邢唷> 欹'` 鳵'bjbj"9"92@S@S叐 ###8#$ EDb$$$$$%d `/<2CCCCCCChH:C&:%%&:&:C$$4C0@0@0@&:@$$C0@&:C0@0@0@$$ 疦俁E#f=D0@癆TD0ED0@IH?.IH0@IH0@<45&0@67<<4<4<4CC?X<4<4<4ED&:&:&:&:   #   #    Unit 12 Communication effects analysis Warm up What are your favorite media? Why are those your favorites? 晻What are your favorite types of messages (news, action/adventure movies, situation comedies, games, vampire stories, romances, reality competitions, sports, or others)? Why are these your favorites? 晻How much time do you spend with all the media on an average week? Introduction For many years empirical research in communication was almost synonymous with the media effects paradigm, the media effects paradigm was concerned not with larger media structures but with the effects of particular messages on individual attitudes and beliefs. 揷omparing media systems three models of media and politics by Daniel C. Hallin Paolo Mancini The media always takes on the form and coloration of the social and political structures within the social and political structures, media operates, especially, it reflects the system of social control What is effect? Defining Media Effects Most people accept the idea that the media can influence people. But the degree of that influence, as well as who is most-impacted, when, how and why, have been the subjects of great debate among communication scholars for nearly a century. Media effects refers to the many ways individuals and society may be influenced by both news and entertainment mass media, including film, television, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, websites, video games, and music. Media effects have been studied by scholars in communication, psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, and education, among other fields. Many early communication models designed to explain the process of message dissemination were simple, one-way, and linear (Shannon & Weaver, 1949), positioning the medium or message as the cause and the behavioral, emotional, or psychological response as the effect (Bryant & Thompson, 2002, pp. 45). Modern conceptualizations, however, typically illustrate a two-way process that is more transactional or interactive in nature, in which the message or the medium affects the recipient(s), but the audience, in turn, influences and shapes the sender(s). Why study media effect? 1 Media Message Saturation Our culture is saturated with information. And much of that information comes to us through a flood of messages from the media. With personal computers, we have access to even more information than ever when we connect to the Internet. Number of media vehiclesMedium United States World Book (titles per year)175,000968,735Radio station13,26147,776Tv broadcast stations1,88433,071Newspapers 2,38622,643Mass market periodicals20,00080,000Scholarly journal10,50040,000Newsletters 10,00040,000Archived office pages3x1097.5x109Source : adapted from Potter 2011, Source: ﹊Stockphoto.com/fotosipsakAccording to http://worldwidewebsize.com/The Indexed Web contains at least 8.66 billion pages (Saturday, 15 December, 2012) 1.1High Degree of Exposure We love our media, as evidenced by how much time we spend with them. A recent comprehensive study of media use found that by the end of 2010, the average American was spending 11 hours with the media each and every day梐nd this figure continues to grow (Phillips, 2010). Of this total time, television and video (not including online video) accounted for about 40% while Internet and mobile accounted for an additional 31%. The increase in media use is driven by younger people who are shifting away from traditional media (such as newspapers, magazines, and books that use print on paper) and toward electronic forms of media. A report generated by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2005 characterized your generation (people 8 to 18 years old) as the 揗 Generation for your focus so strongly on media use. This report found that children and adolescents were spending 49 minutes per day with video games and another 62 minutes with the computer. Furthermore, most of your generation frequently multitasks by exposing yourselves to several media at a time (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005). Also, computer use is especially high among college students. In the United States there are now 17.4 million college students, and more than half of you arrive on campus as freshmen with laptop computers. The typical college student has been found to spend more than 3.5 hours a day on the computer e-mailing, instant messaging, and Web surfing. And you likely spend an additional 7.5 hours every day engaged with other media, such as books, magazines, recordings, radio, film, and television (Siebert, 2006) It is clear that the media are an extremely important part of everyone抯 lives, especially people in your generation. The media organizations themselves realize this and continue to provide more and more messages in a wider range of channels with each new year. 1.2Accelerating Production of Information Not only is information easily available to almost anyone today, but information also keeps getting produced at an ever-increasing rate. How much information is produced each year? In 2002, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley conducted a huge project that resulted in the estimate that in that single year, 2002, there were 5 exabytes of information produced worldwide (Lyman & Varian, 2003). This means that the amount of information produced in 2002 was 500,000 times the amount of all the holdings in the Library of Congress. As if that is not scary enough, Lyman and Varian estimated that the rate of growth of information increases at 30% each year. However, Lyman and Varian were wrong梩hey greatly underestimated the amount of information produced. Infoniac.com (2008, March 13) estimated that in 2007, there were 281 exabytes of information produced in that one year. The biggest drivers of this accelerating increase in information are the growing popularity of social networking and digital television and cameras that are not only used by hobbyists by in surveillance of public places. 1.3 Impossible to Keep Up There is now so much information already in our culture that it is impossible to keep up with all of it. For example: In the early 1300s, the Sorbonne Library in Paris contained only 1,338 books and yet was thought to be the largest library in Europe. Only elites had access to those books. Today, there are many libraries with more than 8 million books, and they lend out their books to millions of people every year. We live in an environment that is far different from any environment humans have ever experienced. And the environment changes at an ever-increasing pace. This is due to the accelerating generation of information and the sharing of that information through the increasing number of media channels and the heavy traffic of media vehicles traversing those channels. Messages are being delivered to everyone, everywhere, continually. We are all saturated with information, and each year the media are more aggressive in seeking our attention. It is a hopeless expectation to keep up with all the available information. The most important challenge now lies in making good selections when the media are continually offering us thousands of messages on any given topic. 2 The Challenge of Coping How do we meet the challenge of making selections from among the overwhelming number of messages in the constantly increasing flood of information? The answer to this question is, We put our minds on 揳utomatic pilot where our minds automatically filter out almost all message options. We cannot possibly think about every available message and consciously decide whether to pay attention to each one. There are too many messages to consider. So our minds have developed routines that guide this filtering process very quickly and efficiently so we don抰 have to spend much, if any, mental effort. For example, we buy something in market, we did not consider each product, weigh its merits relative to other products, and pick the best option. Instead, we relied on automatic programs running in our minds that guided us to certain products and brands while ignoring all others. These automatic programs are what enable our minds to work so quickly and efficiently. Our culture is a grand supermarket of media messages. Those messages are everywhere whether we realize it or not, In our everyday lives, the media offer us thousands of choices for exposures. With automatic processing, we experience a great deal of media messages without paying much attention to them. The huge advantage of automatic processing of information is that it helps us get through a great many decisions with almost no effort. However, there are some serious disadvantages. When our minds are on automatic pilot, we may be missing a lot of messages that might be helpful or enjoyable to us 3 Media Influence Is Pervasive and Constant Because we spend so much of our time with automatic processing of media messages, the media exert a continual influence on us without our conscious realization. Our parents, our friends, society in general with its social norms, the educational system, along with a variety of other institutions (such as religion, politics, criminal justice system, government, and so on), and the media, Each of these is continually exerting an influence on how we think, how we feel, and how we behave. Some of this influence is obvious and easy to notice, but most of it occurs subtly and shapes our mental codes unconsciously. When we are not consciously paying attention to these influences, they quietly shape our mental codes without our being aware of it. This is especially the case with the media, because there are so many messages and because we open ourselves up to so much media exposure. Over time, this exposure becomes a habit that we never think about consciously. For many of us, we turn on the radio every time we get in our cars, turn on the television as soon as we get home, and turn on our computers when we get up in the morning. Once we open these channels梩he radio, the television, the computer梥torytellers pump messages into our subconscious. The media are continually programming and re-programming our mental codes. They are adding information, altering our existing information structures, stimulating responses, and reinforcing certain patterns of thinking and acting. The media are thus exerting an influence on us whether we are aware of it or not. Furthermore, media influence is constant. The media influence on us does not stop when we stop exposing ourselves to media messages. As long as the media have an influence on programming our mental codes, their influence shapes how we think and act any time those mental codes are automatically running in our conscious or unconscious minds. 4 Huge Knowledge Base About Media Effects Scholars have generated a very large number or research studies that examine media effects. Estimates place the number of published studies in communication journals at about 6,200 (Potter & Riddle, 2006). There are also likely to be media effects studies published in scholarly journals outside of communication, such as in social science (psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics), as well as humanistic (film studies, English, comparative literature) and applied fields (such as education, business, law, and health). Furthermore there are likely to be many books and governmental reports published on this popular topic. All of this careful research activity has generated a very long list of media effects. This literature is now so large that many scholars have a difficult time organizing it all, so they often focus only on a small handful of more visible effects, such as the effect of violence on unstable people or the effect of sexual portrayals on impressionable teenagers. While these two effects are important, it is a serious mistake to limit our examination of media effects to a small number. Instead, we need to develop an appreciation for the wide range of effects that show up in the full spectrum of the population. Many of these effects are subtle to observe at any given time, but this does not make them unimportant. To the contrary, many of the most influential effects on each of us are those that occur during our everyday lives and sneak in 搖nder the radar so that we are unaware of how they are changing our habits and the way we think until someone points it out. summary 1 There is a great deal of information being produced each year and that production of new information continues to grow at an accelerating rate. We cannot avoid massive exposure to media messages in our information-saturated culture, 2 this continual flood of information influences us whether we pay conscious attention to it or not. 3 there is a large base of knowledge that clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of media effects that are continually occurring in all kinds of people across the full span of our population Media effect theories HYPERLINK "the%20six-stage%20model%20of%20media%20effects%20theories%20clusters.docx"The Six-Stage Model of Media Effects Theory Clusters The Magic Bullet Theory The magic bullet theory also known as the hypodermic needle model, suggesting that an intended message is directly received and wholly accepted by the receiver. The model is rooted in 1930s behaviorism and is largely considered obsolete today The magic bullet theory was not based on empirical findings from research but rather on assumptions of the time about human nature. This theory based on Stimulus - response theory People were assumed to be "uniformly controlled by their biologically based 'instincts' and that they react more or less uniformly to whatever 'stimuli' came along" (Lowery & De Fleur, 1995, p. 400). The "Magic Bullet" theory graphically assumes that the media's message is a bullet fired from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head" (Berger 1995). Similarly, the "Hypodermic Needle Model" uses the same idea of the "shooting" paradigm. It suggests that the media injects its messages straight into the passive audience (Croteau, Hoynes 1997). This passive audience is immediately affected by these messages. The public essentially cannot escape from the media's influence, and is therefore considered a "sitting duck" (Croteau, Hoynes 1997). Both models suggest that the public is vulnerable to the messages shot at them because of the limited communication tools and the studies of the media's effects on the masses at the time (Davis, Baron 1981).0panic buying, Hitler0 0in mid-March,2011 panicking shoppers in many parts of China rushed to buy iodized salt due to rumors that iodine in salt could protect against radiation and fears that seawaters that produce salt would become contaminated due to radiation0 The phrasing "hypodermic needle" is meant to give a mental image of the direct, strategic, and planned infusion of a message into an individual. But as research methodology became more highly developed, it became apparent that the media had selective influences on people. The most famous incident often cited as an example for the hypodermic needle model was the 1938 broadcast of The War of the Worlds and the subsequent reaction of widespread panic among its American mass audience. However, this incident actually sparked the research movement, led by Paul Lazarsfeld and Herta Herzog, that would disprove the magic bullet or hypodermic needle theory, as Hadley Cantril managed to show that reactions to the broadcast were, in fact, diverse, and were largely determined by situational and attitudinal attributes of the listeners. Lazarsfeld disproved the "Magic Bullet" theory and "Hypodermic Needle Model Theory" through elections studies in "The People's Choice" (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet 1944/1968). Lazarsfeld and colleagues executed the study by gathering research during the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940. The study was conducted to determine voting patterns and the relationship between the media and political power. Lazarsfeld discovered that the majority of the public remained unfazed by propaganda surrounding Roosevelt's campaign. Instead, interpersonal outlets proved more influential than the media. Therefore, Lazarsfeld concluded that the effects of the campaign were not all powerful to the point where they completely persuaded "helpless audiences", a claim that the Magic Bullet, Hypodermic Needle Model, and Lasswell asserted. These new findings also suggested that the public can select which messages affect and don't affect them. Lazarsfeld introduced the idea of the two step flow model [1] of communication in 1944.Thus, the two step flow model and other communication theories suggest that the media does not directly have an influence on viewers anymore. Instead, interpersonal connections and even selective exposure play a larger role in influencing the public in the modern age (Severin, Tankard 1979). The "Magic Bullet" holds that mass media direct influence their audience, but this was not widely accepted by scholars. Agenda-setting theory The things we see in newspapers and the things we hear on the radio are things that people all over the country are talking about. As members of this society, we read these stories and then go about our lives to discuss them with our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. Sometimes, we talk about the same story day after day not realizing that the reason it is still a hot topic of conversation is because it was once again on the front page of the paper. We don抰 talk about nuclear crisis in Japan any longer, it is doesn抰 mean that it was over, but it is nor on the page of paper, TV or Radio. Agenda-setting theory formally developed by Prof. Maxwell McCombs and Prof. Donald Shaw in a study on the 1968 presidential election. In the 1968 "Chapel Hill study," McCombs and Shaw demonstrated a strong correlation (r > .9) between what 100 residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina thought was the most important election issue and what the local and national news media reported was the most important issue. By comparing the salience of issues in news content with the public's perceptions of the most important election issue, McCombs and Shaw were able to determine the degree to which the media determines public opinion. Since the 1968 study, published in a 1972 edition of Public Opinion Quarterly, more than 400 studies have been published on the agenda-setting function of the mass media, and the theory continues to be regarded as relevant. Core Assumptions and Statements Core: Agenda-setting is the creation of public awareness and concern of salient issues by the news media. Two basis assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues. One of the most critical aspects in the concept of an agenda-setting role of mass communication is the time frame for this phenomenon. In addition, different media have different agenda-setting potential. Agenda-setting theory seems quite appropriate to help us understand the pervasive role of the media (for example on political communication systems).0 N篘bN員hree people spreading reports of a tiger make you believe there is one around. A lie, if repeated often enough, will be accepted as truth.0 Agenda-setting theory describes the "ability [of the news media] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." That is, if a news item is covered frequently and prominently the audience will regard the issue as more important. Mass media only shows you what they want you to see. They are very successful at telling you what to think about. Print or broadcast news will then take away the audiences ability to think for themselves. 揟he press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.敆Bernard C. Cohen, 1963 Various Levels of Agenda Setting First-level agenda setting This is the level that is most traditionally studied by researchers. In this level the media use objects or issues to influence the public. In this level the media suggest what the public should think about (amount of coverage). Second-level agenda setting. In this level the media focuses on the characteristics of the objects or issues. In this level the media suggest how the people should think about the issue. 搑eaders learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position.--- Prof. Maxwell McCombs and Prof. Donald Shaw Important Concepts Gatekeeping Control over the selection of content discussed in the media; what the public know and care about at any given time is mostly a product of media gatekeeping. Priming Effects of particular, prior context on retrieval and interpretation of information. The media抯 content will provide a lot of time and space to certain issues, making these issues more accessible and vivid in the public抯 mind (Miller, 2005). Framing Framing is a process of selective control over media content or public communication. Framing defines how a certain piece of media content is packaged so it will influence particular interpretations. This is accomplished through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. This is central to second-level agenda setting. Conclusion The media does set the agenda of what is discussed around the world on a daily basis. The media chooses the stories and the public reviews them on a regular basis. It doesn抰 seem that many people really are aware that there is someone picking out our information for us, but that is exactly what goes on every single day. There are pros and cons to someone selecting the stories we receive for processing. That is why some scholar believed that this agenda-setting is a function of the media not a theory The spiral of silence Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the German political scientist contributes the famous model called 揝piral of Silence. In 1947 Neumann and her husband found 揚ublic Opinion Organization in German and also she was a President of 揥orld Association for Public Opinion Research in 1978 to 1980. Spiral of Silence Introduced in 1974, the Spiral of Silence Theory is one that explores hypotheses to determine why some groups remain silent while others are more vocal in forums of public disclosure. Description People will be unwilling to publicly express their opinion if they believe they are in the minority. They will also be more vocal if they believe they are a part of the majority. Thus, the more marginalized you become, the less you speak and so spiral into a fully marginal position. This works because we fear social rejection. and that when a person appears to be rejected, others will back away from them, fearing being rejected because they associate with the rejected person. It also makes marginalization a powerful way of eliminating political and social competition. The spiral of silence theory based on few assumptions: 1. Spiral of silence theory describe as a dynamic process, the predication about public opinion in mass media which gives more coverage for the majorities in the society and gives very less coverage for minorities. 2. In this social environment, People have fear of rejection to express their opinion or views and they known well what behaviors will make a better likelihood. It抯 called 揻ear of Isolation. Noelle-Neumann believed that the 揻ear of isolation is the engine that drives the spiral of silence. 3. Being the part of Minority. People loss their confidence and silent or mute to express their views because of the fear of isolation or they feel alone or unsupported. 4. Sometimes the minorities withdraw their expressed opinion from public debates to secure themselves from the majority. 5. Maximum numbers get more vocal space in the society and lesser number become less vocal space or become silent. Important Concepts Public opinion is the 揂ttitudes one can express without running the danger of isolating oneself; a tangible force that keeps people in line. But Scholars have long argued over the concept public within "public opinion" The use of "public" and "the public" betrays multiple competing meanings There are three meanings of public. One meaning is the legal sense of public that focuses on openness. For example, a public place or path. A second meaning for the term emphasizes public rights. Lastly, within the phrase public opinion, public is said to have a related but different definition. Public, in this sense, could be characterized as social psychology. Scholars have marveled in amazement at the power public opinion has in making regulations, norms, and moral rules triumph over the individual self without ever troubling legislators governments or courts for assistance. Opinion "Common Opinion" is what the English Social philosopher David Hume called it in his 1739 published work. Agreement and a sense of the common is what lay behind the English and French "opinion." [2] In researching the term opinion, which is pronounced meinung in German, researchers were led back to Plato's Republic. In Plato's Republic, a quote from Socrates conclude that opinion takes the middle position. Kantt (1893,411)considered opinion to be an "insufficient judgement, subjectively as well as objectively." How valuable opinion may be was left out, however, the fact that it is suggested to be unified agreement of a population, or segment of the population, was still considered. 0Criticisms The critics of this theory most often claim that individuals have different influences that affect whether they speak out or not. Critics believe that there are three potential influences besides the fear of isolation that could cause the spiral of silence. Research indicates that people fear isolation in their small social circles more than they do in the population at large. Within a large nation, one can always find a group of people who share one's opinions, however people fear isolation from their close family and friends more in theory. Research has demonstrated that this fear of isolation is stronger than the fear of being isolated from the entire public, as it is typically measured Scholars have also questioned whether personal characteristics have an influence on whether a person will willingly speak out. 揘aturally, if one has a positive self-concept and lacks a sense of shame, that person will speak out regardless of how she or he perceives the climate of public opinion. Another influence critics give for people choosing not to speak out against public opinion is culture. The culture that a person lives in greatly affects their willingness to speak out. 揘ot every culture holds freedom of speech in as high regard as the United States, and in some cultures, open expression of ideas is forbidden. Some cultures are more individualistic, which would support more of an individual抯 own opinion, while collectivist cultures support the overall groups opinion and needs. Cultural factors could also be gender. 揚erhaps another explanation for why individuals do not express minority opinions can be made: that women抯 perception of language, not public opinion, forces them to remain quiet. Scheufele & Moy, further assert that certain conflict styles and cultural indicators should be used to understand these differences Further, Scheufele & Moy [50] find problems in the operationalization of key terms, including willingness to speak out. This construct should be measured in terms of actually speaking out, not voting or other conceptually similar constructs. Conformity experiments have no moral component, yet morality is a key construct in the model. These conformity experiments, particularly those by Asch form part of the base of the theory. Scholars question whether these conformity experiments are relevant to the development of SOS0 Cultivation theory The Cultivation theory attempts to measure the cultural effects on society from long term exposure to the similar characteristics present in television programming. Developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross of the University of Pennsylvania. A Few Words From The Founder: "Most of what we know, or think we know, we have never personally experienced. We live in a world erected by stories. Stories socialize us into roles of gender, age, class, vocation, and lifestyle, and offer models of conformity or targets for rebellion. They weave the seamless web of our cultural environment. Our stories used to be hand crafted, home made, community inspired. Now they are mostly mass-produced and policy driven, the result of a complex manufacturing and marketing process we know as the mass media. This situation calls for a new diagnosis and a new prescription." (Gerbner, 1999) Origins of Cultivation Theory As a perspective, cultivation developed in the context of the increasing growth of television. Gerbner established the 揅ultural Indicators research project, to study whether and how watching television may influence viewers' ideas of what the everyday world is like. In history, cultural and societal values were once based on face to face sharing of stories and personal experiences. These stories were constructed from all viewpoints of members of society. Since the industrial revolution, the society's stories are no longer shared in this way. The stories are manufactured from a marketing standpoint and distributed through mainstream television. Society is now in a time where most of our waking hours are spent ingesting information through media. Television is the medium through which majority of these mass-produced messages are broadcast to communities, distributing more than any other medium in history. In an average American household the television is in use for somewhere around 7 hours per day. Gerbner's cultivation theory focuses on the system of television broadcasting and patterns within, not just particular programs and themes. Studies of cultivation not only measure types of programming watched, but also the amount of television viewing done by the prospects that are being surveyed. Those prospects may be any in a span of ages, including children, young adults, and mature adults. Studies have found that children of young ages are most susceptible to cultivation of knowledge through the television medium. The following images illustrate exactly how much we relyon mass media and the amount of time we spend using it. The United States is not the only country where cultivation is present. There have also been studies done in other countries such as the Soviet Union, England, and the Netherlands. In these studies, the relationship between heavy viewing and understanding of violence in society were weaker than in the U.S, but programming is also differentiated as well. Areas where more programming is imported from the United States may show more cultivation of these ideas present in American television. Gerbener抯 research To analyze the effects of the violence, Gerbner correlated the data from his content analysis of television with survey data from people who were classified based on the amount of time they spent watching television and questioned about their views on violence in the world. Gerbner classified people into two groups: Heavy watchers (over 4 hours per day) Light Watchers (less than 2 hours per day) He predicted that heavy viewers saw the world as more dangerous than light viewers. Using a survey, he targeted four attitudes 1 Chances of Involvement with violence. Light viewers predicted their weekly odds of being involved in violence were 1 in 100 while heavy viewers said it they were 1 in 10. 2. Fear of walking alone at night. Women were more afraid than men, but both sexes who were heavy viewers, overestimated criminal activity, believing it to be ten times more than figures indicate. 3. Perceived activity of police. Heavy viewers believed that about 5% of society is involved with law enforcement. In comparison, light viewers estimated 1 %. 4. General mistrust of people. People who were heavy viewers tended to see other people抯 actions and motives more negatively. Gerbner called this 搕he mean world syndrome Based on this research, Gerbner sought to quantify in percentage terms the differences in the answers of light and heavy television viewers about violence in the world. He called this 搕he cultivation differential. The Cultural Indicators research thus indicated that heavy viewers were susceptible to a perception that the world was a dangerous place. Important Concepts The Cultivation Theory Consists of 5 Main Concepts The heavier the media usage the more it effects the viewer's reality. The younger the consumer the greater effect media consumption has on them. What you watch on TV influences your values and beliefs. Personal experiences and values influence what you choose to watch on TV. First hand experiences help defend against misinformation spurred from television. Change Over Time As technology is changing in society, so does the cultivation theory. Changes in the way we communicate such as the emergence of social networks like Facebook, Twitter youtube, also have and effect on what/how we cultivate the information we receive. Another media factor that influences society is video games and on-line game and the content within them. Many of today抯 most popular games are rated 揗ature due to graphic scenes of sex, drugs, and violence. A longitudinal, controlled experiment conducted by Dmitri Williams, in 2006, examined the presence of cultivation effects in the playing of an online game. Over the course of playing the video game for one month, participants changed their perceptions of real world dangers. However, these dangers only corresponded to events and situations present in the game world, not other real-world crimes. knowledge gap theory The knowledge gap theory or The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis is concerned mainly with 搃nformation and 搆nowledge and emphasizes that knowledge is not distributed equally throughout society. There are haves and have-nots with regard to information just as material wealth Information is very important in our society because any developed country depends on well-informed citizens. It appears certain that information will be even more important in the future as we move into an increasingly technological age. Many contemporary issues will require information and an informed public for the solutions for such issues. The authors of Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: ю The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis was first proposed in 1970 by Tichenor, Donohue and OLien. three University of Minnesota researchers.  As the infusion of mass media information into a social system increases, segments of the population with higher socio-economic status tend to acquire this information at a faster rate than the lower status segments, so that the gap in knowledge between these two segments tend to increase rather than decrease. The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis predicts that: People of both high and low socioeconomic status will gain in knowledge because of the additional information, but that persons of higher socioeconomic status will gain more. This would mean that the relative gap in knowledge between the well-to-do and less well-off would increase. Additionally, Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien suggest 5 reasons why the knowledge gap should exist: Communication skills - higher status people generally have more education, which improves their reading, comprehension, and memory skills; Stored information - higher status people are more likely to already know of topics in the news through pervious media exposure or through formal education; Relevant social contact - higher status people generally have a broader sphere of activity, greater number of reference groups, and interpersonal contacts and are thus more likely to discuss news topics with others; Selective exposure - lower status people may be less interested, and therefore less likely to expose themselves to certain news topics; Media target markets - media outlets tailor their content to the tastes and interests of their audience. Given the preceding information, the knowledge gap hypothesis can be expressed using the following set of related propositions: People in a society exhibit great psychological diversity due to their psychological makeup, learned experiences, social relationships, and social category memberships. Despite these differences, people with more education tend to have better developed cognitive and communication skills, broader social spheres with more and more diverse social contacts, and a greater amount of stored information than their counterparts with less education. People with greater education also tend express interest in, and expose themselves to, a broader range of topics, including serious topics like public affairs, science, and health news. Therefore, as the infusion of mass media information into a social system increases, segments of the population with higher socioeconomic status tend to acquire this information at a faster rate than the lower status segments so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to increase rather than decrease. Factors that might reduce or widen the Gap: Widening knowledge gaps are more likely to occur in communities with numerous sources of information (Pluralistic communities) than with informal but communication channels (Homogeneous communities). When an issue has immediate and strong local impact, the knowledge gap is likely to decline. ю A well-known celebrity involved in the dissemination of information could help achieve wider visibility for and acceptance of the information. ю When an issue arouses basic social concerns, the knowledge gap is likely to be reduced or eliminated. ю Researches found that television may have a special power to close knowledge gaps or, if not to close them, at least to keep them from widening. The KG and the New Technology: ю It is not clear what are the effects of the new technologies will be on level of information held by the public. Many of the new technologies are expensive. Because of the cost, these technologies may be more available to the well-to-do than to less  well-off. ю For this and other reasons, the effect of the technological revolution in communication could be a further widening of the KG. So, availability of the new technology may affect the KG. ю If the access to these information services is not universally available throughout the society, then those already  information-rich may reap the benefits while the 搃nformation-poor get relatively poorer. A widening of this 搃nformation gap may lead to increase tension. Knowledge, however, is expensive and not everyone has equal access to it. This is especially true as we live more of our lives in cyberspace. The new communication technologies梒omputers, CD ROMS, the Internet, satellite and cable television, for example梐re major ways for gaining information. The better educated have the money to own and the skills to master the new technologies and thus acquire more information. The less educated don抰 have the money to own or the skills to master the new technologies and thus cannot as easily acquire more information, creating and expanding the knowledge gap, the 揹igital divide (Severin & Tankard, 2001). A particularly clear example of this is seen in the educational level of Internet users (UCLA Internet Report, 2000): 31% of those with less than a high school education use the Internet 53% of high school graduates use the Internet 70% of those with some college education use the Internet 86% of college graduates and those with advanced degrees use the Internet Criticism of the Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: ю Dervin (1980) criticized the KG for being based on the traditi'/y J t oe,D$^$**(2R288::蜚帚帚沏沏點點沏沏沏ャャ撱併沏沏沏沏沏沏沏"h=Oh5丆JOJQJ\乤J"h=Oh6丆JOJQJ]乤Jh=OhCJH*OJQJaJ h=OhCJKHOJQJaJh=Oh5丆JOJQJaJh亅0CJOJQJaJo(h=OhCJOJQJaJh=OCJOJQJaJo(+'/k4 x y o $$Ifa$gdJ 劋`劋gd 勦WD`勦gdgd 剎WD2`剎gd 剎WD2`剎gd=O$a$gd=O & $IfgdJ hkd$$If杔 t0644 laytJ qhhh $IfgdJ kd}$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ  qhhh $IfgdJ kd$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ  $*1qhhh $IfgdJ kd$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ 12>DKqhhh $IfgdJ kdH$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ KLdkrqhhh $IfgdJ kd$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ rsqhhh $IfgdJ kdz$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ qhhh $IfgdJ kd$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ qhhh $IfgdJ kd$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ "qh $IfgdJ kdE$$If杔諪 t06    44 laytJ "#,G!D$ 勨WD`勨gd 勦WD`勦gdhkd$$If杔 t0644 laytJ D$^$&%(T)**Q+/0(2R24889 ::::v;w;;<B闏 刋WD`刋gd 勦WD`勦gd劋`劋gdgd::>;?;@;t;u;w;;贏蹵BBB B鍯鐲躄騆tMuM腞V V W"WZ'Z礬萛蚠豞觓閍)f`f燧慶挫蕒輻輻輻輻蕒勢刼刕刕刼刼刼刼蕒!h=OhB*CJOJaJph(h=Oh5丅*CJOJQJaJph%h=OhB*CJOJQJaJphh=OhCJOJaJh=Oh5丆JOJQJaJ$h=Oh0JCJKHOJQJaJ+j[h=OhCJOJQJUaJh=OhCJOJQJaJ%jh=OhCJOJQJUaJ$闏E7G鉐_L跮躄騆NO腞$WZ'Z'[鈁礬萛t]r^蚠豞襛觓勦`勦gd 勨WD`勨gd 勦WD`勦gd劋`劋gdgd 刋WD`刋gd觓閍颽赾鎐)f`f7g_h i俰鮥 j榡鎗xmmdp|pAr-u寈倅B{j{勦`勦gd 勜WD`勜gd 勦WD`勦gdgd`f鮥jdpfp>{@{B{j{"@竾韻瘡缽3w鳚浮濉$b(~ %&'繈褚褚衤衤衤衤衤衤衤衤衤衤衤窶窀錘錘錘窗瘩h亅0h"ajh"aUUh=Oh5丆JOJQJaJh=OhCJOJaJ"h=Oh5丆JOJQJ\乤Jh=OhCJOJQJaJ*j{﹟莬"@Mf脙DE祬秴竾鰣G泬茐s8讒厡雿鞃 勨WD`勨gdgd 勦WD`勦gd勦`勦gd 勷WDd`勷gd鞃4~蛶 X瘡缽帒3爼蕰 臉q} w鳚 勨WD`勨gd 勦WD`勦gdgd鳚粺y貳浮濉 &$bp瑾嫭尟嵂織尠(~nrs 勦WD`勦gd勦`勦gdgdonal source-sending-messages  to-receiver paradigm of communication. She recommended that communication campaigns and researchers be more user-based and user-constructed information. ю Evatt (1998) argued that researchers should be sure that the information they are testing is useful and relevant for the audience being tested. (factual versus conceptual knowledge) You can also see the knowledge gap when you compare cultures. Developed countries, for example, have the new technologies in their schools and offices and many people can afford to buy their own computers and satellite systems. Access to the new technologies helps these countries develop even further. Undeveloped countries, with little or no access to such technologies, cannot experience the same gain in knowledge and information as those who have this technological access. In the early part of the 20th century, concerns about political propaganda, manipulation by the elite and the rising popularity of electronic media led to the so-called 揾ypodermic needle or 揵ullet theories, which envisaged media messages as strong drugs or potent weapons that would have powerful effects on a helpless audience (Lasswell, 1927; Lippmann, 1922). However, while these theories explained some behavior, they did not account for the different responses individuals may have to the same media source. In the 1950抯 and 60抯, empirical research began to uncover the moderating power of predispositions and peer groups, concluding that the media抯 impact was small often referred to as 搇imited effects theory (Klapper, 1960; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944). In the 1970抯 and 80抯, prominent scholars began to look more closely again at the media抯 relationship to knowledge, opinion, attitudes, and levels of violence, concluding that media effects could be significant in some cases, even if not 揳ll powerful. Scholars also came to agree that some vulnerable groups, such as children, may be more heavily influenced by media than others (Bryant & Thompson, 2002; McCombs & Shaw, 1972; McLuhan, 1964). One great difficulty for researchers is how to measure media effects. Media consumption may affect a person抯 thoughts, emotions, or behaviors in ways that could be direct or indirect, immediate or delayed, fleeting or lasting. It is impossible for scientists to control for all of the mediating factors, from levels of media consumption to demographics such as age, race, and socioeconomic status to harder-to-measure variables like environment, upbringing, values and previous experience. A researcher would not be able to prove, for example, that playing a violent video game caused a person to commit a violent crime, even if an association existed between the two behaviors. Did playing the game lead to the violent behavior, or did a propensity toward violence encourage use of the game? Why didn抰 all individuals who played the game commit acts of violence? Traditional methods of research such as surveys, experiments, and panel studies cannot adequately solve this cause-and-effect dilemma.     sUV#  !"#$% &dPgd=O 勦WD`勦gd $1$a$gdgd%&' 勦WD`勦gd0182P皞. 捌A!"#悹$悹%癝班 惄{$$If!vh5#v:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ $$If!vh55X 55#v#vX #v5:V 杔 t065ytJ {$$If!vh5#v:V 杔 t065ytJ D猩陏寕K F<the six-stage model of media effects theories clusters.docxR@R ck噀 $1$a$(CJKHOJQJ_HaJmH nHsH tHR@R h槝 2$$d@&5丆J OJQJ\乤J $A@$ 貫祂=刉[SOBi@B nf恏*B*^Jph煩'/k4xyo   $ * 1 2 > D K L d k r s " # ,GD^% T!""Q#'((*R*,001 2222v3w33499;7=鉆_B跙蹷駼NE腍4L∟蒒蒓凱WQjQRSoTzTtVuV媀慥|X圶薢[賉]玗$^梌玘:_坃b"b詃郿鉫爂蟞.l$mCnWnKoio膓鈗飏tev鎤鐆WxXxEzZz榹緖閧=|h|}趠y~'崁巰謤 o瑏鷣Qb0絽緟繀諈BCl驁0|輯l 閸v銕c'鍛#$Qx t )0鞐N緶 7/隇霝蜖螤洢叐嚛埄姪嫨崺帺惄懇挬摡敥暕柀棭槱櫓毄洨湬潻牘000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000妊0葢0妊0葢0妊0葢0妊0葢0妊0妊0楡0妊0妊0妊0怈0楡楡楡楡楡葢0 :`f'Yhk 1Kr"D$闏觓j{鞃鳚s%'Z\]^_`abcdefgijlmnwx&[2?3t3煩X晞餈  @餒 0(  饞0(  養 S  ?g OLE_LINK116 OLE_LINK117 OLE_LINK118 OLE_LINK119 OLE_LINK33 OLE_LINK34 OLE_LINK39 OLE_LINK40 OLE_LINK53 OLE_LINK54 OLE_LINK86 OLE_LINK87 OLE_LINK72 OLE_LINK73 OLE_LINK69 OLE_LINK70 OLE_LINK71 OLE_LINK74 OLE_LINK75 OLE_LINK76 OLE_LINK77 OLE_LINK78 OLE_LINK79 OLE_LINK84 OLE_LINK85 OLE_LINK80 OLE_LINK81 OLE_LINK82 OLE_LINK83 OLE_LINK89 OLE_LINK90 OLE_LINK99 OLE_LINK100 OLE_LINK91 OLE_LINK92 OLE_LINK95 OLE_LINK96 OLE_LINK93 OLE_LINK94 OLE_LINK97 OLE_LINK98 OLE_LINK106 OLE_LINK107 OLE_LINK108 OLE_LINK109 OLE_LINK112 OLE_LINK113 OLE_LINK110 OLE_LINK111 OLE_LINK114 OLE_LINK115 OLE_LINK88 OLE_LINK103 OLE_LINK104 OLE_LINK105 OLE_LINK101 OLE_LINK102 OLE_LINK120 OLE_LINK121 OLE_LINK122 OLE_LINK123 OLE_LINK124 OLE_LINK125 OLE_LINK128 OLE_LINK129 OLE_LINK130 OLE_LINK131 OLE_LINK132 OLE_LINK133 OLE_LINK134 OLE_LINK135 OLE_LINK136 OLE_LINK137 OLE_LINK138 OLE_LINK139 OLE_LINK140 OLE_LINK141 OLE_LINK142 OLE_LINK143 OLE_LINK150 OLE_LINK151 OLE_LINK144 OLE_LINK145 OLE_LINK148 OLE_LINK149 OLE_LINK146 OLE_LINK147 OLE_LINK152 OLE_LINK153 OLE_LINK154 OLE_LINK155 OLE_LINK160 OLE_LINK161 OLE_LINK156 OLE_LINK157 OLE_LINK158 OLE_LINK159 OLE_LINK164 OLE_LINK165 OLE_LINK166 OLE_LINK167 OLE_LINK162 OLE_LINK16344uu""**zEzE蔋蔋騇騇騇∟∟7O7O鬙鬙凱凱WQWQjQjQuVuV沄沄颲颲孹孹薢薢羄羄黱黱}}輢輢|~|~弨弨崈崈繀繀悎悎鯃鯃22箣箣釈釈pp韻韻zz銕銕$$稉稉{{湒湒稐稐飾飾dd棙棙ccHH牘  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdef@@O#O#**@J@J蒒蒒睴睴侾侾WQWQjQjQoToT塚塚￢￢WW>Y>Y梌梌9_9_IoIoW}W}鶀鶀梸梸QQ梼梼諈諈艌艌--yy蹕蹕鯆鯆倢倢((帋帋鍛鍛NNwwtt..钘钘NNttqq --牘I=湥J=\＋K=4醑L=M=滆N=4O=tP=DQ=勸R=對S=苔T=4U=tV=T瀵W=斿X=藻Y=敂Z=詳[=\=t醑]=歹^=趲_=L`=寲a=號b=繇c=4d=te=搭 BB F3?鍰鍰OFOF\F/o/o=o\x\x飜yy顈顈蛨蛨蹐牘      OO!!K>??f@n@鉆鞞GBNB2L3LjQuQ RRc$c籧纁鮟詃誨﹌瞜;lDlelwlAnBnoo磓籷ArHr賣鈛x!xEzOz倆墇m{t{鴡~?F鴤 獔矆缊艌妺拫t{:@38#Γ擔浚粒桑停櫻叐叐嚛嚛埄埄姪嫨崺帺惄懇潻牘U_( 5$9$>*C*00223/499;<G<鱇3L銷鐽蒓錙匬孭誝豗裚謃8`\`tc抍芻蔯詃遜甪穎眏穓鋗Bn黱JoWo[o恛憃繀葏菆虉妸悐{|+-36飾駰臑藶叐叐嚛嚛埄埄姪嫨崺帺惄懇潻牘3333333333333333333333333333333333333劑牘叐叐嚛嚛埄埄姪嫨崺帺惄懇潻牘ZY秠jM 鯩獲遶 `H38襒 M!皁!餫$婩)lT/Y50亅06縫8磡F*H濦I2KROPO0O=O2aMf_RfRfLQi'ls/n慦q昅s, w z積{2<|(!廸T馾J 鋛 wTVY^nc<塏J5Y&鷜<c鉶騪9$jn8dE8!!璡恎M="a<+7SZ鷀/p磟~  稺   $ * 1 2 > D K L d k r s " # 牘@89:llxxxxxxxx煩 @ @ B @ V @ p @ z @ 0@ X@ @UnknownG噝 Times New Roman5Symbol3& 噝 Arial;媅SOSimSun7&爗 @Calibri7燢@Cambria 1h['仵GM8V3M8V3!-!),.:;?]}    & 6"0000 0 0 00000 =@\]^([{  0 0 00000;[個//2HP?2甠o(u7b甠o(u7b鄥燆鵒h珣+'遲0\   $ 0<DLT 微軟用戶Normal 微軟用戶7Microsoft Office Word@寙G@*|:軩@$蕉EM8脹諟.摋+,D脹諟.摋+, X`t|  微軟中國3V/'  8@ _PID_HLINKSAp <the six-stage model of media effects theories clusters.docx  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{|}~Root Entry F 疦俁EData z1TableIHWordDocument2SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjm  FMicrosoft Office Word 文檔 MSWordDocWord.Document.89瞦