Communication Science Class 6 PDF

Communication Science Class 6 Prof. Dr. Thomas Jacobs Lasswell’s formula (1948) What? To Whom? What content? What is the Who is the public? To whom meaning of the message? is the message addressed? What are the Who?...

Communication Science Class 6 Prof. Dr. Thomas Jacobs Lasswell’s formula (1948) What? To Whom? What content? What is the Who is the public? To whom meaning of the message? is the message addressed? What are the Who? characteristics of the Which individuals audience? Which organisations? Why? What is the (intended and actual) effect of the message? What does the message (try to) achieve? And How? Which channels are being used? What technology is being deployed? How is the message conveyed?  06 Functionalism The limited and complex effects of media Before: A strong belief in mass media Power Heritage of the ‘pre-history’ of communication science: strong belief in the power and impact of media ○ Based on awe-inspiring rise of mass media, not on scientific observation ○ Self-fulfilling prophecy through use by governments and businesses ○ Lingers in behaviourist thinking about propaganda, in the Frankfurter Schule, and in popular and vulgar accounts of mass media to this day (cfr. later classes) Before: A strong belief in mass media Power Universities, politicians, and businesses wanted to understand and harness this incredible power... ○ Worries about the dangers of propaganda (and excitement about the possibility to use propaganda) …leading to the use of mass media by very powerful actors (governments, politicians,…) But also to a boom in scientific research: theorizing comes to be supported by empirical research ○ Scientists initially equally optimistic about the impact and potency of mass media (cfr. theories of the masses last week, more on this when we discuss behaviourism and propaganda) Resulting in the birth of the ‘dominant paradigm’ The ‘dominant paradigm’ Research on and thinking about media within the dominant paradigm more sophisticated than with the preceding mass society theorists ○ Attention to a greater variety of social variables (age, gender, education, geography,…) ○ More empirical (experiments and observations rather than prejudices and fears) ○ More positivist and quantitative Surveys; social-psychological experiments; content analysis; statistical analysis - research methodologically modelled after exact sciences Knowledge is generalizable, reliable, replicable, falsifiable Little attention to interpretation and meaning (e.g. poststructuralism, the critical paradigm) Knowledge is practically useful The ‘dominant paradigm’ The ‘dominant paradigm’ has governed communication science at a global level since the 1950s ○ Sometimes also called the functionalist, the positivist, or the liberal-pluralist paradigm ○ Strictly speaking functionalism is one of the theories that is part of the dominant paradigm, but often used as a pars-pro-toto to refer to the whole thing Functionalism & behaviourism Functionalism analyses the functions that exist within a system: how does a given activity promote (or interfere with) the maintenance and the reproduction of a system? Communication has lots of different social functions, initial focus of first empirical research is on the function of persuasion ○ = change in psychological attitude as a direct result of exposure to communicated information Functionalism: persuasion is a complex effort and the subject is actively involved in processing stimuli on a cognitive level (media aren’t all powerful) Behaviourism: persuasion is the mechanical, direct, straightforward effect of external stimuli, the subject undergoes the change passively (media are all powerful) Functionalism & behaviourism Focus on studying the (intended or unintended) persuasive effects of communication ○ Research focused on improving the effectiveness of communication for legitimate ends such as advertising or public information ○ … but also (and mainly) the effectiveness of more dangerous forms of communication such as propaganda ○ Other research tried to assess whether mass media were a cause of social problems (e.g. crime, violence, social unrest) Þ Focus on the effect of communication has on human behaviour (behaviourism) and thinking (functionalism)  “Nevertheless, the linear model was what many people (in government and industry) wanted: a device for getting messages across and influencing people through advertising, political propaganda or public information.” - McQuail, 2010, p. 65 Columbia & Yale Columbia (Bureau of Applied Social Research): Paul Lazarsfeld, Robert Merton, Elihu Katz ○ Conduct content analysis, opinion polling, experimental research in order to understand the role that mass communication plays in human persuasion and decision-making E.g. War of the Worlds impact analysis (Lazarsfeld) Strive towards methodological rigour (though initially still search for and expectation of massive effects) ○ Assumption: persuasion as a universally « equivalent » process Buying a soap = deciding who to vote for = asking for marriage Columbia & Yale Yale (Carl Hovland): ○ Hovland worked for the Information and Education Division of the War Department during WWII to study the effects of the government and the army’s messages to the American public ○ Focus on the influence of the credibility of the source on the persuasive effect of the message ○ Origin of the limited effect thesis (cfr. infra) and the notion that mass media aren’t omnipotent ‘Administrative research’ Research has to ○ Serve the public interest and the public good ○ Solve a concrete, extant social problem Greater good = post-WWII liberal democracy, capitalism, American hegemony, pluralism ○ ‘neutral’ media can reproduce these interests without being « manipulative » Very different from the ‘critical’ paradigm interested in global, socio-cultural, political, long-term questions ○ Practical vs normative ○ Empirical vs theoretical and philosophical ○ Conservative and neutral vs progressive ○ Quantitative vs qualitative ○ Positivist vs post-postitivist ○ Merton: we have no clue what’s important, but at least what we’re saying is true » (dominant) vs « we can’t prove that what we say is true, but at least it’s important » (critical) Limited effect thesis Mass media communication in its own right does not explain in a sufficient manner social change (Hovland) ○ Rather, it is one among many intermediate factors and variables that interact in a complex fashion ○ « “Some kinds of communication on some kinds of issues brought to the attention of some kinds of people under some kinds of conditions have some kinds of effects” Impact of mass media communication depends on ○ Factors relating to communication itself (credibility of the source, characteristics of the medium, information being communication) ○ Factors exterior to the communication process itself (individual dispositions, group characteristics, context of the communicative activity…) ○ = end of the massive optimism/pessimism about the huge societal impact of mass media Limited effect thesis Communication-related factors often reinforce external factors (and vice versa) Conversion (communication-related factors taking the upper hand over external factors, resulting in a change in attitude or behaviour) is far rarer, persuading someone via communication to go against their priors is generally very hard Limited effect Thesis Þ earlier worries about propaganda exaggerated, people cannot so easily be manipulated or forced to change their behaviour by politicians or governments Redefinition of persuasion as seeking ‘influence’, happens voluntarily and with active participation of the audience rather than through a brutal and direct effect on a passive people Process of persuasion is interactive and co-dependent ○ Audience actively seeks out the messages that it wants to hear (e.g. normalization of the far right) ○ Communicator becomes persuasive and influential by giving the audience a message that corresponds to its needs Persuasion is morally acceptable, propaganda obtains a negative connotation Limited effect thesis Important to note that the limited effect thesis is unproveable ○ If communication-related effects reinforce far more than they convert, is that because of the ‘limited effect’ of communication… ○ …. or because people have already and continue to be converted by an incredibly strong and powerful propaganda machine (the one that keeps the current system in place)? Selectivity theory Mass media communication does not happen in a vacuum, people are no blank canvas to be imprinted on, but have strong priors (beliefs, ideas, attitudes) Selectivity theory (also know as selective exposure theory) explains exposure to, perception & attention to, and recollection of mass media ○ People actively seek out messages they agree with, and actively avoid messages they disagree with (exposure) ○ People actively notice and pay attention to elements that confirm their predispositions, and overlook elements that go against them (perception) ○ People remember messages that confirm their biases, and forget the ones that contradicted their biases (recollection) Festinger: cognitive dissonance can be explained through selective exposure ○ We remember news that confirms our priors, and ignore/reinterpret/ forget news that goes against our priors Selectivity theory Conversion requires either… ○ the alleviation of cognitive dissonance and selectivity theory Why does the idea that you are being convinced of not go against any pre-established beliefs ○ Or the leveraging of cognitive dissonance and selectivity theory Establish and engrain a pattern of behaviour that can be leveraged against the belief that is to be changed, making it the victim of selectivity theory (when in conflict, the weaker belief will be ignored/reinterpreted/forgotten Selectivity theory Selectivity theory seems to imply that propaganda is often ineffective ○ But doesn’t propaganda often target behaviour rather than cognition? ○ But selection theory assumes the quiet calm of peace and civilised attempts at persuasion ○ But selection theory does not distinguish between private pre-conceptions and public discourse In fact, selectivity theory can amplify the power of propgaganda, as selective exposure may be amplified to dangerous heights by ‘filter bubbles’ and personalized algorithms Two-step flow theory Early mass society theorists believed in an atomized public directly reached through mass communication (the individual becomes part of the crowd) ‘Personal Influence’ (1955, Katz & Lazarsfeld) ○ Study of housewives: reported that choices regarding clothes, media, politics,… were mainly influenced by other people rather than by media. Often the same people claim to be/indicated as an influence. These influencers were in turn sometimes influenced by mass media ○ Mass communication has an interpersonal dimension: interpersonal relations have a transmission and a relay function in communication ○ Personal relations strengthen the effects of selective exposure, as socialization within the group (inter alia due to exposure to the same media) renders attitudes and beliefs shared. Therefore, efforts at conviction must sway the entire group, rather than just one individual Two-step flow theory Early mass society theorists believed in an atomized public directly reached through mass communication (the individual becomes part of the crowd) Similar findings in Lazarsfeld in ‘The People’s Choice’ (study of 1940 Presidential Election campaign): two steps in the mass communication process ○ Mass media messages reach ‘opinion leaders’ who act as an intermediary ○ Opinion leaders disseminate and amplify the message through their social circle Two-step flow theory Opinion leadership not (necessarily) related to social standing, not (always) the most important/powerful person ○ Increased interest ○ Increased exposure ○ Access to specialized media (competence) ○ Changeable ○ Accidental, even involuntary ○ Strategic social position (centrality) ○ Situational ○ Personifies the norms and values of the group Overly simplistic and reductive (active leaders and passive followers)? Two-step flow theory Audience of mass communication is not an anonymous, heterogeneous, unorganized mass or public of spatially separated and isolated individuals ○ Instead, mass communication has a personal interface, indirect mediation of mass media communication by interpersonal relations ○ Masses ≠ undifferentiable groups: some masses are different from others, masses have an internal make-up and structuring ○ Quid the idea of Vergesellschaftung? Paradigm change? In the 1960s, growing discontent with the short-term, small-scale focus of functionalist research ○ Functionalism was explaining why things aren’t happening and why communication doesn’t matter ○ Immediate conversion rare, but what about more aggregate, long-term effects? ○ Rise of television Increasing focus on long-term, societal, aggregate impact of mass communication ○ Interest in public opinion, in sociological effect of mass media,… However, no questioning of the functionalist methodology and assumptions, no rapprochement with the critical paradigm (which was always interested in more long-term and more large-scale questions) Complex effects This more long-term and more larger-scale point of view results in the realization that mass media can have pervasive and far-reaching effects ( limited effect thesis), ○ The manifestation of these effect is often subtle (average change rather than radical change) and slow ○ These effects are multifactoral, multidirectional, and complex, not a question of direct impact, simple conversion, and passive adoption ○ E.g. spiral of silence, agenda-setting Earlier failure to find larger effects can be attributed to ○ Perspective (high expectations, narrow focus) ○ Complexity of the communication process ○ Inadequacy of research methods (too small-scale, too short-term, too practical) Agenda-setting McCombs & Shaw (1972): media have more impact on how people prioritize issues and problems in the public debate than on what they think about these issues ○ Link with ‘gatekeeping’ ○ Media impact mainly « the salience of attitudes toward the (political) issues » 1968 Presidential campaign: strong correlation between the media agenda (the themes covered in the media) and the public agenda (the themes which undecided voters indicate they find important) ○ Goes beyond selective exposure: all topics the media covered rise on a voter’s agenda, not just coverage of the candidate s/he favours ○ Interpreted as a causal effect of the media on the public agenda Agenda-setting Agenda-setting effect is stronger if… ○ people actively seek out information ○ people have the possibility to discuss the topics covered in the media ○ media have a higher level of credibility ○ the media agenda aligns with personal experience ○ the media agenda aligns with other sources of information (intermedia effect, political communication,…) Agenda-setting What in the digital era? ○ Online media have an agenda-setting effect ○ Traditional media retain their agenda-setting effect ○ There is a reinforcement of the agenda-setting effect if traditional and online media align in how they set the agenda (inter-media agenda setting) The Spiral of silence Noelle-Neumann (1974): if people fear social isolation or disapproval, they can renounce to their personal attitudes and opinions ○ People constantly ‘poll’ their social environment to map the dominant opinion ○ Media play a key role in this mapping of which opinions are majoritarian/minoritarian ○ Result of this polling exercise affects the likelihood an individual will express his or her opinion: if their opinion aligns with the dominant one, it can be expressed safely; if not, it can be better to remain silent ○ The more marginalized or minoritarian an opinion is, the more it is socially risky to express this opinion This results in a ‘spiral of silence’: since the minoritarian opinion is not voiced, this opinion becomes rarer in subsequent social mappings by other people in the same social circle, rendering it even more difficult to express this opinion The Spiral of silence Examples and related observations: ○ The Asch effect: an individual changes their correct answer to the incorrect answer given by other group members to the same question because of social pressure and the prioritization of group consensus ○ The Milgram experiment: obedience to an authority figure, even if the instructions that figure give are horrendous The Spiral of silence The ‘spiral of silence’ can explain how public opinion ‘shifts’: ○ If people believe a certain minoritarian viewpoint is rising, it becomes easier for the ones who adhere to this viewpoint to express it ○ If people believe a majoritarian viewpoint to be in decline, it becomes harder for the ones who adhere to this viewpoint to express it ○ As the majoritarian viewpoint becomes trapped in a spiral of silence, and the minoritarian one escapes it, public opinion shifts Media play a key role in mapping which opinions are on the rise/in decline The Spiral of silence The ‘spiral of silence’ on social media ○ Even if social media offer in theory ‘free’ platforms, they are also subject to the spiral of silence ○ Filter bubbles can generate different spirals : whereas in one filter bubble, an opinion may be majoritarian or on the rise, it can be minoritarian or in decline in another filter bubble, resulting in parallel ‘echo chambers’ ○ Potential explanation for the rising polarization of society Potter’s four dimensions Potter: we can evaluate a communicative effect in four dimensions: Temporality ○ Does the effect appear shortly after the communication, or does it only manifest in the long term? ○ Isolated communications can only have a short term effect, long-term effects require repetition (e.g. consumerism, spiral of silence) ○ Short-term effects are easier to observe than long-term effects Value ○ Does the communication have a positive, a negative, or a neutral effect? ○ Always depends on the point of view of the evaluator Intentionality ○ Is the audience using media selectively and in a motivated manner, seeking out the communication intentionally (scrolling social media to stay up-to-date on friends versus ‘doomscrolling’) Potter’s four dimensions Type ○ Cognitive-type effects: modifies our knowledge Underestimated, omnipresent (every time we use media we learn something new) ○ Belief-type effects: influence our beliefs as to what is and is not real (e.g. what do we hold true about the meaning of life, friendships, politics,…), far rarer ○ Attitudinal-type effects: influence our evaluation, our appreciation, our judgement (e.g. what do we find beautiful?) ○ Behavioural-type effects: influence our behaviour (e.g. advertisement) ○ Emotional-type effects: trigger a certain feeling (anger, happiness Linked to attitudes: happiness when we see a blogger we like, anger when we see a politician we hate Can be long term: e.g. desensitization to violence Potter’s four dimensions ○ Physiological-type effects: physical response (e.g. dilated pupils, increased heart beat) ○ Macro-type effects: not individual, but affects organisations, institutions or society as a whole More long-term Rarely in isolation, always related to economic, cultural, technological, political factors