mass-communication-theory

levels of analysis
The focus of a
researcher’s
attention, ranging
from individuals
to social systems
macroscopic
theory
Attempts to
explain effects at
the cultural or
societal level
microscopic
theory
Attempts to explain
effects at
the personal or
individual level
Chapter 2 Four Eras of Mass Communication Theory 37
The limited-effects perspective was unable to understand or make predictions
about media’s role in cultural change. By flatly rejecting the possibility that media
can play an important role in such change, theorists were unable to make sense of
striking instances when the power of media appeared to be obvious. For example,
limited-effects theorists were forced to deny that media could have played a significant
role in the civil rights, anti–Vietnam War, women’s, and 1960s counterculture
movements. More recently, they cannot account for the media’s role in such highprofile
public debates as the rush to war in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the
Obama administration’s campaign to reform the American healthcare system.
These theorists are equally at a loss to explain the social transformations that are
linked to the rise of the Internet. One possible cause of the limited-effects perspective’s
failure to account for these obvious examples of large-scale media influence
rests in the idea of levels of analysis.
Social research problems can be studied at a number of levels, from the macroscopic
“down” to the microscopic. Researchers, for example, can study media impact
on cultures, societies, or nations; organizations or groups; small groups; and
individuals. It should be possible to approach the issue of media effects at any of
these levels and discover comparable results. But the limited-effects researchers
tend to focus their attention on the microscopic level, especially on individuals,
from whom they can easily and efficiently collect data. When they have difficulty
consistently demonstrating effects at the micro level, they tend to dismiss the possibility
of effects at the cultural, or macroscopic, level.
For example, the limited-effects perspective denies that advertising imagery can
lead to significant cultural changes. Instead, it argues that advertising merely reinforces
existing social trends. At best (or worst), advertisers or politicians merely
take advantage of these trends to serve their purposes. Thus, political candidates
might be successful in seizing on patriotism and racial backlash to promote their
campaigns in much the same way that product advertisers exploit what they think
are attitude trends among the baby boom generation or soccer moms. But who
would deny the significant cultural changes of running political campaigns in this
manner? Surely political leaders’ appeals to our baser tendencies must have some
effect on our democracy and our culture? Can you speak kindly of the quality of
discourse exhibited in today’s politics?
The limited-effects/reinforcement arguments might have been valid, but in their
early forms they were unnecessarily limited in scope. Today’s meaning-making theorists
have developed reinforcement notions into a broader theory that identifies
important new categories of media influence. These argue that at any point in time
there are many conflicting or opposing social trends. Some will be easier to reinforce
using the marketing techniques available to advertisers. Potentially useful
trends can be undermined as public attention is drawn toward opposing ones.
From among the trends that can be easily reinforced by existing marketing techniques,
advertisers and political consultants are free to base their promotional communication
on those that are likely to best serve their short-term self-interests
rather than the long-term public good.
Thus, many potentially constructive social trends may fail to develop because
existing techniques can’t easily reinforce them or because opposing trends are reinforced
by advertisers seeking immediate profits (or candidates seeking immediate
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.