavioral and social change(Singhal & Arvid, 2002). For example, teleno-velas are broadcast in many countries with thedual purpose of providing entertainment and ed-ucating the public on such issues as family plan-ning, gender equity, and agricultural reform (seeNariman, 1993). Many of these “soap operas forsocial change” have been designed following asocial cognitive framework by using attractivecharacters being rewarded or punished for ex-plicitly modeled behavior.

Social cognitive theory has been used inother public health communication applicationsas well (see Baranowski et al., 1997; Slater,1999). For example, a media campaign plannerinterested in changing behaviors regarding theuse of sunblock might use social cognitive theoryin designing a campaign. That campaign mightemphasize an attractive and recognizable model


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 254

(encouraging identification) who is rewardedwith healthy skin and compliments when usingsunblock (i.e., positive reinforcement). Thecampaign could also emphasize the frequent ap-plication of sunblock with a high SPF factor(creating self-efficacy). Following the tenets ofsocial comparison theory, this campaign wouldbe expected to encourage the use of sunblock.

Summary

Social cognitive theory provides an explanationof how behavior can be shaped through the ob-

servation of models in mass media presentations.The effect of modeling is enhanced through theobservation of rewards and punishments metedout to the model, by the identification of audi-ence members with the model, and by the extentto which audience members have self-efficacyabout the behaviors being modeled. This theory,though based in the field of social psychology,has had strong effects both on our understandingof the effects of media violence on adults andchildren and on the planning of purposeful cam-paigns for behavior change launched throughmedia sources. In the next section, we turn


R E A L L I F E I N S I G H T

Social cognitive theory is a straightforward modelthat proposes very specific conditions under whichsocial learning will occur. Because of its specificity, itis not surprising that social cognitive theory has beenvery attractive to agents who are trying to institutesocial change, particularly in the area of public health.Change agents are eager to have theoretical modelsthat will help them design large-scale campaigns thatwill reach a large portion of the public and have thedesired effects on attitudes and behavior. For ex-ample, if a public health official were designing acampaign to convince teens not to smoke, socialcognitive theory would seem to be an attractive tem-plate. Use attractive models that teens can identifywith. Show those models demonstrating straightfor-ward interaction strategies to refuse an offer of a cig-arette. Then show those models being rewarded fortheir refusal through enhanced popularity, pleasantbreath, and future good health.

This seems straightforward, but we all know thatthese campaigns don’t always work. Why not? Well, itcould be that social cognitive theory is wrong. Butsome researchers believe it is because public healthcampaigns do not always really follow the tenets oftheories such as social cognitive theories and hencedo not reap the rewards of the desired change inhealth behavior. For example, Michael Slater (1999)argues that it is critical to consider where audiencemembers are in the change process and then use so-cial cognitive theory (or other similar theories) in anappropriate way. For example, when audience mem-bers are merely considering behavior change, it

makes the most sense to highlight the possible re-wards and punishments to motivate the viewer toact. However, after that motivation is achieved, it iscritical to model skills so viewers can develop a senseof efficacy about actually doing whatever is beingrecommended.

Other theorists have looked at specific publichealth campaigns and identified ways in which amore careful consideration of social cognitive theorycould enhance a campaign’s success. For example,Sandi Smith (1997) looked at a national campaign toencourage parents to immunize their children. Sheargued that the campaign was effective in showingthe rewards for immunization but did little to buildself-efficacy in the parents for following through withimmunization. For example, no matter how muchyou want to immunize your children, if you don’thave a regular doctor or an understanding of the lo-cal public health system, you are unlikely to followthrough on your desires. In another example, Brown(1992) studied AIDS educational messages and foundthat such messages were not effective with membersof the Asian Pacific community. Drawing on anotheraspect of social cognitive theory, Brown argued that itwas important to show models of a similar culturalbackground in order to encourage behavioralchange. These examples point to the importance ofconsidering all of the nuances of a particular theory—such as self-efficacy and identification in social cogni-tive theory—when dealing with the complexities of“real life” behavior.

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 255

our attention to a model of media effects thathighlights the concept of an active audience,which is critical in many limited effects models.

USES AND GRATIFICATIONSTHEORY

When I wrote this chapter for the first edition ofthe textbook, the most popular television showin the United States, by far, was Who Wants toBe a Millionaire on ABC. How times havechanged. Now the airwaves are dominated by awide variety of reality television shows that wereunheard of even four years ago. The first episodeof Survivor has now spawned shows such asAmerican Idol, Joe Millionaire, Trading Spaces,Temptation Island, and Queer Eye for the StraightGuy. Trista and Ryan are marrying on networktelevision after their run on Bachelorette andWho Wants to Be a Millionaire is hard to findeven in syndication. Clearly, the wheels of pro-gramming turn quickly. However, the popularityof any of these programs—or the cultural iconsof the past such as Dallas, Baywatch, M*A*S*H,All in the Family, or I Love Lucy can all serve asan avenue for understanding more about whypeople tune into particular media programmingand the ways in which such programming satisfythe desires and needs of the viewing public. Inthis section, we will consider a theory that lookscarefully at how and why members of media au-diences use particular programming to satisfy awide variety of needs.

Interestingly, the study viewed as the firstpiece of research on the uses and gratificationsapproach was spurred by a media phenomenonvery similar to the late 1990s infatuation withWho Wants to Be a Millionaire. In the late 1930sand early 1940s, quiz shows were popular with ra-dio audiences, and Herza Herzog asked the sim-ple question of why this kind of show appealed toa wide variety of people. In asking this question,Herzog countered the assumption of mass societyand strong effects on audiences and consideredthe notion that different audience membersmight listen to a radio show for different reasons.

In summarizing Herzog’s (and other) research,McQuail, Blumler, and Brown (1972) concludedthat individuals listen to (or watch) quiz showsfor reasons including (a) self-rating, (b) social in-teraction, (c) excitement, and (d) educationalappeal. It is likely that these same categoriescould be used to describe the appeal of quiz showssuch as Millionaire and Jeopardy in more recentyears, as individuals watch the show to share inthe thrills experienced by the contestant, to testand gain knowledge, or to interact with familymembers during the broadcast.

Thus, in the 1940s, researchers were begin-ning to ask questions about how the needs anddesires of the audience might influence the effectof mass media programming. Swanson (1992) haslabeled early research efforts such as Herzog’s(1941, 1944) as the first phase in the develop-ment of the uses and gratifications approach andhas noted three attributes of this research thatwere important in leading to the theoreticalframework developed later. First, this research in-troduces the idea of an active audience, in whichindividuals have their own reasons for accessingthe media. Second, this research began to con-ceive of these audience motives as gratificationsthat were obtained by individuals from the media(though that specific term was not used at thetime). Third, research in this tradition high-lighted the ability of audience members to pro-vide useful information about their motives anddesires with regard to the media.

Not until the mid-1960s and early 1970s wasthe uses and gratifications approach codifiedinto a coherent theoretical framework. The firstformal statement of the uses and gratificationstheory came from Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch(1974), who enumerated basic points of theframework in the oft-quoted statement that usesand gratifications studies address:

(1) the social and psychological origins of(2) needs, which generate (3) expectations of(4) the mass media or other sources, which leadto (5) differential patterns of media exposure(or engagement in other activities), resulting in(6) need gratifications and (7) other conse-quences, perhaps mostly unintended ones. (p. 20)


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 256

Palmgreen (1984), in a review of uses andgratifications theory, has noted that scholarshave tended to concentrate on the middle por-tion of this statement, with little research atten-tion directed toward the origin of mass medianeeds (1) or the unintended consequences ofneed gratification (7). However, there has beena great deal of theoretical and research develop-ment with regard to items (2) through (6), asscholars have considered the ways in which anactive audience selectively engages and reacts tothe media. The uses and gratifications approachis explained in more detail in the next two sec-tions, in which we first examine the question ofwhat gratifications are sought and obtained fromthe media and then look at the question of howthe media are used in this gratification process.

What Gratifications Are Soughtand Obtained from Media?

The bulk of studies in the uses and gratificationstradition have attempted to answer the questionregarding the gratifications sought and obtainedfrom the media by developing typologies of thosegratifications. These studies attempt to codifyideas about why individuals choose certain me-dia at various times and what they get out oftheir connection with the media. Most of thesestudies have relied on self-reports of audiencemembers (Palmgreen, 1984), though observa-tional and experimental techniques for assessingaudience gratifications have also been used.A variety of typologies of gratifications havebeen proposed, one of which is presented inTable 14.1.

As Table 14.1 indicates, research has identi-fied a large number of ways in which an activemedia audience uses the media in order to grat-ify various needs. For example, my 11-year-olddaughter (a Millionaire fan in the last edition ofthis book!) now enjoys watching Trading Spaces,true crime shows such as Cold Case Files, andsporting events. Why does she watch theseshows? She likes Trading Spaces, I would guess,for entertainment reasons—she finds the showfunny and it’s a good escape from real-life prob-

lems like homework. Perhaps she even uses it asa source of information, picking up decoratingtips for her room at home. She enjoys Cold CaseFiles because she sees the episodes as puzzles andfeels good about herself when she understandsthe cases and how the investigators solved them.She watches sports as a way of connecting withothers in her social environment, as she and herfather become elated or dejected with the fate ofthe Boston Red Sox. Thus, even within onemedium (i.e., television) and for one person, avariety of gratifications—information, personalidentity, integration and social interaction,entertainment—are being served. Of course, ifwe looked at different people and at differentmedia, we would find a still larger variety of grat-ifications being sought and satisfied throughmedia content.

Uses and gratifications theory goes beyondlists, however, in considering the concept ofwhat uses are served by the media. Two theoret-ical developments are particularly noteworthy.First, some scholars have suggested that theselists of needs can be divided into fundamentallydifferent types of gratifications. These dis-tinctions have included content versus processgratifications (Cutler & Danowski, 1980), cog-nitive versus affective/imaginative gratifications(McQuail, 1984), and instrumental versus ritualgratifications (Rubin, 1984). According toSwanson (1992), these distinctions all point tothe difference between “gratifications that resultfrom the pleasurable experience of media con-tent and are realized during consumption . . . andgratifications that result from learning informa-tion from media content and subsequentlyputting it to use in practical affairs” (p. 310).Thus, a person might access the World WideWeb in a search for specific information requiredfor a class project or simply to enjoy interactingwith virtual friends in a chat room.

A second important theoretical developmentwith regard to gratification typologies is the dis-tinction between gratifications sought and grat-ifications obtained (see Palmgreen, 1984, forreview). This distinction makes the point thatwhat an individual wants from the media is not


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 257

always what an individual gets from the media.Mick Jagger would argue that “you can’t alwaysget what you want,” and this has certainly beenfound to be true in uses and gratifications stud-ies, as gratifications sought are often distinctfrom gratifications obtained. For example, an in-dividual may watch financial news programmingwith the hopes of gaining insider informationthat will lead to a financial windfall. However, asmany disappointed investors will attest, thisgratification is unlikely to be fully satisfiedthrough media consumption.

How Are Media Used in the Gratification Process?

Thus, a variety of gratifications are sought andobtained from the media, and these gratifica-tions can be described using content categoriesat various levels of abstraction. The theoreticalquestion remaining for the uses and gratifica-tions approach, then, is the process throughwhich these gratifications relate to the behaviorsand attitudes of audience members. Once ty-pologies of gratifications were established, these


Table 14.1 Typology of Gratifications Sought and Obtained from the Media

Gratification Category Examples

Information ■ Finding out about relevant events and conditions in immediate surroundings, society,and the world

■ Seeking advice on practical matters, or opinion and decision choices■ Satisfying curiosity and general interest■ Learning, self-education■ Gaining a sense of security through knowledge

Personal Identity ■ Finding reinforcement for personal values■ Finding models of behavior■ Identifying with valued others (in the media)■ Gaining insight into one’s self

Integration and Social ■ Gaining insight into circumstances of others: social empathyInteraction ■ Identifying with others and gaining a sense of belonging

■ Finding a basis for conversation and social interaction■ Having a substitute for real-life companionship■ Helping to carry out social roles■ Enabling one to connect with family, friends, and society

Entertainment ■ Escaping, or being diverted from, problems■ Relaxing■ Getting intrinsic cultural or aesthetic enjoyment■ Filling time■ Emotional release■ Sexual arousal

Source: From McQuail, 1983, pp. 82–83.

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 258

questions of process captured the attention ofmedia researchers.

One basic line of research has investigated theprocesses through which audience gratificationsinfluence behavior and outcomes. Kim and Ru-bin (1997) summarize much of this research, not-ing three ways in which audience activityfacilitates media contact and effects. The first ofthese is selectivity, in which individuals who seekparticular gratifications will selectively exposethemselves to particular media. For example, aperson wanting to escape after a long day at workmight choose to watch music videos rather thana news program on television. The secondprocess is attention, in which individuals will al-locate cognitive effort to media consumption, de-pending on gratifications sought. For example, aperson seeking detailed information will paymore attention to the content in a home im-provement magazine than a person merely leaf-ing through the magazine to pass the time.Finally, the third process is involvement with themedia, in which an audience member is oftencaught up in the message and may even developa “relationship” with media characters. This typeof involvement is sometimes called parasocial in-teraction (Horton & Wohl, 1956). For example,a large part of the attraction to reality televisionshows is the emotional attachments that viewersform with the “real people” shown in the pro-gramming. For example, there are always favoredand despised players on each Survivor show, andgreat debate as the American Idol field is whittleddown to the final few contestants. Clearly, view-ers on the show feel that they “know” the indi-viduals on the shows and share in their joy ordisappointment as the show develops.

In addition to considering these differentprocesses through which gratifications are con-nected to audience activity with the media, otherscholars have worked to understand the underly-ing theoretical mechanism through which grati-fications influence behavior. Much of this workhas taken an expectancy-value approach basedon basic social psychological processes (see, e.g.,Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, and our discussions ofboth the theory of reasoned action and problem-

atic integration theory in Chapter 8). Anexpectancy-value explanation suggests that anindividual’s behavior will be guided by twoassessments: an assessment of the value of a par-ticular outcome and an assessment of the prob-ability of that outcome occurring. In theframework of uses and gratifications theory, anexpectancy-value approach would suggest thatwe value particular things (e.g., escape, informa-tion, companionship) and that we have expecta-tions about the probability that these things canbe obtained from various media sources. Theseestimates of value and probability combine topredict gratifications we seek from the media,which then predict media consumption and grat-ifications obtained. As a result of those gratifica-tions obtained, we may revise our assessments ofboth what we want and the probability of obtain-ing it from various media sources (see Babrow &Swanson, 1988; Rayburn & Palmgreen, 1984;Swanson & Babrow, 1989, for discussion).

For example, if you participate in a fantasyfootball league, you might have a strong valuefor current information about what players havescored in Sunday National Football Leaguegames. If you expect that such information canbe gleaned from watching the halftime shows onnetwork television, you might seek to satisfy thatneed through exposure to those shows. However,upon tuning in, you might find that you get verylittle information about who has scored in thecurrent games and, instead, just hear ex-jocksbantering and demonstrating plays in the studio.As a result, you would likely adjust your assess-ment of your need for current information beingsatisfied through halftime shows and, instead,turn to alternative media that might better grat-ify your desires (e.g., logging on to the WorldWide Web or listening to a radio show that con-tinually updates scoring for current games).

Extensions and Critiques of the Usesand Gratifications Approach

The two questions discussed in the preceding sec-tions (i.e., about what gratifications are soughtand how media are used in the gratification


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 259

process) make up the bulk of uses and gratifica-tions research. However, Swanson (1992) pointsto some work that has looked at the precursors ofthe uses and gratifications approach by consider-ing psychological and social influences on gratifi-cation seeking. This work has considered howdisparate factors such as personality attributes(Conway & Rubin, 1991), psychological needs(Finn & Gorr, 1988), and social situation (Rubin& Rubin, 1982) might influence the develop-ment of particular gratifications sought throughthe media. For example, recent research (Sherry,2001) has suggested that individuals have verybasic differences in biologically rooted tempera-ment that might influence different motivationsfor using the media. In contrast, other researchershave tried to connect various uses and gratifica-tion patterns with the effects of exposure to themedia (e.g., Rubin & Perse, 1987).

These research efforts, though productive andinteresting, point to one of the critiques that hasbeen leveled against the uses and gratificationsframework: that uses and gratifications researchhas been quite fragmented and has not led to astatement of a coherent theory. As DeFleur(1998) argues about mass communication theoryin general, studies in uses and gratifications haveoften answered questions about individual piecesof the model, without taking the big picture intoaccount: “Mass communication research seldomfollows a programmatic approach, holding backthe pace of theoretical development” (p. 92).Thus, we know a lot about parts of the uses andgratifications framework (e.g., typologies of grat-ifications, mechanisms connecting gratificationsand exposure) but little about how well the over-arching framework fits together as an under-standing of individual media behavior.

The uses and gratifications model has alsobeen critiqued as being overly narrow in twosenses. First, Swanson (1992) notes that little at-tention has been paid to the processes throughwhich audience members interpret the textspresented by the media. It is assumed that indi-viduals have “latitude to interpret or decodemessages in ways that serve their desires to expe-rience particular gratifications” (p. 320). How-

ever, the specific interpretive processes at workare never specified, and uses and gratificationsbecomes a narrow cause-and-effect theory ratherthan a richer theory that encompasses processesof interpretation. (We will discuss some theoret-ical responses to this critique at the end of thechapter when we look briefly at reception ap-proaches to the mass media.) Second, uses andgratifications research has been critiqued as be-ing an overly individualistic theory. That is, inmoving from the strong effects paradigm of the1930s to a belief in the active audience, it can beargued that uses and gratifications theorists haveswung the pendulum too far and ignored cases inwhich the media do have strong impacts on au-diences. Uses and gratifications researchers oftenignore the larger context of media consumption(e.g., economic relationships and productionprocesses) in favor of an individualistic explana-tion of media exposure and effects. We willconsider responses to this critique in our consid-eration of media dependency theory in the nextsection of this chapter.

Before moving on to that theory, however, afinal area of expansion in the uses and gratifica-tions paradigm should be noted. As discussed ear-lier, the uses and gratifications approach had itsimpetus in studies of radio programming andgained momentum in the consideration of televi-sion. However, the most active area of researchin recent years has involved the consideration ofthe Internet and World Wide Web. Ruggiero(2000, p. 27) has argued that this is not surpris-ing, as “uses and gratifications has always pro-vided a cutting-edge theoretical approach in theinitial stages of each new mass communicationsmedium.” That is, as new media are developed,researchers work to understand the appeal of themedia and the ways in which audience membersuse the media to satisfy specific needs. This hasclearly been true in terms of considering Internettechnology. To provide just one example, a num-ber of researchers have looked at the use of theWeb in political communication and found thatindividuals seek and use online political informa-tion to satisfy a variety of individual needs (seeKaye & Johnson, 2002, Sadow & James, 2000).


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 260

MEDIA SYSTEMSDEPENDENCY THEORY

Media systems dependency theory (MSD) anduses and gratifications are often compared (orseen as nearly identical) in presentations of me-dia theories. Indeed, there has been an attemptto combine these two theories into a “uses anddependency model of mass communication”(Rubin & Windahl, 1986). However, the devel-opers of MSD, Sandra Ball-Rokeach and MelvinDeFleur, see their framework as distinct fromuses and gratifications; hence, it is treated hereas an independent theory. As we work our waythrough MSD, we highlight areas of comparisonwith uses and gratifications; but it is importantto remember, as Ball-Rokeach emphasizes in thetitle of an article comparing the two approaches,that these frameworks represent “different sto-ries, questions, and ways of thinking” (Ball-Rokeach, 1998, p. 5). These different stories,questions, and ways of thinking often moveMSD into a more macroscopic arena than othertheories considered in this chapter. Thus, MSDcould easily fit into our discussion of theories of

media and society in Chapter 15. However,MSD also places a strong emphasis on both indi-vidual characteristics and on interpersonal rela-tionships among individuals. Because of theseimportant components, and because of the tiesMSD has with uses and gratifications, we discussit here.

Media Systems Dependency Theory:The Basic Framework

MSD, first proposed by Ball-Rokeach and De-Fleur (1976), has at its heart a complex systemin which the media, individuals, their interper-sonal environment, and the social environmentare seen to have dependency relationships witheach other. This system of relationships is illus-trated in Figure 14.2.

Each of these system components is seen asdepending on the other components in the sys-tem by drawing on resources in order to satisfygoals. In the words of Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur(1976), dependency is “a relationship in whichthe satisfaction of needs or the attainmentof goals by one party is contingent upon the


MacroLevel

MesoLevel

MicroLevel

Individual Media System DependencyRelations

InterpersonalNetwork

IndividualCharacteristics

Structural LocationPersonal Goals

Social EnvironmentEconomic SystemPolitical System

Media System

Figure 14.2 A Model of Media Dependency Relationships. Source: Adapted

from Ball-Rokeach, 1985, p. 499.

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 261

resources of another party” (p. 6). For example, amedia organization might be dependent on apolitical structure (i.e., part of the political sys-tem and social environment) for permission tobroadcast. Or a manufacturing organization(part of the economic system and social environ-ment) might depend on media systems to adver-tise its products and enhance sales. Or anindividual might rely on the newspaper (part ofthe media system) or on rumors spread by friends(part of the interpersonal network) to provideinformation about what apartments are availablefor rent. These are examples of dependency rela-tionships, in that one portion of society relies onthe resources of another portion to reach goals.MSD divides these various system componentsinto three levels: the macro level of the socialenvironment and media systems, the micro levelof individuals with particular goals and positionswithin the social environment, and the mesolevel of interpersonal relationships.

In MSD, particular attention is given to theresources of media systems in modern society andthe consideration of the conditions which willincrease or decrease individuals’ reliance on me-dia systems. In a general sense, MSD theorists seemedia systems as taking on an increasingly im-portant role as industrialization and urbanizationhave decreased the influence of interpersonal so-cial networks. As Merskin (1999) explains, “Associety has become more urbanized and industri-alized, life has become less organized around tra-ditional social groups, such as the family and thechurch” (p. 78). In such a social setting, themedia control many informational resourcesthrough their capacity to create, process, and dis-seminate information to audiences on a nationalor even global scale. Because the media controlthese critical informational resources, individualsdevelop dependency relationships around theneed for understanding (of self and others), orien-tation (regarding action and interaction), andplay (in both solitary and social settings). AsLoges and Ball-Rokeach (1993) describe thisrelationship, “As individuals develop expecta-tions that the media system can provide assistancetoward the attainment of their goals, individuals

should develop dependency relations with themedia or medium they perceive to be the mosthelpful in pursuit of their goals” (p. 603).

This particular relationship (e.g., the depen-dency of the individual on media) might soundquite a bit like a uses and gratifications explana-tion. Indeed, when taken in isolation, clear sim-ilarities exist between the two approaches.However, MSD goes beyond this individual-media relationship to provide a more complexpicture of the dependency relationship betweenindividual needs and media use that includesboth microscopic and macroscopic influences ondependencies (Ball-Rokeach, 1985). The majorway this is done is through the consideration ofother dependencies that work within and be-tween the macro, meso, and micro levels. For ex-ample, the media depend on individuals in theaudience to provide feedback about program-ming. This feedback could occur in systematizedways during “sweeps week” or through instantonline polls of the audience. For example, theAmerican Idol programs relied on telephone au-dience votes to determine who would continueon in the competition. Further, the individualdecisions of audience members (a micro-level in-fluence) were undoubtedly influenced by the“buzz” created in interpersonal and electronicconversations (a meso-level influence) and bymedia coverage of the relative strengths andweaknesses of various contestants (a macro-levelinfluence). Thus, even in this limited example,there were a variety of dependency relationshipsinfluencing both the content of the media andthe reactions of individual audience members.

MSD also expands on the concept of depen-dency relationships by specifying antecedentconditions and consequences related to these re-lationships. First, the theory proposes that de-pendency on the media will increase duringtimes of conflict and change within society. De-Fleur and Ball-Rokeach (1982) believe that,during such times, there will be an enhancedneed for information and orientation and thatestablished social relationships will be insuffi-cient to provide such information. For example,Kellow and Steeves (1998) argue that during the


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 262

social and political upheaval that marked Rwan-dan society in 1994, the citizenry of that countrycame to depend on the radio coverage of a singleinfluential station. As a result, the messages ofthis station may have had a particularly markedeffect on the ensuing genocide in Rwanda. An-other clear example is provided by a considera-

tion of the events of September 11, 2001. Fol-lowing the terrorist attacks in New York City,Washington, D.C., and the aborted attack thatended in a field in Pennsylvania, individuals inthe United States (and indeed, all over theworld) felt an intense need for information andunderstanding. Individuals thus turned to the


S P O T L I G H T O N T H E T H E O R I S T

Sandra Ball-Rokeach

Sandra Ball-Rokeach re-ceived her Ph.D. in sociol-ogy from the University ofWashington in 1968. She iscurrently a professor at theUniversity of Southern Cal-ifornia, with a dual ap-pointment in sociologyand at the AnnenbergSchool for Communica-

tion. Ball-Rokeach’s work has been published in awide range of books and journal outlets, and her in-fluence on the discipline can also be seen in her re-cent editorship of Communication Research and in herreceipt of numerous research grants and contracts.One recent project, the “Metamorphosis Project,” isworking specifically to develop the tenets of mediasystems dependency theory and the related commu-nication infrastructure theory.

Ball-Rokeach traces the beginning of media sys-tems dependency theory to her education as an un-dergraduate and graduate student. She notes, “I wasthoroughly trained to believe that the media hadweak, if any, effects due to selective processes and tointerpersonal influences, both of which were sup-posed to operate as barriers or buffers against mediainfluences.” However, when Ball-Rokeach lookedaround at the tumultuous events of the late 1960s, itwas hard to believe in these limited effects. Her sub-sequent work set out to answer the question, “Underwhat conditions will the media have important ef-fects and why, and under what conditions will theynot have important effects and why?” She suspectedthat answering this question would involve a consid-eration of both institutional- and organizational-levelprocesses as well as interpersonal processes. She also

suspected that a key to this problem would be ex-ploring the specific relationships individuals havewith media. The subsequent development of mediadependency theory extended these initial hunchesthrough a theory that has “sensitized theorists and re-searchers to the need to conceive of media power orinfluence at multiple levels of analysis.” To a large ex-tent, Ball-Rokeach has been pleased with the recep-tion of her theory, though she acknowledges that it isoften difficult for scholars to break away from con-centrating on either the micro or macro level of analy-sis. As she says about some readings of her theory,“They think they can understand the theory in the oldway of talking about dependency as a personal char-acteristic, not as a relationship that varies in structure,intensity, and scope.”

Ball-Rokeach believes that “each of us is a theorist”and that a key for understanding theory is “to looknot only for how one theory is different from another,but also look for how they are alike.” By making thesecomparisons and by examining our own assump-tions, Ball-Rokeach believes that we can develop “theall-important willingness to ask questions that openus up to the experience of ambiguity.” She also ar-gues that scholars of communication must be pas-sionate about their work if they are to be successful.She stresses that “if you are not genuinely curiousabout what you are studying, don’t do it. This is a lifewhere you have to put yourself on the line in so manyways—to your students, your critics, and your col-leagues. If you do not have a basic love of the journey,the stress and experience of rejections will not beworth it.” Thus, scholars should “hang in there” andnot “defeat yourself by giving up on your curiosity,”for this curiosity is the sustenance of academic life.

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 263

media to cope with these needs, and the mediaresponded with constant and wide-rangingcoverage of the events (see Greenberg, 2002).However, there was also a reliance on local com-munities and friends and family in coping withthe terrorist attacks, indicating the complex na-ture of relationships among various levels of thedependency model.

MSD theorists believe that this theoreticalconsideration regarding contexts of dependencyis critical because it helps to deal with the debatebetween strong effects and limited effects mediatraditions. Recall that early considerations of me-dia effects saw the effects as strong ones thatcould be compared to a “magic bullet” or “hypo-dermic needle.” Subsequently, researchers revisedtheir view of the media to consider effects limitedby the needs and desires of the audience (uses andgratifications theory) or by the tenets of learningtheory (social cognitive theory). However, MSDtheory posits that the media will have strong orlimited effects depending on a variety of factorssuch as the social climate or specific events in thesocial environment. That is, in times of social orpolitical upheaval, or during crisis situations, in-dividuals may depend a great deal on the mediaand be affected by the media. During these times,a strong effects model would be supported. Duringmore stable historical periods, limited effectswould likely be observed (see, also, Hirschburg,Dillman, & Ball-Rokeach, 1986).

MSD also considers some of the consequencesof dependency relationships. For example, a de-pendency relationship might lead individuals toframe particular issues as important ones to con-sider. This process of agenda setting is covered inmuch more detail in Chapter 15. With regard toMSD, it is crucial to point out that this process,again, involves relationships among a variety ofsocietal organizations (e.g., media, government,commercial) and hence serves as a bridge be-tween micro-level media consumption andmacro-level power relationships among societalinstitutions and organizations. MSD also empha-sizes that dependency relationships go both waysand that media sources may adjust their contentbased on audience dependency relationships. Forexample, Ball-Rokeach et al. (1999) used these

ideas to develop and implement an interventionprogram aimed at changing radio traffic reportproduction policies such that aggressive drivingwas no longer encouraged. This indicates thatMSD has a role both in understanding and ex-plaining media relationships and in encouragingsocial action to change media policy and indi-vidual behavior.

Tests and Extensions of Media Systems Dependency Theory

Early applications of MSD have looked primarilyat audience-media dependencies. These applica-tions have included explanations for newspaperreadership (Loges & Ball-Rokeach, 1993), foraccess to relational advice in men’s and women’smagazines (Duran & Prusank, 1997), for paraso-cial interaction and dependencies on televisionshopping networks (Grant, Guthrie, & Ball-Rokeach, 1991; Skumanich & Kintsfather,1998), and for the development of personal ad-vertisements by U.S. daily newspapers (Merskin& Huberlie, 1996). Though these investigationsof micro-level dependencies are similar to stud-ies of uses and gratifications, most studies in adependency tradition also take macro-level rela-tionships into account. For example, Grant et al.(1991) examine the dependencies among mer-chandisers, program producers, television net-works, and local stations in explaining thedependencies that develop between audiencemembers and television shopping programs.Similarly, Merskin and Huberlie (1996), in ex-plaining dependencies regarding personal ads,look at both the readers’ relational needs and thenewspapers’ desires to enhance revenue, reader-ship, and customer service.

Theoretical developments in MSD have alsorevolved around the relationship between micro-level issues (e.g., individual use of the media) andmacro-level issues (e.g., relationships amongmedia organizations and other societal institu-tions). For instance, DeFleur and Dennis (1996)have tried to draw out these distinctions by split-ting the theory into two parts: media systemsdependency theory (macro) and media informa-tion dependency theory (micro). Ball-Rokeach


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 264

(1985) has taken on the task of laying out thesociological (i.e., macro) origins of media systemsdependency in order to bolster our understandingof how structural factors play into the develop-ment of dependency relationships. Further, Ball-Rokeach and her colleagues have begun thedevelopment of a new theory (communicationinfrastructure theory) that looks at the complexarray of individual, interpersonal, social, andpublic storytelling systems that vary from commu-nity to community (Ball-Rokeach, Kim, &Matei, 2001). They believe that an examinationof these storytelling systems will help explain thecomplexity of dependency relationships thatemerge in various situations and contexts.

COMPARISON AND COMMENTARY

The three theories we looked at in this chapterconsider the relationship between the individualand the media in terms of exposure and effects.These theories largely adhere to the post–positivist paradigm in proposing general andcausal explanations of communication phenom-ena and in testing theories through the accumu-lation of social scientific evidence, though thereare influences of critical theorizing, as well (e.g.,the social intervention research proposed inconnection with media systems dependency the-ory). Beyond these general comments, though,the theories differ substantially.

Social cognitive theory provides a very basiclook at processes through which social learningcan occur in media contexts. The theory high-lights the importance of imitative processes inconjunction with the observation of rewards andpunishments, identification with media models,and the development of self-efficacy with regardto modeled behavior. The theory has been usedboth to explain the effect of media presentationson audiences (e.g., the effect of violence) and toplan media campaigns for behavioral change(e.g., in health promotion campaigns).

Uses and gratifications research has played apivotal role in the investigation of the media, inthat it has provided an important explanatory

framework to enhance the limited effects re-search that replaced the magic bullet approachof the 1930s and 1940s. Specifically, this frame-work shifted the question from “Why don’t themedia have effects?” to “What do individuals dowith the media?” (Ball-Rokeach, 1998, p. 8).This question opened the floodgates for a hugeamount of research that served both to cataloguerelevant uses and gratifications and to explainthe process by which gratifications are obtainedthrough media exposure. However, research inthe uses and gratifications tradition was oftenfragmented and sometimes criticized as consist-ing of too many lists and not enough under-standing. Uses and gratifications theorists alsoemphasized the active audience to such an ex-tent that little attention was paid to the con-straints put on those audience members by largersocietal structures and processes.

In a sense, media systems dependency theorywas a response to some of these issues, though itwas certainly not proposed as a replacement.Loges and Ball-Rokeach (1993) explain thatuses and gratifications theory and media systemsdependency theory are similar in terms ofmetatheoretical commitments and in terms ofthe object of explanation (e.g., “both emphasizethe link between individual purposes and thelarge social apparatus of mass media” [Loges &Ball-Rokeach, 1993, p. 602]). However, theyalso differ in substantial ways. Loges and Ball-Rokeach highlight three of these differences:

■ Media systems dependency theory providesa more coherent system of theoretical con-cepts suitable for testing.

■ Media systems dependency theory weakensthe power of the active audience by pro-posing “the audience member’s relation tothe media as one of inherent subor-dination” (Loges & Ball-Rokeach, 1993,p. 603).

■ Media systems dependency theory can beapplied to dependency relationships at avariety of levels (e.g., group, organiza-tional, and societal), whereas uses andgratifications deals almost exclusively withthe individual-media relationship.


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 265

Thus, media systems dependency theory en-larges, codifies, and complicates some ideas thathave been explored in uses and gratifications re-search. As such, it is a theory of much widerscope and (possibly) much greater explanatorypower. However, this still is just a possibility, be-cause scholars have tested only small portions ofthe theory. Indeed, many of the tests have dealtwith the same individual-media relationships ex-amined in uses and gratifications research.Though some scholars have begun to investigatethe ways in which other dependency relation-ships play into the process, much more researchis necessary before media systems dependencytheory can be evaluated in terms of general ex-planatory power regarding both micro-level me-dia use, macro-level relationships among mediaand societal institutions, meso-level relation-ships involving social relationships, and thecomplex interplay among these three levels ofdependency factors.

Thus, the theories we considered in thischapter provide insightful understanding of howand why individuals use the media and are af-fected by the media. Challenges remain for thesetheories in several areas. First, one of thelargest challenges for these the-ories is to consider newercommunication mediathat now dominatemany hours of oureveryday lives. Considerthis: When the first studiesof uses and gratifications were be-ing undertaken, the family gathered around theradio every night to listen to favorite programs.In the years since, we have added the media oftelevision, cable television, theater multiplexes,and videotape. Without a doubt, though, thelargest change in media behavior is now beingwrought by computer technology and by wide-spread home access to the Internet and theWorld Wide Web. Will patterns of use and ef-fects regarding the Web follow the same patternas with television? Or is the Internet a wholenew ball of wax that must be considered withunique theories of media use and effects? Un-

doubtedly the answers to these questions will becomplex because “the entry of the Internet is nottabula rasa; rather, it occurs in context of the es-tablished media system” (Ball-Rokeach, 1998, p.31). As noted in this chapter, both uses and grat-ifications theory and media systems dependencytheory are responding to this need to understandthe influence of the Internet and World WideWeb on media use and media effects. It is clear,though, that the changing face of media accesspossibilities will lead to additional important de-velopments in our understanding of media expo-sure patterns and media effects.

A second key area for development of under-standing links between individuals and themedia involves a move away from the post–positivist roots of the theories considered in thischapter. Specifically, some scholars have sug-gested that it is critical to understand the com-plexities of the context in which individualsconsume media presentations, and that such anunderstanding can only be developed throughinterpretive research and the study of audiencemembers as they interact with both the mediaand with others in their social environments.

This approach, sometimes known as reception theory bringing

highlights the point that“the audience is active,bringing its own valuesand experiences to the

viewing of television . . .the emphasis on what the

audience does with media outputsets it in direct opposition to the mass society ap-proach” (Downing et al., p. 490).

In some ways, then, reception theory is simi-lar to uses and gratifications theory, but it is re-ally quite different because it has its roots inethnographic methods and in the intimate con-sideration of how the media are used in everydaylife (Ang, 1991; Moores, 1993, 2000). For exam-ple, a reception theorist would be interested notjust in an individual’s reports about why he likesto watch soap operas but also in the details ofwhen and where the soap operas are viewed(alone? with friends? videotaped for secret con-


“One ofthe largest challenges for

these theories is to consider newercommunication media that now

dominate many hours of oureveryday lives.”

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 266

sumption late at night?), feelings about theviewing of soap operas (pleasure? guilt? shame?),other media consumption about soap operas(magazines? online chat rooms?), and conversa-tions with others during and after the soap operaviewing. In other words, reception theorists be-lieve that much media research has oversimpli-fied the relationship between the audience andthe media, disembedding it from important con-texts and relationships. The goal of receptionresearchers, then, is to put the complexity backinto media studies by developing thick descrip-tions of media consumption based on interpre-tive and ethnographic research. To provide just afew examples, researchers have looked at reac-tions to Ally McBeal (Cohen & Ribak, 2003),the role of women in telenovelas (Acosta-Alzuru, 2003), and the “Whassup” Budweiserguys (Watts & Orbe, 2002) using a receptionframework. These and other studies point to afuture with more nuanced and interpretive con-siderations of how individuals react to mediawithin the context of specific cultures and per-sonal identities.

Key Terms

magic bullet effecthypodermic needle effectmass societystrong effects modellimited effects modelsocial learning theory

social cognitive theoryobservational learninginhibitory effectdisinhibitory effectoutcome expectationsoutcome expectanciesidentificationself-efficacyuses and gratifications theorygratifications soughtgratifications obtainedparasocial interactionexpectancy-value approachmedia systems dependency theory (MSD)dependency relationshipsmicro, macro, and meso levels of dependency

relationshipsreception theory

Discussion Questions

1. How did the way theorists think about theaudience change when mass communica-tion scholars moved from a magic bulletmodel to the theories presented in thischapter? Do you think models of strong orlimited effects are more accurate descriptorsof the influence of the mass media today?

2. Explain the popularity of home improve-ment shows (and entire home improvementnetworks), using concepts from uses andgratifications theory. What gratificationsare sought and obtained from this type of


I N T O Y O U R W O R L D

What are your own media habits? Our use of the media can be so habituated, that it might be difficult for youto answer that question. However, if you logged all your media contact time for a few days, noting what me-dia programming you’re consuming and in what situations, you might begin to develop an understanding ofthe patterns that shape your media consumption. When you look at your own habits, can you use the theoriesdescribed in this chapter to come to a better understanding of why you have the patterns of consumption thatyou do? What uses do various media and programs serve for you? Are they satisfying your needs? What influ-ence do media programs have on your attitudes, behaviors, or sense of self? How does the context in whichyou consume media programming influence these factors? Some of your answers to these questions mightsurprise you—and perhaps even shape your media consumption in the future.

mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 267

show? What are the effects of obtainingthese gratifications?

3. In Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone(2000), Putnam argues that television is aprime cause of the decreasing level of soci-etal involvement in clubs and organizations.As television has gained in popularity, thenumber of persons joining groups has fallen.How would media systems dependency the-ory account for this observation?

4. How does the move to an interpretiveframework proposed by reception theorychange the assumptions and methods ofmedia research? How could findings aboutmedia consumption be enriched by such aframework? Are there any shortcomingswith using ethnographic methods in thestudy of media consumption?


mil37947_ch14.qxd 5/11/2004 10:37 AM Page 268

14 Theories of Media Processing and...

Documents

Transcript of 14 Theories of Media Processing and...