1 / 10

Chapter 3

Chapter 3. Continued. People’s Choice. 1940 Presidential Election FDR vs Wendell Wilkie Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet Erie County, Ohio 3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600 1 randomly selected MAIN panel Other were control panels. People’s Choice. MAIN panel interviewed numerous times

cbird
Download Presentation

Chapter 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 3 Continued

  2. People’s Choice • 1940 Presidential Election • FDR vs Wendell Wilkie • Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet • Erie County, Ohio • 3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600 • 1 randomly selected MAIN panel • Other were control panels

  3. People’s Choice • MAIN panel interviewed numerous times • CONTROL panels only once • RESULTS: • Using category memberships, voting intentions and actual voting behavior were predictable • Media part of a web of influences; others were personal characteristics, social category, families, friends, other associates

  4. People’s Choice • Media DID NOT always have an effect • When it does, one of 3 kinds of influences: • Activation—process of getting people to do what they are predisposed to do • Reinforcement—media strengthened voters’ intentions (over 50% of study) • Conversion--rare

  5. People’s Choice • Major conclusion: media has selective and limited influence • Serendipity • Two step flow of communication • People chose contemporaries and they interpreted the media messages and then in turn influenced them • Outcome: Limited Influence Theory

  6. Limited Influence Theory • The media do not have powerful effects, but only minimal influences that are modified by other factors (such as individual differences, social categories, and social relationships) that significantly limit those influences

  7. Studies of Children’s TV Viewing (way too many) • Led to Uses and Gratifications theory • Many hours a day and rising • Used for fantasy; original studies said no truly dramatic problems from this • Profile for more use: 1)poor 2)grades 6-8 3)less intelligent • Second Surgeon General report revealed link between viewing violence and aggression

  8. Uses and Gratifications Theory • The audience was found to be active and not passive in selecting media content for personal uses and gratifications. • Choices are made on the basis of individual needs, interests, values based on all aspects of socialization. • Socialization will predispose the person to select certain media they will use for diversion or entertainment or problem solving.

  9. The Bottom Line • We progressed from Magic Bullet to Selected and Limited Influence to Uses and Gratifications. • All of this led to: The mass media are quite limited in their influences in people who select and attend to any particular message. • If this happened with movies and TV, imagine the future of the Internet studies!

More Related