Media Effects Theories - Term Paper Example

Media Effects Theories Introduction Communication vs. Mass Communication Communication is the process of sharing, conveying or exchanging ideas or information between two parties namely, the sender and the receiver (Lasswell, 1948). It is defined by a number of attributes seeking to elaborate on its functional and operational characteristics such as dynamic, interactive, innate and continuous (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). According to Biocca (1988), the main aim of communication is to affect the receiver in a way or manner that is desired by the sender. The effectiveness of communication is assessed by evaluating the effects or impact of the communication process on the receiver (Lasswell, 1948). According to Nabi and Krcmar (2004), mass communication is a type of communication that involves information dissemination to large and heterogeneous masses of receivers or audiences. Deephouse (2000) adds that in mass communication the sender can target a specific audience or a general audience but in both cases the audience is individually anonymous. Elements of Mass Communication The basic elements of mass communication are: the sender or communicator, the message or content, the channel or medium, the receiver or audience and the effects (Lasswell, 1948). The sender refers to the person who composes the message, which is the source or origin of the communication process (Biocca, 1988). The message is the actual information or ideas that are composed by the receiver for communication. The channel or medium refers to the path or conduit chosen by the sender to convey the message to the receiver (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). The channel is the link or connector between the sender and the receiver. The receiver is the targeted audience to whom the message is intended by the sender (Deephouse, 2000). The effects refer to the impact of the message on the receiver, and in many models a feedback is included as another element of the communication process after the effects. The feedback denotes the reaction or response of the receiver; it is used to assess the effects of a communication process (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). Features of Mass Communication Mass communication differs from other forms of communication in several ways including: the sender or communicator, nature of audience, the messages and the channels or media of communication (Lasswell, 1948). The sender in mass communication is usually a person or a group of persons in a professional organization who disseminate information to a mass audience with desired effects (Mutz, 2001). Mass communication introduces gatekeepers and regulators who complement the sources of information by improving or customizing the messages or content to appeal to the receiver or audience. Sources, gatekeepers and regulators include: television producers, news reporters and editors (Biocca, 1988). The nature of the audience in mass media has several unique characteristics because they are: heterogeneous, large and anonymous (Deephouse, 2000). The messages in mass communication are dynamic and sophisticated depending on the targeted audience. Finally, the channels in mass media are enhanced to convey the message effectively to large audiences; they are also called mass vehicles. They include: radio, television, newspapers and the internet (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). The effects in mass media vary depending on many factors. In order to understand the varying roles and effects of the various elements involved in mass communication, researchers analyze each element individually (Lasswell, 1948). For example, in order to study the sender, they conduct control analysis which aims to discover and analyze the factors that trigger or initiate and guide the communication process (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). They engage in content analysis in a bid to evaluate the message or content in a communication process. Media analysis focuses on the channel or medium of communication and audience analysis is concerned with the receivers (Biocca, 1988). Finally, there is effect analysis that is used to assess the effect of a given communication process on the audience. Analysis of Mass Communication According to Lasswell (1948), mass communication has many functions or intended effects by the sources to the receiving audience. They include: entertainment functions, informative functions, cultural functions, and surveillance functions, enforcement of norms, correlation functions and persuasion (Lasswell, 1948). Deephouse (2000) argues that in order for a given mass communication process to be effective, it has to prescribe to any of these functions and thereby achieves significant effects in mass communication. There are many approaches that are used to assess the effects of a communication process on the audience in mass communication. The effects or outcomes of a communication process can be affected by any of the elements of mass communication and also by other external factors (Mutz, 2001). Therefore, it is inconclusive to single out any of the elements involved in mass communication as the sole determinant of the effects of a communication endeavor without engaging in a critical analysis of the whole mass communication process. Biocca (1988) states that, one of the most influential elements in mass communication is the medium or channel of communication. This is because mass communication aims to send information to a large, heterogeneous audience. According to Lasswell (1948), this has led to the development of sophisticated and complicated media networks to enhance the efficiency of mass communication. Mass communication media or channels traverse cultural, political and geographical definitions to propagate information (Deephouse, 2000). Nabi and Krcmar (2004) suggest that mass media can therefore be defined as a set of information dissemination tools that are designed to reach a vast audience; these tools are usually technologically enhanced to optimize their effectiveness. Mass Media Effects There are different types of mass media that are used in mass communication. They include: print media such as; books, newspapers, magazines and journals, broadcast media such as radio and television, narrowcast media such as films and cinemas and the new media such as online newspapers, blogs and online social applications (Mutz, 2001). Mass media effects refer to the notable outcomes of mass communication on the audience which in this case is the society. In order to analyze and determine the most critical element in determining the outcome or effects of mass communication, we will evaluate mass media effects. According to Mutz (2001), there are several concepts that are used to evaluate mass media effects and these offer in-depth insight on the critical elements that determine the outcome of a mass media communication process. Uses and Gratification Concept Discussion Blumler and Katz, the developers of this concept established a variety of needs that users can seek to fulfill or gratify using available mass media (Ruggiero, 2000). These needs are classified into five groups. The first group of needs is affective needs and these are associated with individual feelings such as pleasure and emotions (Ruggiero, 2000). The other set of needs is personal integrative needs such as; personal values reinforcement like status and credibility, identifying role models for behavioral adjustment and gaining personal insight (Deephouse, 2000). The other set of needs is cognitive needs, which focus on acquisition of knowledge and information, learning and self education and satisfying curiosity (Deephouse, 2000). According to Mutz (2001), the fourth group of needs is tension release needs and these include diversion and escape from prevailing problems, relaxation and emotional release. Finally, there are the social integrative needs which refer to individual interactions with their friends and families, assistance to engage in social roles and also enhancing social empathy (Mutz, 2001). According to this theory the users exploit the media for their own fulfillment or gratification, and the media is totally powerless in influencing the users on the choice of media selection or the effects that will be derived from it (Ruggiero, 2000). An important point to note in this concept is that the users also have complete control on how a chosen media will affect them, that is, the effects are dictated by the users or audience (Deephouse, 2000). An example of this concept in practice is a user’s musical choice from an online database or the act of scrolling through radio channels. The user has the freedom, ability and power to choose any song he or she wishes to hear to fulfill his needs which can be mood-oriented such as boredom or for relaxation purposes. Assumptions In order to assess the credibility of the uses and gratification concept, we need to evaluate the assumptions included in its involvement. The first assumption is that, the users or audiences are active, which means that the audience is able to align itself objectively with the goal-oriented content propagated by mass media (Mutz, 2001). This assumption portrays the audience as knowledgeable and competent content analysts with definite expectations from the media regarding the disseminated content. The second assumption is that the media must compete with other sources of need fulfillment for the audience. Ruggiero (2000) suggests that this assumption places the media in a compromising situation where it has to be competent by producing favorable content which appeals to the users; by satisfying their needs adequately as compared to other options. Another assumption is that the individual and the public are more powerful in mass communication than the media in content choice through need gratification consideration (Ruggiero, 2000). The fourth assumption is that individual audience demands, which are based on their orientations and prevailing living conditions, override value judgments by mass communication regarding its cultural significance (Deephouse, 2000). Finally, mass communication goals and objectives can be achieved through attainment and implementation of audience views and suggestions based on their needs. Criticism This concept has been widely criticized by different scholars in various aspects ranging from its methodology to its theoretical framework. According to Mutz (2001), the theory fails to produce convincing causality to account for the audience’s motivation to choose and use mass media given that media use is not highly motivated but rather it is circumstantial. Ruggiero (2000) observes that the concept is also highly individualistic and it is based on the notion that individual media use is entirely based on his or her psychological fulfillment ignoring other practical norms, such as media choice based on social context. The context also ignores the value and composition of media content but dwells on the reasons for mass media use (Mutz, 2001). Finally, the concept portrays the media as a succinctly functional unit for the users which creates a misconception that the media is organized and structured to achieve this purpose. Implications According to this theory, the audiences play an active role in choosing the media and the content that they wish to use (Ruggiero, 2000). This concept argues that although different mass communicators convey different messages or content, users or audiences decide what content to access and use based on the benefits that they derive from that content (Mutz, 2001). This concept starts by stating that the audience has various needs that they usually wish to satisfy or fulfill from the media (Ruggiero, 2000). Therefore, their media choices are dictated by their needs. According to Ruggiero (2000), the users are portrayed as independent elements in the communication process that have the freedom to choose any media and then decide how they will use it and how it will affect them. This concept notes that there is no uniformity in media choice or use, but the reasons for these choices are as many as the users themselves. In this concept, Blumler and Katz render all the other elements of mass communication namely, the source, media and content, powerless in determining the effect or outcome of the communication process (Mutz, 2001). Therefore, this concept singles out the audience as the most critical determinant of the effects of a mass communication. Cultivation Theory Discussion This theory was established by George Gerbner and it is based on the empirical claim that extended exposure to a given type of mass media alters a user’s world perception (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). This theory claims that media can influence or change the realistic beliefs and attitudes of the audience and replace them with abstract notions as they are presented by the mass media. According to Chaffee and Metzger (2001), the theory is hinged on two claims which are based on a series of surveys which were conducted regarding television viewership in the United States. The theory proposes that mass media cultivation affects the audience in two distinct variations, these are; mainstreaming and resonance (Biocca, 1988). The surveys classified television viewers into three categories, that is; heavy television viewers which refers to those individuals who spend most of their time watching television (four or more hours daily), moderate television viewers which focuses on those individuals who watch television any time they are not engaged in productive tasks (two to four hours daily) and light viewers which refers to occasional television viewers (less than two hours daily). The study also focused on content analysis in modern television (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). The researchers considered violent content and ordinary content to draw conclusion on the varying effects of watching the two types of content on the audience (Biocca, 1988). Finally, the survey evaluated the conceptions of the three groups by asking them their perceptions regarding real world situations and incidents. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) state that the main point to remember in this research is that, the survey participants were picked from different demographic groups hence they had varying ages, gender and professions. The findings indicated that members of the same survey group such as the heavy viewers had the same outlook regarding the topic they were queried about regardless of demographic variations. This was attributed to mainstreaming which refers to the average viewing time of television by a given participant (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). The other influential factor that was noted was resonance. Resonance suggests that due to the fact that television programs are real life oriented, that is, they present content that is graphically realistic to their audience; the heavy viewers perceive television content as real life events and vice versa (Biocca, 1988). Chaffee and Metzger (2001) suggest that the cultivation theory was used by Gerbner to criticize television content and its influence on the society. Gernbner observed that television had the most violent content compared to other mass media (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). He noted that television failed to represent marginalized people such as the elderly, African-Americans, Latinos, the less educated and children but victimized them instead considering they were the leading victims of television violence (Biocca, 1988). Assumptions The cultivation theory is based solely on television viewership and its effects. The first assumption by proponents of the theory is that television has become the most influential mass media in the lives of human beings (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). Considering the historical dates when this theory was developed by Gerbner, that is the late 1970s, this assumption would appear valid. This is because television was the most appealing mass media in those years, much like social media is today. The theory asserted that people spent most of their time watching television more than anything else with the exception of occupational responsibilities and sleeping (Biocca, 1988). The other assumption is that television has had a central influence on people, that is, television has had a dramatic transformation on life (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). This assumption is based on the fact that television fulfills a vast collection of mass media functions including entertainment, information supply and knowledge acquisition. The theory purports that life would be unbearable without television considering the central role it plays in our lives. Thirdly, the theory assumed that peoples’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviors were solely shaped by television (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). This assumption was still based on the allusion that television was the most essential commodity in the world. Finally, the theory assumes that television fulfills all the social and cultural tenets envisaged in mass media. Criticism This theory is solely based on television viewership and omits research regarding other types of mass media making the findings singular, hence undermining its credibility. The theory is also valid up to a certain historical period which is hinged on the mass media that was available during that particular time period. According to Biocca (1988), this theory is not finitely valid considering the evolving nature of mass media. For, example, nowadays, television is not as popular as it used to be in the 1970s due to the development and evolution of the internet which was not available then. Finally, although Gerbner asserts that television fails to address violence issues in marginalized people hence victimizing them to television violence, he fails to collate high levels of violence among these people with television viewership by the same or by the perpetrators (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). Implications This theory claims that heavy television viewers perceive the real world through their television screens. This means that heavy television viewers, that is, those that watch television for four or more hours daily, view the world as it is presented on television (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). Biocca (1988) suggests that the main implications of this theory are that television delusion affects viewers after long periods of exposure to the medium. This refers to the cumulative effect of viewership and it refers to the mainstreaming concept of the theory. According to Biocca (1988), the other concept in the theory is the content presented and its effects. Gerbner alludes that violence depictions in television affect viewers in a huge way, and the viewers are depicted as totally powerless in the effect of the communication process (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). Therefore, according to this concept the outcome of mass communication is determined by both the content and the medium. Critically, this theory presents an interesting implication considering the fact that content is chosen by the communicator or the source, this means that the source determines the effects of mass communication and only the receiver is powerless. Agenda Setting Theory Discussion This theory purports that the mass media manipulates the audience to a certain degree by dictating the issues which are relevant for consideration at given periods of time (Scheufele, 2000). The media determines the important issues and influences the audience in that direction. According to the developers of the theory, Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw, although the media might not acknowledge to the audience what it thinks, it certainly tells them what to think about (Scheufele, 2000). Scheufele (2000) suggests that the media influences the audience’s perceptions from their personal preferences, to the media’s preferences and interests. The agenda setting theory is practically implemented by the media during political campaigns. The catch with this theory is that the audience’s or public’s agenda and the media’s agenda are sometimes very similar. According to Scheufele (2000), this theory holds that mass media is very powerful in terms of influence and hence it can influence the audience without interfering with the audience’s freedom. The media uses different methodologies to implement this theory reclusively such as; the placement or prominence of a story in a newsprint where first page stories represent the story’s importance and so on, the quantity of information presented for a given issue or candidate, the degree of conflict in a specific report and the frequency or quality of a specific story (Scheufele, 2000). In the Agenda Setting Theory, the mass media uses two strategies to alter the audience psychologically towards the desired agenda. These strategies are priming and framing. Priming involves emphasis of specific issues by mass media in a bid to create mental impressions on the audience regarding the issues (Scheufele, 2000). The other strategy is called framing and it involves drawing attention to some chosen issues while ignoring others in a bid to influence the audience’s reactions (Scheufele, 2000). Assumptions This theory assumes that the audience is susceptible to mass media manipulations due to a number of reasons including: indecisiveness, lack of ample knowledge regarding a certain issue and also mass confusion (Scheufele, 2000). The other assumption of this theory is that the audience trusts the media and hence does not read mischief in any of its agenda setting strategies. Thirdly, the theory assumes that there is a high number of receivers among the audience who have are highly curious or yet still who seriously require orientation in societal issues (Scheufele, 2000). Implications This theory has been observed to be very effective in political campaigns. The mass media manages to successfully attract the interest of the audience to certain political candidates and eventually influence their voting patterns (Scheufele, 2000). The media uses priming and framing to enhance the salience of various political campaigns and strategies in a bid to hide its political orientation. Finally, it becomes clear that all through the media’s primary motive was promoting the campaign itself. According to Scheufele (2000), this theory illustrates the power of mass media in influencing the effects of a communication process. In this instance, the source might be considered active or passive in determining the communication effects depending on their behind- the-scenes roles and strategies (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). In this context, although the audience maintains its freedom of choice, the theory portrays the media as the main determinant of the effects of a communication process (Scheufele, 2000). Social Action Theory This theory seeks to counter the traditional conception that the audience is helpless and passive in a communication process (Coleman, 1986). The developers of this theory, Anderson and Meyer assert that mass media audiences engage in critical analysis of the communication process in order to understand the meanings and interpretations of the content (Coleman, 1986). The audience draws meaning from three separate considerations in a communication process and these are focused on: the conventions of the mass media content, the intentions of the communicator or producer of the content and the interpretations of the mass media receiver or audience (Bandura, 2002). According to Coleman (1986), social action theory depicts the communication process as a form of interaction based in communication and defined by the intent of the sender, the mass media message content and the audience interpretations. This theory aims to render ineffectual the Magic Bullet Theory that alluded that mass media content was like a silver bullet and that the media was like a gun (Coleman, 1986). The theory went on to metaphorically present the audience as hapless and at the mercy of the silver bullet (content) fired by the gun (media) (Coleman, 1986). This theory was based on propaganda and was entrenched in Behaviorism and Freudianism human control theorems. Assumptions This theory assumes that the audience is active, perceptive and competent enough to generate three different constructions to form a meaning in a single communication process (Coleman, 1986). According to Bandura (2002), the theory also assumes that the audience is invincible to mass media psychological manipulations, and hence will always weigh the three considerations in a bid to derive meaning from a communication process. Implications This theory assigns the influential determinant power of mass communication effects from the media to the audience (Coleman, 1986). The audience is portrayed as active and perceptive to detail in a communication process (Bandura, 2002). According to Coleman (1986), the level of competence alleged to the audience by this theory portrays the audience in a position to comfortably determine the effects of the communication process without falling prey to external influences or manipulations. This theory appoints the audience as the critical determinant of the outcome of mass media communication. Media Dependency Theory Discussion This theory establishes its argument from the individual needs of the audience to infer that the level of media dependency by an individual to fulfill his or her needs collates with the level of influence of a given mass media (Schulz, 2004). This theory represents an exaggerated audience case of the Uses and Gratification Theory. In the Uses and Gratification Theory, the user plays an active role in determining his or her choice of mass media and content depending on his needs. However, according to Ball-Rokeach and DeFluer, the developers of this theory, this dependency can become too addictive making the user dependent on a certain mass media (Biocca, 1988). This theory is based on the functional properties of mass media in meeting the needs of the audience. The theory suggests that mass media systems are tailored to create needs, goals, motives and interests in individuals through interaction. The mass media are further configured to generate fulfillments for these needs which in eventually become essential to the users. Biocca (1988) suggests that according to this theory the level of dependence on mass media for a user’s needs fulfillment advances with time. This means that initially a user might be in the Uses and Gratification phase where he or she dictates the choice of mass media and content but with time he or she might end up in the Media Dependency category (Schulz, 2004). An important point to note is that the level of dependency is not influenced by the source or the mass media itself, but by all the elements in the communication process plus the prevailing social system (Coleman, 1986). Schulz (2004) states that media dependency is not a matter of choice but of necessity because it is generated by a series of relationships that include: the audience relationship with the media, the relationship between the existing social system and the audience combined with the role of the mass media in the whole network (Biocca, 1988). The degree of dependency is determined by the prevailing social atmosphere, and the quantity and criticality of mass media functions such as education and entertainment. Assumptions This theory assumes that the audience is powerless in a given social manifestation with the only option being to seek fulfillment in the mass media. According to Schulz (2004), the theory portrays the social setting as a vacuum and thus assumes that the user has to seek solace in the mass media. The other assumption for this theory is that the mass media is adequately evolved to match an unpredictable social system that may unpredictably evolve (Biocca, 1988). Schulz (2004) suggests that this assumption manifests the dynamic nature of mass media in an evolving society. Implications This theory implies that the audience is not helpless in determining the outcome of a mass communication process. According to Schulz (2004), the theory holds that the audience determines how they will use mass media and therefore control the occurrence and form of mass communication effects. However, as the audience uses the mass media to meet its needs and navigate in the social system, the audience allows the mass media to alter their expectations (Coleman, 1986). This trend dictates that the stronger the audience’s needs are, the stronger their dependency on the mass media will be and consequently, the greater the possibility that the mass media will have an effect on the audience (Biocca, 1988). This instance will thus confirm the statement that, the greater the needs of a given individual, the greater the dependency and hence the greater the influence on communication effects (Schulz, 2004). According to Nabi and Krcmar (2004), this theory portrays mass media and the audience in powerful positions to determine the outcome of mass communication. However, the media seems to be better placed because it seems to control the overall communication process. Therefore in the Media Dependency Theory the mass media is the most critical determinant of the outcome of the communication process. Conclusion Media effects in mass communication are affected by the different elements that compose the communication process. The theories discussed above illustrate different instances or constructions of the communication process based on different influences. There are other theories that try to analyze the influences of the different constituents of mass communication. A qualitative approach that seeks to shed light on the strength of mass media on the audience focuses directly on the quantifiable effects of mass media on the audience (Coleman, 1986). This approach uses two paradigms to analyze the effects of mass media on the audience. The first paradigm is called the limited effects paradigm. According to Bandura (2002), this paradigm holds that the effects of mass media on the audience are partial or limited both in size and in weight. This paradigm is based on the practical illustration that other factors, such as social factors, can have far higher influences to the outcome of a communication process than mass media or its content (Biocca, 1988). These conclusions were drawn from practical experiments that involved alterations of the variables that constitute mass communication. The limited effects paradigm concentrated on the effects of persuasive communication to garner insight on mass media effects on audiences (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). According to Coleman (1986), the results implied that audiences were not easily swayed by persuasive mass media strategies but rather they based their decisions on other factors such as socio-cultural doctrines and socioeconomic norms. The second paradigm that was used in this analysis is the powerful effects paradigm. The most powerful mass media effects that were observed are the ones discussed above and they are entrenched in the need fulfillment function of mass media (Bandura, 2002). Need fulfillment by mass media is limited to the social context of the audience thereby limiting its influence on mass communication. Despite all these illustrations, the power controlled by mass media in mass communication cannot be ignored. For example, in the five theories that are discussed above, mass media is considered as the critical determinant of the communication process by three concepts. Bandura (2002) asserts that this serves to illustrate the powerful nature of mass media in determining the effects or outcomes in a mass communication process. The high influence attributed to mass media has put the element in a critical position. Nabi and Krcmar (2004) suggest that this has led to the alienation of mass media and its effects have become the subject of negative discussion in the society. The main issues that are associated with mass media effects are negative and they include; violence, delinquency, drugs and alcohol. These vices are often associated with media effects especially on the young generation and they are highly criticized in the mainstream society (Nabi & Krcmar, 20040. The audience also holds a powerful position in determining the outcome of a communication process (Coleman, 1986). This is illustrated by the fact that out of the five theories that are discussed above, the audience controls the mass communication outcomes in two instances. The limited effects paradigm also depicts the audience as the overall determinant of the communication process’ effects (Biocca, 1988). These findings propose that mass media is the critical determinant of the outcome of a mass communication process. The audience also wields significant influence in determining the effects of a mass communication process. Therefore, the mass media and the audience should streamline their influence to ensure mass communication is effective and achieves recommendable results both in the targeted individual receivers and also in the society. References Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2, 121-153. Retrieved from http://exordio.qfb.umich.mx/archivos%20PDF%20de%20trabajo%20UMSNH/Aphilosofia/2007/NEUROPSICOLOGIA/BanMassCom.pdf Biocca, F. A. (1988). Opposing conceptions of the audience: The active and passive hemispheres of mass communication theory. Communication yearbook, 11(648), 51-80. Retrieved from http://my.ilstu.edu/~jkshapi/Biocca_Active%20Audience.pdf Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication?. Mass communication & society, 4(4), 365-379. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miriam_Metzger/publication/228491763_The_End_of_Mass_Communication/file/5046352486277588de.pdf Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American journal of Sociology, 1309-1335. Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American journal of Sociology, 1309-1335. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2779798?uid=3738336&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104264308547 Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of management, 26(6), 1091-1112. Retrieved from http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/aula/Top20/Media%20Reputation%20as%20a%20Strategic%20resource.pdf Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. The communication of ideas, 37. Retrieved from http://www.dhpescu.org/media/elip/The%20structure%20and%20function%20of.pdf Mutz, D. C. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. In American Political Science Association (Vol. 95, No. 01, pp. 97-114). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=asc_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dmass%2Bcommunication%2B101%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5 Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: Implications for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14(4), 288-310. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marina_Krcmar/publication/227643434_Conceptualizing_Media_Enjoyment_as_Attitude_Implications_for_Mass_Media_Effects_Research/file/50463525445bd67a1f.pdf Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass communication & society, 3(1), 3-37. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/~amgutsch/Ruggiero.pdf 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. Retrieved from http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/mccombs01.pdf Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European journal of communication, 19(1), 87-101. Retrieved from ftp://78.102.194.126/skola/tmk/SCHULZ_Reconstructing_Mediatization.pdf Read More