Media scholars continue to be interested in the motivation behind the consumption and selection of media. Early researchers like Paul Lazarsfeld indicated that people sought out media to perform one of three functions: informing, transmitting, or correlating. Numerous authors since have suggested the importance of media to also be entertaining. The growing amount of research regarding entertainment as the motivating factor and use of media is generally examined from a macro-level perspective. A narrower focus of this perspective may potentially examine how entertainment, or any motivation factor, alters the effects of the media content.
One frequently used approach to examining uses and needs of media is the Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G). From this perspective, a generally accepted notion was constructed in that gratifications come from social and psychological needs. Although the theory has been used extensively to examine the psychological needs it has produced little predictive utility. The low predictive utility of the theory can logically be traced through the theory’s construction as it encourages recursive thinking; which brings further questions to the practicality of the theory.
The predictability (or lack thereof) of U&G is troubling and encourages alternative considerations. Now more than ever people have become active media users, rather than passive media audiences; and theoretical perspectives should reflect this.
The limited but powerful effects model examines media effects by reevaluating many of the previous models while incorporating key constructs which include the gratifications of social and psychological needs. Media content produces a cognitive, affective, or behavioral script (CAB) which is then received by the user. The user then internalizes this script with the psychological and societal needs in which they are facing. Only after the users complete the internalization will they determine whether to act on the script and demonstrate an CAB effect. In other words, the media content gives the user a puppet, but it is still the user’s decision and behavior which pull the strings and demonstrate the “effect”.
This perspective does not inherently assume that media produces what many would classify as an “effect”. Certainly the typical behavioral-based effect is possible within this model but no assumption is made that a user will demonstrate such an effect. However, as some would argue that discrepancies in the definition of media effects exist, the conversation resorts back to a macro-level perspective. If the definition of media effects shifts from its primarily behavioral connotation, the argument could be made that by learning something (from the script) which was previously unknown, an effect not only exists but it is assumed. Admittedly, this notion of media effects seems to be unpopular throughout the field.
So what are the implications? Well the importance of the user is rapidly becoming more recognized and appreciated than ever before. Previous perspectives of the media model which postulate that stimulus leads directly to response are becoming a thing of the past. The understanding of the moderator is critical in determining the importance of media effects (if any) within our society. The usage and motivation behind media consumption is arguably the starting point in conducting such research. Uses and Gratifications play a prominent role in determining the psychological needs of the user; however these needs must continue to be developed with societal needs to aid in determining their predictive utility as a moderator between the content and effects.
While the content of the media arguably gives the user the “bullets,” it is up to the user whether or not to “pull the trigger” which inevitably results in the media effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment