Cultivation as a theory of media influence also includes discussion of what can best be defined as response-reinforcement processes. A key process described by cultivation scholarship is “mainstreaming” (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980). Mainstreaming is defined by Gerbner et al. (2002) as a process by which media generates “a relative commonality of outlooks and values” through heavy exposure. The medium of television consistently offers a symbolic representation of the world that is violent, sexist, and lacking in a healthy respect for the environment (once again, to name just a few elements that have been explored extensively by cultivation scholars). The mainstreaming effect is a classic reinforcement effect—the consistency and universality of television’s symbolic representation of the world creates macrosocial uniformity of worldviews by continually reinforcing mainstream views.
Finally, the cognitive processes undertaken by audience members that lead to cultivation outcomes further show that cultivation theory can be viewed as a persuasion theory. Shrum and colleagues (e.g., Shrum, 1995, 1996, 1997; Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993) argue that television’s influence stems from the audience engaging the medium via traditional heuristic processing. If audience members were to engage in more effortful, systematic processing of television messages, then the social judgments that match the symbolic world of television would not be seen as strongly in audience members. Not only did Gerbner and the early cultivation scholars discuss the role of the systematic manipulation of symbols in the formation of audience attitudes, but they also described core processes of influence (e.g., mainstreaming) that match well with our basic conceptualizations of certain aspects of persuasion (e.g., response reinforcement). Furthermore, the basic cognitive processes underlying cultivation are direct parallels to the paths of influence that are central to persuasion theories such as the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the heuristic-systematic model (HSM; cf., O’Keefe, chapter 9 of this volume). It is clear that much of what has been outlined to date in the area of cultivation research can be seen as describing persuasion-based processes and outcomes.
Social Learning
Of the five mass communication theories under consideration, the most explicitly persuasive in orientation is Bandura’s social learning theory (see Bandura, 2001). The basic argument put forward by Bandura is that individuals are social learners: We learn how to act through our observations of others. Bandura (1986) details a four-stage process for how social learning unfolds over time. First, an individual pays attention to another person (either through unmediated or mediated contact). The second stage is defined as “retention processes,” and one way in which retention is enhanced is through repeated viewing of the behavior (Smith et al., 2006). Media, especially a visually oriented medium like television, allow for a tremendous amount of repeated viewing of specific acts, and in a manner that affords undivided attention to be given if the viewer chooses to do so. For example, a child may come into contact with a cartoon where one character acts out in an aggressive manner toward another character and is rewarded for these actions. The child is intrigued by the action-outcome pairing, pays more attention to this message, and consumes subsequent airings of the same program where similar cause-and-effect scenarios play themselves out in various storylines. This media example can be thought of as a classic response-shaping activity, and, as a result, producing a persuasive outcome.
It is important that the full social learning process does not end with the repeated viewing and retention. The latter two stages of social learning play themselves out in nonmediated environments. Third, there is the production process. The production processes involve guided enactment, the monitoring of social feedback of those enactments, and the manufacturing of creative adjustments to a modeled behavior to make it more appropriate for various situations. Finally, there are motivational processes, which involve the individual making determinations regarding the utility of adopting various modeled behaviors relative to the achievement of his or her goals. Those modeled behaviors that produce sufficient utility will be retained, while those that are unfruitful will be discarded. These nonmediated activities can produce response-change or response-reinforcement. If the actions learned through media, and being mimicked in real life, are producing positive outcomes, then the initial response shaping will be reinforced. If the actions taken on by the media audience member do not produce desirable outcomes, then the response is likely to change. In short, the first two stages of social learning theory speak to response-shaping processes, while the latter two stages detail how and why there can be response-reinforcement or response-change. No matter what process of social learning unfolds, all of these activities are representative of persuasive acts that take shape over time and that were initiated by the consumption of media messages.
McLuhan
McLuhan’s (1978) work is fixated most squarely on form/channel. McLuhan argued that “it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (McLuhan & Carson, 2003, pp. 230–231). By “association,” McLuhan was speaking to the notion of what concepts we link together in our minds to form meaning (akin to associative networks in the mind), and by “action” he was speaking of the human behaviors generated by the associative networks. So, McLuhan was focused most squarely on that area of the hierarchy of effects where persuasion scholars often reside (i.e., attitudes and behaviors). It is clear that McLuhan did not believe in the notion of “media effects” as short-term, direct outcomes of media content consumption. Nonetheless, there are clear empirical principles and value that can be extracted from his work (see Holbert, 2004).
Meyrowitz (1998) describes three classifications of media research: media as conduit, media as language, and media as environment. Media-as-environment scholars argue that each medium represents a unique way of viewing the world based on its inherent strengths and limitations. No one way of presenting the world is any better or worse, just different from other ways. A major area of study for this line of research is at the macro-social level, which focuses on when there are shifts in dominant forms of communication within a culture. McLuhan’s work, epitomized by classic adages like “the medium is the message,” is representative of a media-as-environment approach to mass communication influence, and there is a clear case to be made that this take on the study of media can be viewed as the study of persuasion and persuasive outcomes.
Building on earlier work by Chesebro (1984) on media epistemologies, Chesebro and Bertelsen (1996) make an argument that “communication technologies invite responses, particularly critical evaluations of the symbols and cognitive systems human beings are to live with, by, and through on a daily basis” (p. 176). The classic study of persuasion focuses on someone’s manipulation of symbols to shape the attitudes and behaviors of others, but what McLuhan, Meyrowitz, Chesebro, and other media-as-environment scholars emphasize is that media technologies establish boundaries within which human beings as communicators must function in their attempts to influence others. More specifically, the inherent characteristics of one medium relative to other media forms tend to lead to human beings forming specific patterns of responses to symbolic systems. This process is representative of the technological determinism that is pervasive in the work of McLuhan and others who share his perspectives on media influence (Carey, 1981). Regardless of your assessment of the validity of these claims, the argument being offered is that the form/channel of communication, in particular one medium of mass communication versus another, shapes how we approach and gain meaning of the symbols we come into contact with on a daily basis.
The theorizing of McLuhan at the more microlevels, in particular his discussion of the use of different senses in relation to different media, offers the best means by which to test form influence in an empirical manner (Holbert, 2004). McLuhan (1975) argued that there was an environmental residue to any piece of information that landed in the brain—all pieces of information that landed in the brain were tagged by the sense used to extr
act that piece of information from an environment we engaged (real or mediated). These sensory tags were one criterion by which various pieces of information could be linked in the mind. So, our mental models are constructed not just around symbolic meaning, but also retain an environmental residue of sensory input. The more we take in pieces of information with similar tags (e.g., the sensorial tags associated with television as dominant medium of electronic age), the more humans would begin to see and interpret the world in line with what television offers us in terms of a unique environment and a symbolic manipulation of that environment. If such media-as-environment tags were to remain part of the information stored in our memories, then there would be a direct medium/channel influence that shapes how we approach various attitude objects, how our responses toward those objects are reinforced over time, and also when there would be any shifting/alteration in the valence of our responses to these objects.
Diffusion of Innovations
In making a case for diffusion of innovation theory as persuasion, it is important to first outline what can be defined as an innovation. An innovation can be just about anything that is perceived as new. This new object can be as tangible as a technological advancement or as abstract as a theory. As a result of the focus being on an innovation (i.e., that which is new), then it is most appropriate to approach this theory from the perspective of it describing response shaping activities. Of particular interest to the study of any innovation’s diffusion is the S-curve (Rai, Ravichandran, & Samaddar, 1998), the pattern and rate by which any one innovation becomes diffuse within a society. The S-curves for some innovations have been rather steep, signaling a rather quick process by which the innovation made its way to the masses (e.g., the microwave). However, the diffusion of other innovations can be tracked along a curve that is much more horizontal (e.g., clothes washer). Why is it that some innovations become diffuse rather quickly, while others take longer to reach the late majority and laggard groups?
Rogers and colleagues identified a few characteristics that influence the speed and degree to which any one innovation becomes diffuse: Does the innovation represent a relative advantage (i.e., is it a better mouse trap)? Is the innovation compatible with existing lifestyles and worldviews? How simple is the innovation (i.e., tangible, easy to use, parsimonious)? Is there a trial period? How big are the risks (e.g., financial, social) associated with adoption? Are there directly observable results? (Pashupati & Kendrick, 2010). Innovations that enjoy a relative advantage, function in line with existing values, are simple to understand or use, allow for a trial period, are less risky, and have directly observable results are those that are adopted at a quicker pace. However, rarely does any single innovation retain all the qualities needed to ensure immediate adoption. In fact, it is often the case that an innovation ranks high on some of these criteria, but relatively low on others. This is where persuasive acts come into play in determining the nature of the S-curve. Any innovation is most likely competing with other innovations, and it is a competitive process by which one innovation attempts to become diffuse relative to competing products, ideas, or theories. It is within this competitive environment that communication becomes essential and persuasive outcomes are produced. Promoters of a given innovation will see to make salient specific attributes that would lead to higher levels of adoption in the shortest period of time, while opponents of the same innovation will emphasize those attributes that will stunt widespread adoption. It is important to remember that the diffusion of any innovation is a social effort and an outcome of many communicative acts that are competitive. This competitive communication process is reflective of persuasion.
Future Research
* * *
The study of media influence is complex and multifaceted. A broad array of theories have been put forward to detail certain aspects of how mass communication produces effects in a wide range of contexts (e.g., politics, health, advertising, popular culture). It is often difficult, if not impossible, to gain a handle on how various empirical works on media effects, much less theoretically grounded lines of research, work together to form a coherent whole that would allow for media researchers to present to the broader public a concise summary of how, when, where, and why media have an impact on various aspects of their lives. In short, this field of study lacks organizational power. Diversity clearly has its strengths (Page, 2007), but the field would be well served to bring a broad range of research into a framework that forms a more coherent whole. This chapter has made an argument that linking the study of media effects to persuasion allows for greater organizational power to emerge. Additional theoretical argumentation should build off of the foundation offered in this work, focusing on how the broad principles of persuasion theory can serve as a means by which to bring together seemingly disparate areas of media research. There is a real need to establish a unified identity in the field of mass communication research, and persuasion may serve as a vehicle through which a shared identity for media effects research could be established.
At its most basic level, an endeavor of this kind would require researchers to properly define the scope of what can and should be labeled as a media effect. Adopting a properly bounded persuasion-oriented lens for the study of media influence (i.e., embracing the notion of an effect being representative of response formation, response reinforcement, and/or response change) would at the very least serve to guard against researchers falling into the trap of artificially constraining the concept of a “media effect” to being representative of change only (e.g., Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). Some theories of media influence are closely wedded to a media effects tradition, while other theorists (e.g., McLuhan, Gerbner) have argued explicitly against treating their subject matter as paralleling to anything so mundane as a “media effect.” Nevertheless, several mass communication theories, as detailed in this chapter, are speaking to matters of response formation, response reinforcement, and/or response change. In addition, the cumulative insights provided by various lines of research that have utilized these theories represent the full range of communication inputs highlighted by McGuire (albeit to varying degrees). Future research building off of the myriad of rich theoretical mass communication traditions offered in this chapter would be well served to better understand how any new inquiry reflects the study of response formation, reinforcement, or change. Making light of this most immediate connection to persuasion would allow any single empirical media effects work to be connected to a much broader set of insights already offered within the field.
Mass communication inquiry can utilize persuasion theory at two levels. The most basic level reflects thinking about effects-based research from the standpoint of Miller and McGuire. As already stressed, there needs to be better recognition of Miller’s definition of persuasion being about formation, reinforcement, and change, and a corresponding reassessment of what constitutes an “effect.” In addition, looking at any one media effect from the standpoint of McGuire’s five communication input variables (i.e., message, source, recipient, channel, and context) can reveal gaps in what we know about any one type of media phenomenon. All of these input variables are at work at some level in the production of media influence, but not all have been addressed in the study of any one type of effect.
The more advanced level is representative of seeking to create more formal links between theories of persuasion and theories of media influence. The work of Shrum (1995, 1996, 1997) is a solid example of the potential benefits derived from linking persuasion-based theories (e.g., HSM) with a traditional mass communication theory (e.g., cultivation) to provide new insights as to why media are having impacts on individuals and societies. Bringing persuasion theory into the fold of existing mass communication theories could serve to enrich several lines of inquiry in all contexts within which media are analyzed. The arguments and linkages offered in this chapter should serve as nothing more than a jumping off point from which more substantive theoretical connections can be formed that would allow fo
r new knowledge about communication to be generated.
Conclusion
* * *
The goal of this chapter is to establish more formal links between the studies of media influence and persuasion. First, a typology was constructed that reflected an appropriate bounding of both areas of influence. Persuasion is defined as encompassing response formation, response reinforcement, and response change (Miller, 1980/2002); and a media effect consists of five communication inputs: message, source, recipient, channel, and context (McGuire, 1989). Various pieces of media effects scholarship were then slotted into the 3 (Miller) × 5 (McGuire) matrix to show that there is an exhaustive list of media effects works that address all response-communication input combinations. Stepping beyond the individual study level, five mass communication theories are presented in relation to the study of persuasion. Not only do various elements of persuasion become evident in single empirical works detailing a variety of media effects, but the basic tenets of persuasion-based processes of communication influence can be found in media’s most important theories. No grand theory of media influence as persuasion is offered in this work, but what is being stressed is that seeking to form closer connections between persuasion and media effects scholarship can bring greater organizational power to our understanding of media influence. In addition, extracting persuasion elements from the study of media influence may aid in the advancement of core persuasion theories. It is our hope that the connections forged in this chapter will serve as a starting point for more fruitful discussions on how the studies of persuasion and media influence can reciprocate in a manner that allows for knowledge advancement on some of our most basic and important communicative processes.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 10
