9
CHAPTER 3 Continued

Continued. 1940 Presidential Election FDR vs Wendell Wilkie Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet Erie County, Ohio 3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

CHAPTER 3Continued

Page 2: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

People’s Choice

1940 Presidential Election FDR vs Wendell Wilkie Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet Erie County, Ohio 3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600 1 randomly selected MAIN panel Other were control panels

Page 3: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

People’s Choice

MAIN panel interviewed numerous times CONTROL panels only once RESULTS:

Using category memberships, voting intentions and actual voting behavior were predictable

Media part of a web of influences; others were personal characteristics, social category, families, friends, other associates

Page 4: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

People’s Choice

MAIN panel interviewed numerous times CONTROL panels only once RESULTS:

Using category memberships, voting intentions and actual voting behavior were predictable

Media part of a web of influences; others were personal characteristics, social category, families, friends, other associates

Page 5: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

People’s Choice

Major conclusion: media has selective and limited influence

Serendipity Two step flow of communication People chose contemporaries and they

interpreted the media messages and then in turn influenced them

Outcome: Limited Influence Theory

Page 6: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

Limited Influence Theory

The media do not have powerful effects, but only minimal influences that are modified by other factors (such as individual differences, social categories, and social relationships) that significantly limit those influences

Page 7: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

Studies of Children’s TV Viewing (way too many)

Led to Uses and Gratifications theory Many hours a day and rising Used for fantasy; original studies said no

truly dramatic problems from this Profile for more use: 1)poor 2)grades 6-8

3)less intelligent Second Surgeon General report revealed

link between viewing violence and aggression

Page 8: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

Uses and Gratifications Theory

The audience was found to be active and not passive in selecting media content for personal uses and gratifications.

Choices are made on the basis of individual needs, interests, values based on all aspects of socialization.

Socialization will predispose the person to select certain media they will use for diversion or entertainment or problem solving.

Page 9: Continued.  1940 Presidential Election  FDR vs Wendell Wilkie  Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet  Erie County, Ohio  3,000 interviewed/5 groups of 600

The Bottom Line

We progressed from Magic Bullet to Selected and Limited Influence to Uses and Gratifications.

All of this led to: The mass media are quite limited in their influences in people who select and attend to any particular message.

If this happened with movies and TV, imagine the future of the Internet studies!