Tuesday 31 January 2012

Cultivation Theory

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Melissa Ceo, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

Gerbner and Gross developed Cultivation Theory to explain the effects that television viewing has on the general population. The basic form of the theory suggests that exposure the television’s singular messages helps develop viewer’s perceptions of reality. The main premise of the theory is that those viewers who spend more time watching television will be most likely to view the world through the “lens” of television’s repetitive messages.

The researchers also introduce the concepts of mainstreaming and resonance. Mainstreaming refers to the “blending” effect that happens when viewers adopt an outlook more consistent with the messages they receive when watching television, while resonance refers to the cases when what is viewed on television actually happens in real life. Most Cultivation Theory research examines the effects of media violence on the wider population. Although the Cultivation Theory has been widely studied, it has also fallen under criticism in recent years. The main criticism that has been identified is a lack in the presence of cognition. Cultivation Theory does not account for the role that human thought plays in the effectiveness of media messages. Another broad criticism of the theory is the possible lack of a single media message. What role does Cultivation Theory play in New New Media? Does it play a significant role?

Effects of viewing violent media

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Gregory Cranmer, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

The negative effects associated with viewing violent media has been thoroughly studied, with numerous publications concluding that viewing violence increases an individual’s risk of behaving aggressively(Potter, 2003). So the debate is settled, viewing media violence is bad… WRONG. Some scholars suggest that it is the act of viewing violent media is good in the sense that it exposes individuals to violence and allows them to decide that the violent act is wrong. Is it possible, can viewing violence actually be positive?

Yes, it is possible that some positive effects can come from viewing violence.For example,“NRA Gun Club,” a violent game about shooting guns de-glorifies gun use and promotes gun safety. Some would point to this as a positive outcome, and even go as far to suggest that without this exposure an individual’s decision about gun use is left up to random chance.

However, there are two problems with this logic. First, an individual’s decisions on anti-social behaviors will not be left up to chance without media. There are other factors, such as parenting and the already existing societal biases against certain behaviors that have influence over individuals. Second, for every exposure that may lead to a positive outcome, a negative outcome is guaranteed; desensitization to the anti-social behavior. For example, maybe exposing consumers to rape scenes will gross out the viewer and lead them to decide rape is bad. However, viewing the scenes will desensitize the consumer to rape. It’s a possible positive, but a guaranteed negative.

One has to feel that the desired message of “rape or violence is wrong” can be achieved without exposing the consumer to graphic displays.

Cultivation and New Media

The following is a summary post by WVU MA student Zac Goldman following our discussion of Cultivation Theory on Monday night (29 January); the discussion is continued on our course Facebook page.

Cultivation Theory has historically been one of media’s most explored theories. However, with the continuous emergence of new media, one must question is cultivation still relevant. The premise behind Cultivation Theory is the notion that the audience receives the same constant message and develops it primarily through mainstreaming or residence. As we move into the era were television channels range well into the thousands; it should be questioned whether cultivation is still feasible in new media as it is currently defined. To determine this, one must consider with the increase in channels, do people truly have choice? Or, are the masses merely bamboozled with an illusion of choice given to them by the network giants? It is conceivable if choice is truly present, an increasingly amount of smaller niches exist now more than ever. Within these smaller niches it would then be theoretically possible that cultivation could occur, and arguably faster within a smaller more homogenous audience. Perhaps then instead of examining choice, current evaluators of cultivation would elect to critique the role of cognition; which is merely non-existent. The idea that cultivation seemingly bypasses all cognitive function revealing a “monkey see, monkey do” reaction within the audience has been at the heart of many scholarly complaints for decades. The objective behind this blog is not to dispute or discredit one of the most popularized theories ever created. Simply, to bring to question is cultivation still relevant in new media? If yes, should necessary constructs be updated? What role might cognition currently play if an updated description of Cultivation Theory was given? These questions should be considered as we continue to determine the relationship between cultivation and new media.

Thursday 26 January 2012

Transitioning from Old to New Media

Last week we reviewed the four functions of media (i.e., informative, correlational, transmittal, and entertaining) and as technology continues to accelerate, these four goals will keep emerging as questions to be answered. How has the transition from “old media” to “new media” affected the theory of the niche and the way we interact with our technology?

The theory of the media niche describes the media environment as an ecology of media organizations in indirect competition for finite resources, and explains how these organizations exist within a niche (i.e., using specific resources that others therefore cannot). The theory predicts that media organizations will survive if they can successfully occupy a niche and specifies the conditions by which this is possible.

Old media (i.e., newspapers, radio, cable, books, photography, or the telegram) are differentiated from new media by more than the age of the technology. Some critical aspects of old media are that it is analogue (i.e., physical and not digital), degrades over time, and requires physical space. Beyond its physical nature, old media were expensive to produce and were created to fulfill only one of the four functions of media (e.g., newspapers are informational). A lack of convergence is not the only thing that separates old and new media; Old media is not experiential or interactive.

New media is becoming increasingly convergent as it fulfills all four functions of media. As new media continues to become more convergent, it seems to be outdated to define its niche by a particular channel. This has led to overpopulation of media organizations in any given niche. Organizations that previously existed in different realms are now competing for the same resources (i.e., audience, content, advertising dollars, and gratification sets). To combat this potential problem, organizations that cannot stand ground in a traditional niche will attempt to identify with a smaller niche (e.g., Myspace now focusing on music-networking). New media continues to expand through a digital society as it becomes increasingly ephemeral; departing from previous forms of space consuming outlets. The increasing amount of channels in the digital age makes it possible to prosper in smaller niches (albeit with fewer resources). As participants in the digital society ourselves, humans are often becoming unaware of how extensively they use and consume new media. This development suggests new media is becoming more transparent; or arguably more translucent, than ever before.

Transparent technology is a tool that requires no skill or knowledge to operate. On the opposite end, opaque technologies require skill and capacities, and there is a sharp distinction between the user and the tool. These tools were designed to serve a function and nothing else. While these two categories cover a wide range of tools, it should be argued that another category has emerged: translucent technology. These “translucent technologies” are not actually mapped to the human perceptual system, and therefore cannot be called true transparent technologies. However, humans have gotten so used to using these technologies that they have moved beyond the opaque category. One example of this translucent technology is the computer keyboard. Most humans can operate the keyboard without any thought; however, practice is required to get to this level. Thus they keyboard fits in neither the opaque nor the transparent categories, and a new category must be created, the translucent technology. As reported in the December 2011 issue of Wired Magazine, Masahiro Mori published an article describing the concept of the “uncanny valley” in 1970. Mori, a robotics researcher, forwarded that even though humans would eventually be capable of producing robots with nearly human-like appearance, humans would experience significant aversion to human-like robots. Mori described that as an object looks increasingly human-like, we experience increased levels of empathy and identification with that object; however, at a certain level, our fondness dramatically declines. Mori coined this feeling the “uncanny valley” and it is characterized by “the chilly sensation we feel when we see a robot that looks almost – but not quite – human” (Wired Magazine, 2011).

Clark describes an opaque technology as one that “keeps tripping the user up” and a transparent technology as one that is integrated our “own biological capacities”. The concept of the uncanny valley would suggest that humans will view robots with near human-like appearance as onstrous, which could constitute a technology which trips the user up. Yet, a robot with a near human-like appearance indicative of some of our biological capacities. Given the current direction of our robotic technology and the ever developing skills of humans in relation to technology, new categories between opaque and transparent should be considered. As we have discussed, technology is changing faster than we even realize and it is the job of leaders in these media organizations to keep up. These concepts (i.e. Theory of the Niche, transparency, opaque, and translucence) are important factors to consider while working with media. What else has changed and what other variables may impact these concepts we have outlined?

Wednesday 11 January 2012

The History of Media - From Caveman to Current Man

In 1940, a group of French schoolchildren stumbled upon what is possibly the first known display of media: cave paintings. These cave paintings depict various important themes in early human life. To understand how these pictures are viewed as a form of media, we must first define media and its components. Media can loosely be defined as a “go-between” from the source to the senses of a receiver. Paul Lazarsfeld identified a two-step flow model of communication, which incorporates both the media message and an opinion leader. He also identified a normative approach to the function of media. He argued that media should be informational (we gain knowledge of events or situations), correlational (we learn how society responds to certain events), and transmittal (we learn about culture through our media). Lazarsfeld’s assessment of media was normative and as such overlooked the role of entertainment in media. Charles Wright rectified this issue by introducing entertainment as the fourth purpose of media.

Media has developed and expanded over time. It first appeared with the arrival of spoken language. With this development, humans were able to share their inner monologues, and better communicate with their fellow men. Media then evolved into the written word. These inner monologues could then be recorded to transcend space and time and provide the message with consistency. The next major development of media came in the form of Gutenberg’s printing press. With this invention, media transformed from a message for the select few to a message for the masses. Books became available to people of all economic statuses, and the bible was widely distributed. Thus, many humans were able to experience what had previously only been available to a select rich few. Small newspapers even distributed news and human-interest stories. After the printing press, media organizations began to form. Newspapers, telegraphs, and digital technology made space and time irrelevant in regards to the media. With this latest development, we see two distinct themes: duality and fast adoption rates. Duality of media refers to the repositioning of outdated media function and form, while fast adoption rates speeds the impact of media.

No media history overview is complete without a reference to leisure. Shivers defines leisure as the “time of opportunity where the individual has the ability to create experiences that are gratifying without any redeeming quality.” Human acquired more leisure time by developing fire and organization. These two elements made it easier to hunt, which left the early human with leisure time. During this spare time, early humans developed culture and ritual. Culture and ritual led to the early cave paintings, which taught young members tribal culture. This correlates with Lazarsfeld’s functions of media. The cave paintings informed and transmitted cultural and ritualistic aspects of hunting and daily life within the tribe. Thus, early cave paintings can be considered a form of media. These paintings were preserved for over 15,000 years, thus transcending space and time and giving current humans a glimpse of early life.

Leisure gave man the free time to develop culture. Cavemen used precious resources to create cave paintings for secret rituals and expression. From the first form of media, humans have been using it to learn ourselves and our culture. One could even argue that media is culture. It shapes and defines who we are and gives us outlets and means of self-expression. Understanding the history of media is an important step in grasping current human society. Media has become an integral component of our daily lives, and the study of media has a pertinent and real-world application.

Tuesday 10 January 2012

What are Video Games, Anways? (IJoC Book Review)

Recently, I reviewed a pair of books on video game theory and research for Dr. Larry Gross, editor of International Journal of Communication. The two books reviewed were:

Ian Bogost, How To Do Things With Videogames, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011, 180 pp., $18.95 (paperback).

Judd Ethan Ruggill and Ken S. McAllister, Gaming Matters: Art, Science, and the Computer Game Medium, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2011, 155 pp., $35.00 (paperback), $28.00 (eBook).

The growth of the video game medium as an economic force (Shaw, 2011) and a source of cultural scrutiny (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; NPR, 2011) has made the study of gaming anything but trite in academic circles. Likewise, the study of video games has proven to be increasingly complicated as the medium finds itself—as Judd Ruggill (Arizona State University) and Ken McAllister (University of Arizona) astutely point out in Gaming Matters: Art, Science and the Computer Game Medium—at ―the nexus of engineering, mathematics, hermeneutics, logic, kinesthesia, narratology, performativity, art, and many others‖ (p. 3). The authors of both volumes attempt to navigate this nexus to explore the many dimensions of video games by offering various perspectives with which to better understand the medium. In How To Do Things With Videogames, Ian Bogost (Georgia Institute of Technology) argues that video games are best understood in terms of their larger role, and they function in the media ecology, perhaps as an microecology or ―a small, specialized environment within a larger [media] ecosystem‖ (p. 6). Ruggill and McAllister take a different perspective in suggesting video games to be best understood as an amalgation of ―wealth and pleasure through wit and work‖ (p. 103), comparing the process of creating a video game to an alchemist’s mixing of base materials to create something greater than the sum of their parts. For Bogost, a focus on the function of video games rather than on their prominence and providence as a special medium is the best path to understanding their uses and effects. For Ruggill and McAllister, understanding the unique qualities of video game production, marketing, and consumption is the key to understanding their role in society. In short, Bogost maintains that we should see gaming as just another unremarkable offering in the panacea of media choices, while Ruggill and McAllister argue for gaming as a magical union of baser parts that cannot be studied as anything less.

The complete entry can be found here:

Sunday 8 January 2012

How Demanding is Social Media? Predicting Twitter and Facebook Use (early data)

For the upcoming Eastern Communication Association conference in Cambridge, Mass this April, our West Virginia University communication technology research team (myself, Assistant Professor David Westerman and Doctoral candidate CJ Claus) is pleased to announce that our study "How Demanding is Social Media: Understanding Social Media Diets as a Function of Perceived Costs and Benefits – a Rational Actor Perspective" has been recognized as a Top Three Research Paper by ECA's Communication Technology Interest Group. Here is the paper abstract:

"Using the rational actor perspective (Markus, 1994a) as a guiding frame, this exploratory study examined individuals’ social media diet (i.e., amount, frequency, and duration of use) as a function of task load and expected goal attainment. Surveys were distributed (N = 337) focusing on Facebook and Twitter for informational and relational purposes. Increased task load – conceptualized as a cognitive cost – directly negatively influenced Twitter use but only indirectly influenced Facebook use as a function of perceived benefits. Across conditions, perceived self-efficacy was negatively associated with perceived task load and positively associated with goal attainment, and goal attainment was a significant correlate of increase social media usage. Interpreted, we see that a transparent technology such as Facebook (cf. Clark, 2003) has no cognitive costs associated with its use, while an opaque technology such as Twitter seems to have a salient cognitive cost element. Further, we found that older users of Facebook were more likely to judge the channel as more cognitively demanding and themselves as having lower self-efficacy in using it. Finally, results indicated that for both Facebook and Twitter, males perceived both channels as more cognitively demanding than females. Theoretical and practical explanations and applications for these findings are presented."

We can't share the paper with you just yet (still being prepared for publication consideration) but the main findings are highlighted below.

Our hypotheses:

  1. Goal attainment will be positively related to usage of social media 
  2. Perceived task load will be negatively related to usage of social media 
  3. Self-efficacy will be positively related to perceived benefits of using social media 
  4. Self-efficacy will be negatively related to perceived costs of using social media 
The hypothetical research model:



The results for Facebook users:



For Facebook, you'll notice that the presented model is not the same as the hypothetical one. This is because the link between Task Load Index (this was our measure of cognitive demand, developed by Hart & Staveland, 1988) and one's social media diet (their frequency, amount, and duration of social media use; a scale adapted from Kreek, McHugh, Schluger, & Kellogg, 2003) was not significant (.-09), suggesting that there is no association between the two variables - in other words, for Facebook users there does not seem to be a salient cognitive demand for the technology. However, there was a significant association between cognitive demand and goal attainment. It seems that the best predictor of Facebook usage is rather simple - if I can use the program to meet my goals. In other words, Facebook is not really seen as being difficult to use, but it might not be overly-useful for all situations and it is the latter that predicts the program's usage.

...and the results for Twitter users:


For Twitter users, our model holds up just as predicted, with acceptable fit indices: chi-square(2) = 3.13, p = .209, CMIN/df = 1.57, CFI = .982, RMSEA = .059. Unlike Facebook, cognitive demand is seen as a barrier to Twitter usage, while the ability to use the program to attain one's goals (in our study, information- and relationship-based) was a positive predictor of usage. Furthermore, Twitter was seen as significantly more demanding than Facebook overall - though we should not that the mean scores of cognitive demand for both programs were both in the lower quartile of our 21-point measurement instrument (Facebook: M = 5.02, SD = 3.40; Twitter: M = 5.97, SD = 3.90, t(315) = -2.33, p = .020); as well, Facebook was used significantly more by participants in our survey (Facebook: M = 6.80, SD = 2.77; Twitter: M = 4.06, SD = 3.31, t(333) = 8.21, p < .001; 12-point scale).

A note on gender and age:

A rather compelling finding was the association between gender and age as related to social media. An excerpt from our paper:
Across experimental conditions, males also self-reported significantly higher levels of perceived task difficulty at using social media than did females (males: M = 6.12, SD = 3.79; females: M = 4.25, SD = 3.10, t(315) = 4.50, p < .001) and lower social media self-efficacy (males: M = 4.53, SD = .85; females: M = 4.79, SD = .743, t(334) = -2.83, p < .001). Age was also positively associated with perceived task difficulty (r = .215, p = .005) and negatively correlated with social media diet (r = -.197, p = .010); these age findings are particularly relevant given the relative restriction of range in the age variable in our study in which 95 percent of our sample was between the ages of 18 and 22 (minimum = 18, maximum = 28, mode (n = 56, 32%) = 20). Notably as our analyses are separated for Facebook and Twitter usage, we tested the influence of age and sex on our study variables within both conditions. Unexpectedly, we found separate patterns of influence for both variables. In the Facebook sample, age was significantly correlated with perceived task load (r = .215, p = .005) and social media diet (r = -.197, p = .010) and sex was significantly correlated with perceived task load (r = -.184, p = .015). In the Twitter sample, age was significantly correlated with perceived social media self-efficacy (r = -.173, p = .030) and sex was correlated with both self-efficacy (r = .180, p = .023) and perceived task load (r = -.312, p < .001). 
What's your take on all of this? We'll provide our answers at ECA 2012, and maybe we'll see you there?

References:

Clark, A. J. (2003). Natural-born Cyborgs. New York; Oxford University Press.

Hart, S. & Staveland, L. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Kellogg, S., McHugh, P., Bell, K., Schluger, J., Schluger, R., LaForge, K., Ho, A., & Kreek, M. (2003). The Kreek-McHugh-Schluger-Kellogg scale: a new, rapid method for quantifying substance abuse and its possible applications. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 69, 137-150.

Markus, M. L. (1994a). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 119-149. doi:10.1145/196734.196738