Propaganda and Persuasion /
Media Effects (chapter 4)
An Evaluation / Analysis:
What works and what doesn’t
The beginning of psychological
and sociological studies



1918: Thomas and
Znaniecki
The foundation of
modern empirical
sociology
Social psychology as
a study of attitudes

.
Gordon Allport (1935)
Attitudes, in A Handbook of Social Psychology



attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a
person, place, thing, or event.
“A mental state of readiness organized through
experience, and exerting a directive influence upon the
individual’s response to all objects and situations”
Gordon Allport: "the most distinctive and indispensable
concept in contemporary social psychology."
Measures of attitudes
The Likert Scale: measurement of attitudes
(5-point scale: from “strongly approve” to “strongly
disapprove”)
 Also: The semantic differential scale
The ‘shades’ of meaning of a concept, from ‘good’ to ‘bad,’
‘black’ to ‘white,’ ‘love’ to ‘non-love’ (usually 7-point
differential with 4 = neutral)

Attitude-Behavior Relations

Richard Lapiere study of 1934:

Low connection between reported attitudes and
actual behavior
Attitude-Behavior Relations
Icek Ajzen & Martin Fishbein
Psychological Bulletin, 84,5. 1977

The attitude-behavior relations are generally weak.

Individuals consider perception of a behavior as positive or
negative together with their impression of the way the
society perceives the same behavior.
Thus, personal attitude and social pressure shape intention,
which is essential to performance of a behavior and
consequently behavioral change.

Studies in Public Opinion


Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion (1922)
Free file at the Gutenberg Project HERE
Hypodermic Effect (1900-1930s)


The press is a powerful force in shaping public
opinion.
Messages were conceived as being ‘injected’ into
the mind where they changed feelings and
attitudes.
Limited Effects or the Social Influence
Model (1940s to 1960s)

The period of strong advances in the
psychological studies. In this period the
foundations of the media effect were established.

Surprisingly, the general conclusion was that the
media don’t have as strong effect as it was thought
before.
Lazarsfeld et al (1948)
Erie County Study in 1940.
Hypotheses: The Media:
1. could arouse public interest in the campaign and encourage
voters to seek out more information about the candidates
and issues.
2. could reinforce existing political beliefs (make them
stronger and more resistant to change)
3. would convert attitudes and change voters’ support from
one to another candidate.

Lazarsfel et al. (1948)
Erie County Study in 1940.
Findings
1. YES. People who read or listened to a substantial amount
of campaign media coverage were more likely to become
more interested in the election.
2. YES, BUT... Their interest and activation were selective
in that they tended to seek out stories that were consistent
with prior political attitudes.
3. NO. Those relative few who did change their minds did so
not because of attending to the media directly but by
filtering of information to them from people in the
community (so-called “opinion leaders”)
Erie County Study in 1940.
Important Conclusions



The media don’t have a direct impact, but are filtered
by the community, by the opinion leaders
“Two-step flow of communication.”
“Multi-step flow” This revision included the flow of
information from the media to multiple opinion leaders and
between them. Further, it included also the concept of
“gatekeepers.” The leaders were not just simple conveyor
belts but also decided which information will pass through.
“Why We Fight?” films study
Hovland, Lumsdaine, Sheffield Experiments on Mass
Communication (1949)



The films were not effective in motivating recruits to serve
and fight
The films were not effective in attitude change (e.g.,
resentment towards the enemy)
The films were effective in teaching factual knowledge
The Yale Studies (Hovland and others)




The effects of source credibility on information processing
(diminishing effectiveness of credibility, the “sleeper
effect”)
The ordering of arguments: primacy-recency
(inconclusive)
Explicit versus implicit conclusions (inconclusive)
The fear appeal: Effective appeal must include fear but
also an option for eliminating fear
Other theories


Consistency theories / Cognitive dissonance
Theory of Exposure Learning (comfort in
familiarity: the more exposure, the more
persuasion and liking)
Other approaches


Diffusion of Innovation
Agenda Setting Hypothesis
Diffusion of Innovation
a process of filtering information through the media,
interpersonal communication, and culture






Five steps:
Knowledge: learning about an innovation,
Persuasion: forming an attitude toward the
innovation,
Decision: a decision to adopt or reject,
Implementation: implementation of the new idea,
Confirmation: confirmation of this decision.
Diffusion of Innovation
Diffusion of Innovation
Diffusion of Innovation




Factors influencing the process:
1. Personality, social characteristics, and
individual needs.
2. Social / cultural system
3. Characteristics of the innovation
Agenda Setting Hypothesis

Although the media may not be successful in
telling us what to think, they are successful in
telling us what to think about. (Cohen 1963)

By seeing certain subjects more often we are
becoming convinced that they are important.
Further, we evaluate other news in terms of what
is important

Types of Agenda-Setting




Media agenda-setting
Institutional agenda-setting
The public agenda
It is important to remember that there are some
objective constraints on agenda-setting (objective
conditions).
Gatekeeping

Control over the selection of content discussed in
the media;
Sources of front-page news stories (in %)
Source
Times/Post
Tribune
Wire
Government
officials
56
54
60
Group-linked
person
25
34
18
Private person
4
6
4
Foreign person
4
5
8
11
1
10
Other
Police versus newspaper reports
CRIME
Murder
Sexual assault
Assault
Theft, burglary, etc.
TOTAL
POLICE reports
TRIBUNE reports
627 (0.3%)
26 (31%)
1,907 (0.9%)
10 (12%)
26,451 (12%)
12 (14%)
183,920 (86%)
36 (43%)
212,905
84
Priming

The ability of the media to affect which issues or traits
individuals use to evaluate political figures.

Individuals base their vote choice more on issues covered
by the media than on issues not covered by the media

The media's content will provide a lot of time and space to
certain issues, making these issues more accessible and
vivid in the public's mind
Framing


Framing effects result from the media’s
description of an event or issue that emphasizes
potentially relevant considerations to help
individuals make sense of the issue (e.g.,
suggesting causes)
Individuals view policy issues consistent with how
they are portrayed by the media
Framing


A frame defines the packaging of an element of
rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain
interpretations and to discourage others.
E.g., Counterterrorism as law enforcement" vs.
"Counterterrorism as war.
Types of frames (examples)






Causes of events
Structural (socio-political structure)
Attitudinal (beliefs/attitudes of individuals)
Concerns
Ethical (human rights, personal responsibility)
Material (economic resources, environment)
Important

In evaluating media-effects theories it is
important to remember that:

Most individuals have strong beliefs and views
formed before a particular media influence
Individuals are also influenced by things other
than the media (e.g., friends)

Models of Mass Media





Reporters of Objective Fact
Neutral Adversary
Public Advocate
Profit-Seeker
Propagandist
Reporters of Objective Fact

An accurate reflection of “reality”

Problems:

The media are unable to report all facts—someone
must select the facts
Is it possible to report the facts alone?

Neutral adversary



Reporters are gathering, evaluating and
challenging available information, but are
neutral
(e.g., they challenge government officials and
others in power).
Problem:
Reporters’ interests and values could
influence newsgathering process
Public Advocate

Reporters are agents of the public interest. They
determine what the public interest is, they promote
it, and engage citizens in the process.

Problem:
But what is public interest?

Profit seeker



What becomes news is a byproduct of profit
seeking
Problem:
newsgathering and news reporting are the
key to a profitable business
Propagandist

The chief purpose of the media is to support and
advance the interests of those in positions of
power.
Motives of reporters/editors
Say,





Reporters of Objective Fact (50%)
Neutral Adversary (20%)
Public Advocate (20%)
Profit-Seeker (5%)
Propagandist (5%)
Motives of media owners
Say,





Reporters of Objective Fact (40%)
Neutral Adversary (5%)
Public Advocate (5%)
Profit-Seeker (40%)
Propagandist (10%)
Media bias (news content)







Timeliness
Human interest and drama
Concrete events
Focus on known actors (e.g., presidents)
Crime, scandals, etc.
Government conflict
Victims (e.g., of crime, natural disaster)
Media bias (ideological)

Liberal or Conservative?
The conservative critique:
media have liberal bias



The decisive power over the news lies with
journalists; owners and advertisers are
irrelevant or relatively powerless.
Journalists are political liberals.
Journalists use their position to advance
liberal politics.
The liberal critique:
media have conservative bias




The decisive power over the news lies with
owners and advertisers.
Editors and reporters are independent only
within the general boundaries of owners’
preferences.
The owners are political conservatives.
The owners use their position to advance
conservative politics
What is the point of reference?



Is there a bias in the media (conservative or
liberal)?
How do you know that?
In comparison with what?