Influence of mass media
Researchers examine an audience after media exposure for changes in cognition, belief systems, and attitudes, as well as emotional, physiological and behavioral effects.
The influences of mass media (or 'media effects') are observed in various aspects of human life, from voting behaviors[2] to perceptions of violence,[3][4] from evaluations of scientists[5] to our understanding of others' opinions.
During the early 20th century, developing mass media technologies, such as radio and film, were credited with an almost irresistible power to mold an audience's beliefs, cognition, and behaviors according to the communicators' will.
[17] The Payne Fund studies, conducted in the United States during this period, focused on the effect of media on young people.
Hovland et al. (1949) conducted a series of experimental studies to evaluate the effects of using films to indoctrinate American military recruits.
Instead, the pre-existing structure of social relationships and cultural contexts were believed to primarily shape or change people's opinions, attitudes, and behaviors, and media merely function within these established processes.
Meanwhile, researchers also realized that early investigations, relying heavily on psychological models, were narrowly focused on only short-term and immediate effects.
More attention was paid to collective cultural patterns, definitions of social reality, ideology, and institutional behavior.
[7] The first generation of CMC researches simply compared existing "text-only" internet content (e.g. emails) to face-to-face communication (Culnan & Markus,1987).
With the emergence of dynamic user-generated content on websites and social media platforms, research results are even more conducive to CMC studies.
For instance, Valkenburg & Peter (2009) developed the internet-enhanced self-disclosure hypothesis among adolescents, stating that social media platforms are primarily used to maintain real-life friendships among young people.
[36] This model is called preference-based reinforcement because the increasingly fragmented online news environment matches content with audiences based on their existing beliefs and preferences.
[40] Meanwhile, the behavioral component proposes that the perceptions of media impact on others will lead individuals to take action to protect the vulnerable others.
Both the intensity and amount of elapsed time from the moment of activation determine the strength and duration of the priming effect.
The rise of the motion picture industry, coupled with advances in social sciences, spurred the famous Payne Fund studies and others[who else?].
Cognitive effects include an increased belief of potential violence in the real world from watching violent media content leading to anxiety about personal safety.
Press coverage sends signals to audiences about the importance of mentioned issues, while framing the news induces the unsuspecting viewer into a particular response.
Additionally, news that is not given press coverage often dissipates, not only because it lacks a vehicle of mass communication, but also because individuals may not express their concerns for fear of being ostracized.
Presentation method—such as time of broadcast, extent of coverage and choice of news medium—can also frame the message; this can create, replace, or reinforce a certain viewpoint in an audience.
Entman (2007) describes framing as "the process of culling a few elements of perceived reality and assembling a narrative that highlights connections among them to promote a particular interpretation."
Not only does the media identify supposed "causes of problems," it can also "encourage moral judgments" and "promote favored policies.
"[7][53] One long-term implication of framing, if the media reports news with a consistent favorable slant, is that it can lend a helping hand to certain overarching institutions of thought and related entities.
[54] Some theorize this bias may reinforce the political parties that espouse these thought paradigms, although more empirical research is needed to substantiate these claims.
[53] Media outlets contend that gatekeeping, or news filtering that may result in agenda-setting and specific framing, is inevitable.
Still, audiences seek out quality content—whichever outlet can fulfill this need may acquire the limited attention span of the modern viewer.
[59] According to Lazarsfeld' s research in the 1940s, the mass media is not able to change strongly-held attitudes held by most people, as contrary to the popular beliefs.
The use of mass media simply reinforce these concepts without easily changing their opinion, or with negligible effects because well-informed people are heavily leaned on personal experience and prior knowledge.
This theory suggests that the mass media is able to establish dominance by reflecting the opinion of social elites, who also own and control it, described by sociologist Todd Gitlin as a kind of "importance, similar to the faulty concept of power".
After entering the 21st century, the rapid development of the Internet and Web 2.0 technology is greatly reforming media use patterns.
[79] Features distinct to social media, such as likes, retweets, and shares, can also build an ideological echo chamber with the same piece of real or fake news recirculating.
