4 Communication Theories
4.1 Agenda Setting Theory
Agenda setting theory is a communication theory that examines the relationship between the media and public opinion. Agenda Setting Theory examines the influence of the media in determining the importance placed on various public issues. This theory posits that by focusing on specific topics, the media shapes the public’s perceptions of what is significant. The theory suggests that the media does not simply reflect public opinion, but rather shapes it by determining which issues are considered important. This is done by selecting and highlighting certain news stories over others, and by framing those stories in a particular way.
The theory was first proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their 1972 study of the 1968 US presidential election. They found that the media’s coverage of the election had a significant impact on the public’s perception of the relative importance of the issues. For example, the media focused heavily on the Vietnam War, which led to the public viewing this issue as more important than other issues, such as the economy.
Since then, agenda setting theory has been applied to a wide range of issues, including politics, social problems, and consumer products. The theory has been supported by a number of studies, but it is not without its critics. Some argue that the media does not have as much influence on public opinion as the theory suggests, and that other factors, such as personal experience and social interaction, are more important.
Despite these criticisms, agenda setting theory remains one of the most influential theories in mass communication. It has helped to explain how the media can shape public opinion, and it has implications for the way we think about the role of the media in society.
Levels of agenda setting
There are two levels of agenda setting:
First-level agenda setting: This level focuses on the media’s ability to influence the salience of issues. Salience refers to the importance or prominence that people attach to an issue. The media can influence salience by selecting and highlighting certain issues over others.
Second-level agenda setting: This level focuses on the media’s ability to influence the public’s perception of the attributes of an issue. This includes the causes, consequences, and solutions to the issue. The media can influence the public’s perception of these attributes by the way they frame the issue in their news coverage.
Factors affecting agenda setting
There are a number of factors that can affect agenda setting, including:
The media’s own agenda: The media has its own agenda, which is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the ownership of the media outlet, the political climate, and the economic interests of the media.
The public’s agenda: The public also has its own agenda, which is influenced by a variety of factors, such as personal experiences, social interaction, and the media.
The political system: The political system can also affect agenda setting by setting the agenda for public debate.
The newsworthiness of the issue: The newsworthiness of an issue is also a factor in agenda setting. Issues that are considered to be more newsworthy are more likely to be covered by the media.
Conclusion
Agenda setting theory is a complex and nuanced theory that has been the subject of much research and debate. However, it remains one of the most important theories in mass communication, and it has helped to explain how the media can shape public opinion.
References
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. doi:10.1086/267990
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An introduction to mass communication theory (pp. 125-149). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02823.x
Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2008). The contingent nature of agenda setting: How political parties affect the salience of issues in government agendas. Journal of Politics, 70(4), 1111-1134. doi:10.1017/S0022381608000363
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2010). Framing public opinion: How citizens react to elite communications. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 103-126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.13.042009.102515
4.2 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance describes the discomfort experienced when an individual holds contradictory beliefs or behaviors, prompting a drive to reduce the dissonance by changing attitudes or actions. This discomfort motivates the person to try to reduce the dissonance by changing one of the beliefs, changing their behavior, or finding a way to justify the inconsistency.
The theory of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957. Festinger argued that people have a need for consistency in their thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. When this consistency is threatened, people experience cognitive dissonance and are motivated to reduce it.
There are a number of ways that people can reduce cognitive dissonance. One way is to change one of the beliefs. For example, if a person believes that smoking is bad for their health, but they continue to smoke, they might start to believe that smoking is not as bad as they thought it was.
Another way to reduce cognitive dissonance is to change one’s behavior. For example, if a person believes that they should eat healthy, but they continue to eat unhealthy foods, they might start to eat healthier foods.
Finally, people can also reduce cognitive dissonance by finding a way to justify the inconsistency. For example, a smoker might justify their smoking by saying that they enjoy it and that it helps them to relax.
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful motivator of human behavior. It can lead people to change their beliefs, their behaviors, or their justifications for their behavior. It can also lead to a number of other consequences, such as anxiety, stress, and depression.
Here are some examples of cognitive dissonance:
A person who believes in saving money but spends all of their disposable income on unnecessary items.
A person who believes in being honest but cheats on their taxes.
A person who believes in eating healthy but eats junk food all the time.
A person who believes in animal rights but wears leather shoes.
These are just a few examples of how cognitive dissonance can manifest itself in our everyday lives. It is important to note that cognitive dissonance is not always negative. In some cases, it can motivate us to change our behavior for the better. For example, a person who experiences cognitive dissonance after smoking a cigarette might be more likely to quit smoking.
Cognitive dissonance is a complex phenomenon that has been studied by psychologists for many years. It is a powerful force that can have a significant impact on our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors.
References
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229-266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Harmon-Jones, E. (2002). Cognitive dissonance theory: Current status and controversies. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-57). New York, NY: Academic Presss
Stone, J., & Fernandez, G. (2016). Cognitive dissonance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 100-105. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.02.002
4.3 Cultivation Theory
Cultivation theory is a communication theory that examines the long-term effects of television viewing on viewers’ conceptions of social reality. The Cultivation Theory suggests that long-term exposure to media content shapes viewers’ perceptions of reality, aligning it more with the media’s portrayal than actual societal norms. The theory was developed by George Gerbner and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication in the 1960s.
Cultivation theory proposes that heavy television viewers come to see the world in a way that is consistent with the images and messages that they are repeatedly exposed to on television. This is because television is a powerful socializing agent that can shape our beliefs, attitudes, and values.
The theory has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that heavy television viewers are more likely to overestimate the likelihood of violence, crime, and danger in the world. They are also more likely to have a pessimistic view of human nature and to be fearful of strangers.
Cultivation theory has been criticized for being too simplistic and for failing to take into account other factors that can influence our perceptions of reality, such as personal experience and social interaction. However, the theory remains an important framework for understanding the effects of television on our lives.
Here are some of the key concepts of cultivation theory:
Symbolic environment: The world of television, as presented to viewers.
Cultivation effect: The process by which heavy television viewing leads to viewers’ perceptions of reality becoming more consistent with the images and messages presented on television.
Mainstreaming: The tendency for heavy television viewers to come to share similar perceptions of reality, regardless of their demographic characteristics.
Resonance: The process by which the cultivation effect is stronger for viewers who are already predisposed to believe the messages that are presented on television.
Cultivation theory has been applied to a wide range of topics, including violence, crime, fear, gender roles, and political attitudes. The theory has also been used to examine the effects of other media, such as the internet and video games.
Cultivation theory is a complex and nuanced theory that has been the subject of much research and debate. However, it remains one of the most important theories in mass communication, and it has helped to explain how television can shape our perceptions of reality.
References
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. Communication Research, 13(4), 373-398. doi:10.1177/009365086013004001
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Television and the cultivation of values: A 20-year assessment. Communication Research, 24(5), 367-399. doi:10.1177/009365097024005001
Shrum, L. J. (2004). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: A cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 41-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Potter, W. J. (2011). Media literacy (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.4 Elaboration Likelihood Model
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is a dual-process theory of persuasion that was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in 1980. ELM outlines two pathways of persuasion: the central route, which involves thoughtful consideration of the arguments, and the peripheral route, which relies on superficial cues
The central route is a high-effort route to persuasion that involves carefully considering the message and evaluating the arguments presented. This route is more likely to be used when people are motivated and have the ability to think critically about the message.
The peripheral route is a low-effort route to persuasion that involves relying on superficial cues, such as the source of the message or the way it is presented. This route is more likely to be used when people are not motivated or do not have the ability to think critically about the message.
The ELM suggests that the effectiveness of a persuasive message depends on the route that is used. Messages that are processed through the central route are more likely to lead to lasting attitude change, while messages that are processed through the peripheral route are more likely to lead to temporary attitude change.
The ELM has been supported by a number of studies, and it has been used to explain a wide range of persuasion phenomena, such as the effects of advertising, political campaigns, and social movements.
Here are some of the key concepts of the ELM:
Elaboration: The amount of cognitive effort that is put into processing a message.
Motivation: The desire to process a message in a thoughtful and unbiased way.
Ability: The ability to process a message in a thoughtful and unbiased way.
Peripheral cues: Superficial cues that are used to evaluate a message, such as the source of the message or the way it is presented.
Central route to persuasion: A high-effort route to persuasion that involves carefully considering the message and evaluating the arguments presented.
Peripheral route to persuasion: A low-effort route to persuasion that involves relying on superficial cues, such as the source of the message or the way it is presented.
The ELM is a complex and nuanced theory that has been the subject of much research and debate. However, it remains one of the most important theories in persuasion research, and it has helped to explain how people are persuaded by messages.
References
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitude change: Classic and contemporary approaches. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic processing of persuasive messages: Evidence of two routes to persuasion. _In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 212-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.5 Framing Theory
Framing theory is a communication theory that examines how the way an issue is presented can affect how people understand and respond to it. The theory was first proposed by Erving Goffman in 1974, and it has been used to explain a wide range of phenomena, such as the effects of news coverage on public opinion, the impact of advertising on consumer behavior, and the role of social movements in shaping public discourse.
Framing theory suggests that the way an issue is presented can shape how people think about it by influencing the following:
The salience of the issue: The extent to which the issue is noticed and remembered.
The definition of the issue: The way the issue is understood and interpreted.
The causal attributions: The reasons that are given for the issue.
The moral implications: The ethical or moral dimensions of the issue.
The emotional response: The feelings that are evoked by the issue.
Framing theory has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that the way an issue is framed can have a significant impact on how people think about it and respond to it. For example, studies have shown that the way news stories about crime are framed can affect people’s fear of crime, and the way advertising is framed can affect people’s purchase decisions.
Framing theory is a complex and nuanced theory that has been the subject of much research and debate. However, it remains an important framework for understanding how the way we communicate about issues can shape how people think about them.
Here are some of the key concepts of framing theory:
Frame: A way of presenting an issue that highlights certain aspects of the issue and obscures others.
Framing effects: The ways in which the way an issue is framed can affect how people think about it and respond to it.
Framing bias: The tendency for people to be more persuaded by messages that are framed in a way that is consistent with their existing beliefs and attitudes.
Framing strategies: The techniques that are used to frame issues, such as the use of language, images, and metaphors.
Framing theory has been applied to a wide range of topics, including politics, health, the environment, and social justice. The theory has also been used to examine the effects of different media, such as news, advertising, and social media.
Framing theory is a powerful tool for understanding how the way we communicate about issues can shape how people think about them. By understanding how framing works, we can be more mindful of the ways in which our own communication can influence others.
References
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02823.x
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2010). Framing public opinion: How citizens react to elite communications. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 103-126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.13.042009.102515
4.6 Gatekeeping Theory
Gatekeeping theory is a communication theory that examines how decisions are made about what news stories get covered and how they are presented. The theory was first proposed by Kurt Lewin in 1947, and it has been used to explain a wide range of phenomena, such as the effects of news coverage on public opinion, the impact of media bias, and the role of journalists in shaping public discourse.
Gatekeeping theory suggests that there are a number of factors that can influence the news selection process, including:
The gatekeepers: The people who make decisions about what news stories get covered and how they are presented.
The news values: The criteria that are used to determine which news stories are newsworthy.
The media environment: The economic, political, and social factors that shape the media.
The audience: The people who consume news.
Gatekeeping theory has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that the news selection process is often influenced by the gatekeepers’ personal biases, the news values of the media organization, and the political and economic climate.
For example, studies have shown that journalists are more likely to cover stories that are consistent with their own political beliefs, and that news organizations are more likely to cover stories that are seen as being in the public interest or that are likely to attract a large audience.
Gatekeeping theory is a complex and nuanced theory that has been the subject of much research and debate. However, it remains an important framework for understanding how decisions are made about what news stories get covered and how they are presented.
Here are some of the key concepts of gatekeeping theory:
Gatekeeper: A person who makes decisions about what news stories get covered and how they are presented.
News values: The criteria that are used to determine which news stories are newsworthy.
Media environment: The economic, political, and social factors that shape the media.
Audience: The people who consume news.
Personal bias: The personal beliefs and opinions of the gatekeeper.
News organization: The media outlet where the gatekeeper works.
Public interest: The perceived benefit to the public of covering a particular news story.
Large audience: The perceived potential for a news story to attract a large number of viewers or readers.
Gatekeeping theory has been applied to a wide range of topics, including politics, health, the environment, and social justice. The theory has also been used to examine the effects of different media, such as news, advertising, and social media.
Gatekeeping theory is a powerful tool for understanding how decisions are made about what news stories get covered and how they are presented. By understanding how gatekeeping works, we can be more mindful of the ways in which our own news consumption can be influenced.
References
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(2), 5-41. doi:10.1177/001872674700100201
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: Free Press.
4.7 Hyperpersonal Model
The hyperpersonal model is a communication theory that examines how computer-mediated communication (CMC) can create more personal and intimate relationships than traditional face-to-face (FtF) communication. The theory was proposed by Joseph Walther in 1992, and it has been used to explain a wide range of phenomena, such as the development of online relationships, the impact of CMC on social interaction, and the role of CMC in shaping our self-presentation.
The hyperpersonal model suggests that CMC can create more personal and intimate relationships than FtF communication because it offers a number of advantages, including:
Attribution ambiguity: The sender’s physical appearance and nonverbal cues are not available in CMC, which allows the receiver to fill in the gaps with their own interpretations.
Control over self-presentation: CMC allows users to control their self-presentation more than FtF communication, which can lead to more favorable impressions.
Attribution confidence: CMC users are more likely to believe that they have accurate information about the other person, which can lead to more trust and intimacy.
Interactivity: CMC is more interactive than traditional mass media, which allows for more communication and feedback between the sender and receiver.
The hyperpersonal model has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that CMC users often report feeling more connected and intimate with their online partners than they do with their FtF partners. For example, one study found that CMC users were more likely to disclose personal information to their online partners than they were to their FtF partners.
However, the hyperpersonal model has also been criticized for being too simplistic and for failing to take into account the role of other factors, such as the individual’s personality and the relationship context. Nevertheless, the hyperpersonal model remains an important framework for understanding how CMC can create more personal and intimate relationships than traditional FtF communication.
Here are some of the key concepts of the hyperpersonal model:
Attribution ambiguity: The lack of physical cues in CMC can lead to ambiguity about the sender’s intentions and personality.
Control over self-presentation: CMC allows users to control how they are perceived by others.
Attribution confidence: CMC users are more likely to believe that they have accurate information about the other person.
Interactivity: CMC allows for more communication and feedback between the sender and receiver.
Hyperpersonal communication: Communication that is more personal and intimate than traditional face-to-face communication.
The hyperpersonal model has been applied to a wide range of topics, including online dating, online gaming, and social media. The theory has also been used to examine the effects of different CMC technologies, such as email, instant messaging, and social networking sites.
The hyperpersonal model is a powerful tool for understanding how CMC can create more personal and intimate relationships than traditional FtF communication. By understanding how the hyperpersonal model works, we can be more mindful of the ways in which our own CMC interactions can be shaped.
References
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and the self. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2637-2653. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.014
4.8 Knowledge Gap Hypothesis
The knowledge gap hypothesis (KGH) is a communication theory that predicts that the gap in knowledge between the informed and the uninformed will widen over time, rather than close, as a result of mass communication. The theory was first proposed by Philip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue, and Clarice N. Olien in 1970, and it has been used to explain a wide range of phenomena, such as the effects of news coverage on public opinion, the impact of educational campaigns, and the role of the media in shaping social inequality.
The KGH suggests that the gap in knowledge between the informed and the uninformed will widen over time because of the following factors:
Differential access to information: People with higher socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to have access to information, such as through education, the media, and social networks.
Differential motivation to learn: People with higher SES are more likely to be motivated to learn about new information, such as because they are more likely to be involved in civic activities or to have a need for the information.
Differential ability to understand information: People with higher SES are more likely to be able to understand and retain new information, such as because they have more cognitive resources or because they are more familiar with the language and concepts used in the information.
The KGH has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that the gap in knowledge between the informed and the uninformed does indeed widen over time. For example, one study found that the gap in knowledge about climate change between people with high and low levels of education widened over a period of 15 years.
However, the KGH has also been criticized for being too simplistic and for failing to take into account the role of other factors, such as the individual’s motivation and the nature of the information. Nevertheless, the KGH remains an important framework for understanding how mass communication can contribute to social inequality.
Here are some of the key concepts of the knowledge gap hypothesis:
Knowledge gap: The difference in knowledge between the informed and the uninformed.
Mass communication: The process of sending messages to a large audience through the media.
Socioeconomic status (SES): A measure of a person’s social and economic position, such as their income, education, and occupation.
Differential access to information: The unequal distribution of information among different groups of people.
Differential motivation to learn: The different levels of motivation that people have to learn new information.
Differential ability to understand information: The different levels of ability that people have to understand and retain new information.
The KGH has been applied to a wide range of topics, such as public health, education, and politics. The theory has also been used to examine the effects of different media, such as news, advertising, and social media.
The KGH is a powerful tool for understanding how mass communication can contribute to social inequality. By understanding how the KGH works, we can be more mindful of the ways in which our own communication can help to widen or narrow the knowledge gap.
References
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170. doi:10.1086/267856
Viswanath, K., & Finnegan, J. R. (1996). The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later. Communication Research, 23(5), 559-587. doi:10.1177/009365096023005003
Weimann, G. (1994). The influentials: People who influence people. New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.
4.9 Online Disinhibition Effect
The online disinhibition effect (ODE) is a phenomenon that occurs when people are more likely to say or do things online that they would not say or do in person. The ODE can be attributed to a number of factors, including:
Anonymity: When people are anonymous, they are less likely to feel inhibited by social conventions or norms.
Immediacy: Online communication is often more immediate than face-to-face communication, which can lead to people saying things without thinking them through.
Absence of cues: Online communication lacks many of the social cues that are present in face-to-face communication, such as body language and tone of voice. This can make it difficult to interpret messages and can lead to misunderstandings.
Disinhibition: The ODE can also be attributed to a personality trait known as disinhibition, which is the tendency to act without thinking about the consequences.
The ODE can have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it can allow people to be more honest and open than they would be in person. This can be beneficial for communication and relationships. On the other hand, the ODE can also lead to cyberbullying, trolling, and other forms of online harassment.
Here are some of the key concepts of the online disinhibition effect:
Anonymity: The state of being unknown or unidentifiable.
Immediacy: The quality of being happening or occurring at the same time.
Absence of cues: The lack of social cues, such as body language and tone of voice, in online communication.
Disinhibition: The tendency to act without thinking about the consequences.
Online disinhibition effect (ODE): The phenomenon that occurs when people are more likely to say or do things online that they would not say or do in person.
The ODE has been studied by psychologists and communication scholars for many years. There is still much that we do not know about the ODE, but it is a phenomenon that is important to understand in order to use online communication safely and effectively.
Here are some of the ways to mitigate the negative effects of the ODE:
Be aware of the ODE: The first step to mitigating the negative effects of the ODE is to be aware of it. Once you are aware of the ODE, you can start to think about how it might be affecting your online behavior.
Be mindful of your audience: When you are communicating online, it is important to be mindful of your audience. Remember that the people you are communicating with may not be who they say they are.
Think before you post: Before you post anything online, take a moment to think about what you are saying and how it might be interpreted.
Use appropriate language: Be mindful of the language you use online. Avoid using language that could be offensive or hurtful.
Be respectful: Always be respectful of others, even if you disagree with them.
The ODE is a complex phenomenon, but by being aware of it and taking steps to mitigate its negative effects, we can use online communication safely and effectively.
References
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and privacy concerns. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177-192. doi:10.1002/ejsp.141
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The social psychology of computer-mediated communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 669-703. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.669
Tanis, M. (2008). Online disinhibition: Implications for understanding computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2253-2260. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.007
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). In-group affiliation and computer-mediated communication: Group versus individual identity salience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1095-1105. doi:10.1177/01461672982410006
4.16 Uses and Gratification Theory
Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) is a media effects theory that explains why people use media. The theory was developed in the 1940s by Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch, and it has been revised and updated over time.
UGT is based on the following assumptions:
People are active users of media.
They use media to fulfill their needs and wants.
The needs and wants that people seek to fulfill through media use vary from person to person.
The media environment offers a variety of options for fulfilling these needs and wants.
UGT has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that people do indeed use media to fulfill their needs and wants. For example, studies have found that people use media to escape from reality, to learn new things, and to connect with others.
UGT has been applied to a wide range of topics, such as media effects, media use, and media literacy. For example, UGT can be used to explain why people watch violent television shows, why people use social media, and why people are more likely to believe fake news.
UGT is a powerful tool for understanding why people use media. By understanding the principles of UGT, we can better understand the effects of media on people and how people can use media to their advantage.
Here are some of the key concepts of uses and gratifications theory:
Needs: The psychological and social needs that people seek to fulfill through media use.
Wants: The specific things that people hope to achieve through media use.
Media: The different types of media that people can use to fulfill their needs and wants.
Uses: The ways in which people use media to fulfill their needs and wants.
Gratifications: The benefits that people receive from using media.
Here are some of the key citations in APA 7th for uses and gratifications theory:
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. doi:10.1086/268567
Rubin, A. M. (1984). Uses of the mass media: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosengren, K. E., Wenner, L. A., & Palmgreen, P. (1985). Uses and gratifications research: The past and present. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bryant, J., & Oliver, M. B. (2009). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The uses and gratifications of social media: A review of the literature. The Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 296-316. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.755821
4.11 Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory is a psychological theory that explains how people learn new behaviors by observing and modeling the behaviors of others. The theory was developed by Albert Bandura in the 1960s, and it has been used to explain a wide range of phenomena, such as the development of aggression, the acquisition of prosocial behaviors, and the impact of media on behavior.
Social learning theory is based on the following assumptions:
People learn by observing and modeling the behaviors of others. This is known as observational learning.
The learning process is influenced by a number of factors, including attention, retention, reproduction, and reinforcement.
People are more likely to learn behaviors that are rewarded or reinforced.
People are also more likely to learn behaviors that are performed by people they admire or respect.
Social learning theory has been supported by a number of studies, which have found that people are more likely to imitate the behaviors of others when they are paying attention to those behaviors, when they can remember those behaviors, and when they are rewarded for imitating those behaviors.
Social learning theory has been applied to a wide range of topics, such as aggression, prosocial behavior, and the impact of media on behavior. For example, studies have found that children who are exposed to violence in the media are more likely to behave aggressively themselves. This is because they are learning that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflict.
Social learning theory is a powerful tool for understanding how people learn new behaviors. By understanding the principles of social learning theory, we can better understand how to promote positive behaviors and prevent negative behaviors.
Here are some of the key concepts of social learning theory:
Observational learning: The process of learning new behaviors by observing and modeling the behaviors of others.
Attention: The process of paying attention to the behaviors of others.
Retention: The process of remembering the behaviors of others.
Reproduction: The process of imitating the behaviors of others.
Reinforcement: A consequence that increases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated.
Here are some of the key citations in APA 7th for social learning theory:
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2006). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.