Introduction
The influence of media has grown in an exponential manner with proper advancement of technology. There were different ways of communication from earlier times such as books, newspaper, magazines, recordings, films, television and the most popular media for communication in recent time is internet and social media. The information and communication is very important to keep lives and daily activities going and conduct their daily activities i.e., education, leisure, health, entertainment, relationships, traveling and other related activities involved within the lives of people (Stille, 2011). There are different modes of communication such as messages, newspaper, emails, phone calls, general meetings and they are important to gain information and make feasible decisions from gathered media content and different interpersonal sources of media. The below study explains media affect theories and related actions for the purpose of communication for better understanding within the study.
Media affect theories
The media effects are characterized in three stages initially which embraces a strong effect theory followed by repudiation of earlier work and then after, new model need to be initiated with minimum effects followed by another repudiation of strong effects (Hanson, 2009). The study relates to the research of communication media effects and therefore, two arguments are developed for better understanding of study. The first argument is that the evolvement character of study reveals the underlying structure moving from simple persuasion models and prospective attitude that change to more simple models of persuasion and prospective attitude for more changes for achievement of sophisticated models so as to address the communication effects context within the study. The progression need to be conducted in a cumulative manner and after the effect of communication have to be identified in subsequent research for systematically addressing the conditions of communication. The second argument relates to the underlying structure which is obscured in a routine manner and advanced refinement in potentially derailed with the wide held construction of minimal effects (Papacharissi, 2013). It is also demonstrated that the first argument is true because second argument cannot be proved in a considerable manner. Although it has been identified that belief cannot lead to anecdotal evidence in the study. The media effects represent the core ideas of communication since the inception of theory has been conducted in the study. It is characterized that the research of communication is related to the effect and otherwise, the consideration of intellectual origins of communication will be developed in a considerable manner. The field of media has grown dramatically and the practitioners have initiated the practices of media and communication (Rogers, 2011). The appropriate progress made in communication field have focused on the broad issues of media and effects of media with the evidences of accumulative progress and concentrate on the measurement and analysis within the study. The cultivation theory and agenda setting media effect theory are explained below for clarification and justification of argument within the study.
Cultivation theory
The cultivation media effect theory has been developed by George Gerbner and the central idea of cultivation theory relates to the long term exposure for content of TV with small and measurable effects on the audience members of perceptual world. The heavy numbers of viewing TV creates a strong belief in “scary world” and the TV has surpassed the religion as main story teller for the particular culture (Altheide, 2008). The video screen time need to be evaluated for evaluation of on screen time for viewers. The time spent on internet and playing games on computer is considered as on screen time and that can be categorized as heavy viewers, moderate viewers, and light viewers. Further, the different viewers will be categorized for implications of theory within the study. The research of cultivation theory also need to evaluated the content analysis for prime time of television and the further classification of TV audience viewers will concern the perceptions in the real world (Dearing, 2011). Then after, the calculation of cultivation effect will be considered for “cultivation differential”. The cultivation effect can be evaluated as the overall board effects and subgroup breakdowns such as resonance and mainstreaming effects (Boyd, 2010). The cultivation differential is the difference in percent of people while providing the answer of television within the comparable groups of light and heavy viewers. The cultivation effects differ among separate groups of viewers such as mainstreaming is for the heavy viewers within the different groups and development of the outlook. The resonance relates to the resonance process of TV content with the real life experiences and amplification of cultivation effect in certain number of groups (Rogers, 2011). The TV violence is also considerable factor while understanding cultivation theory as the principal message is the control of violent content and it is the most significant factors because the threat of violence needs to be considered in prime time for betterment of viewers in a considerable manner. The people such as women, children, and elderly can be victims of TV violence. It is important to marginalize people in jeopardy by simultaneous under representation and over victimization of people (Snow, 2008). The important consideration and factors related to cultivation theory of media effect are studied for understanding and betterment of study.
Agenda setting theory
The agenda setting relates to the thinking process and the process of thinking within the media effect and communication as a whole. The agenda theory has been developed by Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw. The theory contrasts with the selective exposure hypothesis related to the cognitive dissonance and reaffirming the press power for maintaining the individual freedom (Hanson, 2009). The agenda setting theory aligns with the social judgment theory in a well manner and contrasts with the selective exposure hypothesis related to cognitive dissonance and reaffirmation of power of press and at the same time, also maintains the freedom of an individual. The approach of “use and gratification” is quite consistent with the motives and approach of television viewers. The theory also represents the back to basics approach for media and communication research (Papacharissi, 2013). For example, the agenda is set in political media for further communications and media in the prospective world. The media and public agenda is closely related and therefore, it is asserted that the functions of agenda setting of media cause the correlation between the ordering priorities of media and public. The correlation does not justifies and proves causation but in the agenda setting, it is necessary to evaluate the people affected by agenda of the media, high need for orientation related to the curiosity index, need for orientation from uncertainty and high relevance, issues boosted by the attention of media. The media seems to be effective particularly for creation of public interest in the media strategy. The agenda setting also realizes that the strategy of agenda setting theory is primary issues while framing the concerns of communication (Rogers, 2011). The priming is considered as a psychological process for emphasis of media on particular issues for increasing the salience of particular issues and it also activates the memories of people according to the information acquired within the issues of media and communication. The framing is considered for attention to some major aspects of obscuring the elements so as to lead audience to have different reactions of media and communication.
Analysis and results
It is important to analyze the media effect theories for addressing the patterns of communication and draw the attention of phenomenon within the study. ‘‘The Matthew Effect’’ have also indicated that the analysis and evaluation are considered for cultivation media effect theory and agenda setting media effect theory of communication. It also indicates the self reinforcing cycles on inequity tend to get effective in a considerable manner (Hanson, 2009). The result indicates that the certain evidences of communication evaluate the curves of communication and media for illustration and concentration of attention phenomenon within the study. The patterns of communication depend upon the different ways of media and communication and thereby, the cultivation theory and agenda setting theory will be decided accordingly. It is expected that the media effect and communication will be presented as a better measure for the further distribution of media and mode of communication and both of which are considered as avisual inspection of the media effect theories within the study.
References
Alexander Stille (2011), “Marshall McLuhan Is Back From the Dustbin of History;
With the Internet, His Ideas Again Seem Ahead of Their Time,” New York
Times, October 14, 2011,
Cathrine Jansson-Boyd (2010), Consumer Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill,
2010), 59–62.
David Altheide and Robert Snow (2008), Media Worlds in the Postjournalism Era
(New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 9–11.
James Dearing and Everett Rogers (2011), Agenda-Setting (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2012), 4.
Ralph Hanson (2009), Mass Communication: Living in a Media World
(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009), 80–81.
Zizi Papacharissi (2013), “Uses and Gratifications,” in An Integrated Approach
Salwen (New York: Routledge, 2009), 137.
