Communication Theory

Theory of The Hypodermic Needle, The Bullet or Magical Effects. 

The theory of the bullet, the hypodermic needle or magical effects emerged and developed between 1900 and 1940. Its main postulate says that the media "inject" information with content that is taken for granted. Its foundation was to assume that the media had the ability to change mentalities and ways of acting. The theory of the bullet, the hypodermic needle or the magical effects was the result of the work done on the analysis of the media by the schools of empirical sociology, positivist sociology and critical theory. It was assumed that the sole purpose of communication was to convey messages or information, and that what happened during this process was neither of intellectual interest nor of practical interest. 

For Alonso Marcos (2010), the theory of the hypodermic needle (also called the magic bullet theory; in graphic allusion to the information penetrating the defenseless mind of the individual) gathers the vision of individuals as passive, malleable, defenseless and without filter mechanisms against the bombardment of information through the media. When talking about the hypodermic model, it is common to cite the work by Cantril, Gaudet and Herzog (1940) on the invasion from Mars, where the well-known broadcast in 1938 by a radio program that described an alien invasion is analyzed. It serves as an example, since it is attributed, in this case to the radio, the power, unilaterally, to arouse emotions, changes in behavior, behavior and opinion. A) Yes, communication appears as a unilateral, unidirectional process, which serves as the transfer of a specific message that seeks to produce certain effects in the public. The effects in the hypodermic model, therefore, are intended, verifiable in the short term or immediate; which is another echo of the behavioral psychology that was so influential in Western thought at the time. 

Castromil (nd) argues that the first studies on the effects of the media that take place in the United States around the 1920s were influenced by psychological schemes of a behavioral nature, where the stimulus-response predominated. In this way, it was understood that the effects of the media happened immediately, directly and uniformly in all the members of the mass. The persuasive capacity of the media, as understood in this early stage, was almost irresistible. As long as, yes, the appropriate persuasion techniques were used. But if this was carried out, any desired change of opinion could be obtained. 

The same author emphasizes that the mass society of the time (interwar period) was understood as a society inhabited by atomized and isolated beings. All of them considered themselves the same, without individual response capacity. The messages were spread on a large scale and systematically, and their effects were direct. The media were engaged and dedicated to campaigns to mobilize the behavior of individuals. This not only happened in the authoritarian regimes of the time, but also in democracies. 

Monzón (2006) summarizes the direct effects model in four characteristics: 

1. Society is made up of isolated and dispersed individuals, without intermediate groups that favor interaction and integration. 

2. The stimuli of mass communication are received in the same way by all receptors. The response to such stimuli is considered equally uniform. It is considered that public opinion can be shaped at the whim of a good propagandist. 

3. The metaphors used in the investigation of the moment are those of the «magic bullet» and the «hypodermic needle» for their exemplifying power of the power that the media have. The response to a needle prick or the impact of a bullet is fairly uniform in all limbs. Reference is made here to the direct and rapid effect that messages produce when they are projected from the media to the audience. 

4. The stimulus-response scheme used denotes a clear automatism in the mass communication process carried out by the always powerful media and audiences always vulnerable to their influence. 

Bauer (1964) notes that one of the characteristics of the hypodermic model is that it assumes most of the effects. It is when trying to study them that researchers begin to understand that the hypodermic model does not fit reality. This theory undoubtedly entails many dangers, since it never calls into question the veracity of the information provided by the media and, on the contrary, legitimizes their ability to shape behavior and stimulate the masses to respond. In the next sub-topic of this module, we will study how the theory of the limited effects of the media replaces the main approaches of the hypodermic needle. 

Limited Media Effects Theory 

This theory takes up the theory of the hypodermic needle, the bullet or magical effects, but giving it a big twist, which gave rise to the current conception of the media-public relationship. Lazarsfeld's research in 1940 inaugurated a new line of study called "limited effects theory", which studied the context of communication taking into account sociological factors: gender, religion, age, cultural level, motivation levels, etc. environments: geographical, social, economic, among many others.   

Here we speak of an influence of the media of an interpersonal nature and social relations, so the concept of mass is diluted. In this sense, the theory of limited effects indicates that the effects of the mass media are not direct because a MEDIATION occurs that limits said effects. This mediation is exercised in the reception environment, in which the family and the educational institution can exercise a relevant influence among the youngest, and opinion leaders among adults. That is why it is said that the mass media have different meanings for different audiences. 

As Cabero (2000) says, "We must not forget, on the one hand, that no medium works in a vacuum, but rather within a physical, cultural and ideological context, which determines its concreteness and meaning; and on the other, that the subjects are not passive processors of information, but active constructors of the same, that with our attitudes, knowledge and predispositions we determine its sense and meaning". From this perspective, it is assumed that the effects of the media no longer depend so much on the environment itself, on the individual as an isolated being and on their psychological and cultural characteristics, but fundamentally on the social structure in which the individual develops. 

The limited effects theory talks about the effects that the media have on the public, but, unlike the magical effects theory, it understands and perceives that people are only persuaded by the media if they want to. Therefore, it no longer considers the public as a mass without criteria, but as an agglomeration of different groups with the ability to decide what they want to see, when and how (the public can change the television channel, can change station, you can turn off the devices used by the media, you can ignore them, etc.). 

From the previous conceptualization, studies on the characteristics of the receivers and the influence of the context are born, since the media no longer determine ways of thinking and acting, but simply reinforce them in different ways and under different circumstances, perhaps in some cases with greater impact than others. The theory of limited effects is based on the uncertainty about the empirical results of studies on violence and develops a version of the hypodermic needle. According to this theory, violent content in the media only affects a sector of the population that, due to its cultural fragility and psychosocial predisposition, develops violent and aggressive attitudes. 

Long-Term Effects Paradigm 

The long-term effects paradigm explains media effects as a consequence of long exposure to certain content: the public's image of social reality is not mediated only by a message with short-term effects, but rather by a long-term process of meaning, in which the media organize and modify beliefs, opinions and attitudes. This new orientation favors long-term, involuntary or latent cognitive effects. 

Wolf (1987) states that it is clear that the passage from «limited effects» to «cumulative effects» implies the abandonment of the transmitter model of communication, in favor of a model focused on the process of meaning. It is effectively from this point of view that the media play a role in the construction of reality (creating a second-hand reality) (ibid.). The influence of the media is postulated because they help us "structure the image of social reality, in the long term, to organize new elements of said images, to form new opinions and beliefs" (ROBERTS, 1972, 377, cited by: Wolf, 1987). 

Álvarez-Gálvez (2012), classifies the long-term effects of the media on the recipients of their messages, in   planned and unplanned effects . He also exemplifies them as follows: 

Planned long-term effects: 

Among these types of effects we would have the following: the   dissemination of news and development , or the planned use of communications aimed at changing habits or long-term development (think, for example, of the use of traffic campaigns, those aimed at working on climate change or drug use in young people); the   dissemination of innovations , as a means of informing the public of news about certain technological advances; the  long-term  distribution of knowledge  among the different social actors (for example, with the intention of filling certain "knowledge gaps" with respect to any topic). 

Unplanned long-term effects: 

Finally, we would find the unplanned long-term effects, perhaps the most relevant. Especially due to the latent and less well-known nature of this type of effects, both at the level of the media and that of the audience. These would be the following:   social control  exercised unintentionally by the media through the reproduction of the established order; socialization  as a  non -formal mode of learning but of great importance when it comes to generating values, beliefs, attitudes (think, for example, of the consumer values ​​generated by mass consumer culture); the   outcome of events, referring to the role played by the media in conjunction with other social institutions in times of crisis or uncertainty; the   definition of reality and the construction of meanings  that the media carry out through the presentation of information organization schemes or primary frames of reference (Goffman, 1974);  institutional changes  due to their adaptation to media information;  displacement of the opinion or the participation of the social actors;  long-term socio-cultural changes  (which would be closely related to the way of defining and constructing reality); and social integration, an effect closely related to the effects of social control. 

Theory of The Hypodermic Needle, The Bullet or Magical Effects. 

The theory of the bullet, the hypodermic needle or magical effects emerged and developed between 1900 and 1940. Its main postulate says that the media "inject" information with content that is taken for granted. Its foundation was to assume that the media had the ability to change mentalities and ways of acting. The theory of the bullet, the hypodermic needle or the magical effects was the result of the work done on the analysis of the media by the schools of empirical sociology, positivist sociology and critical theory. It was assumed that the sole purpose of communication was to convey messages or information, and that what happened during this process was neither of intellectual interest nor of practical interest. 

For Alonso Marcos (2010), the theory of the hypodermic needle (also called the magic bullet theory; in graphic allusion to the information penetrating the defenseless mind of the individual) gathers the vision of individuals as passive, malleable, defenseless and without filter mechanisms against the bombardment of information through the media. When talking about the hypodermic model, it is common to cite the work by Cantril, Gaudet and Herzog (1940) on the invasion from Mars, where the well-known broadcast in 1938 by a radio program that described an alien invasion is analyzed. It serves as an example, since it is attributed, in this case to the radio, the power, unilaterally, to arouse emotions, changes in behavior, behavior and opinion. A) Yes, communication appears as a unilateral, unidirectional process, which serves as the transfer of a specific message that seeks to produce certain effects in the public. The effects in the hypodermic model, therefore, are intended, verifiable in the short term or immediate; which is another echo of the behavioral psychology that was so influential in Western thought at the time. 

Castromil (nd) argues that the first studies on the effects of the media that take place in the United States around the 1920s were influenced by psychological schemes of a behavioral nature, where the stimulus-response predominated. In this way, it was understood that the effects of the media happened immediately, directly and uniformly in all the members of the mass. The persuasive capacity of the media, as understood in this early stage, was almost irresistible. As long as, yes, the appropriate persuasion techniques were used. But if this was carried out, any desired change of opinion could be obtained. 

The same author emphasizes that the mass society of the time (interwar period) was understood as a society inhabited by atomized and isolated beings. All of them considered themselves the same, without individual response capacity. The messages were spread on a large scale and systematically, and their effects were direct. The media were engaged and dedicated to campaigns to mobilize the behavior of individuals. This not only happened in the authoritarian regimes of the time, but also in democracies. 

Monzón (2006) summarizes the direct effects model in four characteristics: 

1. Society is made up of isolated and dispersed individuals, without intermediate groups that favor interaction and integration. 

2. The stimuli of mass communication are received in the same way by all receptors. The response to such stimuli is considered equally uniform. It is considered that public opinion can be shaped at the whim of a good propagandist. 

3. The metaphors used in the investigation of the moment are those of the «magic bullet» and the «hypodermic needle» for their exemplifying power of the power that the media have. The response to a needle prick or the impact of a bullet is fairly uniform in all limbs. Reference is made here to the direct and rapid effect that messages produce when they are projected from the media to the audience. 

4. The stimulus-response scheme used denotes a clear automatism in the mass communication process carried out by the always powerful media and audiences always vulnerable to their influence. 

Bauer (1964) notes that one of the characteristics of the hypodermic model is that it assumes most of the effects. It is when trying to study them that researchers begin to understand that the hypodermic model does not fit reality. This theory undoubtedly entails many dangers, since it never calls into question the veracity of the information provided by the media and, on the contrary, legitimizes their ability to shape behavior and stimulate the masses to respond. In the next sub-topic of this module, we will study how the theory of the limited effects of the media replaces the main approaches of the hypodermic needle. 

Limited Media Effects Theory 

This theory takes up the theory of the hypodermic needle, the bullet or magical effects, but giving it a big twist, which gave rise to the current conception of the media-public relationship. Lazarsfeld's research in 1940 inaugurated a new line of study called "limited effects theory", which studied the context of communication taking into account sociological factors: gender, religion, age, cultural level, motivation levels, etc. environments: geographical, social, economic, among many others.   

Here we speak of an influence of the media of an interpersonal nature and social relations, so the concept of mass is diluted. In this sense, the theory of limited effects indicates that the effects of the mass media are not direct because a MEDIATION occurs that limits said effects. This mediation is exercised in the reception environment, in which the family and the educational institution can exercise a relevant influence among the youngest, and opinion leaders among adults. That is why it is said that the mass media have different meanings for different audiences. 

As Cabero (2000) says, "We must not forget, on the one hand, that no medium works in a vacuum, but rather within a physical, cultural and ideological context, which determines its concreteness and meaning; and on the other, that the subjects are not passive processors of information, but active constructors of the same, that with our attitudes, knowledge and predispositions we determine its sense and meaning". From this perspective, it is assumed that the effects of the media no longer depend so much on the environment itself, on the individual as an isolated being and on their psychological and cultural characteristics, but fundamentally on the social structure in which the individual develops. 

The limited effects theory talks about the effects that the media have on the public, but, unlike the magical effects theory, it understands and perceives that people are only persuaded by the media if they want to. Therefore, it no longer considers the public as a mass without criteria, but as an agglomeration of different groups with the ability to decide what they want to see, when and how (the public can change the television channel, can change station, you can turn off the devices used by the media, you can ignore them, etc.). 

From the previous conceptualization, studies on the characteristics of the receivers and the influence of the context are born, since the media no longer determine ways of thinking and acting, but simply reinforce them in different ways and under different circumstances, perhaps in some cases with greater impact than others. The theory of limited effects is based on the uncertainty about the empirical results of studies on violence and develops a version of the hypodermic needle. According to this theory, violent content in the media only affects a sector of the population that, due to its cultural fragility and psychosocial predisposition, develops violent and aggressive attitudes. 

Long-Term Effects Paradigm 

The long-term effects paradigm explains media effects as a consequence of long exposure to certain content: the public's image of social reality is not mediated only by a message with short-term effects, but rather by a long-term process of meaning, in which the media organize and modify beliefs, opinions and attitudes. This new orientation favors long-term, involuntary or latent cognitive effects. 

Wolf (1987) states that it is clear that the passage from «limited effects» to «cumulative effects» implies the abandonment of the transmitter model of communication, in favor of a model focused on the process of meaning. It is effectively from this point of view that the media play a role in the construction of reality (creating a second-hand reality) (ibid.). The influence of the media is postulated because they help us "structure the image of social reality, in the long term, to organize new elements of said images, to form new opinions and beliefs" (ROBERTS, 1972, 377, cited by: Wolf, 1987). 

Álvarez-Gálvez (2012), classifies the long-term effects of the media on the recipients of their messages, in   planned and unplanned effects . He also exemplifies them as follows: 

Planned long-term effects: 

Among these types of effects we would have the following: the   dissemination of news and development , or the planned use of communications aimed at changing habits or long-term development (think, for example, of the use of traffic campaigns, those aimed at working on climate change or drug use in young people); the   dissemination of innovations , as a means of informing the public of news about certain technological advances; the  long-term  distribution of knowledge  among the different social actors (for example, with the intention of filling certain "knowledge gaps" with respect to any topic). 

Unplanned long-term effects: 

Finally, we would find the unplanned long-term effects, perhaps the most relevant. Especially due to the latent and less well-known nature of this type of effects, both at the level of the media and that of the audience. These would be the following:   social control  exercised unintentionally by the media through the reproduction of the established order; socialization  as a  non -formal mode of learning but of great importance when it comes to generating values, beliefs, attitudes (think, for example, of the consumer values ​​generated by mass consumer culture); the   outcome of events, referring to the role played by the media in conjunction with other social institutions in times of crisis or uncertainty; the   definition of reality and the construction of meanings  that the media carry out through the presentation of information organization schemes or primary frames of reference (Goffman, 1974);  institutional changes  due to their adaptation to media information;  displacement of the opinion or the participation of the social actors;  long-term socio-cultural changes  (which would be closely related to the way of defining and constructing reality); and social integration, an effect closely related to the effects of social control.