Strong Effects Model

(SEM)

• Rejected by people, ppl resistant
• Suggests that we are vulnerable,dumb, and that media will influence audience all the same
• Suggests that media has more influence than our friends and family.--couldn't be backed up with research.

Limited Effects Model

(LEM)

• Media effects are weak
• Not a mass audience(Not vulnerable)
• Media effects not stronger than friends/family
• Resistant most of the time to media's effects.

Social Cognitive Theory

(SCT)

• Learning by observing

Inhibitory effects

(SCT)

• Happen when we see a model engaging in a behavior with a bad outcome.

EX-CSI Miami-Bad guy essentially losing and going to jail

Disinhibitory Effects

(SCT)

• When we see a model engaging in a behavior that is rewarded.
• EX-CSI Miami-Team succeeding at taking down bad guy
• More likely to model Disinhibitory

Outcome Expectations

(SCT)

• Our guess about whats likely to happen in a given situation

Outcome Expectancies

(SCT)

• Evaluation of what I think is going to happen.
• "Is it good or bad?"

Moderating Factors

(SCT)

(Volume Knob)

Identification-How you perceive the characters you are observing.(If we think we are similar or want to be similar to a character,we are more likely to model their behavior) "BE LIKE MIKE GATORADE COMMERCIAL"

Self Efficacy-Ability/degree to perform observed behaviors.(If we feel we are able to engage in behavior, we are more likely to closely model behavior)

Historical Influences on Media Theory

(HIMT)

Aggression

(HIMT)

effect of exposure to violent content (Over-hostility)

Violent Content

(HIMT)

About 60% of tv shows contain at least one violent act(5 acts of violence per hour)

*Watching violent content causes increases in aggressive behavior

EX-BOBO Doll Case

Catharsis Effect

(HIMT)

Idea that by consuming violent content, you purge your aggression

--not true, doesn't really work

---if catharsis were true, all violent content would allow us to release our aggression

Moderating Factors

(HIMT)

• the way violence is presented: (Is it punished? Negative consequences?)
• Are there realistic pain and harm cues?--Violent content that has these characteristics can reverse/reduce the effect of consuming violent content on aggressive behavior

Prosocial Content

(PC)

• Strong learning method
• Isn't limited to kids, but most studies have focused on kids

Cognitive Learning

(PC)

• learning numbers,how to read, language (School Skills)
• Sasame Street

Emotional Learning

(PC)

• Empathy,sharing,being thankful
• MR Rogers Neighborhood
• **Stronger than negative ffects
• **Heavy television viewing=low scores on prosocial attitudes and actions

Moderating Factors

(PC)

• Adult Involvement-Intensifies prosocial learning--Adults help kids understand what they're watching and learning
• Prosocial Content=GOOD

Cultivation Theory

(CT)

• Only applies to television(Limited Scope)
• Theory of television consumption
• **TV watching shapes our view of the world
• ---Television effects are long-term,gradual, subtle

Heavy TV Viewers

(CT)

• 4 hours of tv per day
• principle source of media content
• less selective(Will watch tv ritualistically)

Light Tv Viewers

(CT)

• Less than one hour per day
• Consume from variety of sources

4 Key Attributes in Research

(CT)

1. Heavy Tv viewers over estimate their chances of being involved in violence(Heavy 1-10, Light 1-100)
2. Fear of walking alone at night(Heavy 10X more fearful)
3. Overestimation of Police Activity(5X more)
4. General mistrust of people

• cant prove consumption of tv leads to person becoming more fearful.
• Responses:1)any effect, no matter how small,is still important. 2) Even if effect is small, it's still significant b/c of large scale.

Mainstreaming

(CT)

• television viewing seems to homogenize people

Resonance

(CT)

• If you have a real life experience that fits television , then that will validate that experience

Agenda Setting

(AS)

• How news media influences us and what we think is important
• ---Media doesn't tell us what to think, But it tells us what to think about

Media Agenda

(AS)

• set of topics addressed by news sources
• Assumption: What is reported is what media thinks is important.

Public Agenda

(MS)

• set of issues that public thinks are important

Policy Agenda

(AS)

• Issues that policy makers think are important

Agenda Setting Hypothesis

(AS)

• Media Agenda ---Causes--- Public Agenda

Correlation Designs

(1 of 3 Agenda Setting Research Designs)

Amount of Media Coverage (Media Agenda)

Correlated With:

Perceived Issue of Importance(Public Agenda)

Cross Lagged Correlation

(2 of 3 Agenda Setting Research Designs)

-Involves time order

-Association and time order for Causation

   Time 1                                                                 Time 2

Amount of media(MA)  - 1                                    2  Amount of media(MA)

Perceived Issue Importance (PA) 2              1  Perceived Issue Importance(PA)

Experiments

(3 of 3 Agenda Setting Research Designs)

Allow us to Establish:

1)Association

2)Time-Order

3)Control

1)Agenda Setting does occur

--Strength of Agenda setting effect is related to amount of exposure

--Medium of exposure matters

**Newspaper exposure has a stronger agenda setting than TV

Spiral of Silence Theory

(SST)

Scope condition- Wants to explain how groups as a whole(society) form opinions.

--limits analysis to moral issues

Fear of Isolation

(SST)

As individuals, we have a basic need for company/community

--Because of this,we're afraid of being isolated/shunned

Quasi-Statistical Sense

(SST)

we're able to guess about the public opinion on any particular issue

Willingness to Speak

(SST)

shaped by/contingent of what people's opinions are around us

1)Over time, more marginal ideas will be silenced because of being afraid of rejection/opposition

2)The build up up not sharing opinions eventually results in mass public opinion.

3)More Marginal Idea=More likely to be silenced

Multi-Level Process

(SST)

Can happen on multiple levels:

psychological level-fear of isolation/quasi statistical sense

Interpersonal level-Willingness to speak or not

Societal Level-Spiral of Silence

Evidence in SST

1)People do indeed make assessments on public opinion

2)People's assesments are accurate

3)Media influences these assesments

4)The relationship between  perceptions of public opinion and willingness to speak out is weak

Issue attachment-for some moral issues, people are going to speak out no matter what (abortion)

Education and Affluence-can limit spiral of silence processes(Educated more willing to articulate ideas)

Referent Group-instead of thinking of society as a whole, we may think of our closer related groups first(Church,Family)

Theories view of audience sees us as relatively weak unless rich or well-educated

(Evidence Disagrees)

Toulmins Model of Arguments

(TMA)

--Focused on reason giving

--How well justified is an argument?

--model for drawing our attention to the underlying structure of arguments

Argument

(TMA)

1) "They had an argument" (over-disagreement)

2)"He made an argument" (Claim and its support)

3 Characteristics of Arguments

(TMA)

Justification-Theory might be correct,but justification may be weak

Correctness-May be incorrect with good claim/justification

Persuasiveness-argument may be persuasive even if its wrong

--good arguments aren't necessarily persuasive

--easier to justify arguments that are correct

Argument Form

(TMA)

Grounds------------------------------------------Claim

                               ^         

                           Warrant

Grounds

(TMA)

Specific information relied on to support the claim(Evidence)

--Every claim needs evidence

Warrant

(TMA)

General statement that justifies using the grounds as a basis for the claim(Why is this appropriate evidence?)

--Implicit

Claim

(TMA)

assertion advanced for the acceptance of the audience(Conclusion Point)

Backing

(TMA)

Any grounds or any warrant may be claims themselves

Qualifier

(TMA)

Indicates strength of a claim

(most likely, probably, will definitely)

Argument Chains

(TMA)

idea that no claim/argument stands alone. (Always evidence for the warrant)

Rebuttal

(TMA)

Identifies possible exceptions to claim

--(UNLESS)

--Grounds doesn't always guarantee claim

Argument Prototypes

(TMA)

Classification

1 of 6

Works by using a characteristic of a class

EX-John is Pre-law, so he must be a hard worker

Argument Prototypes

(TMA)

Generalization

2 of 6

Making argument from small to larger set

EX-surveyed 1000 people, results must be true of whole nation

Argument Prototypes

(TMA)

Cause to Effect

3 of 6

involves reasoning from a known cause to hypothesized effect

I had a great interview>>>>>I'm getting the job

Argument Prototypes

(TMA)

Effect to Cause

4 of 6

Reasoning from a known effect to a hypothesized cause

The grass is wet>>>It must have rained yesterday

Argument Prototypes

(TMA)

Analogy

5 of 6

involves arguing from one case to another similar case

Argument Prototypes

(TMA)

Authority

6 of 6

involves making an argument by evoking a trusted information source

Dr says I should take meds>>>I need meds for this headache

Standards of Justification

(TMA)

Acceptability-the elements offered must themselves be acceptable on their own

Relevance-Are elements relevant to one another?

Sufficiency-Concerns argument as a whole.(Is there enough total evidence?)

Theories of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior

Tries to explain why we do things/ what influences us to act.