history of media effects
Prior to diving into all of the effects the media is believed to have today, the history of perceived influence the media needs to be presented. Generally for the past century, it has held true that "a swing between the view that the media is all-powerful to the view that power rests with the audience" occurs about every decade (McCullagh, 151). Three noteworthy "swings" in the past century will be looked into on this site. In looking at the past century, extreme views of the effects of the media will provide a good spectrum for the modern-day views of the media's influence. Furthermore, it is through history that our current views and perceptions on many things (not just the media) are formed.
As early as the 1920s and 1930s, the audience of the media was believed to be weak and vulnerable to whatever the media presented. Some went as far as to say "that mass communication could become the basis for people's view of the world" (Perse, 3). This view of an omnipotent mass media was synonymous with "the theories of social change and mass society that were popular at the time." These theories included the fear that "rapid change was dislodging people from their social anchoring in stable, traditional, small-scale communities and reconstituting them in anonymous, urban crowds." As a result of all of this restructuring, connections to family and friends were feared to have been severed and as a result everybody was left to be extremely vulnerable to the media (McCullagh, 152). It was not research or studies that confirmed this view, but rather incidents at the time. The biggest and most notable one was probably the 1938 radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. Upon its broadcast, many listeners actually feared for their lives "based on H. G. Wells's account of the invasion of the world by the Martians" (McCullagh, 152). It ended up taking the studies of Paul Lazarfeld to refute this "hypodermic model of media power" (McCullagh, 152-153). Lazarfeld looked at the 1940 presidential election and showed that "political campaigns had only limited success in converting voters from one candidate to another." The results were so conclusive that another on Lazarfeld's staff then believed "that studying the media was no longer a worthwhile exercise and as a field of study it was dead" (McCullagh, 153). Now, it appeared no further research into media's effects were needed.
Following with the studies done by Lazarfeld, the next significant time period would concentrate on the media's relative weakness on influencing its audience. Theorists of this time would be referred to as "'uses and gratifications' theorists" (McCullagh, 153). They saw the media's audience as a group with certain "social and emotional needs" and it was through the media that these needs were met. These "needs" were divided into four kinds. The first was to get away from the demands of everyday life. In other words, relaxation. Second, people desired companionship and it was through certain character that the audience could relate to. Third, viewers wanted to find a personal identity for themselves such as how they compare to those they see or listen to via the media. Lastly, according to the 'uses and gratifications' theorists, was that the audience sought after news on what was happening around the world (McCullagh, 154). As with the theories rooted in the 1920s and 1930s, counter theories would end up persisting. In this case many did, but "the most fundamental criticism is that if the theory is valid then audience must be active in their choice of programmes, selecting the ones that will most adequatel gratify..." (McCullagh, 155). This requirement did not hold up though because typically the audience is "not selective in their choice of viewing." Rather, "people turn on the television and simply watch what everyone else is looking at" (McCullagh, 155). In others words, the typical audience member will be too selective in what they watch.
The notable shift prior to the current understanding of media effects began in the 1970s and 1980s. Known as the screen theory, it is difficult to fully encapsulate. Its roots can be traced to Althusser: "Drawing on the work of Jacques Lacan, he argues that human subjectivity is created by language, essentially because of the possibility that it offers to identify ourselves as individuals..." (McCullagh, 156). Althusser also hold that without things such as language, it is impossible for us to participate in society itself. Just as language forms individuals, so too does the media form its listeners. Furthermore, "just as language limits the range of what we can think and say, so too do television programmes or media texts limit the ways in which we can respond to them." In this way, "the media text imprisons the viewer in its structures" (McCullagh, 156). This theory (like the others) has been refuted as well. One of the main arguments against them is that the manner in which the media gives the message and the manner in which the audience receives it are not synonymous. Rather, the two need to be separated and studied separately (McCullagh, 157).
This now leads us to the modern-day understanding of the media's effects on its audience and ultimately society. As stated earlier, it is generally held today that the media does have some effect on society. Scholars generally agree that the media does "have some impact on various dimension of social life and structure." Furthermore, "metaanalysis, a statistical technique that combines the quantitative results of a body of research to examine effects and to estimate effect sizes, attest to the modest effects of media content..." (Perse, 6). Metaanlaysis indicates that "although media's impact is significant, it is not very substantial" (Perse, 7). Nevertheless, this method does confirm that there indeed "some relationship between media exposure and some effects" (Perse, 9-10).
This now leads us to the modern-day understanding of the media's effects on its audience and ultimately society. As stated earlier, it is generally held today that the media does have some effect on society. Scholars generally agree that the media does "have some impact on various dimension of social life and structure." Furthermore, "metaanalysis, a statistical technique that combines the quantitative results of a body of research to examine effects and to estimate effect sizes, attest to the modest effects of media content..." (Perse, 6). Metaanlaysis indicates that "although media's impact is significant, it is not very substantial" (Perse, 7). Nevertheless, this method does confirm that there indeed "some relationship between media exposure and some effects" (Perse, 9-10).