Reading I NEED HELP ON MY HOMEWORK 3

C H A P T E R T H R E E

The Analysis Strategy

This chapter lays out the analysis strategy used in the next six chapters. We begin with presenting 14 analytical dimensions that are used to examine media effects theories. These 14 analytical dimensions are arranged in four groupings: (1) Original conceptualization of the theory, (2) Components of the theory, (3) Empirical test- ing of the claims made by the theory, and (4) Theory development over time. See Table 3.1 for a summary of these analytical dimensions. The final section in this chapter explains how the analytical dimensions will be used.

Original Conceptualization of the Theory

The first task in this analysis strategy is to determine the nature of each of the six the- ories when they were first introduced. This step entails examining each theory along five analytical dimensions: (1) Conceptual foundation, (2) Authors’ introduction of the theory, (3) Conceptualization of the idea of media, (4) Conceptualization of the idea of media effect, and (5) Conceptualization of the idea of media influence.

Conceptual Foundation

This analytical dimension refers to the way the creators of a theory analyzed the existing scholarly literatures to position their theory as building on particular ideas

(Continued)

48 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Table 3.1. Summary of Analytical Dimensions 1. Conceptual Foundation

When the author(s) introduced their theory, how did they provide a foundation for it? * To what extent did they rely on a critical analysis of scholarly literatures? * To what extent did they rely on patterns in the empirical literatures?

2. Theory Introduction What reason did authors provide for introducing this particular system of explanation?

* Did they point out gaps or problems in the media effects literature? * Did they show how their system of explanation could fill in the gaps and

ameliorate the problems? 3. Conceptualization of Media

How did the authors define media and set the boundaries of what media meant in their theory?

* Type of definition for media (ostensive, formal, etc.) * Constraints by channel, vehicle, genre, or message

4. Conceptualization of media effect How did the authors define and set the perimeter of their particular effect?

* Constraints by target (individual, groups, macro, or several?) * Constraints by time (immediate, long term, or both?) * Constraints by type (cognitive, attitudinal, belief, affect, physiology, behavior?) * Constraints by valence (positive, negative, or both?) * Constraints by intentionality (intentional, unintentional, or both?)

5. Conceptualization of Media Influence How did the authors link media influence with the effect(s)?

* Effect is primarily acquiring something new * Effect is primarily triggering or activating something in the target * Effect is primarily altering something existing in the target * Effect is primarily reinforcing something existing in the target

6. Key Concepts What were the most important concepts in the theory when it was introduced?

* How was each concept defined? 7. Core Propositions

What was the core set of explanatory statements when the theory was introduced? * How was the process of influence articulated? * How complex was the structure of the process of influence (contingent factors and

intervening factors)? * How complex was the relationship (nonlinear, asymmetrical, thresholds, etc.)?

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 49

Table 3.1. Continued 8. Foundational Assumptions

What were the expressed and unexpressed assumptions underlying the authors’ system of explanation?

* What was the conceptualization of “audience?” (mechanistic, interpretive) * What were the methodological assumptions? (sampling, measurement, etc.)

9. Stimulating Scholarly Attention To what extent has the theory stimulated scholarship?

* Empirical tests * Conceptual publications, such as reviews and critiques

10. Major Lines of Research What are the significant lines of programmatic research that have been conducted to test the claims of the theory?

11. Empirical Validity To what extent has the empirical literature found support for theory’s claims? * Degree of support for claims made by propositions * Degree of support for conceptualizations, such as definitions of concepts * Degree of support for assumptions made by the theory

12. Conceptual Development What changes have theoreticians made to the theory of a conceptual nature? * Altering definitions of existing concepts * Adding new concepts * Altering propositions * Adding new propositions * Altering axioms

13. Methodological Development What changes in methodological guidance have theoreticians made over time? * Sampling * Measurement * Data analysis

14. Current Challenges What are the major challenges to the theory at this time? * As stimulated by patterns of findings from empirical research * As stimulated by changes in the focal phenomenon

50 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

and thus extending the progression of explaining media effects in some way. That is, we identify how theory creators established a conceptual foundation for their system of explanation by acknowledging that particular ideas from scholarly liter- atures influenced them in the creation of their theory.

Authors’ Introduction of the Theory

When authors introduce a theory into a scholarly literature, they have an obliga- tion to justify how their theory can extend knowledge about the phenomenon that their theory is designed to explain. That is, theoreticians need to show how their system of explanation builds from solid ideas already in the literature and pro- gresses to fill a gap or to overcome some faulty elements exhibited in an existing theory or theories. Therefore, the introduction of a theory requires a critical analy- sis of the scholarly literature in order to highlight foundational ideas as well as to identify gaps and to reveal faulty elements in existing explanations.

Conceptualization of Media

This analytical dimension refers to how theoreticians define the media. This dimen- sion is important because it generates information that can be used in determining the scope of the theoreticians’ system of explanation. Are the theoreticians regard- ing media effects in a narrow reductionistic way, such as limiting their theory to only one technological channel, one genre of content, or one particular message? Or are the theoreticians attempting to explain all media?

This analytical dimension is also important because it generates information that can be used to make judgments about precision. Analyses along this dimen- sion will reveal how deeply the theoreticians have thought about the ideas that are most important to their theory and how carefully they have been in transmitting meaning to readers about how they conceptualize the media. Sometimes theoreti- cians will provide a formal definition of media, but more typically they will define the media ostensively by naming channels, vehicles, genres, or particular messages. While ostensive definitions at first appear clear because they name concrete ele- ments, ostensive definitions are fuzzy from a scholarly perspective because they fail to provide classification rules. To illustrate, when theoreticians talk about media effects in terms of television’s influence, readers cannot know if the theoreticians mean the large screen sitting in a person’s home or also include moving images on computer screens and mobile devices; programming offered at fixed times or video on demand; or programming from broadcasters, cable providers, or amateurs. In

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 51

scholarly settings, formal definitions are superior to ostensive definitions because they present classification rules that reduce ambiguity of meaning.

Conceptualization of Media Effect

The most important concept in a media effects theory is the presumed effect. There are many possible effects as a broad definition will indicate (Potter, 2011): 

Media influenced effects are those things that occur as a result—either in part or in whole—from media influence. They can occur immediately during exposure to a media message or they can take a long time to occur over the course of many expo- sures. They can last for a few seconds or an entire lifetime. They can show up clearly as a change but they can also reinforce existing patterns, in which case the effect appears as no change. They can affect individual people, or all people in the form of the public. They can also affect institutions and society.

Notice that this definition lays out four dimensions for an analysis: targets, time, change or reinforcement, and type of effect. All four of these dimensions will be used in analyzing media effects theories.

Targets. Who or what is conceptualized as experiencing the effect? Is it indi- viduals? If so, is it all individuals or only certain types? Or is it some kind of aggre- gate of people (such as groups or the public), or is it an aggregate that transcends people (such as institutions, society, culture)?

Time. Does the theory regard the media-influenced effect as occurring during an exposure to a particular message or as taking a longer time to manifest itself ? Also, is the effect short lived or does it last a long time?

Change or reinforcement. Most theories attempt to explain some sort of change, which is conceptualized as a difference of something in targets after an exposure compared to before the exposure. Some theories explain media influence as rein- forcement of some preexisting condition in targets.

In order to avoid the trap of equating nonchange with reinforcement, con- sider that media effects have three properties—intensity, direction, and weight. For example, think of a typical measure of attitudes using a Likert scale. If a person has attitude X and this attitude is found to be unchanged (same intensity and direction) over time despite the person being exposed repeatedly to media mes- sages, this is often interpreted to be a reinforcement-type effect, because there is an implied change in the weightiness of the attitude. While the attitude itself does not change intensity or direction over time, it becomes more weighty—through reinforcement it becomes harder to change. With attitudes, the direction refers to

52 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

whether a person has a positive or negative attitude about something; the inten- sity refers to how strong the attitude is; and the weight refers to how fixed the attitude is.

In order to distinguish a reinforcement effect from a prediction of nonchange, reinforcement is defined as an effect where the direction and intensity remain unchanged while the weight increases. If all three properties remain the same, then this is evidence for nonchange.

Type of effect. There are six possible types of effects on individuals (Potter, 2011). These six differ in terms of the part of the person affected or the character of the experience of the effect within an individual. These six are cognition, belief, attitude, affect, physiology, and behavior. All individual-level media effects studies examine how the media exert an influence on one or more of these six types. For examples, see Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Media Effects Template: Individual Unit Effects

Media Influence Functions Type of Effect Acquiring Triggering Altering Reinforcing

Cognition Memorize Message Element

Recall Information

Change Memory Structure

Strengthen Skills Construction

of a Pattern Reinforce Connections

Belief Accept a Belief Recall Belief Change Belief Strengthen Generalization

Construction of a Belief

Attitude Accept Attitude Recall Attitude

Change Attitude

Strengthen Evaluation

Construction of a New Attitude

Reinforce Attitudes Affect Learn Emo

Information Recall Emo Change Emo

Sensitivity Strengthen Emo

Connection Physiology Mood Change Reinforce Mood Automatic

Response Reinforce Reactions

Behavior Learn Behaviors Recall of Behavior Behavioral Change

Reinforce Habits

Imitation of Behavior

Performance of Novel Behavior

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 53

A cognitive media effect occurs when media exposure influences a person’s mental processes or the product of those mental processes. The most easy to doc- ument cognitive effect is the acquisition of factual information from media mes- sages, such as from books, newspapers, television news stories, and informational websites. The human mind can absorb information from media messages through the process of memorization. However, the human mind can do far more than memorize; it can transform information into knowledge. This transformation of information can take the form of inferring patterns across media messages. The human mind can also group media messages in different ways to create new mean- ings. It can generalize beyond media messages to generate principles about real life. The media have been found to trigger all of these mental activities, so this category of cognitive effects on individuals is very large.

Beliefs have been defined as cognitions about the probability that an object or event is associated with a given attribute (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Simply stated, a belief is faith that something is real or is true. The media continually create and shape our beliefs by showing us more of the world than we are able to see directly for ourselves. None of us have ever met George Washington, but we all believe he existed and was one of the founders of the United States as a country, because we have read about him in history books and websites and seen films about him. Each of us holds beliefs about the existence of a great many things we have never seen directly in our real lives; many of these beliefs have come from media messages.

Attitudes are judgments about something. For example, people see a character in a film and make judgments about that character’s attractiveness, hero status, likeability, etc. When the media also present stories about people, events, issues, and products in the real world, these stories often trigger the need for us to make our own judgments about controversial issues, political candidates, advertised products, etc.

Affect refers to the feelings that people experience. This includes emotions and moods. The media can trigger emotions, especially fear, lust, and laughter. The media also provide people with lots of opportunities to manage their moods, such that when we are feeling stressed with all the problems in our real lives, we can chill by listening to music, forget our problems by watching videos, or lose our- selves in the experience of playing games on the Internet.

A physiological effect is an automatic bodily response. The body response can be either purely automatic (such as pupil dilation, blood pressure, galvanic skin response) or quasi-automatic (heart rate, sexual responses). For example, when people watch an action/adventure movie, their heart rate and blood pressure typ- ically increase. Their muscles tense and their palms sweat as they experience a fight-or-flight reaction that has been hard-wired into the brains of all humans.

54 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Threats trigger attention, and the body prepares itself to fight a predator or to flee. This automatic fight-or-flight effect has enabled the human race to survive for thousands of years.

Behaviors are typically defined as the overt actions of an individual (Albarracin, Zanna, Johnson, & Kumkale, 2005). Media effects researchers have conducted a lot of studies where they observe people’s media exposure behaviors to see which media they use and how they use those media. Researchers also expose people to particular media messages, then observe their subsequent behaviors for things like acting aggressively, buying advertised products, and debating political issues.

It is important to make a clear distinction among these six types in order to achieve a high level of precision in the analysis. In the empirical literature of media effects, there are many examples of terms being used as synonyms in some instances and not in others, which leads to confusion. In this book, the above six categories are presented as being distinct from one another. Terms like opinions are largely avoided, but when used refer to attitudes. The term “perception” is not a synonym for attitudes or beliefs but instead means a description by humans of what comes in through the five human senses. And behavior requires actual action, not a self-report of past actions, which are either cognitions (memories of vivid occurrences) or beliefs (claims for past behavioral patterns or intentions for possi- ble actions people may take in the future).

Valence. This refers to whether the media effect is considered good or bad, which suggests several questions. Does the theory focus only on negative effects or does it also include positive effects? Who gets to decide what is positive and what is negative?

Intentionality. Does the theory focus only on intentional effects or does it include unintentional ones? Does it treat intentionality from the perspective of the sender (media industries) or the receivers (audiences)?

Conceptualization of Media Influence

How do the media exert their influence? There are four possible functions of influence that media can exert: triggering, acquiring, altering, and reinforcing (see Potter, 2009, 2011 for detail on the development of these four categories). These four are functions in the sense that they refer to distinct actions that influence and shape the character of an effect differently across the timing, type, valence, and intentionality of the media effect.

Triggering function. The triggering function is an immediate-type effect. While a person is exposed to the media, certain things in a message can immedi- ately stimulate something in the individual. The triggering function is applicable

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 55

for all six categories of effects. A media message could activate the recall of pre- viously learned information, the activation of an existing attitude or belief, an emotion, a physiological reaction, or a previously learned behavioral sequence. For example, people who watch horror movies have all kinds of emotions, physiologi- cal patterns, and behaviors triggered during the exposure.

The media can also trigger a process that sets a person off on a sequence involving many steps. For example, when people read some news coverage about a political candidate that they have never heard about before, they have no existing attitude about that candidate. During exposure to this news coverage, people can take the information from the news story and compare it to their standard for political candidates and create an attitude. This is different than simple acquisition, because the person is not memorizing someone else’s attitude presented in the media but is instead going through a construction process in the creation of his/ her own attitude; in this case the media message element of a new piece of infor- mation triggered in the person the construction of a new attitude.

The media can also trigger a reconstruction process. A media message might present information that does not conform to a person’s existing knowledge struc- ture, so the person must do something to incorporate the new information into his/her existing knowledge structure. For example, let’s say that Mark has a very favorable attitude about a particular breakfast cereal but then is exposed to a media message that presents facts about the breakfast cereal using contaminated ingre- dients. This new information is likely to trigger a reevaluation of his previously positive attitude.

Acquiring function. The acquiring function includes those effects where people pay attention to certain elements in media messages and remember those elements. Every media message is composed of elements, such as facts, images, sounds, the depiction of a sequence of events. During exposures to these messages, individu- als acquire and retain some of these elements. During a media exposure a person could pay attention to certain elements in a message and keep those elements in his/her memory. This is an immediate effect because the element is committed to memory during the exposure to the message. This memory might last a few seconds or many years, but it is not how long the memory lasts that determines whether the effect is an immediate one or not—it is when the effect first occurs.

The acquiring function is applicable to all types of effects except for physi- ology where media messages have no power to create a physiological element in an individual. People can also acquire beliefs, attitudes, affective information, and behavioral sequences in the same manner through the use of the skill of memo- rization. With all of these types of effects, the media are creating something in a person’s mind that was not there before the exposure. It is possible to argue that

56 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

all of these effects are essentially cognitive, because they all require the use of the cognitive skill of memorization and the retention of information in the individual’s memory. And that is a valid point. However, while the processes and the skills used may be the same across categories, the nature of what is retained is very different. Thus the function remains the same (acquiring), but the effect itself is different and requires different categories of cognition, belief, attitude, and behavior.

Altering function. During an exposure, the media can alter something that is already present in the individual. The altering function works with all types of effects. Media messages can alter a person’s knowledge structures with the addi- tion of new facts. A belief can be altered when the media present a fact reveal- ing that an individual’s existing belief was faulty. The media can alter individuals’ standards for use in constructing attitudes. Individuals who continually expose themselves to arousing elements in stories of horror and violence will have their natural fight–flight response worn down. By shifting content, the media can alter a person’s mood. And when individuals continually play interactive games, this practice serves to improve their hand–eye coordination and reduce reaction times to stimuli.

The alteration can show up immediately (i.e., during an exposure or imme- diately after the exposure to the media message) or it can take a long time to show up. The alteration can be temporary (i.e., disappear after a few seconds) or it can last a long time. Most of the research on long-term media effects is based on assumptions of long-term media influence as a gradual shaping process. This is a kind of a drip-drip-drip process of message after message slowly altering our knowledge structures. Greenberg (1988) reminds us that there are also “drench” influences. He says that not all media messages have the same impact and that not all characters in media stories are equally influential on our beliefs and attitudes. Some portrayals stand out because they “are deviant, are intense, and thus are more important viewing experiences” (p. 98).

Reinforcing function. Through repeated exposures, the media gradually and continually add greater weight to something already existing in a person, thus making that something more permanent and harder to change. The reinforcement function is applicable to all six types of effects. When the media continually pres- ent the same people in the news over and over, individuals’ knowledge structures about those people become more rigid and less likely to be open to change later. When the media present the same beliefs and attitudes, individuals’ comfort levels with those beliefs and attitudes become so strong that they are not able to change those beliefs or attitudes. When the media present the same kinds of messages every week or every day, individuals’ behavioral patterns of exposure become more fixed and harder to change.

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 57

Original Components

The essential components of any theory are its key concepts, core propositions, and foundational assumptions. Thus we use an analytical dimension on each of these three when examining the content of the media effects theories when they were introduced.

Key Concepts

All media effects theories feature at least two key concepts. One of these is the effect and the other is the media influence. The effect concept is easy to identify because typically a theory derives its name from it (e.g., agenda setting, cultivation, third person). The media influence can be broad (all media exposures) or very spe- cific (e.g., pop-up ads on informational websites). The simplest form of a media effects theory is to use these two concepts in one proposition and express the rela- tionship between these two as simple and direct.

When we look beyond these two essential concepts (the effect and the influ- encer), we can identify other concepts that can be categorized as being either con- tingent or intervening. Some theories make claims that their primary relationship (media leading to some effect) is contingent in some way, such as applying only to a certain kind of person or situation. Some theories also feature additional con- cepts as intervening factors between the media and the effect. An intervening con- cept identifies a condition that makes the primary relationship (media leading to some effect) indirect such that the intervening concept changes the simple direct relationship by amplifying it, reducing it, blocking it, or reversing it.

Core Propositions

The core propositions convey the essence of the theory’s system of explanation. Each proposition expresses a relationship between two or more concepts. The set of propositions is the system of explanation.

Foundational Assumptions

Foundational assumptions are the beliefs held by a theory’s creators that underlie the system of explanation. These beliefs are typically assumed rather than articu- lated, which makes them often difficult to identify. Typically the assumptions that theoreticians make are taken for granted by both the theoreticians and other schol- ars. Thus scholars feel no need to address them in their work because they believe that all their readers hold the same assumptions.

58 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Some foundational assumptions are deep-seated beliefs that can be metaphys- ical such as ontological beliefs (i.e., assumptions about the nature of the phenom- enon itself ) or epistemological beliefs (i.e., assumptions about human capacity to perceive phenomena and to make sense of them). These assumptions are typically about change and determinism.

Assumptions about change. There are three prevalent views on change in sci- ence: unilinear, recursive progression, and dialectical. Unilinear change is a belief that things evolve from a lessor state to a more highly developed one. This is seen in Darwin’s theory of evolution. This perspective was held by Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Wundt, and Piaget. For example, Comte felt that the progress of civi- lization resulted from the instinctive tendency of the human race to perfect itself.

Recursive progression views change as occurring in repeating cycles. For example, deciduous trees go through seasonal cycles where they sprout leaves in the spring and shed their leaves every autumn. They repeat this cycle year after year. For example, Max Weber revealed a belief about a recursive progression to soci- ety in his sociological theory when he claimed that society oscillates with social changes as a consequence of historical periods of growth and decline. The underly- ing feeling is a developmental one, but a development that is achieved by rotating through cycles not by a straight, linear progression.

Dialectical change arises from the conflict produced by opposing forces where those forces are acting in different directions. If one of those forces wins out, then change occurs only in the direction that the winning force produces. But when the two forces continue in opposition, the change is an oscillation between the two directions in order to accommodate both.

Assumptions about determinism. Hypotheses can be posed with an underlying assumption of determinism, meaning A  determines B or A  always leads to or causes B.  In contrast, an hypothesis can reflect a probabilistic expectation (i.e., B will follow A most of the time or almost always, or with 60 % probability, and so on). In social sciences, hypotheses almost always are expressed simply in state- ments that appear to state a deterministic relationship; however, these statements are typically tested with probabilistic statistical analyses.

Other assumptions are developed by theoreticians through experience in design- ing many research studies. Typically researchers will learn to relax or ignore many of the rules learned in methods classes. They do this by taking shortcuts in sampling, measurement, data analysis, and interpretations, because they learn how to become efficient, that is, to make the designs strong enough to get their studies published.

While scholars will never be able to eliminate all assumptions, they can reduce the number of faulty assumptions by first recognizing what they are then trying to determine if they warrant continued belief. In his book Basic Dilemmas in the

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 59

Social Sciences, Blalock (1984) says “the more information that is missing, the more untested assumptions we have to make in order to compensate.” He continues, “whenever one is in doubt about an assumption, the temptation is to hide it from view possibly by using vague language or simply playing it down by embedding it in a number of innocuous assumptions or a technical discussion that most readers are unlikely to follow” (p. 135). But this strategy only serves to hide the weaknesses temporarily rather than fix them.

Empirical Testing

By publishing a theory to make it public, theoreticians invite scholars to test their claims. Some of these claims are pure speculations by the theoreticians, while other claims were carefully crafted from syntheses of existing literatures. In either case, the claims must be tested if they are to be regarded as scientific. Scientists test claims by devising empirical tests to see if the claims hold when they make their observations. We will use three analytical dimensions to look at the track record of research testing the claims of each theory—stimulating scholarly attention, major lines of research, and empirical validity.

Stimulating Scholarly Attention

Measures of scholarly attention to a theory—or its heuristic value—include how often the theory is cited, how many empirical tests it has generated, how promi- nently it is featured in reviews of the media effects literatures, and even how much critical attention it has stimulated. Thus a theory that has generated many empir- ical tests—even if all those tests fail to support its claims—exhibits high heuristic value. Also, a theory that has generated a great deal of negative criticism and no empirical tests would also demonstrate relatively high heuristic value. These exam- ples illustrate that while heuristic value is an important criterion for evaluating theories, it should not be the only criterion to use when making an overall assess- ment of a theory’s value.

Major Lines of Research

When a theory has stimulated a good deal of empirical testing, this body of research can be organized into lines of research. It is important to identify lines of research that test a theory in order to see patterns about what is being tested and what is being ignored.

60 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Empirical Validity

Empirical validity refers to the extent to which the results of empirical tests have supported the claims made by the theory. Theories with larger empirical literatures displaying findings that support their claims are more valuable than theories with smaller amounts of support. Also, theories that generate tests showing strong sup- port for its claims are more valuable than theories that generate tests showing only weak support.

Theories that have been around for decades and that have generated many empirical tests of its claims typically have a literature that includes studies that have failed to support one or more claims in the theory. If the nonsupport is small in proportion to the support, then the theory on balance is more useful. However, if the proportion of nonsupport is relatively high, the theory could still be regarded as useful if the theoreticians show a track record of altering the theory to adjust their claims in response to the nonsupportive findings, which brings us to the next set of analytical dimensions.

Theory Development

It is important to track a theory over time to determine whether the theoreticians have made alterations to their claims. As researchers conduct empirical studies to test the claims made by a theory, they produce a literature that typically shows the need to make alterations to claims in propositions. The empirical literature also typ- ically generates indications that definitions of concepts may be faulty and/or that particular methods are less useful than other methods. These indications suggest the need for theoreticians to make alterations to their theories. In this section, we use three analytical dimensions to determine the extent to which the literatures on these core theories have indicated the need for theoretical alterations as well as the theoreticians’ track records in responding to those needs. These three dimensions are: conceptual development, methodological development, and current challenges.

It is also important to track how a theory develops by examining three types of patterns. One pattern entails examining the empirical research to determine how much support there is for the theory’s propositions as well as documenting results of tests that falsify parts of the theory. A second pattern requires examining what critics find of value in the theory and where they think the theory should be altered in some way. A third pattern involves examining how well the theoreticians have demonstrated awareness of changes in their focal phenomenon. In tracking all three of these, the key characteristic to observe is its openness, that is, to what

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 61

degree have the theoreticians exhibited a willingness to alter their original con- ceptualizations in order to increase the precision and utility of their theories? Do the theoreticians recognize that their explanations are tentative, contextual, and qualified?

Conceptual Development

This analytical dimension focuses attention on whether the theoreticians have made refinements to their initial theory in response to patterns of findings in empirical testing, in response to critics, and/or in response to changes in the phe- nomenon they are attempting to explain.

Theoreticians tend to present relatively simple propositions because they are the most general. However, over time as propositions are tested, they are typically found to be less general, that is, the claims made in a general prop- osition are not found to hold for all types of people, all types of media mes- sages, at all times, and in all settings, so theoreticians are likely to introduce contingent concepts to delimit their systems of explanation. Also, over time as propositions are tested, they are typically found to be less simple, that is, the claims made in a general proposition can be enhanced with the incorporation of additional concepts that work together to increase the explanatory value of the theory.

Frequently the findings of research studies will fail to find support for a the- ory’s claim. Typically, scholars will tolerate these as anomalies, attributing them to problems with how particular researchers have operationalized the ideas in the theory in order to conduct empirical testing. However, as the research lit- erature grows, some claims made by the theory may continually be found to fail to achieve empirical support. If the theoreticians refuse to acknowledge a growing pattern of nonsupport, then they are exhibiting a closed approach to their theory. In contrast, theoreticians who continue to alter their theories to bring them in line with the research literature exhibit a higher degree of openness.

Criticism of a theory can be processed by theoreticians in two ways. One way is where theoreticians are defensive and argue that critics do not understand their theory. A second way is for theoreticians to learn about what bothers schol- ars about their system of explanation and to attempt to overcome the problems identified in the criticism. The way theoreticians respond indicates their scholarly openness.

62 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Methodological Development

Once a theory has stimulated a good deal of empirical testing, methodological pat- terns develop. Some theoreticians limit their concern to conceptual features while others provide researchers with methodological guidance as they increase the pre- cision of their calculus. This analytical dimension directs attention to how well the theoreticians have made alterations to their calculus by cautioning researchers to avoid weaker design decisions.

Current Challenges

The final analytical dimension focuses on the challenges that are currently facing the theory. As theories age, the theoreticians are presented with a sequence of chal- lenges, and if theoreticians can keep up with meeting those challenges, their the- ories maintain their vitality and usefulness. But if theoreticians continually resist changing their theories without good reason, those theories lose their ability to explain media effects.

When a field’s focal phenomenon changes, a theory’s system of explanation can quickly lose its value. This is especially the case with a dynamic phenomenon such as the media effects where content has been constantly evolving; the needs and patterns of audiences have been fragmenting into more specialized niches; and especially because the delivery systems of media messages have changed so much with digitization, mobility, and interactivity. With technological inno- vations, the idea of channel (e.g., television, film, newspaper) as a medium has eroded. Also, the now mobile nature of media reception means that messages are constantly shaping every aspect of our lives. And perhaps most importantly, the interactive capabilities offered by digital media have fundamentally changed the nature of media content and audience experience. These major changes in the field’s focal phenomenon have put a great deal of pressure on theoreticians to make significant alterations to their systems of explanation to keep pace with the changes in the phenomenon.

Applying the Analysis Procedure

Now that the analytical dimensions have been laid out above, we need to deal with two issues before conducting the actual analysis. First, we need to determine the sample of theories to be analyzed. Second, we need to determine who is a theoretician.

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 63

The Sample of Media Effects Theories

Many media effects theories appear in the literature. One content analysis found 144 different theories in the media effects literature (Potter & Riddle, 2007) and another reported finding over 600 (Bryant & Miron, 2004. But even though many theories have been found to be mentioned in the literature, few of these theories have been mentioned often. For example, Kamhawi and Weaver (2003) examined all articles published in 10 communication journals from 1980 to 1999 and found that only three theories were mentioned in as many as 10  % of those articles. Another content analysis was conducted by Bryant and Miron (2004) who ana- lyzed 1,806 media research articles published in three journals (Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Communication, and Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media) from 1956 to 2000 and found references to “604 different the- ories, general scientific paradigms and schools of thought” (p. 664) but only 26 of those theories were mentioned in 10 or more articles. A third content analysis of the use of theories in media effects research was conducted by Potter and Riddle (2007) who analyzed media effects articles published in 16 journals from 1993 to 2005 and found mentions of 144 theories, but that only 12 of these theories were mentioned in 5 or more studies in the sample of 936 published research articles. The remaining 132 theories were spread out over 168 articles.

These many theories reveal a great variety of explanation. Some are formal systems of explanations that have generated many hypothetic-deductive tests, while others have arisen through an inductive process reported by a single study. While most focus their explanations on a small piece of the overall mass media phe- nomenon, a few are broader and would qualify as middle-range theories (Merton, 1968). And although a few of these theories are widely known, others are relatively unknown either because they are new or have yet to be discovered by many scholars.

In undertaking the task of analyzing media effects theories, we favor depth over breadth. Therefore we focus attention on a relatively small subset of theo- ries that are considered the most major and most visible, then conduct a detailed, in-depth analysis of each. The process of selecting the set of major media effects theories used three filters. First, it had to be regarded as a theory given the follow- ing definition: any systematic explanation based on ideas (concepts and construc- tions) that seek to organize, predict, or explain some aspect of a phenomenon. This ruled out things like schools of thought and paradigms, which are foundational to theories but typically too abstract to offer researchers much guidance in designing empirical studies. A second criterion for selection is that a theory had to iden- tify some effect—either in individuals or larger aggregates—that the theoreticians claimed to be influenced at least in part by media. And third, it had to be shown to be a core media effects theory in at least two of the three content analyses (Bryant

64 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

& Miron, 2007; Kamhawi & Weaver, 2003; Potter & Riddle, 2007). There were six theories that were found to meet all three criteria. These are Agenda Setting, Cultivation, Framing, Social Learning, Third Person, and Uses and Gratifications.

Determining the Theoreticians

Each of these six theories was introduced into the scholarly literature by a publica- tion—either a book or an article in a scholarly journal. The authors of those pub- lications are identified as the original theoreticians. Some of these theoreticians continued to publish articles and books on their theory, but others did not. This leads to the question: Who should be regarded as the theoreticians over the course of the theory’s development?

The six theories in this analysis can be organized into four patterns with regard to who controls the theory as a theoretician. The first pattern includes theories where there has been one primary theoretician from introduction to the current time. This is the case with Albert Bandura and social learning theory, where almost all of Bandura’s theoretical work has been single authored by him. This is also the case with Maxwell McCombs and agenda setting theory. Agenda setting was introduced by McCombs and a coauthor—Donald Shaw, but over time McCombs has consistently been an author of all theory pieces about agenda setting although some of those articles and book chapters have had coauthors.

A second pattern is exhibited with cultivation theory, which was introduced by George Gerbner. However, Gerbner put together a team of researchers to test his claims and he continued to publish empirical articles as well as reviews and theory pieces with these team members as coauthors over the next several decades. Since

Table 3.3. Core Theories of Media Effects

Date Introduced

Name of Theory

Primary Theoretician(s)

Size of Literature Sch Estimate GoogleSch

1969 Cultivation Gerbner 500+ (2010) 1,540,000 1972 Agenda Setting McCombs and

Shaw 425+ (2009) 2,070,000

1974 Framing Goffman 1,110,000 1974 Uses and

Gratifications Blumler and Katz  73,900

1977 Social Cognitive Learning

Bandura 3,350,000

1983 Third Person Davison 60 (2008) 3,910,000

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 65

Gerbner’s death in 2006, some members of his team have continued to publish reviews of cultivation theory, especially Michael Morgan, Nancy Signorielli, and James Shanahan.

A third pattern is exhibited by framing theory and third person theory, which were both created by scholars who have since moved on to other topics and have not published their own empirical studies or even a review of the literature for decades. And a fourth pattern is exhibited by uses and gratifications theory, which was introduced by multiple scholars each of whom published a few subsequent articles but each of whom largely abandoned the theory to other scholars.

To reveal who was regarded as the theoretician on each of the six theories, see Table 3.3. This table lays out the publications that were used as the basis for this analysis. And to make sense of what kinds of publications were used as a basis for this analysis, see Tables 3.4 and 3.5.

(Continued)

Table 3.4. Types of Theory-Relevant Publications I. Theory Introduction

A. Synthesis-Focused Introduction * Theoreticians conduct a critical analysis of past theories and conceptualizations

that results in a clear articulation of a shortcoming * Theoreticians show how they build from the ideas they regard as strong from

the various literatures then assemble those strong ideas into a single system of explanation

* Where there are gaps in their system (no identified strong ideas from their critical analysis of the literatures), theoreticians use reasoning to fill the gaps

B. Empirical Pattern-Focused Introduction * Theoreticians cite a series of their own research studies that present intriguing

findings and introduce their theory as a way of explaining those findings * Theoreticians conduct a critical analysis of the existing empirical literature on a

topic and cite some intriguing findings that motivated them to provide their own system of explanation

* The value of this approach is keyed to theoreticians’ scholarly ability to critically evaluate the literature and synthesize

C. Speculation-Focused Introduction * Theory presented as pure speculation; very little grounding in past

conceptualizations * Focus is on a perceived shortcoming in the scholarly field and the theoreticians

argue that their system of explanation is one they thought up to address that shortcoming

* This approach is rationalism and relies on ethos and logos to be effective

66 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Table 3.4. Continued II. Empirical Publication

A. Tentative Support * Empirical tests resulting in support for the claims made by the theory

B. Tentative Falsification * Empirical tests that fail to find support for the claims made by the theory * Authors of a test focus on tentativeness; acknowledge limitations of their test

C. Strong Falsification * Empirical tests that fail to find support for the claims made by the theory * Authors cite a pattern of nonsupport in the previous literature of similar tests * Authors present their work as a critical test; acknowledge that the

nonsupport is more a function of faulty propositions in the theory than faulty operationalizations used in the test

D. Testing for Extension(s) to the Theory * Researchers design a study that brings in another concept not yet in the theory,

then operationalizes that concept as a variable that is tested along with other variables to see if the newly introduced variable increases the theory’s predictive or explanatory ability

* Researchers design a study that alters the definition of a key concept in the theory and tests its value compared to the old way of defining

E. Critical Test * Researchers operationalize a test of the theory along with tests of other theories

to provide a direct comparison that reveals which theory generates the strongest predictions

III. Review of the Literature A. Critical Review

* By authors other than the theoreticians Conceptual problems Methodological problems Recommendations for improvement

* By the theoreticians Arguing in defense of theory Take a stance of attempting to provide greater clarification Willingness to make alterations to their theory Conceptual alterations Methodological alterations

(Continued)

Table 3.4. Continued

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 67

B. Synthesis Review Focus on sorting through literature and highlighting most important findings

C. Descriptive Review This type of review lists findings from empirical research in a structured manner.

The structure of the review is typically by media (channel, vehicles, types of message topic) or by type of effect (cognitive, attitude, belief, affect, physiology, behavior, etc.)

Table 3.5. Theory-Focused Publications Cultivation Theory

Theory Introduction Gerbner, G. (1966). On defining communication: Still another view. Journal of

Communication, 16(2), 99–103. Gerbner, G. (1967). An institutional approach to mass communications research. In

L. Thayer (Ed.), Communication theory and research: Proceedings of the first international symposium (pp. 429–445). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Gerbner, G. (1969a). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. In G. Gerbner, O. Holsti, K. Krippendorff, W. J. Paisley, & P. J. Stone (Eds.), The analysis of communication content: Developments in scientific theories and computer techniques (pp. 123–132). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gerbner, G. (1969b). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. AV Communication Review, 17(2), 137–148.

Alterations/Elaborations in Theory Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The mainstreaming

of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 10–29. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1980.tb01987.x.

Theoretician Reviews Gerbner, G. (1972). Violence and television drama: Trends and symbolic functions. In

G. A. Comstock & E. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior, Vol. 1. Content and control (pp. 28–187). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Gerbner, G. A. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In G. Gerbner, L. P. Gross, & W. H. Melody (Eds.), Communication technology and social policy (pp. 555–573). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gerbner, G. (1990). Epilogue: Advancing on the path of righteousness (maybe). In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 249–262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

(Continued)

68 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Table 3.5. Continued

(Continued )

Gerbner, G. (1999). What do we know? In J. Shanahan & M. Morgan (Eds.), Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research (pp. ix–xiii). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Morgan, M. (2009). Cultivation analysis and media effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. O. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 69–82). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Morgan, M. (2012). George Gerbner: A critical introduction to media and communication theory. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 337–355.

Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 34–49). New York, NY: Routledge.

Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 13–34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Agenda Setting Theory Introduction of Agenda Setting Theory McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.

Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2), 176. doi:10.1086/267990. ISSN 0033-362X. Theoreticians Reviews and Alterations McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion (Repr. ed.,

p. 198). Cambridge: Blackwell Pub. McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism

Studies, 6(4), 543–557. doi:10.1080/14616700500250438. McCombs, M., & Bell, T. (1996). The agenda-setting role of mass communication: An

integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 93–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2009). How the news shapes our civic agenda. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Routledge.

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 69

Table 3.5. Continued

(Continued)

McCombs, M., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58–67. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x.

McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (2014). New directions in agenda- setting theory and research. Mass Communication & Society, 17(6), 781–802. doi:10.10 80/15205436.2014.964871.

Other Reviews Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rogers, E., & Dearing, J. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is

it going? In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 11 (pp. 555–594). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 68–84. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993. tb01263.x.

Wanta, W., & Ghanem, S. (2007). Effects of agenda-setting. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 37–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weiss, D. (2009). Agenda-setting theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 31–33). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Willnat, L. (1997). Agenda setting and priming: Conceptual links and differences. In M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 51–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Framing Theory Origin Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,

NY: Harper & Row. Reviews Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science,

10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication,

49(1), 103–122. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look

at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2&3), 297–316. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07.

(Continued )

70 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Table 3.5. Continued Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (forthcoming). The state of framing research: A call for

new directions. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of political communication theories. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). News framing theory and research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Volkmer, I. (2009). Framing theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 407–408). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Uses and Gratifications Theory Origin Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on

gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974a). Utilization of mass communication

by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974b). Uses of mass communication by the individual. In W. P. Davison & F. T. C. Yu (Eds.), Mass communication research: Major issues and future directions (pp. 11–35). New York, NY: Praeger.

Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164–181.

Theoretician Reviews & Elaborations Katz, E. (1987). Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51,

525–545. Levy, M., & Windahl, S. (1985). The concept of audience activity. In K. E. Rosengren,

L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 109–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratification: A theoretical perspective. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 8, pp. 20–55). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rosengren, K. E. (1985). Uses and gratifications research: The past ten years. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 11–37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rubin, A. M. (1986). Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 281–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, A. M. (2009a). Uses and gratifications: An evolving perspective of media effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 147–159). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Rubin, A. M. (2009b). Uses-and-gratification perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. (pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Routledge.

THE ANALYSIS STRATEGY | 71

Table 3.5. Continued

(Continued)

Other Reviews Littlejohn, S. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed.). Albuquerque,

NM: Wadsworth. McQuail, D. (1984). With benefits to hindsight: Reflections on uses and gratifications

research. In Critical Studies in Mass Communication,1, 177–193. McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail ’s mass communication theory (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage. Social Cognitive Theory

Origin Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Theoretician Review/Elaborations Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3,

265–299. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant &

D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 121–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 94–124). New York, NY: Routledge.

Other Pajares, F., Prestin, A., Chen, J., & Nabi, R. L. (2009). Social cognitive theory and media

effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media processes and effects (pp. 283–297). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Third Person Effect Theory Origin Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. doi:10.1086/268763. Reviews Lasorsa, D. L. (1992). How media affect policymakers: The third-person effect. In J. D.

Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press and public policy (pp. 163–175). New York, NY: Praeger.

Table 3.5. Continued

72 | ANALYSIS OF CORE THEORIES

Summary

The 14 analytical dimensions presented in this chapter are used to structure the analysis of each of the six core theories of media effects in the following six chap- ters. The information laid out in those six chapters then forms the basis for the evaluation task, which is the focus of the third major part of this book.

References

Albarracin, D., Zanna, M. P., Johnson, B. T., & Kumkale, G. T. (2005). Attitudes: Introduction and scope. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 3–19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1984). Basic dilemmas in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of

Communication, 54(4), 662–704. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory

and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Greenberg, B. S. (1988). Some uncommon television images and the drench hypothesis. In S.

Oskamp (Ed.), Television as a social issue (pp. 88–102). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kamhawi, R., & Weaver, D. (2003). Mass communication research trends from 1980 to 1999.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 7–27. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press. Potter, W. J. (2009). Arguing for a general framework for mass media scholarship. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage. Potter, W. J. (2011). Conceptualizing mass media effect. Journal of Communication, 61, 896–915. Potter, W. J., & Riddle, K. (2007). A content analysis of the media effects literature. Journalism

& Mass of Communication Quarterly, 84, 90–104.

Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta- analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 57–85. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_04

Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1(4), 353–378. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4.

Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third- person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), https://books.google.com/ books?id=2BeOAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA252 (3rd ed., pp. 252–268). New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 9781135591106.

Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 280–300. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x.