MEDIA AQA PSYCHOLOGY

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

APPROACHES: 1.       Cognitive 2.       Behaviourist 3.       Psychodynamic 4.       Biological

M= methodology
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.