theorys of communication

Uses and Gratifications Theory is a popular approach to understanding mass communication. The theory places more focus on the consumer, or audience, instead of the actual message itself by asking “what people do with media” rather than “what media does to people” (Katz, 1959) . It assumes that members of the audience are not passive but take an active role in interpreting and integrating media into their own lives. The theory also holds that audiences are responsible for choosing media to meet their needs. The approach suggests that people use the media to fulfill specific gratifications. This theory would then imply that the media compete against other information sources for viewers' gratification. (Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. 1974)
There are three main paradigms in media effects: hypodermic needle (i.e., direct, or strong effects), limited effects, and the powerful to limited effects. "Uses and Gratifications" falls under the second paradigm which reached its apex around 1940-1960, when studies helped realize that the first paradigm was inaccurate.

basic modle
The Uses and Gratifications Theory follows a basic model. It is an audience-centered approach. When an audience actively seeks out media, they are typically seeking it in order to gratify a need. For example, in social situations, people may feel more confident and knowledgeable when they have specific facts and stories from media to add to conversation. By seeking out media, a person fulfills a need to be informed.
Social situations and psychological characteristics motivate the need for media, which motivates certain expectations of that media. This expectation leads one to be exposed to media that would seemingly fit expectations, leading to an ultimate gratification.
The media dependency theory, has also been explored as an extension to the uses and gratifications approach to media, though there is a subtle difference between the two theories. People's dependency on media proves audience goals to be the origin of the dependency while the uses and gratifications approach focuses more on audience needs (Grant et al., 1998). Still, both theories agree that media use can lead to media dependency(Rubin, 1982).
The media dependency theory states that the more dependent an individual is on the media for to fulfill needs, the more significant the media becomes to that person. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1976) illustrate dependency as the relationship between media content, the nature of society, and the behavior of audiences. Littlejohn (2002) also explained that people will become more dependent on media that meet a number of their needs than on media that touch only a few ones. Dependency on a certain medium is influenced by the number sources open to an individual. Individuals are usually more dependent on available media if their access to media alternatives is limited. The more alternatives there are for an individual, the lesser is the dependency on and influence of a specific medium.
The hypodermic needle model claims that consumers are strongly affected by media and have no say in how the media influences them. The main idea of the Uses and Gratifications model is that people are not helpless victims of all-powerful media, but use media to fulfill their various needs. These needs serve as motivations for using media.


Historical Development
Beginning in the 1940s, researchers began seeing patterns under the perspective of the uses and gratifications theory in radio listeners [1] Early research was concerned with topics such as children's use of comics and the absence of newspapers during a newspaper strike (Infante, Rancer, and Womack).[2][citation needed]). An interest in more psychological interpretations also emerged during this time [3] In 1974, Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch [4] realized that most Uses and Gratification studies were most concerned with: 1. The social and psychological origins of 2. needs which generate 3. expectations 4. of mass media or other sources, which lead to 5. differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in 6. need gratifications and 7. other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones [5] Blumler made some interesting points why Uses and Gratifications cannot measure an active audience. "The issue to be considered here is whether what has been thought about Uses and Gratifications Theory has been an article of faith and if it could now be converted into an empirical question such as: How to measure an active audience?" (Blumler, 1979).
It has not been done for these reasons. The notion of active audience has conflated an extraordinary range of meanings, including utility, intentionality, selectivity and imperviousness to influence.
Utility—Mass communication has uses to people.Intentionality—Media consumption is directed by prior motivation.Selectivity—Media behavior reflects prior interests and preferences.Imperviousness—The lessened ability of media to influence an obstinate audience [6]
In 1948, Lasswell introduced a four-functional interpretation of the media on a macro-sociological level. Media served the functions of surveillance, correlation, entertainment and cultural transmission for both society and individuals [7]
In 1972, Blumler and Brown[citation needed] extended Lasswell's four groups 25 years later. These included four primary factors for which one may use the media:Diversion—Escape from routine and problems; an emotional release.Personal Relationships—Social utility of information in conversation; substitution of media for companionship.Personal Identity or Individual Psychology—Value reinforcement or reassurance; self-understanding, reality exploration.Surveillance—Information about factors which might affect one or will help one do or accomplish something (Severin and Tankard, 1997[citation needed]) [8]
Katz, Gurevitch and Haas (1973) saw the mass media as a means by which individuals connect or disconnect themselves with others. They developed 35 needs taken from the largely speculative literature on the social and psychological functions of the mass media and put them into five categories:
Cognitive needs—Acquiring information, knowledge and understanding.Affective needs—Emotion, pleasure, feelings.Personal integrative needs—Credibility, stability, status.Social integrative needs—Family and friends.Tension release needs—Escape and diversion (Severin and Tankard, 1997).

critisim
Many people have criticized this theory as they believe the public has no control over the media and what it produces. It can also be said to be too kind to the media, as they are being 'let off the hook' and do not need to take responsibility for what they produce.
"The nature of the theory underlying Uses and Gratifications research is not totally clear," (Blumler, 1979) This makes the line between gratification and satisfaction blurred calling into question if we only seek what we desire or actually enjoy it. (Palmgreen,P., and Rayburn,J.D., 1985)
"Practitioners of Uses and Gratifications research have been criticized for a formidable array of shortcomings in their outlook -- they are taxed for being crassly atheoretical, perversely eclectic, ensnared in the pitfalls of functionalism and for flirting with the positions at odds with their functionalist origins," (Blumler, 1979).
The biggest issue for the Uses and Gratifications Theory is its being non-theoretical, being vague in key concepts, and being nothing more than a data-collecting strategy (Littlejohn, 2002; Severin and Tankard, 1997; McQuail 1994).
It seems that using this sociologically-based theory has little to no link to the benefit of psychology due to its weakness in operational definitions and weak analytical mode. Also, it is focused too narrowly on the individual and neglects the social structure and place of the media in that structure (Severin and Tankard, 1997).
Due to the individualistic nature of Uses and Gratification theory, it is difficult to take the information that is collected in studies. Most research relies on pure recollection of memory rather than data. (Katz, 1987). This makes self-reports complicated and immeasurable.
This theory has also been blasted by media hegemony advocates who say it goes too far in claiming that people are free to choose the media fare and the interpretations they want (Severin and Tankard, 1997). Other motives that may drive people to consume media may involve low level attention, a habit or a mildly pleasant stimulation. Uniform effects are not the kind of factor the Uses and Gratifications approach would predict (Severin and Tankard, 1997

agenda-setting theory
The agenda-setting theory is the theory that the mass-news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them.[1] Agenda-setting theory’s main postulate is salience transfer. Salience transfer is the ability of the mass media to transfer issues of importance from their mass media agendas to public agendas.

History
[edit] Foundation
The media agenda is the set of issues addressed by media sources and the public agenda which are issues the public consider important.[2] Agenda-setting theory was introduced in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their ground breaking study of the role of the media in 1968 presidential campaign in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] The theory explains the correlation between the rate at which media cover a story and the extent that people think that this story is important. This correlation has been shown to occur repeatedly.
In the dissatisfaction of the magic bullet theory, McCombs and Shaw introduced agenda-setting theory in the Public Opinion Quarterly.[3] The theory was derived from their study that took place in Chapel Hill, NC, where the researchers surveyed 100 undecided voters during the 1968 presidential campaign on what they thought were key issues and measured that against the actual media content.[3] The ranking of issues was almost identical, and the conclusions matched their hypothesis that the mass media positioned the agenda for public opinion by emphasizing specific topics.[4] Subsequent research on agenda-setting theory provided evidence for the cause-and-effect chain of influence being debated by critics in the field.
One particular study made leaps to prove the cause-effect relationship. The study was conducted by Yale researchers, Shanto Iyengar, Mark Peters, and Donald Kinder. The researchers had three groups of subjects fill out questionnaires about their own concerns and then each group watched different evening news programs, each of which emphasized a different issue. After watching the news for four days, the subjects again filled out questionnaires and the issues that they rated as most important matched the issues they viewed on the evening news.[5] The study demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between media agenda and public agenda. Since the theory’s conception, more than 350 studies have been performed to test the theory. The theory has evolved beyond the media's influence on the public's perceptions of issue salience to political candidates and corporate reputation
Functions
The agenda-setting function has multiple components:
Media agenda are issues discussed in the media, such as newspapers, television, and radio.
Public agenda are issues discussed and personally about members of the public.
Policy agenda are issues that policy makers consider important, such as legislators.
Corporate agenda are issues that big business and corporations consider important, including corporations.
These four agendas are interrelated. The two basic assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting are that the press and the media do not reflect reality, they filter and shape it, and the media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.
Diffusion
The media uses diffusion to spread ideas and aid in its agenda setting. Opinion Leaders and boundary spanners are very important to the media at using their networks to pass on the flow of information.
An opinion leader is often someone who is thought of by others to know a significant amount of information on a topic or is an "expert". This could be anyone from a specialist in a certain field, a politician who is the head of a specific congressional committee, or a mom who is very active in the PTA. They are often at the center of a social network, more attentive to outside information and capable of influence. Since the opinion leaders are those in a social network who are most likely to watch the news or pay attention to the media, they are an extremely important tool at spreading information to the masses.
Boundary Spanners are those in a social network who can span across various social networks. They can be essential to the flow of novel information. Boundary spanners can be used by the media in setting its agenda by getting information and ideas to a variety of social networks, rather than just one.
A study showing the effects of diffusion was Project Revere. Sociologists at the University of Washington from 1951 to 1953 would drop leaflets from an airplane onto a town. They then would see how long it would take for the information to pass by word of mouth to those who did not get a leaflet. Their findings showed that children are very effective in the diffusion process, thus proving how easy it is for a child to be affected by the media.
The Accessibility Bias
This is a theory that states that information that can be more easily retrieved from memory dominates our judgments, opinions and decisions. So in simpler terms, when someone hears information repeatedly and frequently, they are more likely to remember it.
S. Iyengar's article titled "The accessibility bias in politics: television news and public opinion" looks at just this theory.
He states that "In the area of public affairs, readily accessible information is more frequently conveyed by the media than information that is less accessible, and is more up to date."
The Accessibility Bias is effective because people are cognitive misers. We have limited resources (such as time) and cannot learn about every single subject there is. We also like to use heuristics or "shortcuts" when it comes to learning about topics that we may not have an interest in or are not particularly educated in. This is why we turn to the media to gain this information. So if the media decides to show a certain topic more often than another it shapes the agenda and shapes what people remember and call back to at a later
[edit] Cognitive Effects Model
Early media effects studies done by Lazarfled and Berelson showed that political campaigns have very little effect on voters, but instead that those closest to them (family and friends) as well as cognitions.
Cognition is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving. These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination, perception and planning. (Defined by Psychology at about.com).
The Cognitive effect model found that the media has an indirect influence on an audiences' attitude. A viewer already has set ideas and opinions, the media cannot do much to change those. However by showing certain stories more often than others and shaping the agenda they can shape what an audience puts importance on.
If the media reports more on the economy than international news then people will have more information on the economy and think that the issue is more important than what else is going on around the world. This does not mean that the media has changed their opinion on either topic, simply changed how much they may think about the particular topic.
Characteristics
Research has focused on characteristics of audience, the issues, and the media that might predict variations in the agenda setting effect.
Research done by Weaver in 1977 suggested that individuals vary on their need for orientation. Need for orientation is a combination of the individual’s interest in the topic and uncertainty about the issue. The higher levels of interest and uncertainty produce higher levels of need for orientation. So the individual would be considerably likely to be influenced by the media stories (psychological aspect of theory).[2]
Research performed by Zucker in 1978 suggested that an issue is obtrusive if most members of the public have had direct contact with it, and less obtrusive if audience members have not had direct experience. This means that agenda setting results should be strongest for unobtrusive issues because audience members must rely on media for information on these topics.[2]
Quote on agenda setting- "The media doesn't tell us what to think; it tells us what to think about"- Bernard C. Cohen (1963
Levels of agenda setting
The first-level agenda setting is most traditionally studied by researchers. In this level the media use objects or issues to influence the public. In this level the media suggest what the public should think about (amount of coverage). In second-level agenda setting, the media focuses on the characteristics of the objects or issues. In this level the media suggest how the people should think about the issue. There are two types of attributes: cognitive (subtantative, or topics) and affective (evaluative, or positive, negative, neutral). Intermedia agenda setting involves salience transfer among the media.Coleman and Banning 2006; Lee 2005; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996
Usage
The theory is used in political advertising, political campaigns and debates, business news and corporate reputation,[6] business influence on federal policy,[7] legal systems, trials,[8] role of groups, audience control, public opinion, and public relations
Strengths and weaknesses of theory
It has explanatory power because it explains why most people prioritize the same issues as important. It also has predictive power because it predicts that if people are exposed to the same media, they will feel the same issues are important. Its meta-theoretical assumptions are balanced on the scientific side and it lays groundwork for further research. Furthermore, it has organizing power because it helps organize existing knowledge of media effects.
There are also limitations, such as media users may not be as ideal as the theory assumes. People may not be well-informed, deeply engaged in public affairs, thoughtful and skeptical. Instead, they may pay only casual and intermittent attention to public affairs and remain ignorant of the details. For people who have made up their minds, the effect is weakened. News media cannot create or conceal problems, they may only alter the awareness, priorities and salience people attached to a set of problems.[citation needed] Research has largely been inconclusive in establishing a causal relationship between public salience and media coverage.[citation needed]



two step flow theory
[edit] History and Orientation
The two-step flow model hypothesizes that ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders, and from them to a wider population. It was first introduced by Paul Lazarsfeld et al. in 1944[1] and elaborated by Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld in 1955[2] and subsequent publications.[3] Lowery and DeFleur argue the book was much more than a simple research report: it was an effort to interpret the authors' research within a framework of conceptual schemes, theoretical issues, and research findings drawn broadly from the scientific study of small groups [4] Unlike the hypodermic needle model, which considers mass media effects to be direct, the two-step flow model stresses human agency.
According to Lazarsfeld and Katz, mass media information is channeled to the "masses" through opinion leadership. The people with most access to media, and having a more literate understanding of media content, explain and diffuse the content to others.
Based on the two-step flow hypothesis, the term “personal influence” came to illustrate the process intervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s reaction to that message. Opinion leaders tend to be similar to those they influence—based on personality, interests, demographics, or socio-economic factors. These leaders tend to influence others to change their attitudes and behaviors. The two-step theory refined the ability to predict how media messages influence audience behavior and explains why certain media campaigns do not alter audiences’ attitudes. This hypothesis provided a basis for the multi-step flow theory of mass communication.[5]
[edit] Criticisms
The original two-step flow hypothesis—that ideas flow from the media to opinion leaders and then to less active sections of the population—has been criticized and negated by myriad consequent studies. Findings from Deutschmann and Danielson assert, “we would urge that the Katz-Lazarsfeld two-stage flow hypothesis, as a description of the initial information process, be applied to mass communication with caution”[6]. They find substantial evidence that initial mass media information flows directly to people on the whole and is not relayed by opinion leaders.
Furthermore, the two-step hypothesis does not adequately describe the flow of learning. Everett Rogers’ “Diffusion of Innovations” cites one study in which two-thirds of respondents accredited their awareness to the mass media rather than face-to-face communication. Similarly, critics argue that most of Lazarsfeld’s findings pertain to learning factors involved with general media habits rather than the learning of particular information. Both findings suggest a greater prevalence of a one-step flow of communication.
However, Lazarsfeld’s two-step hypothesis is an adequate description to understand the media’s influence on belief and behavior. Troldahl finds that media exposure is a first step to introduce discussion, at which point opinion leaders initiate the second-step flow. These findings also realize opinion leaders decisive role in the balance theory, which suggests that people are motivated to keep consistency among their current beliefs and opinions. If a person is exposed to new observations that are inconsistent with present beliefs, he or she is thrown into imbalance. This person will then seek advice from their opinion leader, to provide them with additional cognitions to bring them back into balance.