Abstract:

Information and communication technology has changed rapidly over the past 20 years
with a key development being the emergence of social media.
The pace of change is accelerating. For example, the development of mobile technology
has played an important role in shaping the impact of social media. Across the globe, mobile
devices dominate in terms of total minutes spent online. This puts the means to connect anywhere,
at any time on any device in everyone’s hands.
Almost a quarter of the world’s population is now on Facebook. In the USA nearly 80% of
all internet users are on this platform. Because social networks feed off interactions among
people, they become more powerful as they grow.
Without social media, social, ethical, environmental and political ills would have minimal
visibility. Increased visibility of issues has shifted the balance of power from the hands of a few
to the masses.
The rise of social media means it’s unusual to find an organization that does not reach its
customers and prospects through one social media platform or another. Companies see the
importance of using social media to connect with customers and build revenue.
Businesses have realized they can use social media to generate insights, stimulate demand,
and create targeted product offerings. This is important in traditional brick-and-motor businesses,
and, obviously, in the world of e-commerce.
Social media has been blamed for promoting social ills such as:

Cyber bullying

Teenagers have a need to fit in, to be popular and to outdo others. This process was
challenging long before the advent of social media. Add Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and
Instagram into the mix and you suddenly have teenagers being subjected feeling pressure to grow
up too fast in an online world.
Lack of Privacy
Stalking, identity theft, personal attacks, and misuse of information are some of the threats
faced by the users of social media. Most of the time, the users themselves are to blame as they end
up sharing content that should not be in the public eye. The confusion arises from a lack of
understanding of how the private and public elements of an online profile actually work.
One of the effects of social media is encouraging people to form and cherish artificial
bonds over actual friendships. The term ‘friend’ as used on social media lacks the intimacy
identified with conventional friendships, where people actually know each other, want to talk to
each other, have an intimate bond and frequently interact face to face.

It’s been said that information is power. Without a means of distributing information,
people cannot harness the power. One positive impact of social media is in the distribution of
information in today’s world. Platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and others have
made it possible to access information at the click of a button.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722,
ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714 www.ijhssi.org Volume 3 Issue 6 ǁ June. 2014ǁ PP.56-64
www.ijhssi.org 56

Impacts OF Media on Society: A Sociological Perspective.

ABSTRACT: Man is a social animal,he cannot live in isolation,so his actions affect not only
him but society in general, society affects a man in so many ways. This paper gives a brief
definition of what media is and what are the effects of media on society. During the course of
this literature various types of Impacts of media on the individual, his family and society are
highlighted.

KEY WORDS : Society, Media, Impacts of media, Theories of media, Communication theories
etc

INTRODUCTION:

Human beings express their nature by creating and recreating an organization which guides and
controls their behaviour in many ways. This organization liberates and limits the activities of
men, sets up standards for them to follow and maintain. Whatever the imperfections and
tyrannies it has exhibited in human history, it is necessary condition of fulfillment of life. This
organization which is responsible for fulfillment of life of every individual is called society. Man
in every society has suffered from one or the other problems. Men in modern societies are also
experiencing various problems and his behavior gets affected by many things, media is one of
them.: Media is the plural of the word medium. Media are the vehicles or channels which are
used to convey information, entertainment, news, education, or promotional messages are
disseminated. Media includes every broadcasting and narrowcasting medium such as television,
radio, newspapers, billboards, mails, telephone, fax, internet etc (the main means of mass
communication). The mass media occupy a high proportion of our leisure time: people spend, on
average, 25 hours per week watching television, and they also find time for radio, cinema,
magazines and newspapers. For children, watching television takes up a similar amount of time
to that spent at school or with family and friends. While school, home and friends are all
acknowledged as major socializing influences on children, a huge debate surrounds the possible
effects of the mass media and findings both in favour and against effects are controversial. The
question of effects is typically raised with an urgency deriving from a public rather than an
academic agenda and with a simplicity which is inappropriate to the complexity of the issue (we
do not ask of other social influences, what is the effect of parents on children or do schools have
an effect which generalizes to the home or do friends have positive or negative effects).

The possibility of media effects is often seen to challenge individual respect and
autonomy, as if a proeffects view presumes the public to be a gullible mass, cultural dopes,
vulnerable to an ideological hypodermic needle, and as if television was being proposed as the
sole cause of a range of social behaviours. Such a stereotyped view of research tends to pose an
equally stereotyped alternative view of creative and informed viewers making rational choices
about what to see. Overview articles often describe a history of progress over the past seventy
years of research which alternates between these two extremes -- first we believed in powerful
effects, then came the argument for null effects, then the return to strong effects etc. -- a history
whose contradictions become apparent when old research is re-read with new eyes.
Contemporary media studies sometimes define itself through its rejection of the language of
effects research -- criticising the laboratory experiment, the logic of causal inference, and
psychological reductionism.

II .FUNCTIONS THE MEDIA:

Mass media is a tremendous source of information for individuals as well as society. We

know a bit about the role of mass media in a democracy. Let us now see how the media perform
their functions to bring about changes.

III. MASS MEDIA CAN HELP IN CHANGE

Using mass media, people‟s attitudes and habits can be changed. For example all of us
have mistaken or wrong notions about various diseases like leprosy or HIV/AIDS. Many of us
think that by touching people suffering from these diseases we would be infected. You might
have heard on radio or watch television programmes or read messages which tell us that by
touching an HIV/AIDS patient we do not get infected. Similarly, for eradicating polio there are
special programmes and messages disseminated through the media. Impacts OF Media On
Society… www.ijhssi.org 57 | P a g e They inform people about the need for giving polio drops
to children and about the day that is declared a „polioday.‟ Special arrangements are made to
give polio drops to as many children as possible on polio day. Change would also mean things
for the better. The concept of development of a country is again a matter of change, when old
practices and equipment are changed and new, better and more efficient means are being used.
Mass media play an important role in communicating this change. By giving the necessary
information, and sometimes skills, the media can help bring about this change. You may ask how
media can impart skills. Mass media like television can demonstrate and show how things work.
You would have seen on television how a certain dish is cooked using modern kitchen
equipment.

Mass Media have made the World Smaller and Closer :

The speed of media has resulted in bringing people across the world closer. Let us take an
example. When you watch a cricket match between India and another country in England,
Australia or New Zealand, live on television, you feel you are part of the crowd in that stadium.
Events, happy or sad, happening anywhere can be seen live. Sometimes we feel that the entire
world is one big family. You might have heard the term “global village”. It means that the whole
world is shrinking and becoming a village. Wherever we go to any part of the world, we see the
same products such as soft drinks, television, washing machine, refrigerator etc. and the same
type of advertisements. Similarly, the world wide web and internet have brought people and
countries much closer.

Mass Media Promotes Distribution of Goods :

Mass media are used by the consumer industry to inform people about their products and
services through advertising. Without advertising, the public will not know about various
products (ranging from soup to oil, television sets to cars) and services (banking, insurance,
hospitals etc.) which are available in the market as well as their prices. Thus mass media help the
industries and consumers Entertainment and informative :Mass media is one of the best means of
recreation. Television, radio, internet are the best means of entertainment and extremely
informative. Social media keeps us up to date with the happenings around the world.

We can sum up the functions of media as:

[1] Media provide news and information required by the people. [2] Media can educate
the public. [3] Media helps a democracy function effectively. They inform the public about
government policies and programmes and how these programmes can be useful to them. This
helps the people voice their feelings and helps the government to make necessary changes in
their policies or programmes. [4] Media can entertain people. [5] Media can act as an agent of
change in development. [6] Media has brought people of the world closer to each other. [7]
Media promote trade and industry through advertisements [8] Media can help the political and
democratic processes of a country. [9] Media can bring in positive social changes.

IV. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF MEDIA

The mass media occupy a high proportion of our leisure time: people spend, on average,
25 hours per week watching television, and they also find time for radio, cinema, magazines and
newspapers. For children, watching television takes up a similar amount of time to that spent at
school or with family and friends. While school, home and friends are all acknowledged as major
socializing influences on children, a huge debate surrounds the possible effects of the mass
media and findings both in favour and against effects are controversial. The question of effects is
typically raised with an urgency deriving from a public rather than an academic agenda and with
a simplicity which is inappropriate to the complexity of the issue (we do not ask of other social
influences, what is the effect of parents on children or do schools have an effect which
generalizes to the home or do friends have positive or negative effects?). The possibility of
media effects is often seen to challenge individual respect and autonomy, as if a pro-effects view
presumes the public to be a gullible mass, cultural dopes, vulnerable to an ideological
hypodermic needle, and as if television was being proposed as the sole cause of a range of social
behaviours. Such a stereotyped view of research tends to pose an equally stereotyped alternative
view of creative and informed viewers making rational choices about what to see. Overview
articles often describe a history of progress over the past seventy years of research which
alternates between these two extremes -- first we believed in powerful effects, then came the
argument for null effects, then the return to strong effects etc. -- a history whose contradictions
become apparent when old research is reread with new eyes. Contemporary media studies
sometimes define itself through its rejection of the language of Impacts OF Media On Society…
effects research -- criticising the laboratory experiment, the logic of causal inference, and
psychological reductionism. This rejection is, I will suggest in this chapter, in part justified and
in part overstated .

Media effects: a matter of change or reinforcement?

If by media effects, we mean that exposure to the media changes people's behaviour or
beliefs, then the first task is to see whether significant correlations exist between levels of
exposure and variations in behaviour or beliefs. 'Change' theories -- on which this chapter will
focus -- generally presume that the more we watch, the greater the effect. Most research does
show such a correlation (Signorelli & Morgan, 1990), albeit a small and not always consistent
one. The next question concerns the direction of causality. For example, having shown that those
who watch more violent television tend to be more aggressive (Huesmann, 1982), researchers
must ask whether more aggressive people choose to watch violent programmes (i.e. selective
exposure), whether violent programmes make viewers aggressive (i.e. media effects), or whether
certain social circumstances both make people more aggressive and lead them to watch more
violent television (i.e. a common third cause). To resolve this issue, the effects tradition has
generally adopted an experimental approach, arguing that only in controlled experiments can
people be randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions, thereby controlling for any
other variables in the situation. Only then can causal inferences be drawn concerning any
observed correlation between the experimental manipulation (generally media exposure) and
resultant behaviour. In research on media violence, some researchers offer a bidirectional
argument, concluding that there is evidence for both selective viewing and media effects
(Huesmann, Lagerspetz, & Eron, 1984). Undoubtedly, many viewers choose selectively to watch
violent or stereotyped programmes (after all there has always been a market for violent images).
However, it does not necessarily follow that there are no effects of viewing such programmes or
that motivated viewers can successfully undermine any possible effects. Many remain concerned
especially for the effects of violent programmes on children and so-called vulnerable individuals,
irrespective of whether they chose to watch them.

However, if by media effects, we mean that the media do not generate specific changes
but rather reinforce the status quo, then empirical demonstration of media effects becomes near
impossible. It is difficult to know what beliefs people might have espoused but for the media's
construction of a normative reality, and difficult to know what role the media plays in the
construction of those needs and desires which in turn motivate viewers to engage with the media
as they are rather than as they might be. Nonetheless, arguments than the media support the
norm, suppress dissent and undermine resistance, remove issues from the public agenda, are
central to theories of ideology (Thompson, 1990), propaganda (Jowett & O'Donnell, 1986) and
cultivation (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1986; Noelle-Neumann, 1974). Similarly, it
is extremely difficult to test the argument that the media, in combination with other social forces,
bring about gradual social changes over the long term, as part of the social construction of
reality. Yet for many, these 'drip drip' effects of the media are likely to exist, for television is
'telling most of the stories to most of the people most of the time' (Gerbner, et al., 1986,
p.18).There are, then, difficulties in conducting empirical research on both change and
reinforcement conceptions of media effect. As we shall see, the findings of the field are in many
ways inconclusive. It has been argued, consequently, that the media effects debate can never be
resolved and so research should cease. This raises two related questions. First, can any general
conclusions be drawn from effects research to date concerning both the overall balance of
findings and promising future directions. Second, if the issue will not go away -- as the history of
effects research and public concern throughout this century suggests -- how should the question
of effects be reformulated.

V. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION:

The sociological approach to communication theory is based on assumption that there

exists a definite relationship between mass communication and social change. Some of the
relevant theories which are going to be discussed here are :

[1] The cultivation theory: It was developed by George Gerbner in 1967. It is based on
the assumption that mass media have subtle effects on audiences who unknowingly absorb the
dominant symbols, images, and messages of media. He calls it “cultivation of dominant image
pattern”. According to this theory a long persistent exposure to TV is capable of cultivating
common beliefs about the world.

[2] Social Learning Theory: It is one of the most widely used theories in mass
communication. According to this theory the media are active but subtle educators in teaching
readers, viewers, listeners about the world. An important component of this theory is that it
explains how people can learn from observations alone. Impacts OF Media On Society

[3] Agenda Setting Theory: The term was coined by Maxwell McCombs and Donald L
Shaw in 1972 in the context of election campaign where the politicians seek to convince the
voters about the party‟s most important issues. This theory tries to describe and explain as how
stories are selected. (a)Packaged and presented- a process known as Gatekeeping,(b)by resulting
agenda (c) how this agenda affects what people think about the relative importance of the issues
presented. This theory also “predicts” that of particular news item is presented prominently and
frequently by the press, the public will come to believe that it is important.
 [4] Play Theory: In this theory of mass communication William Stephenson counters
those who speak of the harmful effects of the mass media by arguing that first and foremost the
media serve audiences as play experiences. Even news papers, says Stephenson are read for
pleasure rather than information or enlightenment. He sees media as buffer against conditions
which would otherwise be anxiety producing. The media provides “Communication-pleasure”

[5] Uses and Gratification Theory: This theory has emerged out of the studies which
shifted their focus from what media do to the people to what people do with media (katz,1959).
The uses approach assumes that audiences are active and willingly expose themselves to media
and that the most potent of mass media cannot influence an individual who has “no use” for it in
the environment in which he lives. The uses of the mass media are dependent on the perception,
selectivity, and previously held values, beliefs and interests of the people.

VI. MEDIA EFFECTS Sex and violence in the media

One of the more controversial areas of study of the media is what effect the media have
on us. This is particularly timely as eyes are on Hollywood and the violent and sexy movies it
makes.

Does all the sex in the media, particularly the movies and television, have anything to
do with the sexual mores of society?

How about violence in the media? Does it have a relationship with the increase in
violence in our society? Does the media just mirror the sex and violence in society, or does it
influence society? Remember the theme for this class that we discussed the first week (go back
to themes lecture for a refresher.) There have been countless studies trying to find out. Some of
the most famous were the Payne Studies in the late 1920s that looked at the impact of movie
violence on children. And starting in the 1960s people started looking for a cause for the increase
of violence in society.

Violent crimes in this country were on the rise.

We were at war. A president (John Kennedy) was assassinated.

A presidential candidate (Bobby Kennedy) was assassinated.

A civil right leader (Martin Luther King) was assassinated.

There was an attempt on the life of the Pope. There had to be a cause. Why the sudden
increase? To some, the media ‐‐especially television‐‐ seemed a good candidate. After all, in the
1960s we had the first American generation raised on television. And if you looked at the fare on
television, you saw all kinds of cop shoot‐em‐up shows. Movies, threatened with extinction
thanks to television, had responded by including more violence and sex. A number of long‐term
studies were conducted to determine what, if any results, all that media violence was having on
us. Four major results came from these studies. A fifth one has evolved overtime.

Catharsis Theory : The first of these theories suggests that rather than be harmful
violence in the media actually has a positive effect on society. The central assumption of the
Catharsis Theory is that people, in course of daily life, build up frustrations. Vicarious
participation in others' aggressions help release those tensions. In other words, every day we
frustrations in us build up. Without a release valve we risk the chance of becoming violent, or at
least aggressive. You do poorly on a test. You have to park to far away from the classroom.
Some jerk cuts in front of you on the freeway. You get home and your significant other, or a
child, starts demanding your attention. You snap back by yelling or hitting. That counts as
violence as much as shooting someone. It is only a matter of degree. The Catharsis theorist
would say that by watching violence in the media you release some of that tension and are less
likely to be aggressive or violent. But can you say the same thing about sex in the media?
Impacts OF Media On Society…

Aggressive Cues Theory : Then there is the opposite view, that violence DOES have an
impact. Probably most prevalent of these theories is the Aggressive Cues Theory that has as its
central assumption this: Exposure to aggressive stimuli will increase physiological and emotional
arousal, which will increase the probability of violence. In other words, all that violence gets the
adrenaline juices in us flowing and makes us more edgy, increasing the chance that we'll be more
aggressive or more violent. Aggressive Cues theorists are quick to point out that watching
violence does not mean we'll always be more aggressive or violent, but it increases the chances.
And the way in which the violence is presented will have an impact on us, too. If we can relate to
the protagonist committing the violence, or if the violence is presented in a justifiable way, we
can be led to aggressive behavior. If a bratty kid gets spanked in a media portrayal ‐‐clearly an
aggressive and violent act‐‐ it sends a message that corporal punishment is acceptable under the
right circumstances. If steelworkers see a show where steelworkers drink and brawl after work
every day, they are more likely to accept that drinking and brawling are normal behavior.

Observational Learning Theory :The Observational Learning theorist would take the
Aggressive Cues theory a step further. This theory says that people can learn by observing
aggression in media portrayals and, under some conditions, model its behavior. If there are 50
ways to leave your lover, then there must be at least 49 ways to be violent or aggressive. And
watching violent media portrayals will teach you new ways to be violent. Ever watch a
whodunit, such as a Columbo episode, where you spot where the criminal makes the fatal
mistake? Ever catch yourself saying, "If I ever committed a murder I would not make THAT
mistake?" What? Are you suggesting there is a circumstance where you would kill someone? Or,
how about this? Imagine walking down a dark alley and someone steps out in front of you and
makes a threatening gesture. What would you do? Anyone think of some kung fu/karate moves
you might make to defend yourself? That's a pretty aggressive/violent thought. And you learned
it by watching a media portrayal. So the Observational Learning theorist says that not only would
the media violence increase the probability of the viewer committing an aggression or violence,
it teaches the viewer how to do it. Does media mirror society or does it influence it? (The answer
is both.) Further, the Observational Theorist hedges his bet by pointing out that you will not
automatically go out and mimic the violent act, but you store the information away in your brain.
Again, think about sex instead of violence. Does watching sexual portrayals teach you new ways
to think about sex and perhaps engage in sexual acts? If you see that sleeping with someone on a
first date is normal, after a while you start believing that everyone must be doing it, so you
should, too.

Reinforcement Theory : One theory says that media violence decreases the probability of
violence by the viewer. Two others say that it will increase the probability of violence. And then
there is the Reinforcement Theory that debunks both. The central assumption of this theory is
that media portrayals reinforce established behaviors viewers bring with them to the media
situation. Violent portrayals will increase the likelihood of violent or aggressive behavior for
those who accept violence and aggression as normal. It will decrease the likelihood of aggression
and violence for those brought up to believe that violence is bad. Violence merely reinforces
prior beliefs. Instead of looking for blame in a violent media portrayal, the Reinforcement
theorist would say that if you want to predict an outcome, look at the viewer's background. Look
at the person's cultural norms and views of social roles. If person grows up in a crime‐ridden
neighborhood, then violent portrayals are more likely to lead to violence. Obviously, selective
perception (go back to the communication lecture) is going on here. But the Reinforcement
theorist would point out that there is going to be the exception to the rule. You are going to run
across the gentle old man who everyone believed would never hurt a fly who whacks his family
into a thousand pieces one day. Or you are going to find the gang member who one day
recognizes the futility of violence and turns to the priesthood.

Cultivation Theory : A final theory on the effects of violence in the media has evolved
out of more recent studies. It is the Cultivation Theory. Rather than predict that we will turn to or
from violence, it looks at how we'll react to the violence. The central assumption of the theory is
that in the symbolic world of media, particularly TV, shapes and maintains audience's conception
of the real world In other words, the media, especially TV, creates fantasy world that is mean
spirited and dangerous. It also creates stereotypes of dominant/weak folk in society. For instance,
imagine a bank robber who is big and mean. Is your imaginary bank robber of certain race? Are
all people that look like this bank robber actually mean back robbers? Or how about this? You
are starting to show some signs of age with gray hair and wrinkles around your eyes. If you are
guy in the media, that is good. It shows a maturing. If you are woman, that is bad, it just shows
that you are getting old and less vital. A male can be dominant and be looked up to. Impacts OF
Media On Society. A woman who is dominant can be a bitch. All lawyers are crooks. All media
stereotypes! And the media tell us that it is a mean world out there. Driving freeways is unsafe
because of driveby shootings and spectacular police car chases. Crime in the neighborhood is
rampant if you look at the nightly news. Some people who live vicariously through television
feel it is unsafe to leave their home or apartment and become shut‐ins.

What type of media is used by youth?

• Computers
• Texting
• Facebook
• Youtube
• Smart phones with apps
• ipads
• Television
• Movies
• Video games
• Tweeting
• MySpace
• Pinterest
Use/ Consumption of Social Media

• 93% of teens are active users of the internet (60‐70% daily)

• 75% of teens own a cellphone
• Teens average over 3000 texts per month (100/day)
• Text messaging has increased most dramatically, along with media multi‐tasking What Teens
do Online • The percentage of Internet users, ages 12‐17, who do the following online:
• 89% send or read email(Chat)
• 84% go to websites about movies, TV shows, music groups, or sports
• 81% play online games
• 76% go online to get news or information about current events
• 75% send or receive instant messages • 57% go online to get information about college
• 43% buy online merchandise
• 22% look for information about a health topic that‟s hard to talk about Teen Social‐
Networking by the Numbers
• 51% of teens check their sites more than once a day.
• 22% of teens check their site more than 10 times a day.
• 39% of teens have posted something they later regretted.
• 37% of teens have used sites to make fun of other students.
• 25% of teens have created a profile with a false identity.
• 24%of teens have hacked into someone else‟s social‐networking account.
• 13% of teens have posted nude or seminude pictures or videos of themselves or others, online.
Impact of media types
• Induced fear and phobias
• Media multi‐tasking affects attention
• Reality vs. fantasy
• Role models
Time use Impacts OF Media On Society…
Impact of high exposure on behavior and mental health
• Middle schoolers use more media than any other age group (8 hrs., 40 min per day)
• Lower academic achievement, grades
• Lower attachment to school
• Shorter attention spans
• Among youth who report internet harassment victimization and unwanted sexual encounters
(sexting), 25% report extreme upset Exposure and violence
• Visiting hate and satanic sites are associated with significantly elevated odds of violent
behavior perpetration
• Exposure to media violence does not affect all children in the same way
• Gender
• Aggressive/ CD youth vs. non
• Physical vs. social aggression Brain studies
• fMRI studies show exposure to TV violence activates brain regions that regulate emotion,
arousal and attention, and episodic memory
• Extensive viewing may lead to a large number of aggressive scripts stored in long‐term
memory that end up influencing behavior
• Aggressive media viewing= blunting of emotional response and reduced attention with
repeated viewing • Among aggressive youth, media violence exposure may habituate amygdala
responses to violent stimuli (lower emotional impact) Is exposure to media violence a public
health problem?
• Overall, studies do not provide evidence that media violence exposure leads to aggressive
behavior
• Average effect sizes are r= .08
• Compared to r= .90 for smoking and lung cancer; genetics and violence r= .75; selfcontrol and
criminal behavior r= .58; poverty and crime r= .25; exposure to child physical child abuse r= .25.
Types of Bullying Direct Bullying: (more typical of boys) – Open physical attacks on victim –
Verbal (threats, emotional harm) • Indirect (Relational) Bullying: (more typical of girls) – Social
isolation – Peer rejection

• Cyber bullying/ electronic aggression – Social network sites, facebook, twitter, email – Blow
down pages→ fake sites created to spread rumors VII. CONCLUSION In this paper we have
discussed various positive and negative impacts that today media has on society. We find that
major chunk of youth is using social media networks more than 5 hours a day resulting in
decreasing their general health in general and mental health in particular. We also found that
media is playing both constructive as well as destructive roles on one hand it has lots of
advantages but on the other hand it has lots of disadvantages and at the end it‟s upto the
individual and society to decide which ones to use.

REFERENCES [1] New media and society: A Study on the impact of social networking sites on
indian youth Dr. M. Neelamalar & Ms. P. Chitra [2] Dept. of Media Sciences, Anna University
Chennai, India [3] Student Journal of Media Literacy Education [4] 2010, Issue 1, Volume 1
Impacts OF Media On Society…

TWENTIETH-CENTURY MEDIA EFFECTS RESEARCH [6] Daniel.G.McDonbald

McDonald [7] Andison, F. S. (1977). TV violence and viewer aggression: A cumulation of study
results 1956-1976. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(3), 314-331. [8] Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross,
S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575-582. [9] Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A.
(1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67(6), 601-607. [10] Bausinger, H. (1984). Media, technology and daily life. Media,
Culture and Society, 6, 343-351. [11] Borden, R. J. (1975). Witnesses aggression: Influence of
an observer's sex and values on aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 567-573. [12] Bryant, J., & Zillman, D. (Ed.). (1986). Perspectives on media
effects. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. [13] Cantril, H. (1940). The invasion from Mars: A study in the
psychology of panic. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. [14] Collins, W. A. (1983).
Interpretation and inference in children's television viewing. In J. Bryant & D. A. Anderson
(Eds.), Children's understanding of television. New York: Academic Press. [15] Comstock, G.
(1975). Television and human behaviour: The key studies. Santa Monica, Cal.: The Rand
Corporation. [16] Comstock, G., & Paik, H.-J. (1991). Television and the American child. San
Diego: Academic Press. [17] Cumberbatch, G. (1989a). Overview of the effects of the mass
media. In G. Cumberbatch & D. Howitt (Eds.), A measure of uncertainty: the effects of the mass
media London: John Libbey & Company Ltd. [18] Cumberbatch, G. (1989b). Violence and the
mass media: the research evidence. In G. Cumberbatch & D. Howitt (Eds.), A measure of
uncertainty: the effects of the mass media London: John Libbey & Company Ltd. [19]
Cumberbatch, G., Brown, J., McGregor, R., & Morrison, D. (1986). Television and the miners'
strike. London: British Film Institute Broadcasting Research Unit. [20] Davies, M. M. (1989).
Television is good for your kids. London: Hilary Shipman Ltd. [21] Dorr, A. (1983). No
shortcuts to judging reality. In J. Bryant & D. Anderson (Eds.), Children's understanding of
television: research on attention and comprehension.New York: Academic Press. [22] Dorr, A.
(1986). Television and children: A special medium for a special audience. Beverley Hills, Cal.:
Sage. [23] Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1972). Does
television violence cause aggression? American Psychologist, 27, 253-263. [24] Fejes, F. (1984).
Critical mass communications research and media effects: The problem of the disappearing
audience. Media, Culture and Society, 6(3), 219-232. [25] Freedman, J. L. (1984). The effect of
television violence on aggressiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 227-246. [26] Friedrich, L. K.,
& Stein, A. H. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial televisionprograms and the natural behavior of
preschool children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38(4, Serial
No. 151). [27] Friedrich-Cofer, L., & Huston, A. C. (1986). Television violence and aggression:
the debate continues. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 364-371. [28] Gerbner, G., Gross, L.,
Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982). Charting the mainstream: Television's contributions to
political orientations. Journal of Communication, 32(2), 100-127. [29] Gerbner, G., Gross, L.,
Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation
process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum. [30] Gitlin, T. (1978). Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society,
6, 205-253. [31] Graber, D. A. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information
tide (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. [32] Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice
against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1-20. [33] Habermas, J. (1988).
Legitimation crisis. Cambridge: Polity. [34] Hagell, A., & Newburn, T. (1994). Young offenders
and the media: Viewing habits and preferences. London: Policy Studies Institute. [35] Hearold,
S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on social behaviour. In G. Comstock (Eds.),
Public Communications and Behaviour: Volume 1 (pp. 65-133). New York: Academic Press.
[36] Hennigan, K. M., Delrosario, M. L., Heath, L., Cook, T. D., Wharton, J. D., & Calder, B. J.
(1982). Impact of the introduction of television crime in the United States. Empirical findings
and theoretical implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 461-477. [37]
Hicks, D. J. (1965). Imitation and retention of film-mediated aggressive peer and adult models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 97-100. [38] Himmelweit, H. T.,
Oppenheim, A. N., & Vince, P. (1958). Television and the child: An empirical study of the effect
of television on the young. London: Oxford University Press. [39] Hodge, R., & Tripp, D.
(1986). Children and television: A semiotic approach. Cambridge: Polity. [40] Huesmann, L. R.
(1982). Television violence and aggressive behaviour. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar
(Eds.), Television and behaviour Washington DC: NIMH. [41] Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D.
(Ed.). (1986). Television and the aggressive child: a cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Elbaum Associates. [42] Huesmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K., & Eron, L. D.
(1984). Intervening variables in the TV violence-aggression relation: Evidence from two
countries. Developmental Psychology, 20(5), 746-775. [43] Huesmann, L. R., & Malamuth, N.
M. (1986). Media violence and anti-social behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 42(3), 1-6. [44]
Huesmannn, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1984). Stability of aggression over time
and generation. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1120-1134. [45] Jowett, G. S., & O'Donnell,
V. (1986). Propaganda and Persuasion. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage. [46] Katz, E. (1978). Of
mutual interest. Journal of Communication, 28(2), 133-141. [47] Katz, E. (1980). On
conceptualising media effects. Studies in Communication, 1, 119-141. [48] Kubey, R., &
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Television and the quality of life: How viewing shapes everyday
experience. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [49] Liebert, R. M., Sprafkin, J. N.,
& Davidson, E. S. (1982). The early window: Effects of television on children and youth. New
York: Pergamon. [50] Liebes, T. (1992). Decoding tv news: the political discourse of Israeli
hawks and doves. Theory and society, 21. Impacts OF Media On Society… www.ijhssi.org 64 |
P a g e [51] Linz, D., Penrod, S., & Donnerstein, E. (1986). Issues bearing on the legal regulation
of violent and sexually violent media. Journal of Social Issues, 42(3), 171-193. [52] Livingstone,
S. M. (1990). Making sense of television: The psychology of audience interpretation. Oxford:
Pergamon. [53] Livingstone, S. M. (1992). The meaning of domestic technologies: a personal
construct analysis of familial gender relations. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming
Technologies London: Routledge. [54] McGuire, W. J. (1986). The myth of massive media
impact: savagings and salvagings. Public communication and Behaviour, 1, 175-257. [55]
McQuail, D. (1987). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London: Sage. [56]
McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1982). Communication models: For the study of mass
communications. [57] Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences and cultural studies. London:
Routledge. [58] Newcomb, H. M. (1988). One night of prime time: an analysis of television's
multiple voices. In J. W. Carey (Eds.), Media, Myths and Narratives: Television and the press
Newbury Park: Sage. [59] Noble, G. (1975). Children in front of the small screen. London: Sage.
[60] Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of
Communication, 24(2), 43-52. [61] Pearson, G. (1983). Hooligan: A history of respectable fears.
London: Macmillan. [62] Philo, G. (1990). Seeing and believing: the influence of television.
London: Routledge. [63] Roberts, D. F., & Bachen, C. M. (1981). Mass communication effects.
Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 307-356. [64] Rosengren, K. E., Wenner, L. A., &
Palmgreen, P. (Ed.). (1985). Media gratifications research: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills,
Cal.: Sage. [65] Rowland, W. R. (1983). The politics of TV violence: Policy uses of
communication research. Beverley Hills, Cal.: Sage. [66] Rubinstein, E. A. (1983). Television
and behavior: research conclusions of the 1982 NIMH report and their policy implications.
American Psychologist, 38(7), 820-825. [67] Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961).
Television in the lives of our children. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. [68] Signorelli,
N., & Morgan, M. (Ed.). (1990). Cultivation analysis: new directions in media effects research.
Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage. [69] Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. London:
Routledge. [70] Sims, A., & Melville-Thomas, G. (1985). Survey of the opinion of child and
adolescent psychiatrists on the viewing of violent videos by children. Bulletin of the Royal
College of Psychiatrists, 9(December), 238-240. [71] Stein, A. H., & Friedrich, L. K. (1975).
Impact of television on children and youth. In E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Review of child
development research (pp. 183-256). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [72] Thompson, J.
B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication.
Cambridge: Polity. [73] Turner, C. W., Hesse, B. W., & Peterson-Lewis, S. (1986). Naturalistic
studies of the long-term effects of television violence. Journal of Social Issues, 42(3), 51-73. [74]
Wartella, E., & Middlestadt, S. (1991). Mass communication and persuasion: The evolution of
direct effects, limited effects, information processing, and affect and arousal models. In D. e. al.
(Eds.), Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 53-69). [75] Wuebblen, P. L.,
Straits, B. C., & Schulman, G. I. (Ed.). (1974). The experiment as a social occasion. Berkeley,
Cal.: Glendessay Press. [76] Handbook of journalism & mass communication (Vir Bala
Agarwal,V.S.Gupta)
 Portfolio
In
EAPP

Name; Jessa BEl S. Montenegro

Yr. Sec : GR11 SEC.6

Proctor; MR. Adriane dela Cruz

 Portfolio
In
EAPP

Name: Ruben b. cuate

Yr. SEC : gr.11 Sec6

Proctor: MR. Adriane Dela cruz