Media influences on social behaviour

Explanations for media influences on pro-social and antisocial behaviour: Cognitive priming:

Watching pro-social acts may make the PPs more helpful e.g. Holloway et al’s lab experiment Good News Studies = PPs from two conditions in two waiting rooms = listened to radio.

Those in condition where good news were heard = more likely to be cooperative when asked to participate in study involving bargaining with a confederate.

Blackman and Hornstein carried out follow-up = additionally asked PPs to rate their beliefs about human nature those who heard good news were more likely to report that humans are good.

Evaluation: correlations =/= causation e.g. factors like temperament but Holloway’s was reliable b/c it was replicated by Bla + Horn and thus supports Hol.

Existent aggressive thoughts become activated when a viewer is primed to respond aggressively due to network of memories involving aggression is retrieved.

Josephson: hockey players were asked to play violent video games and shown violent/nonviolent film of actor using walkie-talkies subsequent hockey game, those who behaved aggressively were those who had seen violent firm and referee was holding walkie-talkie so walkie-talkie was cue for aggression.

Social Learning Theory: Both pro/antisocial behaviour can be learnt through same mechanisms of watching and imitating

the actions of role models on TV. The two mechanisms are learning via direct experience (operant conditioning) and via vicarious

reinforcement (observation + imitation of role-models). Four stages of SLT: attention retention reproducing motivation. Sprafkin et al: asked PPs to press button to save puppt or gain prize after 3 groups watched TV

programme (condition 1: boy saves puppy, condition 2: same but no help, condition 3: something else) = found that those in condt. 1 were more likely to save puppy

Bobo Doll Experiment: three groups of children aged three to six years old had been assessed for aggressiveness and spread out between the groups.

Two groups saw adult models that were either aggressive or non-aggressive towards a Bobo doll- those who were aggressive towards it sat on it, punched it, hit it on the head with a mallet and threw it in addition to verbally abusing it.

The third group acted as a control group. After being frustrated to increase the chance of aggressive behaviour being exhibited, all children

were observed through a one-way mirror for twenty minutes. Children who were exposed to the aggressive model imitated their exact behaviour and were

significantly more aggressive- both physically and verbally- than the control group. This effect was greater for boys than girls, although girls showed more verbal aggression.

Easily replicated b/c it’s a lab experiment so has high levels of control but Bobo doll is artificial stimuli so is contrived as adult would not abuse a Bobo doll, which is undoubtedly different to abusing a human also experiment is unethical as it put kids under distress.

Explanations for media influences on pro-social behaviour only: Parental mediation Austin: effective mediation is parent discussing programme with child and

explaining ambigious/disturbing material + following up concepts presented on TV Rice et al: parental mediation enhances learning effect of Sesame Street Rosenkoetter: kids able to understand complex messages in adult sitcoms thanks to parental mediation.

Valkenburg et al: only some forms of PM is effective e.g. co-viewing w/o discussion is ineffective and only instructive mediation is an effective mediator between kid and TV.

Developmental factors pro-social skills develop throughout childhood according to Eisenberg so strong developmental difference in degree in which child of different age are influenced by pro-social content so younger children may be less affected than older kids.

Mares meta-analysis: weakest effect was on adolescents and strongest effect was on primary school kids idea that media has effect on development of pro-social reasoning is stupid b/c they’re more likely to be affected by home experiences.

Explanations for media influences on antisocial behaviour only: Desensitisation violent media stimulates violent behaviour through desensitisation ad the more

violent TV is watched, the more acceptable the behaviour becomes so makes them less anxious about violence.

Cumberbatch: argues that it does the opposite = frightens child not make them more frightening. Lowered physiological arousal Huessmann + Moise: boys who watch loads of TV show slower than

average physiological arousal in response to new scenes of violence as they become used to it and their emotional and physiological responses decline.

Zillmann: excitation-transfer model suggests that arousal creates readiness to aggress if there are appropriate circumstances as watching TV enhances arousal and thus more aggression.

Effects of computers and video games: NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF VIDEO GAMES :

Gentile + Stone: lab experiment; found short-term increases in physiological arousal + hostility + aggression after violent gameplay compared to nonviolent gameplay.

Major weakness of lab experiment is that researchers are unable to measure real-life aggression so use measures of aggression that have no relationship to real-life aggression and only measures short-term effect.

Anderson et al: 430 7-9 year olds surveyed at two points during school year those with high exposure to violent video games became more verbally + physically aggressive and less pro-social.

PPs may have been exposed to other forms of media violence during course of study. Gentile + Anderson: meta-analysis found consistent link between violent games and aggressive

behaviour. Correlation doesn’t mean causation even Gentile et al. proposed bi-directional model wherein

despite the negative effects of video games, those who have aggressive temperament are more likely to play violent video games for recreational purposes.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER-USE (FACEBOOK): Charles: focus group + interview techniques to investigate FB habits of 200 Scottish undergrads

12% experienced anxiety linked to FB and had more friends on FB than others; reported stress from deleting unwanted contacts + constant pressure to be entertaining + worrying about etiquette 32% felt guilty when rejecting FB friends + 10% reported they dislike FB friend requests.

Greenfield: FB infantilises the brain by shortening attention span and providing constant instant gratification.

D’Amato: case study of asthmatic 18 year old who broke up with girlfriend she un-friended him he changed FB name to befriend her again but his asthma worsened after seeing her pics =FB could be significant source of psychological stress and triggering factor.

POSITIVE EFFECTS OF VIDEO GAMES:

Greitemeyer + Osswald: those who played Lemmings were showed more pro-social behaviour than those who played aggressive game Lamers or neutral game Tetris after 8 minutes, PPs saw researcher drop pencils and 67% of those playing Lemmings helped, whilst only 33% of those playing Tetris helped and 28% of those playing Lamers.

Kahne et al: found majority of those playinh Sims said they learned about issues in societ and explorted social issues.

Lenhart et al: large-scale US survey to investigate influence of multiplayer games on social commitment and found 64% of those who played multiplayer games like Halo/The Sims were committed to civic participation and 26% had tried to persuade others how to vote in an election.

But issue of survey is that it lacks control for young people’s prior civic commitments and pro-social activities and also unable to make causal claims due to lack of random exposure to civic game opportunities (basically young ppl choose these games rather than being randomly allocated).

Real-world application of Tetris on traumatic patients has reduced their memory flashbacks (Holmes et al).

POSITIVE EFFECTS OF COMPUTERS (FACEBOOK): Gonzales + Hancock: FB walls have +e impact on our self-esteem, as feedback on them tends to be

+e. Cornell Uni: students were asked to either use their FB page, look at themselves or do nothing;

found that those who used FB page gave much more +e feedback about themselves. Supported by Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model which claims that self-selection of info we choose to

present ourselves has +e impact on self-esteem.

Explaining the persuasive effects of media:Hovland-Yale Model :

Cognitive model. Attitudes change by looking at is as sequence: attention comprehension reactance = attitude

change . Persuasion is dependent on the source (trustworthiness + attractiveness), message (e.g. emotional

appeal), medium (written vs. audio-visual) and target audience. Petty + Cacioppo suggest that the more attractive the communicator is, the more likely the audience

will be persuaded Baron + Byrne suggest that’s why ads have experts in white coats = emphasises scientific status of message Kiesler2 argue that physical attractive sources = more persuasive but O’Mahoney + Meenaghan found that celeb endorsements aren’t always successful and Hume suggest it doesn’t increase persuasive communication as they can overshadow product.

Walster + Festinger suggest messages which aren’t deliberately targeted at us are more persuasive Meyerowitz + Chaiken gave female uni students pamphlets about breast cancer: 3 different ones (loss pamphlet talking about dangers of lack of check ups, gain pamphlet about +e results of self-exam and control pamphlet just stating facts = found that after 4 months, loss condition self-examined more and changed attitude but methodological issues include use of interviews so social desirability but it is lab so highly controlled; ethical issues = exposed to fearful messages so making them stressful.

Loftus found that younger people are more susceptible to persuasive messages than adults Martin found that whereas older children have a good understanding of persuasive intent of ads, kids don’t McGuire suggest that those with high IQ won’t agree with message as opposed to low IQ ppl Eagly + Carli suggest that women are socialised to conform and therefore more pen to social influence.

But in general, H-Y model doesn’t detail the relative importance of each factor/major weakness is it concentrates on steps not how persuasion occurs (based on assumption that attitude change derives from comprehension of message which doesn’t guarantee that people are persuaded)/most research into persuasion assumes they can measure attitude by measuring ppl’s beliefs through self-report and standardised measurement scales/model assumes we are all equally rational but we are cognitive misers.

Elaboration-Likelihood Model : Suggests that we don’t think systematically about arguments when exposed to persuasive material. P&C agreed that even though we consider arguments, we’re cognitive misers who don’t think deeply

about all info. Two routes that lead to persuasion and attitude change. Peripheral route taken by those with low need for cognition audience have low motivation and

ability to think about message superficial processing focusing on secondary factors e.g. attractiveness of communicator = temporary change, susceptible to fading and counterattacks.

Central route taken by those with high need for cognition audience has high motivation deeply process info, focusing on quality of arguments = lasting change that resists to fading and counterattacks.

Vidrine + Simmons + Brandon used 227 smokers who were measured to asses their need for cognition when exposed to 1/3 conditions (fact-based leaflet warning of risks, emotion-based leaflet and control condition) found that those with high need for cognition responded better to fact-based pamphlet whereas those with low need responded better to emotion-based highly controlled but awareness of study so risk of social desirability and not longitudinal to cannot know whether attitude is long-lasting; lacks ecological validity; ethical issues (stressful).

Lin et al supports ELM 63 Taiwanese students took part in online shopping study in virtual shopping mall each PP had to select phone based on consumer reviews; each consumer review differed in quality and quantity also asked to complete need for cognition measurement found that those with high need for cognition were more likely to look at quality of reviews when buying.

ELM takes into consideration gender differences + interest in topic + individual choices so ppl therefore have some degree of control and freewill in being persuaded.

Explanations for the persuasiveness of TV ads: Hard-sell and soft-sell advertising hard-sell = presenting factual info about product/soft-sell = using

more subtle and creative persuasive techniques Snyder + DeBono: HS/SS approaches had different effects on different people Okazaki et al’s meta-analysis of 75+ investigations to see which one was more effective found that viewers find HS more believable but SS were associated with positive attitudes and that HS have a greater capacity to annoy audience thus decreasing persuasiveness.

Product endorsement Giles: celebs provide familiar face (reliable source of info we can trust b/c we have parasocial relationship with them) Martin et al found that PPs were more convinced by fellow student endorsing product than celebrity bc students like to make sure their stuff is fashionable among ppl who resemble them rather than approved by celebs.

Making it memorable Belch: studied cognitive effects of ad repetition and found that attitudes and purchase intentions weren’t affected by repetition and that cognitive responses became more negative as frequency increased but Zajonc argued that the mere exposure effect makes it more familiar and thus makes us more likely to choose it when faced with other choices.

Children and advertising Oates et al: investigated kids’ responses to TV ad tested them on their recall + recognition + understanding of message found that although kids are able to recall the ads they don’t fully understand their purpose Martin et al found positive correlation between age and understanding of persuasive intent.

The attraction of celebrity:Social-psychological explanations:

Para-social relationships : one in which person is attracted to celeb who’s unaware of person’s existence according to Horton + Wohl they won’t run risk of getting rejected/criticised three levels = social level (celeb seen as source of enjoyment), intense-personal level (fan becomes intensively engaged with celeb) and obsessional level (following them home etc.) Schiappa et al carried out meta-analysis of studies of Para-social relationships and found they’re most likely to form when celeb is attractive and similar to fan Maltby et al examined link between mental health and para-social relationships and used sample of 300 UK students to complete CAS scale and loneliness and depression questionnaire and found that those with anxiety and depression were most likely Giles + Maltby found intense interest in celebs to be common with teems not due to parents, suggesting celebs provide teens with pseudo-friends Jenkins + Jason suggest that PR serve as important function and has +e effect on people b/c they enable fans to enhance lives by taking an active role + help fans make social networks with other fans and develop their sense of appreciation of other’s talents models of social behaviour and opportunity to learn cultural values but Maltby et al founds link between PR and eating disorders.

Absorption-Addiction model : McCutcheon et al: most people don’t go beyond admiring celebs due to their entertainment/social values but the motivational reasons driving this absorption could for some people become addictive = more extreme behaviour to sustain satisfaction Giles + Maltby identified 3 levels in this process: entertainment-social (attraction b/c their perceived ability to entertain and are source of social interaction and gossip), intense-personal (worships celeb, compulsive feelings) and borderline-pathological (relationship goes beyond para-social) difference between I-P and B-P is that BP feel empathy for them ad if something happens to them they feel it has happened to them Maltby et al used Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to assess link between level of celeb worship and personality and found that E-S is linked to extraversion and I-P linked to neuroticism (tendency to experience –e emotional states related to anxiety and depression).\

Attachment theory : tendency to form PR begins in early childhood relationships; those with insecure attachment types as adults are more likely to become strongly attached to celebs b/c they make no demands and the fan runs little of criticisms/disappointment/rejection anxious-ambivalent are very likely to form PR b/c they have unrealistic and unmet rational needs due to their belief that others will not reciprocate one’s desire for intimacy whereas anxious-avoidant are least likely b/c find it difficult to develop intimate relations and are therefore less likely to seek them with real/fictional ppl deterministic and ignores freewill

Evolutionary explanations: Attraction to creative individuals : humans are neophilic (love of novelty) before TV, people would

amuse each other and neophilia would have led to more creative displays from potential mates mate choice in environment of evolutionary adaptation could have favoured creative displays which explains how characteristics that are universally and uniquely developed e.g. music are highly valued during mate choice mating mind (Miller) claims that despite natural selections favouring development of skills, sexual selection favours minds prone to creativity and celebs represent creative skills so we’re attracted to them and it’s a part of human evolution neophilia in animals as complex songs make a bird more attractive Shiraishi found that individuals with gene that codes for MAOA enzyme are more novelty seeking, suggesting a genetic origin for some people’s preference for creative people.

Celebrity gossip : may have been adaptive as De Backer suggests it creates bonds within social groups and maintains alliances constructs and manipulates reputations of rivals Barkow suggests our

minds are fooled into regarding celebs as being members of our social network thus celebs trigger same gossip mechanisms that have evolved to keep up with affairs of social group DeBacker surveyed 800 PPs and they reported that gossip was seen as useful way of getting info about social group members, concluding that media exposure would lead to misperception that celebs are actually a part of social network.

Both are difficult to falsify as we can’t go back in time reductionist as they focus on past as important factor but ignores current issues within individual’s life that may play a role doesn’t take sufficient account of variations across cultures as Anderson et al carried out meta-analysis from 52 cultures and found that some cultures preferred curvy women (little food access) whilst others preferred slim women (reliable food access).

Research into intense fandom:Celebrity worship:

Gabriel 348 student PPs given questionnaires measuring self-esteem, then asked to write essay about fav celeb then asked again to fill out questionnaire = found those initially scoring low scored higher after essay so associated celeb’s characteristics to themselves use of questionnaires may be affected by social desirability and idealised answers to can lack answers correlation so doesn’t show causal relationship, other variables can affect findings.

Fuji et al looked at those with erotomania (those convinced that a stranger is in love with them) and found they suffered from cognitive deficits and lacked flexibility in their thinking but mild forms may be beneficial as Larsen found it provided youngsters with attitudinal and behavioural examples Houran et al showed those who engage in celeb worship don’t perceive clear boundaries between themselves and others as they fail to distinguish between emotions and thoughts.

Kennedy’s characteristics of sufferers include absence of: partner, full-time job, often have mental disorders, 75% female Cheng + Yue: carried out telephone survey of 833 Chinese teens and found that idol worship was associated with lower levels of work/study and lower self-esteem and less successful identity achievement.

Celebrity stalking: Kamphius + Emmelkamp: wanted to review demographic and clinical traits of stalker and the

psychological impact on victim of stalker = carried out meta-analysis = found different types of stalkers (erotomatic, obsessional, resentful, predatory, psychotic) and no link between celebrity stalking and risk of violence) research can lead to formation of effective therapies and instances can be prevented through utilisation of counselling to promote more satisfactory relationship conclusions.

Mullen looked at 20,000 incidents of stalking British Royal Family and found 80% were psychotic so celeb stalking is a separate phenomenon.

McCutcheon et al: developed Obsessive Rational Intrusion and Celebrity Stalking Scale to measure celeb stalking and factor analysis found two subscales: persistent pursuit and threat found to be valid and reliable and uses indirect measurements so free from social desirability bias.

Bartholomew + Horowitz: proposed model of adult attachment styles based on individual workings of selves and others one of these is pre-occupied attachment style which has been linked to celeb stalking as they have a negative self-model and positive other-model Meloy claims that celeb stalking happens b/c they overvalue others and perceive contact wit celebs will indicate they are acceptable and valued, challenging their negative views of self.