User:Sramos1/Theories of media exposure

Media exposure refers to the amount and type of media content an individual is exposed to. This can include television shows, movies, social media, news articles, advertisements, etc. [1] The media can shape our perceptions of reality, influence our behaviors, and provide information and entertainment which can have a major impact on our daily lives. Theories such as the uses and gratification theory, social learning theory, and cultivation theory are used to help provide insights into how individuals learn from media, how media shapes our perceptions of reality, and how media satisfies our needs. Understanding the theories on media exposure is important as it influences what content is produced, what content is consumed, and how media is used to achieve different goals, both positive and negative.[1] Today individuals are often overwhelmed by different types of media as they can be exposed to it both directly and indirectly. By studying these theories, researchers can gain a better understanding of how media exposure affects individuals and society.

Specific Theories

Uses and Gratifications Theory

One of the most popular theories, Uses and Gratifications Theory(U&G), is based on users actively attempting to satisfy their media needs. Elihu Katz is often credited with being one of the original creators of this theory. This theory states that an individual will choose the media or form of media that will satisfy their desires most completely. There are a number of different desires involved with this theory, such as a desire for information or social interaction. When seeking to fulfill these desires, an individual will need to make a decision. This decision-making process is the primary interest for the theorists. When comparing social networking websites, it is simply a matter of preference at the time. However, the decision making process becomes more convoluted when deciding between watching a movie, playing a game online, or reading a newspaper. The same fundamental principle applies however, the person will make the decision based on what brings the most gratification [2].

Communication behavior is goal-directed, purpose-driven, and motivated in U & G. People use communication to satisfy their needs or desires while the media competes with other forms of communication, and reality TV appeals to people through instrumental and ritualistic media use. Instrumental use is connected to information uses of the medium, while instrumental use is related to greater exposure to informational programming and perceiving content to be realistic [3]. The historical context behind participatory programming and the appeal of reality TV, led to confessional women's magazines in the early 20th century, mass marketing strategies of women's magazines in the interwar years, the growth of talk and daytime radio, and the emergence of the TV talk show, game show, and other reality genres.

Reality television programs were more likely to fulfill voyeuristic and companionship needs among those with low mobility and low interpersonal interaction. Critics argue that reality TV poses a new common denominator for television content, promotes models of questionable social validity, and provides relatively inexpensive entertainment. The growing popularity of reality programming raises the question of its utility and consequences for audiences. Individuals watch reality and consider how social and psychological antecedents influence reality TV viewing from a user’s and gratification perspective.

Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory, similar to Uses and Gratifications Theory, is based on the gratification of an individual, but differs in that it is based more on behavior rather than decision making. Albert Bandura is said to be the forerunner of this theory. Each individual will make decisions based on anticipation. There is a heavy reliance on previous experience knowing what leads to gratification and what will not. If one receives joy from watching comedies, then an individual will seek out comedies in the future. If horror films leave a person with nightmares, then they will most likely attempt to avoid them. This theory also states that the experience of others can be used in the decision-making process. If a family member recommends a book, then an individual is more likely to pick up the book and read it themselves. This theory does address more thoroughly media avoidance than does Uses and Gratifications Theory [2].

Social Cognitive Theory

In the 1960s, Bandura's seminal Bobo doll experiment catalyzed Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), previously called Social Learning Theory. Since then, SCT has been a compelling explanation of observational learning and social modeling. A controversial perspective that goes against dominant behaviorist views argues that environmental and personal factors may contribute to or influence behavior and determine it [4]. As a result of SCT's triadic reciprocal model, "individual agency and social structure operate together as code determinants,” both influencing and influencing each other in mutually reinforcing ways [4]. Based on the agentic perspective, SCT identifies people as reactive to the external environment and internal forces and capable of self-organization and self-regulation [4].

Cultivation Theory

Cultivation theory argues that media can shape our perceptions of reality by presenting a consistent and repetitive message over time [5].It suggests that heavy exposure to media, particularly television, can lead to a "cultivation" of a particular set of beliefs.

Cultivation theory was proposed by George Gerbner in the 1960s [4]. This theory focuses on how the amount of television that is taken in impacts the perception and attitudes of the watcher. Gerbner argued that the more television taken in by the viewer, the more their views of the world reflect what they are shown through the media [6]. He compared his studies between two groups of people who were similar when it came to demographics, but the main difference between the groups was that one regularly watched television and the other did not. This theory focuses on the long-term effects of television and how the messages being portrayed can cultivate in people's lives [6]. Gerbner believed that television has the ability to impact how people think about certain concepts, but he did not believe that television has the ability to alter the concepts that people believe in. He states that people have preconceived notions about certain concepts and that they utilize the content viewed on television to build on these notions and confirm the truth of them.

Criticisms

Gerbner's theory of cultivation has been criticized for being too simplistic. Certain critics believe that the major issue with this theory is that Gerbner does not take content differences into account [7]. He also focused his studies mainly on the fictional side of television which is leaving out a large portion of the content shown on television. Another criticism related to this one is that it is somewhat inapplicable in the 21st century [7]. Since this theory was originally adapted in the 1960s, the content that was shown while he conducted his studies differ greatly from the content shown in the year 2020.

Current research

The original idea of the cultivation theory is still being researched and developed. There are over 600 studies that work to expand on Gerber’s theory which have been published in the past three decades [5]. One example of a more recent study was done by Minnebo and Eggermont in 2007 where they found the presentation of drugs on television led to many believing younger adults and teens are largely substance abusers [5]. Other studies focus on the presentation of sexuality, race, and political views in television and how stereotypes and representation can alter people’s opinions about other groups when they are exposed to them frequently.

[1] de Vreese, C. H., & Neijens, P. (2016). Measuring media exposure in a changing communications environment. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(2-3), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150441

[2] Straubhaar, Joseph., LaRose, Robert., & Davenport, Lucinda. (2010). "Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology."

[3] Zizi Papacharissi Ph.D. & Andrew L. Mendelson Ph.D. (2007) An Exploratory Study of Reality Appeal: Uses and Gratifications of Reality TV Shows, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51:2, 355-370, DOI: 10.1080/08838150701307152

[4] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

[5] Michael Morgan Ph.D. & James Shanahan Ph.D. (2010) “The State of Cultivation”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54:2, 337-355, DOI: 10.1080/08838151003735018

[6] Morgan, Michael; Shanahan, James; Signorielli, Nancy (2016-10-23). "Cultivation Theory". The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy: 1–10. doi:10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect015. ISBN 9781118290736.

[7] Romer, Daniel; Jamieson, Patrick; Bleakley, Amy; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (2014), "Cultivation Theory", The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication Theory, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 115–136, doi:10.1002/9781118591178.ch7, ISBN 978-1-118-59117-8