MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY
SYNOPTIC TOOL KIT
MAID – D (DEBATES)
|
SCIENTIFIC VS
NON SCIENTIFIC
|
NATURE VS
NURTURE
|
HOLISM VS
REDUCTIONIST
|
FREE WILL VS
DETERMINISM
|
BIOLOGICAL
BING
|
SCIENTIFIC
Because it considers bing
Also uses empirical evidence. The research is objective. It is
falsifiable and has a testable hypothesis
|
NATURE
It is a matter of genetics. Nurture could also influence the way you
think
|
REDUCTIONIST
It doesn’t consider other approaches such as environmental influence
or social situations
|
DETERMINISTIC
Things that you can’t change..based on your genetics
|
BEHAVIOURIST
SLT
|
SCIENTIFIC
Uses empirical evidence. Can test the hypothesis. You can question
its objectivity
|
NURTURE
It looks at your environment. There is also a biological basis
|
REDUCTIONIST
Reduces study to behaviour which is environmentally based. SLT could
have biological predisposition
|
ENVRONMENTAL
DETERMISM
It suggests you learn from your surroundings. Adults could have free
will but it is case dependent.
|
COGNITIVE
ABC
|
SCIENTIFIC
Because it deals with the brain. It has a testable hypothesis, also
uses empirical evidence
|
IT DEPENDS
Nature because you are born with your brain but nurture because
friends can influence the way you see things.
|
REDUCTIONISM
Focuses on brain and mental processing – ignores all other elements
E.G environment
|
FREE WILL
You decide how you think. Free will in treatment but determinism in
basis.
|
PSYCHODYNAMIC
ID EGO SUPEREGO
|
NON SCIENTIFIC
Hypothesis cannot be proven. There is no objectivity. It is based on individual
case studies.
|
NURTURE
Based upon childhood
experiences
|
REDUCTIONIST
Simplifies behaviour to childhood experiences
|
DETERMISISM
Based on childhood experiences
|
|
M=
methodology
A= approaches
A= approaches
I=
issues
D =
debates
BIOLOGICAL = BING
·
B
= brain (neuroautonomy, structure of brain)
·
I=
injury / infection (Kilve wearing, influenza)
·
N=
neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline)
·
G=genetics
(hereditary, DNA)
BEHAVIOURIST (BORN
AS BLANK SLATE = TABULA RASA)
·
all behaviour is learnt
·
classical conditioning – learning through
association
·
operant conditioning – learning through
reinforcement
·
SLT social learning theory – learn by observing
– reinforcement and repetition
PSYCHODYNAMIC
·
Freud tripartite personality
·
Stages of development = oral, anal, phallic,
latent, genital
·
ID, EGO, SUPERERGO.
·
Ice berg structure, unconscious desires,
pleasure principle
COGNITIVE
·
Thought processes. Input – process – output.
Input = environmental stimuli, process = rational/irrational thoughts, output =
behaviour
·
ELLIS ABC MODEL
·
A= activating event, B= belief rational or
irrational, C= consequence
DEBATES:
1 .NATURE VS NURTURE
Born vs learned, biology vs environment
Were you born that way or did your environment influence
you?
2 .REDUCTIONISM VS HOLISM
Reduce complex behaviour into base components. It has a
clear focus.
Holistic therapy. Holism takes everything into account
3 .FREE WILL VS DETERMINISM
Free will = you make your own choices
Determinism = pre programmed controlled by your environment.
4 .SCIENTIFIC VS NON SCIENTIFIC
Does it encounter science into it?
SOCIAL LEANRING THEORY:
·
Developed by Albert Bandura in 1977
·
States that behaviour is learned from your environment
through observational learning
·
Children copy models regardless if it is gender
appropriate or not
·
Child is more likely to imitate behaviour that
is gender appropriate or if its imitated with reinforcement or punishment.
·
Positive and negative reinforcement has little
impact if reinforcement offered externally does not match with individual needs
·
Vicarious reinforcement = when you see someone else
get positive feedback so the child is more likely to copy the behaviour.
External = if child wants approval from friends or
peers
Internal = Feeling happy about actions
Bandura 1986 Bobo Doll
Study
Children observed aggressive or non
aggressive adult models; they were tested for imitative learning. Participants
were ages between 3-5 years old. They observed adults interacting with the
doll. Children in the aggressive condition reproduced a good deal of physical
and verbal aggression. Children in the non aggressive condition exhibited no aggression
to the doll.
+ This experiment shows that
aggressive behaviour can be learned even with the absence of direct reinforcement.
-Demand characteristics. Child was quoted saying ‘’look mummy
that’s the doll we have to hit’’ this means that if the child knew the aim of
the study they may act in a certain way, making the results biased.
3 types of model –
1.
Live model
(person performing behaviour)
2.
Verbal instruction model
(details of behaviour)
3.
Symbolic model (real or fictional character demonstrating
behaviour EG on Tv show)
External reinforcement = reward and punishment
Intrinsic reinforcement = form of internal reward / better
feeling
Modelling process=
1.
Attention – watch model
2.
Retention- absorb it so
that you can imitate it
3.
Reproduction- copy behaviour
4.
Motivation or
reinforcement – positive or negative reinforcement. Reward, punishment, approval
Cognitive
Priming = watching violence leads to people to store the acts as
memories/scripts then later retrieve these and activate them in real life
situations
Arousal
= physiological response happens when you watch violence this is called increased
arousal. Zillmans excitation theory argues that arousal produced is transferred
to real life situation that involves conflict. If person is provoked and they
are already in a heightened state they can misinterpret this resulting in an
aggressive response.
Imitation
= this explanation comes from SLT and Banduras Bo Bo doll study. Children
observe behaviour of people they may admire and they later imitate this
Desensitisation
= this explanation leads on from increased arousal. When a person regularly
watches violent media they become used to it, decreasing arousal. When faced
with real life violence watchers are desensitised and do not experience a
stress response.
Huesmann et al
2003
Longitudinal study of 557 boys and girls in Chicago in 1977
when they were aged 5-8. They were asked about their favourite tv shows and
characters. They were asked which character they most identified with. In 1991
398 were followed up in their early 20s, they were asked the same questions
again. They also interviewed 3 people who knew them well; they had to common on
how often the ppt looses their temper and if they were violent. Criminal
records were also analysed. The viewing of violent tv shows when children were
aged 6-9 correlated with violence in later life. Men classified as high
violence viewers had three times the criminal conviction rate of low violence viewers.
Gunter et al 2002
Studied introduction of tv to remote community of st Helena.
23 boys and 23 girls 2 years before introduction of tv. Their teachers were
asked to comment of their levels of antisocial behaviour using a checklist.
Gunter returned 3 years after the introduction of tv, he asked the children to
keep a 3 day diary of the tv that they watched. They were assessed by their
teachers again. He found that children watched on average 3 hours of tv per day
and were exposed to 95 acts of violence. Boys saw more violence and rated more
antisocial. There was no overall increase in aggressive behaviour post tv.
Children with higher antisocial score were more likely to watch cartoons.
Topic 2: Media influences on pro-social behavior
On average people watch 25 hours of television per week. It
increases rapidly from 7 hours per week in two year olds, to 20 hours by the
age of six. This declines in teenagers, and then rises again through adulthood.
All viewers are exposed to large amounts of pro social behavior.
Explanations for media influence on pro-social behavior
1. Exposure. As well as
being exposed to violence, people are also exposed to pro-social behavior.
Greenberg et al 2002 found that among the favorite TV shows of 8-12 year olds
there was an average of 42 acts of anti-social behavior and 44 acts of
pro-social behavior.
Howards and Roberts 2002 studied toddlers watching the teletubies.
Responses included joining in with the actions, interacting with viewing
companions, pointing to the screen and answering the questions of the
characters.
2. Social Learning Theory
Banduras social learning theory suggests that children learn through observing
behavior, then later imitating it if the expectation of a reward is greater
than expectation of a punishment. This process is the same for pro-social acts,
as it is for anti-social acts, however pro-social acts are likely to be in
accordance with social norms, so they are associated with the expectation of
reinforcement. This reward acts as a
motivation to repeat the action.
3. Developmental factors
child development research has shown that pro-social behavior is dependent on
the developmental stage of the child. Perspective, empathy and moral reasoning
develop through childhood and adolescence. Young children are less able to
recognize emotional state of others and how to help. They may also not be able
to understand complex pro-social messages portrayed in media.
4. Parental meditation Many
children watch TV alone, however they sometimes have a co-viewer. Parents who
watch their children and discuss the themes and content can enhance the learning
experience.
Rosenkoetter 1999 suggested that with parental mediation, children
as young as 7 were able to understand complex moral messages.
Mares
1996
Meta-analysis studying 4 different categories of prosocial
behavior spread over 39 different studies.
·
Positive
interactions – children saw positive interactions acted more positively
in their own interactions with others compared to those who viewed neutral or
antisocial content. The effect size was found to be moderate.
·
Altruism
– This included sharing, donating, offering help and comforting. Children who
viewed altruistic behavior acted altruistically than the ones who viewed
neutral or antisocial content. When altruism was not explicitly modelled the
effect size was much smaller.
·
Anti-stereotyping
– Looked at the effects of counter stereotypical portrayals and ethnicity and
attitudes and beliefs. Children who viewed counter stereotypical themes showed
less evidence of stereotyping and prejudice in their own beliefs. The effect
size was moderate, but was larger when exposure to counter stereotypical themes
in the context of the school classroom was accompanied by extra classroom
activities designed to expand on the issues viewed.
·
Self-control
– this included resistance to temptation, obedience to rules, ability to work
independently and persistence at a task. Children who were observed models
exercising self-control tended to show more self-control in their own behavior,
particularly compared with those who saw a model behaving anti-socially. The
effect size was moderate when compared with a neutral group, but large when
compared with anti-social content.
Cole
et al 2003
Cole investigated if Sesame Street taught mutual respect and understanding between Palestinian and Israeli children.
Before watching there were few negative comments, after watching there
was an increase in positive attributes noted. Males and females were equally positively affected by pro-social
content and there were no
ethnic or racial differences, however effects were stronger among higher
socio-economic groups where parental mediation was higher.
Fogel
2007
Fogel researched the effects of parental mediation. In
condition 1children
watched a 30minute clip of ‘hang time’ then had a 15 minute discussion about the clip with an adult.
In condition 2
children watched the same clip, but did not have a discussion. Those who discussed it with
an adult (parental mediation) scored higher in measures of pro-social behaviour
including tolerance and friendship.
Negative
effects of games and computers
Guo 2007
Guo
identified the main effects of playing violent video games. He said that as
physiological arousal and aggressive behaviours increase, helping behaviour
decrease. Research has also pointed out de-sensitisation effect of computer
games to both gaming and real life violence.
Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman 2007
They
examined the effects of playing violent computer games on later responses to
real life violence. A sample of participants were asked about their gaming
habits and then randomly allocated to one of two conditions: playing a randomly
selected violent game for 20
minutes, or playing a non-violent
randomly selected game for 20 minutes. They then all watched a film with
real life violence whilst wired to measure physiological response of heart rate
and skin response. Those who
played a violent game had lower heart rate and skin response.
GAM = General aggression model
Input
variables which include individual factors (such as personality and gender) and
situational variables (such as provocation) can influence reaction to playing
violent games. Exposure to games is said to increase aggression through three
pathways:
·
Arousal: playing violent games leads to
increased arousal. A high level of arousal can lead to aggressive behaviour.
·
Cognition: Playing violent video games leads
to priming of aggressive thoughts
·
Affective: Playing violent games increases
aggressive or hostile feelings.
Karpinsky 2009
Found a strong relationship
between Facebook use and academic under achievement. Majority of people who use
Facebook every day underachieved by a whole grade. Facebook users spent between
one and five hours a week
studying, while non
Facebook users spent between 11 and 15 hours per week. The link between Facebook and non
Facebook users was even seen in graduate students.
Charles 2011
Charles used a focus group and
interview techniques to investigate the Facebook habits of 200 undergraduates in Scotland. 12% experienced anxiety related to
their use of Facebook. The more friends they had, the more anxiety they had.
They reported stress from deleting unwanted contacts and the pressure to be
humorous. 32% stated that rejecting friend requests made them feel guilty and
10% disliked receiving friend requests.
Positive effects of
games and computers on behaviour
Greitemeyer and Ozzwald 2010
They gave participants one of three games to play: lemmings (where you
ensure safety), an aggressive game and Tetris and a neutral game for 8 minutes.
The researcher then accidently knocked over a pot of pencils. 67% people who
played Lemmings helped 28% people who were lamers and 33% who played Tetris.
REAL WORLD APPLICATION = HOLMES ET AL 2010
They showed volunteers traumatic images of personal injury. 30 minutes
later some participants played Tetris for 10 minutes, some did nothing. Those
who played Tetris had fewer flashbacks. When the gap between images and game
was increased to 4 hours, the effect was still noted. The researchers concluded
that game interferes with the way traumatic memories are formed.
Hyper personal model – Walther 1996
this can explain the link between Facebook and positive self esteem. We self
select information to represent our selves; we pick it to make us look good.
This acts as positive feedback as nice messages are left by our friends and
family.
Peter et al 2005
They studied 493 adolescents in Denmark using questionnaires and interviews to study the relationship between
personality types and online friendship formation. They found that introverted
adolescents were strongly motivated to communicate online.
Gonzales and Hancock
2011
They argue that Facebook walls can have positive influence
on self esteem. Feedback can be very positive. Students were given three
minutes to 1) use their Facebook page,
2) look at themselves in the mirror, or 3) do nothing. Those who had
interacted with their Facebook page gave much more positive feedback than the
two other groups.
Media and Persuasion
The Hovland Yale model
The hovland yale model argues that persuasions is dependent on several
factors: the source, the message and the target.
·
The source – Experts are
more effective at persuasion as they have knowledge. This could also be a
celebrity endorsement as they are attractive.
·
The message- Messages are
more persuasive if we think we are not being persuaded. A message can be more effective if it creates
a moderate level of fear, and if it is repeated.
·
Audience – Low and high
intelligence audiences are easily persuaded than those with moderate
intelligence. Intelligent audiences like to evaluate both sides of the
argument. The argument needs to be clear enough for low intelligence people to
understand it.
Evaluation of Hovland Yale model
·
Attractive sources
are not most influential O’mahony
and meenagan 1997 showed that celebrities are not convincing or believable.
Hume 1992 = celebrity endorsement fails as people
remember the celebrity and not the actual product
+ Fear appeals do work. Appeals can be persuasive
if they do not petrify the audience and if they are informed of how to avoid
the danger
-Gender bias in
persuasive research Women are more susceptible to persuasive communications.
Eagly and carli 1981 explained this in terms of socialisation differences-
women socialised to conform. Sistrunk and McDavid 1971 claimed that studies
find women more easily persuaded.
Elaboration Likelihood model – Petty and cacioppo (central
and peripheral routes to persuasion
Message – central
route – audience motivated to think about message – focus on quality of
argument – lasting attitude change
Message- Peripheral
route – audience not motivated to think about message – focus on
peripheral factors – temporary attitude change
·
Central route = message is
important; the focus is placed upon the quality of the argument, as the
audience has a high need for cognition. This is likely to result in attitude
changes.
·
Peripheral route = Audience focus
is on context, not the actual message hidden in it. Focus is placed upon the
contextual cues such as celebrity endorsement or the mood created. The final
attitude change is likely to be temporary. This is most commonly used.
An important factor in the ELM is the
need for cognition. The degree to which they enjoy thinking about the
information they receive and analysing problems. Need for cognition is an
individual difference. People with a high need for cognition can reflect on
information well so that they have a good understanding of the world.
Evaluation of elaboration Likelihood
model
-
Influence from
peripheral route is only temporary although the peripheral route influence
can be considerable, there is a strong likelihood that any change produced by
this route is temporary – Penner and Frizsche 1993.
-
Most humans are
cognitive misers Friske and Taylor 1984 Humans rely on simple time efficient
strategies when evaluating and making time efficient decisions. If the content
of a message is not personally important
then we are more influenced by contextual cues such as celebrity endorsement.
When content is important they are better motivated to process message
carefully.
+Support for the temporary attitude change of the
peripheral route comes from Penner
and Fritzche US basketball player Johnson Jr announced he was HIV
positive. Penner and Friztche were psychologists collecting data about people’s
willingness to help people with AIDS. After basketball player came out, helping
rate rose to 83%.
Media and persuasiveness of television advertising
Pester power
Especially in the run up to Christmas adverts are
aimed at children with the intention that they will go and pester their parents
to buy the product for them. In Sweden
it is illegal to aim an advert at a child under 12, this is to stop pester
power. Pine and nash 2001 found a
positive correlation between television exposure and Christmas gift request increases.
Evaluation = to measure persuasiveness
researchers use data from how much viewers liked the product after viewing.
However for an advert to be persuasive it should lead to an actual purchase.
Does
celebrity endorsement work? Martin et al 2008
He found that student participants
were more convinced by a television endorsement from a fictional character when buying a digital
camera than one from a celebrity. The researchers claimed that young people
like to make sure the product is fashionable among people who resemble them,
rather than approved by celebrities.
Methodological limitations – Erfgen
2011
He claims that research on the
persuasiveness of celebrity endorsement has focussed on the characteristics of
the celebrity and less on the message communicated. Celebrities endorse a
product in several ways: implicitly
(I use this product), explicitly
(I endorse this product), in co-present
mode (celebrity and product are depicted simultaneously).
Attraction of celebrity social psychological explanation
s
Parasocial
relationship = where an individual is attracted to another who’s is unaware of the existence
of the person who created the relationship
Attachment theory suggests that the tendency
to develop parasocial relationships starts in childhood. Insecurely attached children are more
likely to form parasocial relationships. These relationships are seen as
desirable because there is no chance of being rejected.
Schiappa et al 2007
Schiappa
examined research on parasocial relationships to predict factors that lead to
that type of relationship. The predictors
found were attractiveness, similarity and real. If the character discloses
personal information we feel intimate with them.
Evaluation
= Derrick et al 2008
Derrick examined the relationship
between self esteem and identification with a parasocial relationship. Those
with low self esteem saw their favourite
celebrity as similar to themselves. Benefits unique to parasocial relationships
are not experienced in real life situations.
Absorption Addiction
Model
This model explains how a compromised
identity structure can lead to a psychological absorption with a celebrity in
attempt to establish an identity. Giles and Maltby 2006 identified this
process:
·
Entertainment social – fans are
attracted to a celebrity because of their ability to entertain, act as gossip
and social interaction.
·
Intense-personal- This reflects
intense and compulsive feelings about the celebrity. For example fans may
believe they are soul mates.
·
Borderline pathological- This includes
uncontrollable behaviours and fantasies about their celebrity.
How fans move through these stages: MCutcheon et al 2002
He argues that people have
parasocial relationships due to lacks in their real life; they use parasocial
relationships as an escape to reality. People may follow celebrities to gain a
sense of identity and fulfilment. Motivational forces driving this absorption
can become addictive.
Evaluation = social desirability
bias, based on questionnaire = not accurate
Persuasive techniques =
·
Hard
and soft cell – hard cell is the central route e.g. face to face sell
where you present the factors of the product. Soft cell is the peripheral route
where you create a feeling about the product.
·
Product
endorsement – Hovland Yale model ‘source factors’ we develop parasocial
relationships where we trust their judgement as we want to be like them.
Product endorsement is similar to a stamp of approval.
·
Pester
power – Advertising aimed at children with the idea they pester their
parents. This has been made illegal to aim adverts at under 12s in Sweden.
·
Sex and violence –
Advertisers are interested in the age group 18-34 as they have a disposable
income and have no regular spending habits such as children or a mortgage. They put adverts in programs where the TV show
also has a high level of sex and violence.