Research in Media Effects

(Revised October 2009)

Mass Media Research: An Introduction, 9th Edition

Roger D. Wimmer and Joseph R. Dominick

While much research is conducted in professional or industry settings, a great deal of mass media research is conducted at colleges and universities. There are several differences between research in the academic and the private sectors, including, but not limited to: cademic research tends to be more theoretical in nature! private"sector research is generally more applied. The data used in academic research are public, whereas much industry research is based on proprietary data. Top management often determines private"sector research topics! academic researchers have more freedom in their choice of topics. #ro$ects in private"sector research usually cost more to conduct than do academic investigations.

The two research settings also have some common features: %any research techni&ues and approaches used in the private sector emerged from academic research. 'ndustry and academic researchers use the same basic research methodologies and approaches. The goal of research is often the same in both settings(to e)plain and predict audience and consumer behavior.

This chapter describes some of the more popular types of research carried out by academic investigators and shows how this work relates to private sector research. *bviously, not every type of scholarly research used in colleges and universities can be covered in one chapter. What follows is not an e)haustive survey but rather an illustrative overview of the history, methods, and theoretical development of five research areas: antisocial and prosocial effects of specific media content, uses and gratifications, agenda setting by the media, cultivation of perceptions of social reality, and the social impact of the 'nternet. Readers who want a more comprehensive treatment of media effects research should consult +ryant and Thompson ,-..-/.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3

Antisocial and Prosocial Effects of Media Content The antisocial effect of viewing television and motion pictures is one of the most heavily researched areas in all mass media studies. 4omstock, 4haffee, and 5at6man ,3789/ reported that empirical studies focusing on this topic outnumbered work in all other problem areas by four to one, and this emphasis is still apparent more than a decade later. #aik and 4omstock ,377:/ reviewed the results of -38 such studies conducted between 37;7 and 377.. The impact of prosocial content is a newer area and grew out of the recognition that the same principles underlying the learning of antisocial activities ought to apply to more positive behavior. pplied and academic researchers share an interest in this area: ll the ma$or networks have sponsored such research, and the effects of antisocial and prosocial content have been popular topics on college and university campuses for the past <. years. 't is not surprising that there has been a certain amount of friction between academic researchers and industry e)ecutives. History 4oncern over the social impact of the mass media was evident as far back as the 37-.s, when many critics charged that motion pictures had a negative influence on children. 'n 37-9, the %otion #icture Research 4ouncil, with support from the #ayne =und, a private philanthropic organi6ation, sponsored a series of 3< studies on movies> influence on children. fter e)amination of film content, information gain, attitude change, and influence on behavior, it was concluded that the movies were potent sources of information, attitudes, and behavior for children. =urthermore, many of the things that children learned had antisocial overtones. 'n the early 37;.s, another medium, the comic book, was chastised for its alleged harmful effects ,Wertham, 37;:/. 'n 37?., Joseph 5lapper summari6ed what was then known about the social impact of mass communication. 'n contrast to many researchers, 5lapper downplayed the potential harmful effects of the media. @e concluded that the media most often reinforced an individual>s e)isting attitudes and predispositions. 5lapper>s viewpoint, which became known as the minimal effects position, was influential in the development of a theory of media effects. 'n the late 37;.s and early 37?.s, concern over the antisocial impact of the media shifted to television. 1)periments on college campuses by +andura and +erkowit6 ,summari6ed in 4omstock 0 #aik, 3773/ showed that aggressive behavior could be learned by viewing violent media content and that a stimulation effect was more probable than a cathartic ,or cleansing/ effect. Aenate subcommittees e)amined possible links between viewing violence on television and $uvenile delin&uency, and in 37?;, one subcommittee concluded that televised crime and violence were related to antisocial behaviors among $uvenile viewers. The civil unrest and assassinations in the middle and late 37?.s prompted the formation of the Bational 4ommission on the 4auses and #revention of Ciolence, chaired by %ilton 1isenhower. The staff report of the 1isenhower 4ommission, which concluded that television violence taught the viewer how to engage in violence, included a series of recommendations about reducing the impact of television violence.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -

The early 378.s saw e)tensive research on the social effects of the mass media. Just three years after the publication of the 1isenhower 4ommission report came the release of a multi" volume report sponsored by the Aurgeon Deneral>s Acientific dvisory 4ommittee on Television and Aocial +ehavior ,378-, p. 3./. 'n Television and Growing Up, the committee cautiously summari6ed its research evidence: There is a convergence of fairly substantial evidence on short"run causation of aggression among children by viewing violence . . . and the much less certain evidence from field studies that . . . violence viewing precedes some long"run manifestation of aggressive behavior. This convergence . . . constitutes some preliminary evidence of a causal relationship. The committee tempered this conclusion by noting that in accordance with the reinforcement notion, Eany se&uence by which viewing television violence causes aggressive behavior is most likely applicable only to some children who are predisposed in that directionF ,p. 3./. t about the same time, the three television networks were sponsoring research in this area. 4+A commissioned two studies: a field e)periment that found no link between television viewing and subse&uent imitation of antisocial behavior ,%ilgram 0 Ahotland, 378</, and a longitudinal study in Dreat +ritain that found an association between viewing violence on television and committing antisocial acts such as damaging property and hurting others ,+elson, 3789/. +4 sponsored a series of studies by two mental health consultants who concluded that television stimulated aggression to only a tiny e)tent in children ,@eller 0 #olsky, 378?/. B+4 began a large"scale panel study, but results were not released until 379<. 'n addition to television violence, the potential antisocial impact of pornography was under scrutiny. The 4ommission on *bscenity and #ornography ,378./, however, reported that such material was not a factor in determining antisocial behavior. The commission>s conclusions were somewhat controversial in political circles, but in general they supported the findings of other researchers in human se)uality ,Tan, 379?/. Aubse&uent efforts in this area were directed primarily toward e)amining links between pornography and aggression. long with violence and pornography, the contrasting prosocial effect of television was investigated as well. *ne stimulus for this research was the success of the television series esame treet! substantial research effort went into the preparation and evaluation of these children>s programs. 't was found that the series was helpful in preparing young children for school but not very successful in narrowing the information gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children ,%inton, 378;/. *ther studies by both academic researchers and industry researchers demonstrated the prosocial impact of other programs. =or e)ample, the series "at Al#ert and the $os#% &ids was found to be helpful in teaching prosocial lessons to children ,4+A +roadcast Droup, 378:/. Atudies of these topics continued between 378; and 379;, although there were far fewer than in the early 378.s. n update to the 378- Aurgeon Deneral>s Report, issued in 379-, reflected a broader research focus than the original document! it incorporated investigations of sociali6ation, mental health, and perceptions of social reality. Bonetheless, its conclusions were even stronger than those of its predecessor: EThe consensus among most of the research community is that violence on television does lead to aggressive behaviorF ,Bational 'nstitute of %ental @ealth,

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <

379-, p. 9/. *ther researchers, notably Wurt6el and Gometti ,379:/ and +ear ,379:/, argued that the report did not support the conclusion of a causal relationship, whereas 4haffee ,379:/ and %urray ,379:/, among others, contended that the conclusions were valid. Bot long after the Aurgeon Deneral>s report was updated, the results of the B+4 panel study begun in the early 378.s were published ,%ilavsky, 5essler, Atipp, 0 Rubens, 379</. This panel study, which used state"of"the"art statistical analyses, found a nonsignificant relationship between viewing television violence during the early phases of the study and subse&uent aggression. The B+4 data have been ree)amined by others, and at least one article suggests that the data from this survey do show a slight relationship between violence viewing and aggression among at least one demographic subgroup(middle"class girls ,4ook, 5end6ierski, 0 Thomas, 379</. =rom 379; to -..3, the controversy subsided, but this topic remained popular among academic researchers. Williams ,379?/ conducted an elaborate field e)periment in three 4anadian communities. *ne town was about to receive television for the first time, another received 4anadian TC, and the third received both 4anadian and H.A. programs. Two years later, Williams and her colleagues found that when compared to children in the other two communities, children in the town that had $ust received TC scored higher on measures of physical and verbal aggression. dditional evidence on the topic of television and violence comes from a series of panel studies conducted by an international team of researchers ,@uesmann 0 1ron, 379?/. Data were gathered from young people in the Hnited Atates, =inland, ustralia, 'srael, and #oland. =indings from the H.A. and #olish studies reached a similar conclusion: 1arly TC viewing was related to later aggression. The =innish study found this relationship for boys but not for girls. The 'sraeli study found that TC viewing seemed to be related to aggression for children living in urban areas but not for those in rural areas. The ustralian study failed to find a relationship. 'n all countries where a relationship between TC viewing and violence was found, the relationship was relatively weak. Rosenthal ,379?/, who concluded that even a weak relationship could have substantial social conse&uences, e)amined the practical implications of this weak relationship. %ore recently, 4ongress passed the Telecommunications ct of 377?. #art of the act specified that newly manufactured TC sets had to contain a !chip" a computer chip that allows parents to block out violent and other ob$ectionable programming from their TC sets. The chip would work in concert with a ratings system developed by the industry. ,Recent research suggests that consumers have largely ignored the C"chip. *ne study found that ;<I of consumers who had recently purchased a new TC set were not even aware they had a C"chip. 5aiser =amily =oundation study discovered that only 38I of families were using the C"chip to screen programs./ nother recent research area e)amined mediating effects on the viewing of TC violence. Bathanson ,3777/, for e)ample, confirmed that parental mediation of TC viewing helped curtail the antisocial inclinations of their children. The same researcher ,Bathanson, -..3/ also e)amined the influence of peer mediation on antisocial TC viewing. Ahe found that peer influence was more fre&uent and more potent than parental mediation and that it tended to promote a positive attitude toward antisocial TC.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age :

The violence at 4olumbine @igh Achool in Gittleton, 4olorado, and in other high schools at the end of the century, sparked renewed interest in media violence among parents and policy makers. %edia leaders were called before a congressional committee investigating this topic. 'n -..3, the Aurgeon Deneral issued a report entitled 'outh (iolence, a document that included a study of the factors that contributed most to antisocial behavior among young people. The report concluded that media violence was less of a risk factor than family influences, peer group attitudes, socioeconomic status, and substance abuse ,H.A. Department of @ealth and @uman Aervices, -..3/. The increasing popularity of video games during the early years of this decade opened up another avenue of in&uiry for researchers. Aince more than 7.I of young people report that they sometimes play these games, and since some of the more popular games feature graphic and e)plicit violence ,)oom, Grand Theft Auto/, social concern over their impact was widespread. Results of some of the early studies in this area ,for e)ample, Ailvern 0 Williamson, 3798/ suggest that playing video games can lead to increased aggression levels in young children and is related to their self"concepts ,=unk 0 +uchman, 377?/. %ore recent research, however, has been inconclusive. Results from both surveys and e)periments have been mi)ed with some studies finding a relationship between e)posure to violent games and antisocial behavior while others found no relationship. %eta"analyses have also reached different conclusions. =or e)ample, nderson and +ushman ,-..3/ and nderson ,-..:/ found a small but significant correlation between violent game"playing and aggression while Aherry ,-..3, -..8/ concluded that no relationship e)isted. meta"analysis by =erguson ,-..8/ suggested that publication bias, the tendency of $ournals to publish only those studies with significant effects, was a factor in those meta"analyses that found a significant link. When publication bias was controlled, =erguson found no evidence that violent games were associated with aggressive behavior. Research about the antisocial effects of pornography increased in the late 379.s but has recently declined. *ne controversial research area e)amined if prolonged e)posure to nonviolent pornography had any antisocial effects ,Donnerstein, Gin6, 0 #enrod, 3798! Jillmann 0 +ryant, 3797! llen, D> lessio, 0 +re6gel, 377;/. The most recent studies have focused on e)posure to pornographic 'nternet sites. =or e)ample, #eter and Calkenburg ,-..9/ found a link between e)posure to pornographic 'nternet sites and adolescents> positive attitudes toward casual se). Research interest in the prosocial effects of media e)posure decreased in the 379.s and has remained at low level into the end of the -...s. Aprafkin and Rubinstein ,3787/ reported on a correlational study in which the viewing of prosocial television programs accounted for only 3I of the variance in an inde) of prosocial behavior e)hibited in school. The apparent lack of a strong relationship between these two variables, coupled with the absence of general agreement on a definition of prosocial content, might have discouraged researchers from selecting this area. 'n any case, few studies of the media impact on prosocial behavior have appeared in the scholarly literature in the last five years. The meta"analysis of nderson and +ushman ,-..3/ found only a handful of prosocial studies to analy6e but concluded that playing violent video games is linked to a decline in prosocial behavior.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age ;

Methods Researchers who study the effects of mass media have used most of the techni&ues discussed in this book: content analysis, laboratory e)periments, surveys, field e)periments, observations, and panels. 'n addition, they have used some advanced techni&ues, such as meta"analysis, that have not been discussed. Diven the variety of methods used, it is not possible to describe a typical approach. 'nstead, this section focuses on five different methods as illustrations of some research strategies. The Experimental Method. common design used to study the antisocial impact of the media is to show one group of sub$ects violent media content while a control group sees nonviolent content. This was the approach used by +erkowit6 and +andura in their early work. The dependent variable, aggression, is measured immediately after e)posure(either by a pencil" and"paper test or by a mechanical device like the one described ne)t. =or e)ample, Giebert and +aron ,378-/ divided children into two groups. The first group saw a <.;"minute segment from a television show depicting a chase, two fistfights, two shootings, and a knifing. 4hildren in the control group saw a segment of similar length in which athletes competed in track and field events. fter viewing, the children were taken one at a time into another room that contained an apparatus with two buttons, one labeled E@elpF and the other labeled E@urt.F n e)perimenter e)plained to the children that wires from the device were connected to a game in an ad$acent room. The sub$ects were told that in the ad$acent room, another child was starting to play a game. ,There was, in fact, no other child./ t various times, by pressing the appropriate buttons, each child was given a chance either to help the unseen child win the game or to hurt the child. The results showed that children who had seen the violent segment were significantly more likely than the control group to press the E@urtF button. *f course, there are many variations on this basic design. =or e)ample, the type of violent content shown to the sub$ects can be manipulated ,cartoon versus live violence, entertainment versus newscast violence, $ustified versus un$ustified violence/. lso, some sub$ects may be frustrated before e)posure. The degree of association between the media violence and the subse&uent testing situation may be high or low. Aub$ects can watch alone or with others who praise or condemn the media violence. %edia e)posure can be a one"time event or it can be manipulated over time. =or a thorough summary of this research, see 4omstock and #aik ,3773/ and Giebert and Aprafkin ,377-/. 1)perimental studies to e)amine the impact of media e)posure on prosocial behavior have used essentially the same approach. Aub$ects see a televised segment that is either prosocial or neutral, and the dependent variable is then assessed. =or e)ample, =orge and #hemister ,3798/ randomly assigned preschoolers to one of four conditions: prosocial animated program ,The Get* along Gang/, neutral animated ,Alvin and the $hipmun+s/, prosocial nonanimated ,Mr! Rogers, -eigh#orhood/, and neutral nonanimated ,Animal E.press/. The children watched the program and were then placed in a free"play situation where their prosocial behaviors were observed and recorded. The results demonstrated an effect for the program variable ,prosocial programs prompted more prosocial behaviors than did neutral programs/ but no effect for the animated versus nonanimated variable. The operational definitions of prosocial #ehavior have varied widely: Atudies have e)amined cooperative behaviors, sharing, kindness, altruism, friendliness, creativity, and absence of stereotyping. lmost any behavior with a positive social value seems to be a candidate for study,

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age ?

as e)emplified by the e)periment by +aran, 4hase, and 4ourtright ,3787/: Third"graders were assigned to one of three treatment conditions. *ne group saw a condensed version of a segment of The /altons demonstrating cooperative behavior! the second group saw a program portraying noncooperative behavior! and the third group saw no program. fter answering a few written &uestions dealing with the program, each sub$ect left the viewing room only to encounter a confederate of the e)perimenter who passed the doorway and dropped an armload of books. There were two dependent measures: whether the sub$ect attempted to retrieve the books and how much time elapsed until the sub$ect began to help. The group that saw the cooperative content was more likely to help, and their responses were &uicker than those of the control group. 't is interesting that there was no difference in helping behavior or in time elapsed between the group that saw The /altons and the group that saw the noncooperative content. The Survey Approach. %ost survey studies have used &uestionnaires that incorporate measures of media e)posure ,such as viewing television violence or e)posure to pornography/ and a pencil"and"paper measure of antisocial behavior or attitudes. 'n addition, many recent studies have included measures of demographic and sociographic variables that mediate the e)posure2antisocial behavior relationship. Results are usually e)pressed as a series of correlations. survey by %cGeod, tkin, and 4haffee ,378-/ illustrates this approach. Their &uestionnaire contained measures of violence viewing, aggression, and family environment. They tabulated viewing by giving respondents a list of ?; prime"time television programs with a scale measuring how often each was viewed. n inde) of overall violence viewing was obtained by using an independent rating of the violence level of each show and multiplying it by the fre&uency of viewing. ggression was measured by seven scales. *ne measured respondents> approval of manifest physical aggression ,sample item: EWhoever insults me or my family is looking for a fightF/. nother e)amined approval of aggression ,E't>s all right to hurt an enemy if you are mad at himF/. Respondents indicated their degree of agreement with each of the items on the separate scales. =amily environment was measured by asking about parental control over television, parental emphasis on nonaggressive punishment ,such as withdrawal of privileges/, and other variables. The researchers found a moderate positive relationship between the respondents> level of violence viewing and their self"reports of aggression. =amily environment showed no consistent association with either of the two variables. Aprafkin and Rubinstein ,3787/ used the survey method to e)amine the relationship between television viewing and prosocial behavior. They used basically the same approach as %cGeod, tkin, and 4haffee ,378-/, e)cept their viewing measure was designed to assess e)posure to television programs established as prosocial by prior content analysis. Their measure of prosocial behaviors was based on peer nominations of people who reflected 3- prosocial behaviors, including helping, sharing, following rules, staying out of fights, and being nice. The researchers found that when the influence of the child>s gender, the parents> educational level, and the child>s academic level were statistically controlled, e)posure to prosocial television e)plained only 3I of the variance in prosocial behaviors. Field Experiments. #arke, +erkowit6, and Geyens ,3788/ conducted a field e)periment in a minimum"security penal institution for $uveniles. The researchers e)posed groups to unedited feature"length films that were either aggressive or nonaggressive. *n the day after the last film

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 8

was shown, in the conte)t of a bogus learning e)periment, the boys were told they had a chance to hurt a confederate of the e)perimenters who had insulted one group of boys and had been neutral to the other. The results on an electric shock measure similar to the one used in the Giebert and +aron ,378-/ study, described previously, revealed that the most aggressive of all the e)perimental groups were the boys who had seen the aggressive films and had been insulted. 'n addition to this laboratory measure, the investigators collected observational data on the boys> aggressive interpersonal behavior in their everyday environment. These data showed that boys who saw the violent movies were more interpersonally aggressive. @owever, there was no apparent cumulative effect of movies on aggression. The boys who watched the diet of aggressive films were $ust as aggressive after the first film as after the last. =igure 7.33 illustrates the design of the 4anadian field e)periment ,Williams, 379?/ discussed earlier. The dependent variable of aggression was measured in three ways: observations of behavior on school playgrounds, peer ratings, and teacher ratings. *n the observational measure, the aggressive acts of children in the town labeled ,the town that $ust received TC/ increased from an average of ..:< per minute in #hase 3 to 3.3 per minute in #hase -. 4hildren in the other towns showed only a slight and statistically insignificant increase in the same period. #eer and teacher ratings tended to support the behavioral data. s yet, there have been no large"scale field e)periments e)amining prosocial behavior. Panel Studies. #rimarily because of the time and e)pense involved in panel studies, this method is seldom used to e)amine the antisocial effects of the media. =ive studies relevant to this topic are briefly reviewed here. Gefkowit6, 1ron, Waldner, and @uesmann ,378-/, using a catch"up panel design, reinterviewed :-8 of 98; youthful sub$ects 3. years after they had participated in a study of mental health. %easures of television viewing and aggression had been administered to these sub$ects when they were in the third grade, and data on the two variables were gathered again a decade later. Alightly different methods were used to measure television viewing on the two occasions. Ciewing in the third grade was established based on mothers> reports of their children>s three favorite television shows. Ten years later, respondents rated their own fre&uency of viewing. The data were sub$ected to cross"lagged correlations and path analysis. The results supported the hypothesis that aggression in later life was caused in part by television viewing during early years. @owever, the panel study by %ilavsky and colleagues ,379</, sponsored by B+4, found no evidence of a relationship. The difference between the results of these studies might be due to several factors. The %ilavsky study did not vary its measure of Eviolent television viewingF throughout its duration. 'n addition, the B+4 researchers used G'AR1G ,linear structural e&uations/, a more powerful statistical techni&ue, which was not available at the time of the Gefkowit6 study. =inally, the Gefkowit6 measures were taken 3. years apart! the ma)imum time lag in the B+4 study was < years. nother panel study of the media and possible antisocial effects was conducted by @uesmann and 1ron ,379?/. The investigators followed 8;9 children who were in the first and third grades in 3788 and reinterviewed them in 3789 and 3787. ggression was measured by both peer nominations and self"ratings. %ultiple regression analyses disclosed that, for both boys and girls, watching TC violence was a significant predictor of the aggression they would later demonstrate. *ther significant variables were the degree to which children identified with

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 9

violent TC characters, the perceived reality of the violence, and the amount of a child>s aggressive fantasi6ing. %ore recently, two longitudinal panel studies have found long"term effects of viewing TC violence. @uesmann, %oise"Titus, #odolski and 1ron ,-..</ did a 3;"year follow"up study with more than <.. respondents from surveys originally conducted in the 378.s. They found that respondents who watched violent shows at age 9 were more likely to be more aggressive in their -.s. The results remained significant even when such factors as 'K, social class, and parenting differences were statistically controlled. second study ,Johnson, 4ohen, Amailes, 5asen, 0 +rook, -..-/ found a significant association between the amount of time spent watching TC during their respondents> teenage years and aggressive behavior as young adults. The results of this study, however, were critici6ed because the researchers measured general TC viewing rather than viewing of violent programs. Meta-analysis. complete description of the techni&ues of meta"analysis is beyond the scope of this book. =or our purposes, #eta!analysis is defined as the &uantitative aggregation of many research findings and their interpretations. 't allows researchers to draw general conclusions from an analysis of many studies that have been conducted concerning a definable research topic. 'ts goal is to provide a synthesis of an e)isting body of research. Diven the large number of research studies that have been conducted concerning antisocial and prosocial behavior, it is not surprising that the mid" to late"377.s saw the growth in popularity of meta" analytic research in this area. =ive e)amples of meta"analysis are discussed here. #aik and 4omstock ,377:/ performed a meta"analysis on -38 studies from 37;7 to 377. that tested 3,3:- hypotheses. They concluded that the magnitude of the impact of e)posure to media violence varied with the method used to study it. 1)periments produced the strongest effects, and time"series studies the weakest. Bonetheless, there was overall a highly significant positive association between e)posure to portrayals of violence and antisocial behavior. 'n addition, they found that males were affected by e)posure to media violence only slightly more than females and that violent cartoons and fantasy programs produced the greatest magnitude of effects. The latter finding is at odds with the conventional argument that cartoon violence does not affect viewers because it is unrealistic. second meta"analysis on the impact of e)posure to pornography and subse&uent aggressive behavior was done by llen, D> lessio, and +re6gel ,377;/. They analy6ed the results of <. studies and found that there was indeed a connection between e)posure to pornography and subse&uent antisocial behavior. %ore specifically, they noted that e)posure to nudity actually decreased aggressive behavior. 'n contrast, consumption of material depicting nonviolent se)ual activity increased aggressive behavior, while e)posure to violent se)ual activity generated the highest levels of aggression. These findings are in accord with those discussed by #aik and 4omstock ,377:/. meta"analysis of studies e)amining e)posure to pornography and acceptance of rape myths , llen, 1mmers, Debhardt, 0 Deiry, 377;/ revealed that e)perimental studies showed a positive relationship between pornography and rape myth acceptance but none)perimental studies displayed no such effects. =riedlander ,377</ reported the results of a meta"analysis that compared the magnitude of effects reported by studies that looked at antisocial behavior with those that e)amined prosocial

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 7

behavior. @e found that, with few e)ceptions, the effects found for prosocial media messages were larger than the effect found for antisocial messages. =inally, @ogben ,3779/ looked at the results of ;? analyses from <. studies and concluded that viewing televised violence was associated with a small increase in viewer aggression. 'n addition, there was a correlation between the year a study was done and the effect si6e! the later the study, the greater the effect si6e, suggesting that prolonged e)posure has a greater effect on viewers. Gast, $ustified violence and violence that did not accurately portray the conse&uence of violence generated greater effect si6es. $%##ary. 1)periments and surveys have been the most popular research strategies used to study the impact of media on antisocial and prosocial behavior. The more elaborate techni&ues of field e)periments and panel studies have been used infre&uently. Gaboratory e)periments have shown a stronger positive relationship between viewing media violence and aggression than have the other techni&ues. %eta"analyses have offered general conclusions about the scope and magnitude of these effects. &heoretical 'evelop#ents *ne of the earliest theoretical considerations in the debate on the impact of media violence was the controversy of catharsis versus stimulation. The catharsis approach suggests that viewing fantasy e)pressions of hostility reduces aggression because a person who watches filmed or televised violence is purged of his or her aggressive urges. This theory has some obvious attraction for industry e)ecutives because it implies that presenting violent television shows is a prosocial action. The sti#%lation theory argues the opposite: Ciewing violence prompts more aggression on the part of the viewer. Research findings in this area have indicated little support for the catharsis position. few studies did find a lessening of aggressive behavior after viewing violent content, but these results apparently were an artifact of the research design. The overwhelming ma$ority of studies found evidence of a stimulation effect. Aince these early studies, many e)periments and surveys have used social learning as their conceptual basis. s spelled out by +andura ,3788/, the theory e)plains how people learn from direct e)perience or from observation ,or modeling/. Aome key elements in this theory are attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivations. ccording to +andura, attention to an event is influenced by characteristics of the event and by characteristics of the observer. =or e)ample, repeated observation of an event by a person who has been paying close attention should increase learning. Retention refers to how well an individual remembers behaviors that have been observed. Motor reproduction is the actual behavioral enactment of the observed event. =or e)ample, some people can accurately imitate a behavior after merely observing it, but others need to e)periment. The motivational component of the theory depends on the reinforcement or punishment that accompanies performance of the observed behavior. pplied to the effects area, social learning theory predicts that people can learn antisocial or prosocial acts by watching films or television. The model further suggests that viewing repeated antisocial acts makes people more likely to perform these acts in real life. nother suggestion is that desensiti(ation accounts for people who are heavily e)posed to violence and antisocial acts becoming less an)ious about the conse&uences. +andura ,3788/ summari6ed much of the research on social learning theory. 'n brief, some
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3.

key findings in laboratory and field e)periments suggest that children can easily perform new acts of aggression after a single e)posure to them on television or in films. The similarity between the circumstances of the observed antisocial acts and the post"observation circumstances is important in determining whether the act is performed. 'f a model is positively reinforced for performing antisocial acts, the observed acts are performed more fre&uently in real life. Gikewise, when children are promised rewards for performing antisocial acts, they e)hibit more antisocial behavior. *ther factors that facilitate the performance of antisocial acts include the degree to which the media behavior is perceived to be real, the emotional arousal of the sub$ects, and the presence of cues in the post"observation environment that elicit antisocial behavior. =inally, as predicted by the theory, desensiti6ation to violence can occur through repeated e)posure to violent acts. *ther research has continued to refine and reformulate some of the elements in social learning theory. =or e)ample, the arousal h%pothesis ,Tannenbaum 0 Jillmann, 378;/ suggests that, for a portrayal to have a demonstrable effect, increased arousal may be necessary. ccording to this model, if an angered person is e)posed to an arousing stimulus, such as a pornographic film, and is placed in a situation to which aggression is a possible response, the person will become more aggressive. ,E.citation transfer is the term used by the researchers./ Jillmann, @oyt, and Day ,3787/ offer some support for this model. 't appears that sub$ects in a high state of arousal after seeing a violent film will perform more prosocial acts than nonaroused sub$ects. Gike aggressive behavior, prosocial behavior seems to be facilitated by media"induced arousal ,%ueller, Donnerstein, 0 @allam, 379</. *ther research has shown that social learning theory can be applied to the study of the effects of viewing pornography. Jillmann and +ryant ,379-/ showed that heavy e)posure to pornographic films apparently desensiti6ed sub$ects to the seriousness of rape and led to decreased compassion for women as rape victims. similar finding was obtained by Gin6, Donnerstein, and #enrod ,379:/. %en who viewed five movies depicting erotic situations involving violence toward women perceived the films as less violent and less degrading to women than did a control group not e)posed to the films. 'n sum, social learning theory is a promising framework for integrating many findings in this area. nother promising theory, outlined by +erkowit6 and Rogers ,379?/, is based on priming effects analysis. Drawing upon the concepts of cognitive neo"associationism, priming effects anal%sis posits that elements of thought, feeling, or memories are parts of a network connected by associative pathways. When a thought element is activated, the activation spreads along the pathways to other parts of the network. Thus, for some time after a concept is activated, there is an increased probability that it and other associated parts of the network will come to mind again, thus creating the priming effect. s a result, aggressive ideas prompted by viewing media violence trigger other semantically related thoughts, thereby increasing the probability that associated aggressive thoughts will come to mind. +erkowit6 and Rogers note that priming analysis can e)plain why much e)posure to media violence results in short"term, transient effects. They point out that the priming effect attenuates over time to lower the probability of subse&uent violent effects. Can 1vra ,377./ suggests that Escript theoryF might also be useful in e)plaining the impact

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 33

of viewing TC violence. Aince most viewers, particularly younger ones, have little real"life e)perience with violence but see a lot of it on TC, their behavior patterns or scripts might be influenced by the TC e)posure. Those who watch a large amount of violent TC might store these scripts in their memory and display violence when an appropriate stimulus triggers the acting out of their scripts. %oreover, @uesmann and 1ron ,379?/ argue that if a young child learns early in his or her developmental cycle that aggression is a potent problem"solving techni&ue! that behavior will be hard to change because the script has been well rehearsed by the child. Drawing upon the this information, 4omstock and #aik ,3773/ proposed a three"factor e)planation of the influence of media violence on antisocial and aggressive behavior: 3. Ciolent portrayals that are uni&ue, compelling, and unusual are likely to prompt viewer aggression because of their high attention and arousal. -. Aocial cognition theory suggests that repetitive and redundant portrayals of violence prompt viewers to develop e)pectations and perceptions of violence. <. Ciolent media content encourages the early ac&uisition of stable and enduring traits. 4hildren who are only < or : years old may learn some violent scripts. Aander ,3778/ proposed a new theoretical approach, the dynamic transaction model, to e)plain how viewers perceive violence. The model posits that a person>s reaction to media violence is a function of the precise form of the media stimulus and the interpretive ability of the receiver. &uasi"e)perimental study of viewers revealed that audience members and researchers perceive violence differently and that specific content variables ,physical vs. psychological violence, serious vs. comic violence, real vs. fantasy violence, and so on/ have the greatest influence on perceptions, followed by the emotional state of the receiver while watching violence. 5rcmar>s ,3779/ study suggested that family communication patterns are also important in determining how children perceive violence. These last two studies support the idea that perceptions of violence may be a key concept in formulating theories about the impact of this kind of material. 4omstock ,-..8/ argued for a sociological approach to theory. @e maintained that the research on TC violence should move beyond focusing on the individual and e)amine how violence has an impact on various social groups. Hsing the results of meta"analyses, 4omstock identified five social groupings that were related to vulnerability for negative influence: those with a predisposition to aggression, indifferent parenting, unsatisfactory social relationships, low psychological well"being, and those who e)hibited disruptive behaviors. )ses and *ratifications The %ses and +ratifications perspective takes the view of the media consumer. 't e)amines how people use the media and the gratifications they seek and receive from their media behaviors. Hses and gratifications researchers assume that audience members are aware of and can articulate their reasons for consuming various media content.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3-

History The uses and gratifications approach has its roots in the 37:.s, when researchers became interested in why people engaged in various forms of media behavior, such as radio listening or newspaper reading. These early studies were primarily descriptive, seeking to classify the responses of audience members into meaningful categories. =or e)ample, @er6og ,37::/ identified three types of gratification associated with listening to radio soap operas: emotional release, wishful thinking, and obtaining advice. +erelson ,37:7/ took advantage of a Bew Lork newspaper strike to ask people why they read the paper. The responses fell into five ma$or categories: reading for information, reading for social prestige, reading for escape, reading as a tool for daily living, and reading for a social conte)t. These early studies had little theoretical coherence! in fact, many were inspired by the practical needs of newspaper publishers and radio broadcasters to know the motivations of their audience in order to serve them more efficiently. The ne)t step in the development of this research began during the late 37;.s and continued into the 37?.s. 'n this phase, the emphasis was on identifying and operationali6ing the many social and psychological variables that were presumed to be the antecedents of different patterns of consumption and gratification. =or e)ample, Achramm, Gyle, and #arker ,37?3/, in their e)tensive study, found that children>s use of television was influenced by individual mental ability and relationships with parents and peers, among other things. Derson ,37??/ concluded that race was important in predicting how adolescents used the media. These studies and many more conducted during this period reflected a shift from the traditional effects model of mass media research to the functional perspective. ccording to Windahl ,3793/, a primary difference between the traditional effects approach and the uses and gratifications approach is that a media effects researcher usually e)amines mass communication from the perspective of the communicator, whereas the uses and gratifications researcher uses the audience member as a point of departure. Windahl argues for a synthesis of the two approaches, believing that it is more beneficial to emphasi6e their similarities than to stress their differences. @e has coined the term conseffects of media content and use to categori6e observations that are partly results of content use in itself ,a viewpoint commonly adopted by effects researchers/ and partly results of content mediated by use ,a viewpoint adopted by many uses and gratifications researchers/. Windahl>s perspective links the earlier uses and gratifications approach to the third phase in its development. Recently, uses and gratifications research has become more conceptual and theoretical as investigators have offered data to e)plain the connections between audience motives, media gratifications, and outcomes. s Rubin ,379;, p. -3./ notes: EAeveral typologies of mass media motives and functions have been formulated to conceptuali6e the seeking of gratifications as variables that intervene before media effects.F =or e)ample, Rubin ,3787/ found a significant positive correlation between the viewing of television to learn something and the perceived reality of television content: Those who used television as a learning device thought television content was more true to life. De+ock ,379./ notes that people who e)perienced the most frustration at being deprived of a newspaper during a strike were those who used the newspaper for information and those who viewed newspaper reading as a ritual. These and many other recent studies have revealed that a variety of audience gratifications are related to a wide range of media effects. These Euses and effectsF studies ,Rubin, 379;/ have bridged

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3<

the gap between the traditional effects approach and the uses and gratifications perspective. 'n the last several years, the uses and gratifications approach has been used to e)plore the impact of new technologies on the audience. =or e)ample, Gin ,377</ posited that audience activity ,planning viewing, discussing content, remembering the program/ would be an important intervening variable in the gratification"seeking process because of the viewing options opened up by cable, C4Rs, and remote controls. @er results supported her hypothesis. Ciewers who were most active had a greater e)pectation of gratification and also reported obtaining greater satisfaction. lbarran and Dimmick ,377</ combined the uses and gratifications approach with niche theory in their study of the utility of the video entertainment industries. They found that broadcast TC was the most diverse in serving the cognitive gratifications of the audience, whereas cable TC and the C4R were the most effective in meeting needs related to feeling and emotional states. The advent of the 'nternet has spurred a renaissance in uses and gratifications research as investigators describe 'nternet motivations and compare and contrast their results with the uses and gratifications from traditional media. To illustrate, Calkenburg and Aoeters ,-..3/ found that 'nternet use among their sample of 9" to 3<"year"olds was most related to an en$oyment of using computers and finding information. =erguson and #erse ,-.../ e)amined the World Wide Web as a functional alternative to TC and discovered that many of the motivations for using the web were similar to those for viewing television. =inally, #apacharissi and Rubin ,-.../ came up with a set of five motivations for using the 'nternet: utility, passing time, seeking information, convenience, and entertainment. The uses and gratifications approach continued to be popular throughout the first decade of the new century as investigators applied the techni&ue to study emerging media. =or e)ample, researchers used the approach to study: %otives for viewing LouTube ,@aridakis and @anson, -..7/. Dratifications from user"generated media ,Duosong, -..7/. Hses and gratifications of social media ,Raacke 0 +onds"Raacke, -..9/ Dratifications associated with e"mail, cell phones and instant messages ,Ramire6, Dimmick, =easter, 0 Gin, -..9/.

Methods Hses and gratifications researchers have relied heavily on the survey method to collect their data. s a first step, researchers have conducted focus groups or have asked respondents to write essays about their reasons for media consumption. 4losed"ended Gikert"type scales are then constructed based on what was said in the focus group or written in the essays. The closed"ended measures are typically sub$ected to multivariate statistical techni&ues such as factor analysis, which identifies various dimensions of gratifications. =or e)ample, in their study of the uses and gratifications of C4Rs, Rubin and +ant6 ,3797/ first asked selected groups of respondents to list 3. ways in which they used their C4Rs and to

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3:

provide reasons for those uses. This procedure resulted in a list of categories and statements describing C4R usage. &uestionnaire was then developed from this master list and administered to respondents, who were asked to indicate how fre&uently they used their C4Rs for these purposes and to rate how much importance they placed on the statements detailing the reasons for usage. fter revisions, a final &uestionnaire was developed! it contained 7; motivational statements. This &uestionnaire was administered to a sample of :-: C4R owners. Through factor analysis, the 7; statements were then reduced to eight main motivational categories. These are some e)amples of the factors and statements that went with them: E' want to keep a permanent copy of the programF ,library storage/! E' use music video for partiesF ,music videos/! E' don>t have to $oin an e)ercise classF ,e)ercise tapes/. Rubin and +ant6 then correlated these factors with demographic and media e)posure variables. Bote that this techni&ue assumes that the audience is aware of its reasons and can report them when asked. The method also assumes that the pencil"and"paper test is a valid and reliable measurement scale. *ther assumptions include an active audience with goal"directed media behavior! e)pectations for media use that are produced from individual predispositions, social interaction, and environmental factors! and media selection initiated by the individual. The e)perimental method has not been used widely in uses and gratifications research. When it has been chosen, investigators typically manipulated the sub$ects> motivations and measured differences in their media consumption. To illustrate, +ryant and Jillmann ,379:/ placed their sub$ects in either a state of boredom or a state of stress and then gave them a choice of watching a rela)ing or a stimulating television program. Atressed sub$ects watched more tran&uil programs, and bored sub$ects opted for the e)citing fare. %cGeod and +ecker ,3793/ had their sub$ects sit in a lounge that contained public affairs maga6ines. *ne group of sub$ects was told that they would soon be tested about the current situation in #akistan! a second group was told they would be re&uired to write an essay on H.A. military aid to #akistan! while a control group was given no specific instructions. s e)pected, sub$ects in the test and essay conditions made greater use of the maga6ines than did the control group. The two test groups also differed in the type of information they remembered from the periodicals. 1)periments such as these two indicate that different cognitive or affective states facilitate the use of media for various reasons, as predicted by the uses and gratifications rationale. A, -,$-'E .OO/ Media Effects Research0 1hether the 1eather Ma2es a 'ifference Hses and gratifications research has shed a good deal of light on viewer motivations for watching TC, but the approach has not been particularly successful in predicting the actual amount of television use. Roe and Candebosch ,377?/ suggest that one reason for the inability to predict is that researchers sometimes overlook the obvious(such as the weather. Aeasonal variations in TC viewing are well documented: #eople watch more in the winter and less in the summer. Roe and Candebosch, however, suggest that specific weather effects occur with each season. The researchers gathered detailed meteorological data in +elgium for a year, including temperature, precipitation amount, wind speed, cloud cover, barometric pressure, and hours of sunlight. They also collected television"viewing statistics encompassing the

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3;

percentage viewing and the daily average amount of time spent watching. Their results showed strong correlations between all their weather"related measures, e)cept for barometric pressure, and viewing with some correlations reaching as high as .8;. 'n addition, there was consistency within each individual season. #eople watched more TC when there were fewer hours of daylight, when the temperature was low, when wind speed was high, and when there was some precipitation. The implication in this finding for broadcasters was clear. The single most important determiner of TC audience si6e was wholly beyond their control. &heoretical 'evelop#ents s mentioned earlier, researchers in the academic sector are interested in developing theory concerning the topics they investigate. This tendency is well illustrated in the history of uses and gratifications research. Whereas early studies tended to be descriptive, later scholars have attempted to integrate research findings into a more theoretical conte)t. 'n an early e)planation of the uses and gratifications process, Rosengren ,378:/ suggested that certain basic needs interact with personal characteristics and the social environment of the individual to produce perceived problems and perceived solutions. The problems and solutions constitute different motives for gratification behavior that can come from using the media or from other activities. Together the media use or other behaviors produce gratification ,or nongratification/ that has an impact on the individual or society, thereby starting the process anew. fter reviewing the results of appro)imately 3.. uses and gratifications studies, #almgreen ,379:/ stated that Ea rather comple) theoretical structure . . . has begun to emerge.F @e proposed an integrative gratifications model that suggested a multivariate approach. The gratifications sought by the audience form the central concept in the model. There are, however, many antecedent variables such as media structure, media technology, social circumstances, psychological variables, needs, values, and beliefs that all relate to the particular gratification pattern used by the audience. dditionally, the conse&uences of the gratifications relate directly to media and nonmedia consumption behaviors and the perceived gratifications that are obtained. s #almgreen admits, this model suffers from lack of parsimony and needs strengthening in several areas, but it does represent an increase in our understanding of the mass media process. =urther refinements in the model will come from surveys and e)periments designed to test specific hypotheses derived from well"articulated theoretical rationales and from carefully designed descriptive studies. =or e)ample, Gevy and Windahl ,379:/ e)amined the assumption of an active audience in the uses and gratifications approach. They derived a typology of audience activity and prepared a model that linked activity to various uses and gratifications, thus further clarifying one important postulate in the uses and gratifications process. Awanson ,3798/ called for more research to encourage the theoretical grounding of the uses and gratifications approach. Apecifically, Awanson urged that research focus on ,3/ the role of gratification seeking in e)posure to mass media, ,-/ the relationship between gratification and the interpretive frames through which audiences understand media content, and ,</ the link between gratifications and media content. Can 1vra ,377./ presents an integrated theoretical
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 3?

model of television>s impact in which the use of the medium is considered along with the amount of viewing, presence of information alternatives, and perceived reality of the medium. @er description highlights the comple) interactions that need to be e)amined in order to understand the viewing process. dditionally, uses and gratifications researchers have incorporated a theory from social psychology, e)pectancy"value theory, into their formulations ,+abrow, 3797/. This theory suggests that audience attitude toward media behavior is an important factor in media use. Rubin ,377:/ summari6ed the growth of theory in the area and concludes that single"variable e)planations of media effects are inade&uate. @e suggests that more attention be given to antecedent, mediating, and conse&uent e)posure conditions. =inn ,3778/ investigated a five" factor personality model as a correlate of mass media use. @e found that people who scored high on the e)troversion and agreeableness dimensions of a personality measure were more likely to choose nonmedia activities ,such as conversation/ to meet their communication needs. 'n a comprehensive review of the theoretical developments relevant to uses and gratifications theory, Ruggiero ,-.../ argues that researchers must e)pand the uses and gratifications model to accommodate the uni&ue features of the 'nternet such as interactivity and demassification. @e also contends that the growing popularity of the 'nternet will make the uses and gratifications approach even more valuable in the future. The uses and gratifications approach also illustrates the difference in emphasis between academic and applied research ob$ectives. Bewspaper publishers and broadcasting e)ecutives, who want guidance in attracting readers, viewers, and listeners, seem to be particularly interested in determining what specific content is best suited to meeting the needs of the audience. 4ollege and university researchers are interested not only in understanding content characteristics but also in developing theories that e)plain and predict the public>s media consumption based on sociological, psychological, and structural variables. A+enda $ettin+ by the Media A+enda settin+ theory proposes that Ethe public agenda(or what kinds of things people discuss, think, and worry about ,and sometimes ultimately press for legislation about/(is powerfully shaped and directed by what the news media choose to publici6eF ,Garson, 377:/. This means that if the news media decide to give the most time and space to covering the budget deficit, this issue will become the most important item on the audience>s agenda. 'f the news media devote the second most coverage to unemployment, audiences will also rate unemployment as the second most important issue to them, and so on. genda setting research e)amines the relationship between media priorities and audience priorities in the relative importance of news topics. History The notion of agenda setting by the media can be traced back to Walter Gippmann ,37--/, who suggested that the media were responsible for the Epictures in our heads.F =orty years later, 4ohen ,37?</ further articulated the idea when he argued that the media may not always be successful in telling people what to think, but they are usually successful in telling them what to think about. Gang and Gang ,37??, p. :?9/ reinforced this notion by observing, EThe mass media force attention to certain issues. . . . They are constantly presenting ob$ects, suggesting what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about.F

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 38

The first empirical test of agenda setting came in 378- when %c4ombs and Ahaw ,378-/ reported the results of a study done during the 37?9 presidential election. They found strong support for the agenda"setting hypothesis. There were strong relationships between the emphasis placed on different campaign issues by the media and the $udgments of voters regarding the importance of various campaign topics. This study inspired a host of others, many of them concerned with agenda setting as it occurred during political campaigns. =or e)ample, Tipton, @aney, and +aseheart ,378;/ used cross"lagged correlation to analy6e the impact of the media on agenda setting during statewide elections. #atterson and %c4lure ,378?/ studied the impact of television news and television commercials on agenda setting in the 378- election. They concluded that television news had minimal impact on public awareness of issues but that television campaign advertising accounted for increased audience awareness of candidates> positions on issues. genda setting continued to be a popular research topic through the 379.s and 377.s. 'ts focus has e)panded from looking at political campaigns to e)amining other topics. The agenda" setting techni&ue is now being used in a variety of areas: history, advertising, foreign news, and medical news. %c4ombs ,377:/ and Wanta ,3778/ present useful summaries of this topic. 'n recent years the most popular sub$ects in agenda"setting research are ,3/ how the media agenda is set ,this research is also called agenda #uilding/, and ,-/ how the media choose to portray the issues they cover ,called fra#in+ analysis/. With regard to agenda building, Wanta, Atephenson, Turk, and %c4ombs ,3797/ noted some correlation between issues raised in the president>s Atate of the Hnion address and the media coverage of those issues. Aimilarly, Wanta ,3773/ discovered that the president can have an impact on the media agenda, particularly when presidential approval ratings are high. +oyle ,-..3/ found that ma$or party candidate political ads can have an influence on media coverage of a campaign. Reese ,377./ presents a review of the agenda"building research. =raming analysis recogni6es that media can impart a certain perspective, or Espin,F to the events they cover and that this, in turn, might influence public attitudes on an issue. =raming analysis has been called the second level of agenda setting. s Dhanem ,3778, p. </ put it: genda setting is now detailing a second level of effects that e)amines how media coverage affects both what the public thinks about and how the public thinks about it. This second level of agenda setting deals with the specific attributes of a topic and how this agenda of attributes also influences public opinion. =or e)ample, 'yengar and Aimon ,377</ found a framing effect in their study of news coverage of the Dulf War. Respondents who relied the most on television news, where military developments were emphasi6ed, e)pressed greater support for a military rather than a diplomatic solution to the crisis. 'n their study of the way media framed breast cancer coverage in the 377.s, ndsager and #owers ,3777/ discovered that women>s maga6ines offered more personal stories and more comprehensive information, while news maga6ines focused more on the economic angle, stressing research funding and insurance. =inally, ndsager ,-.../ analy6ed the attempts by interest groups to frame the abortion debate of the late 377.s and the impact their efforts had with news media. Ahe found that the pro"life group was more successful in getting their

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 39

interpretation into press coverage. genda setting continued to be an important topic to mass communication researchers well into the new century. Tai ,-..7/ found that ;? studies of agenda setting appeared in ma$or communication $ournals from 377? to -..;. Bot surprisingly, many were conducted in the conte)t of political campaigns using the methods established by earlier studies. =or e)ample, Dunn ,-..7/ looked at agenda setting in the -..; Cirginia gubernatorial election and found that the agenda of the ma$or candidates and the media agenda were related while 5iousis and Ahields ,-..9/ e)amined the influence of public relations efforts in the -..: presidential election. 'n addition, the agenda setting influence of emerging media attracted the attention of several researchers. Aweetser, Dolan and Wanta ,-..9/ found evidence that blog content influenced the media agenda and Wallstein ,-..8/ discovered a reciprocal relationship between mainstream media coverage and blog discussions during a presidential election campaign. Recent research using framing analysis has looked at a variety of topics. Lun, Bah and %cGeod ,-..9/ investigated how news media framed the controversy over stem cell research. D> ngelo and Gombard ,-..9/ conducted an e)periment that revealed that different frames prompted sub$ects to rate certain topics more important than others. =inally, Gipshult6 ,-..8/ e)amined how the media framed the Ewar on terror.F Methods The typical agenda"setting study involves several of the approaches discussed in earlier chapters. 4ontent analysis is used to define the media agenda, and surveys are used to collect data on the audience agenda. 'n addition, since determining the media agenda and surveying the audience are not done simultaneously, a longitudinal dimension is present. %ore recently, some studies have used the e)perimental approach. Measuring the Media Agenda. Aeveral techni&ues have been used to establish the media agenda. The most common method involves grouping coverage topics into broad categories and measuring the amount of time or space devoted to each category. The operational definitions of these categories are important because the more broadly a topic area is defined, the easier it is to demonstrate an agenda"setting effect. 'deally, the content analysis should include all media: television, radio, newspaper, and maga6ines. Hnfortunately, this is too large a task for most researchers to handle comfortably, and most studies have been confined to one or two media, usually television and the daily newspaper. =or e)ample, Williams and Aemlak ,3789/ tabulated the total air time for each topic mentioned in the three television network newscasts over a 37" day period. The topics were rank"ordered according to their total time. t the same time, the newspaper agenda was constructed by measuring the total column inches devoted to each topic on the front and editorial pages of the local newspaper. %cGeod, +ecker, and +yrnes ,378:/ content"analy6ed local newspapers for a ?"week period, totaling the number of inches devoted to each topic, including headlines and pertinent pictures on the front and editorial pages. mong other things, they found that the front and editorial pages ade&uately represented the entire newspaper in their topical areas. The development of new technologies has created problems for researchers when it comes to measuring the media agenda. 4able TC, fa) machines, email, blogs, online computer services,
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age 37

and the 'nternet have greatly e)panded the information outlets available to the public. The role of these new channels of communication in agenda setting is still unclear. Measuring Public Agendas. The public agenda has been measured in at least four ways. =irst, respondents are asked an open"ended &uestion such as EWhat do you feel is the most important political issue to you personallyMF or EWhat is the most important political issue in your communityMF The phrasing of this &uestion can elicit either the respondent>s intrapersonal agenda ,as in the first e)ample/ or interpersonal agenda ,the second e)ample/. second method asks respondents to rate in importance the issues in a list compiled by the researcher. The third techni&ue is a variation of this approach. Respondents are given a list of topics selected by the researcher and asked to rank"order them according to perceived importance. The fourth techni&ue uses the paired"comparisons method. 1ach issue on a preselected list is paired with every other issue, and the respondent is asked to consider each pair and to identify the more important issue. When all the responses have been tabulated, the issues are ordered from the most important to the least important. s with all measurement, each techni&ue has its own advantages and disadvantages. The open"ended method gives respondents great freedom in nominating issues, but it favors those people who are better able to verbali6e their thoughts. The closed"ended ranking and rating techni&ues make sure that all respondents have a common vocabulary, but they assume that each respondent is aware of all the public issues listed and restrict the respondent from e)pressing a personal point of view. The paired"comparisons method provides interval data, which allows for more sophisticated statistical techni&ues, but it takes longer to complete than the other methods, and this might be a problem in some forms of survey research. Three important periods used in collecting the data for agenda"setting research are ,3/ the duration of the media agenda measurement period, ,-/ the time lag between measuring the media agenda and measuring the personal agenda, and ,</ the duration of the audience agenda measurement. Hnfortunately, there is little in the way of research or theory to guide the investigator in this area. To illustrate, %ullins ,3788/ studied media content for a week to determine the media agenda, but Dormley ,378;/ gathered media data for :.; months. Aimilarly, the time lag between media agenda measurement and audience agenda measurement has varied from no time at all ,%cGeod et al., 378:/ to a lag of ; months ,Dormley, 378;/. Wanta and @u ,377:a/ discovered that different media have different optimum time lags. Television, for e)ample, has a more immediate impact, whereas newspapers are more effective in the long term. 't is not surprising that the duration of the measurement period for audience agendas has also varied widely. @ilker ,378?/ collected a public agenda measure in a single day, whereas %cGeod and colleagues ,378:/ took : weeks. 1yal, Winter, and DeDeorge ,3793/ suggested that methodological studies should be carried out to determine the optimal effect span or peak association period between the media emphasis and public emphasis. Winter and 1yal ,3793/, in an e)ample of one of these methodological studies, found an optimal effect span of ? weeks for agenda setting on the civil rights issue. Aimilarly, Aalwen ,3799/ found that it took from ; to 8 weeks of news media coverage of environmental issues before they became salient on the public>s agenda. 'n a large"scale agenda"setting study of Derman television, +rosius and 5epplinger ,377./

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -.

found that the nature of the issue had an impact on the time lag necessary to demonstrate an effect. =or general issues such as environmental protection, a lag of a year or two might be appropriate. =or issues raised in political campaigns, : to ? weeks might be the appropriate lag. =or a breaking event within an issue, such as the 4hernobyl disaster, a lag of a week might be sufficient. genda"setting researchers are now incorporating more complicated longitudinal analysis measures into their designs. Don6enbach and %cDavin ,3778/ for e)ample, present descriptions of time series analysis and time series modeling and a discussion of nonlinear analysis techni&ues. Aeveral researchers have used the e)perimental techni&ue to study the causal direction in agenda setting. =or e)ample, @eeter, +rown, Aoffin, Atanley, 0 Aalwen ,3797/ e)amined the agenda"setting effect of telete)t. *ne group of sub$ects was instructed to abstain from all traditional news media for five consecutive days and instead spend <. minutes each day with a telete)t news service. The results indicated that a week>s worth of e)posure did little to alter sub$ects> agendas. The e)perimental method has also been employed to measure the impact of different message frames. Calentino, +uhr, and +eckmann ,-..3/ manipulated the frame of a news story about a politician by creating one version in which an elected official>s policy decision was represented as a sincere choice to benefit constituents and another version in which the same decision was represented as a selfish effort to win votes in the ne)t election. The frame that emphasi6ed the vote"getting effort produced more negative reactions than did the sincere choice interpretation. &heoretical 'evelop#ents The theory of agenda setting is still at a formative level. 'n spite of the problems in method and time span mentioned earlier, the findings in agenda setting are consistent enough to permit some first steps toward theory building. To begin, longitudinal studies of agenda setting have permitted some tentative causal statements. %ost of this research has supported the interpretation that the media>s agenda causes the public agenda! the rival causal hypothesis(that the public agenda establishes the media agenda(has not received much support ,+ehr 0 'yengar, 379;! Roberts 0 +achen, 3793/. Thus, much of the recent research has attempted to specify the audience"related and media"related events that condition the agenda"setting effect. 't is apparent that constructing an agenda"setting theory will be a complicated task. Williams ,379?/, for e)ample, posited eight antecedent variables that should have an impact on audience agendas during a political campaign. =our of these variables ,voter interest, voter activity, political involvement, and civic activity/ have been linked to agenda setting ,Williams 0 Aemlak, 3789/. 'n addition, several studies have suggested that a person>s Eneed for orientationF should be a predictor of agenda holding. ,Bote that such an approach incorporates uses and gratifications thinking./ =or e)ample, Weaver ,3788/ found a positive correlation between the need for orientation and a greater acceptance of media agendas. These antecedent variables define the media"scanning behavior of the individual ,%c4ombs, 3793/. 'mportant variables at this stage of the process are the use of media and the use of interpersonal communication ,Winter, 3793/. *ther influences on the individual>s agenda" setting behavior are the duration and obtrusiveness of the issues themselves and the specifics of
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -3

media coverage ,Winter, 3793/. Three other audience attributes that are influential are the credibility given to the news media, the degree to which the audience member relies on the media for information, and the level of e)posure to the media ,Wanta 0 @u, 377:b/. Despite the tentative nature of the theory, many researchers continue to develop models of the agenda"setting process. %anheim ,3798/, for e)ample, developed a model of agenda setting that distinguished between content and salience of issues. +rosius and 5epplinger ,377./ used time series analysis in their study of Derman news programs to test both a linear model and a nonlinear model of agenda setting. The linear model assumes a direct correlation between coverage and issue importance! an increase or decrease in coverage results in a corresponding change in issue salience. =our nonlinear models were also e)amined: ,3/ the threshold model( some minimum level of coverage is re&uired before the agenda"setting effect is seen! ,-/ the acceleration model(issue salience increases or decreases to a greater degree than coverage! ,</ the inertia model(issue importance increases or decreases to a lesser degree than coverage! and ,:/ the echo model(e)tremely heavy media coverage prompts the agenda"setting effect long after coverage recedes. Their data showed that the nature of the issue under study was related to the model that best described the results. The acceleration model worked better for issues that were considered sub$ectively important by the audience ,ta)es/ and for new issues. The linear model seemed to work better with enduring issues ,the environment/. Aome support was also found for the threshold model. There was, however, little support for the inertia model, and not enough data were available for a convincing test of the echo model. 'n sum, these data suggest an agenda"setting process more complicated than that envisioned by the simple linear model. Recent developments have been focused on integrating agenda setting with other theories from communication and psychology. Jeffres, Beuendorf, +racken and tkin ,-..9/, for e)ample, attempt to use the third"person effect to link agenda setting and cultivation. Jorg ,-..9/ conducted a panel study to show that a person>s need for orientation was a predictor of the agenda"setting effect and Giu ,-..9/ demonstrated the usefulness of the elaboration likelihood model in e)plaining agenda setting. C%ltivation of Perceptions of $ocial Reality @ow do the media affect audience perceptions of the real worldM The basic assumption underlying the c%ltivation" or enculturation, approach is that repeated e)posures to consistent media portrayals and themes influence our perceptions of these items in the direction of the media portrayals. 'n effect, learning from the media environment is generali6ed, sometimes incorrectly, to the social environment. s was the case with agenda"setting research, investigators in the academic sector have conducted most of the enculturation research. 'ndustry researchers are aware of this work and sometimes &uestion its accuracy or meaning ,Wurt6el 0 Gometti, 379:/, but they seldom conduct it or sponsor it themselves. History Aome early research studies indicated that media portrayals of certain topics could have an impact on audience perceptions, particularly if the media were the main information sources. Aiegel ,37;9/ found that hearing a radio program about the character could influence childrenNs

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age --

role e)pectations about a ta)i driver. De=leur and De=leur ,37?8/ found that television had a homogeni6ing effect on children>s perceptions of occupations commonly shown on television. The more recent research on viewer perceptions of social reality stems from the 4ultural 'ndicators pro$ect of Deorge Derbner and his associates ,37?9 / who collected data on the content of television and analy6ed the impact of heavy e)posure on the audience. Aome of the many variables that have been content analy6ed are the demographic portraits of perpetrators and victims of television violence, the prevalence of violent acts, the types of violence portrayed, and the conte)ts of violence. The basic hypothesis of cultivation analysis is that the more time one spends living in the world of television, the more likely one is to report conceptions of social reality that can be traced to television portrayals ,Dross 0 %organ, 379;/. To test this hypothesis, Derbner and his associates have analy6ed data from adults, adolescents, and children in cities across the Hnited Atates. The first cultivation data were reported more than three decades ago ,Derbner 0 Dross, 378?/. Hsing data collected by the Bational *pinion Research 4enter ,B*R4/, Derbner found that heavy television viewers scored higher on a Emean worldF inde) than did light viewers. OAample items from this inde) are EDo you think people try to take advantage of youMF and ELou can>t be too careful in dealing with people ,agreePdisagree/.FQ Data from both adult and child B*R4 samples showed that heavy viewers were more suspicious and distrustful. Aubse&uent studies reinforced these findings and found that heavy television viewers were more likely to overestimate the prevalence of violence in society and their own chances of being involved in violence ,Derbner, Dross, Jackson"+eeck, Jeffries"=o), 0 Aignorielli, 3789/. 'n sum, their perceptions of reality were cultivated by television. Bot all researchers have accepted the cultivation hypothesis. 'n particular, @ughes ,379./ and @irsch ,379./ reanaly6ed the B*R4 data using simultaneous rather than individual controls for demographic variables, and they were unable to replicate Derbner>s findings. Derbner responded by introducing resonance and #ainstrea#in+" two new concepts to help e)plain inconsistencies in the results ,Derbner, Dross, %organ, 0 Aignorielli, 379?/. When the media reinforce what is seen in real life, thus giving an audience member a Edouble dose,F the resulting increase in the cultivation effect is attributed to resonance. %ainstreaming is a leveling effect. @eavy viewing, resulting in a common viewpoint, washes out differences in perceptions of reality usually caused by demographic and social factors. These concepts refine and further elaborate the cultivation hypothesis, but they have not satisfied all the critics of this approach. 4ondry ,3797/ presents a comprehensive review of the cultivation analysis literature and of cultivation analysis and an insightful evaluation of the criticisms directed against it. Ahanahan and %organ ,3777/ also present a comprehensive review of cultivation research. dditional research on the cultivation hypothesis indicates that the topic may be more complicated than first thought. There is evidence that cultivation may be less dependent on the total amount of TC viewing than on the specific types of programs viewed ,*>5eefe 0 Reid" Bash, 3798/. Weaver and Wakshlag ,379?/ found that the cultivation effect was more pronounced among active TC viewers than among low"involvement viewers and that personal e)perience with crime was an important mediating variable that affected the impact of TC programs on cultivating an attitude of vulnerability toward crime. dditionally, #otter ,379?/

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -<

found that the perceived reality of the TC content had an impact on cultivation. *ther research ,Rubin, #erse, 0 Taylor, 3799/ demonstrated that the wording of the attitude and the perceptual &uestions used to measure cultivation influenced the results. #otter ,3799/ found that variables such as identification with TC characters, anomie, 'K, and informational needs of the viewer had differential effects on cultivation. 'n other words, different people react in different ways to TC content, and these different reactions determine the strength of the cultivation effect. s of the end of the -...s, cultivation analysis continued to be a popular topic of research. Recent investigations have used the techni&ue to study perceptions of doctors by those who are heavy viewers of Gre%,s Anatom% ,Kuick, -..7/, attitudes toward cosmetic surgery ,Babi, -..7/ and attitudes toward mental health ,Diefenbach 0 West, -..8/. Aince 377., there have been three trends in cultivation research. The first is e)panding the focus of cultivation into other countries and cultures. $ultivation Anal%sis: -ew )irections in Media Effects Research ,Aignorielli 0 %organ, 377./ contains chapters on research done in +ritain, Aweden, sia, and Gatin merica. The results regarding the cultivation effect were mi)ed. Lang, Ramasubramanian and *liver ,-..9/ found a cultivation effect for viewers of H.A. programs in Aouth 5orea and 'ndia and Raman and @arwood ,-..9/ reported similar findings for sian 'ndians in merica. The second trend, discussed in more detail in the ne)t section, is a closer e)amination of the measurements used in cultivation. Results suggest that the way TC viewing is &uantified and the way the cultivation &uestions are framed all have an impact on the results. The final trend concerns the conceptual mechanisms that result in the occurrence of the cultivation effect and are discussed in the Theoretical Developments section, immediately following the %ethods section. A, -,$-'E .OO/ C%ltivatin+ the Paranor#al %any television programs focus on the paranormal(The 0*"iles, Unsolved M%steries, ightings, and more. 4ould heavy viewing of these programs have a cultivation effectM This general &uestion was e)amined by Aparks, Belson, and 4ampbell ,3778/ in a survey of 3-. residents of a %idwestern city. Respondents were asked to estimate the total amount of time they spent watching TC and how often they had seen specific programs that featured paranormal content. The researchers ne)t developed a -."item scale to assess respondents> belief in paranormal activities, including H=*s, 1A#, ghosts, palm reading, telekinesis, and astrology. This scale was factor analy6ed to yield two distinct elements: belief in supernatural beings and belief in psychic energy. The researchers also asked respondents to report whether they had had any paranormal e)periences. TC viewing was then correlated with the measures of belief in the paranormal. The total number of hours of TC viewing was not related to either of the paranormal belief factors. 1)posure to paranormal TC shows showed no correlation with belief in psychic energy. There was a significant relationship, however, between paranormal TC show viewing and belief in supernatural beings among those who had some prior e)perience with paranormal events. This

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -:

relationship persisted even after controlling for several demographic variables. The authors suggest that this finding should have implications for $ournalists and program producers of content related to paranormal themes. Methods There are two discrete steps in performing a cultivation analysis. =irst, descriptions of the media world are obtained from periodic content analyses of large blocks of media content. The result of this content analysis is the identification of the messages of the television world. These messages represent consistent patterns in the portrayal of specific issues, policies, and topics that are often at odds with their occurrence in real life. The identification of the consistent portrayals is followed by the construction of a set of &uestions designed to detect a cultivation effect. 1ach &uestion poses two or more alternatives. *ne alternative is more consistent with the world as seen on television, while another is more in line with the real world. =or e)ample, according to the content analyses performed by Derbner and colleagues ,3788/, strangers commit about ?.I of television homicides. 'n real life, according to government statistics, only 3?I of homicides occur between strangers. The &uestion based on this discrepancy was, EDoes fatal violence occur between strangers or between relatives and ac&uaintancesMF The response EstrangersF was considered the television answer. nother &uestion was, EWhat percentage of all males who have $obs work in law enforcement and crime detectionM 's it 3I or ;IMF ccording to census data, 3I of men in real life have such $obs, compared with 3-I in television programs. Thus, ;I is the television answer. 4ondry ,3797/ points out that the cultivation impact seems to depend upon whether respondents are making $udgments about society or about themselves. Aocietal"level $udgments, such as the e)amples $ust given, seem to be more influenced by the cultivation effect, but personal $udgments ,such as EWhat is the likelihood that you will be involved in a violent crimeMF/ seem to be harder to influence. 'n a related study, Aparks and *gles ,377./ demonstrated a cultivation effect when respondents were asked about their fear of crime but not when they were asked to give their personal rating of their chances of being victimi6ed. %easures of these two concepts were not related. Related findings were reported by Ahanahan, %organ, and Atenb$erre ,3778/, who found that TC viewing was associated with a general state of fear about the state of the environment but not related to viewers> perceptions of specific sources of environmental threats. The second step involves surveying audiences about their television e)posure, dividing the sample into heavy and light viewers ,: hours of viewing a day is usually the dividing line/, and comparing their answers to the &uestions that differentiate the television world from the real world. 'n addition, data are often collected on possible control variables such as gender, age, and socioeconomic status. The basic statistical procedure consists of correlational analysis between the amount of television viewing and the scores on an inde) reflecting the number of television answers to the comparison &uestions. lso, partial correlation is used to remove the effects of the control variables. lternatively, sometimes the cultivation differential ,4D/ is reported. The 4D is the percentage of heavy viewers minus the percentage of light viewers who gave the television answers. =or e)ample, if 8<I of the heavy viewers gave the television answer to the &uestion about violence being committed between strangers or ac&uaintances compared to ?-I of the light viewers, the 4D would be 33I. Gaboratory e)periments use the same general

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -;

approach, but they usually manipulate the sub$ects> e)perience with the television world by showing an e)perimental group one or more preselected programs. %easurement decisions can have a significant impact on cultivation findings. #otter and 4hang ,377./ gauged TC viewing using five different techni&ues: ,3/ total e)posure ,the traditional way used in cultivation analysis/! ,-/ e)posure to different types of television programs! ,</ e)posure to program types while controlling for total e)posure! ,:/ measure of the proportion of each program type viewed, obtained by dividing the time spent per type of program by the total time spent viewing! and ,;/ a weighted proportion calculated by multiplying hours viewed per week by the proportional measure mentioned in the fourth techni&ue. The results showed that total viewing time was not a strong predictor of cultivation scores. The proportional measure proved to be the best indicator of cultivation. This suggests that a person who watches -. hours of TC per week, with all of the hours being crime shows, will score higher on cultivation measures of fear of crime than a person who watches 9. hours of TC a week with -. of them consisting of crime shows. The data also showed that all of the alternative measures were better than a simple measure of total TC viewing. #otter ,3773a/ demonstrated that deciding where to put the dividing point between heavy viewers and light viewers is a critical choice that can influence the results of a cultivation analysis. @e showed that the cultivation effect may not be linear, as typically assumed. This finding may e)plain why cultivation effects in general are small in magnitude! simply dividing viewers into heavy and light categories cancels many differences among subgroups. Diefenbach and West ,-..3/ offer another insight into possible ways of measuring the cultivation effect. 'n their study of the cultivation effect, they found no relationship between TC viewing and estimates of murder and burglary rates in society when using the traditional regression model. @owever, when they used a different form of regression analysis, one based on non"normally distributed dependent variables, they detected a cultivation effect. %ore recent methodological investigations include those of @etsroni and Tukachinski ,-..8/ who found that classifying viewers based on both their estimates of the occurrences television and real"world phenomenon provided clearer depictions of a cultivation effect and Can den +ulck ,-..</ who e)amined if the mainstreaming impact could be e)plained by regression toward the mean. &heoretical 'evelop#ents What does the research tell us about cultivationM fter an e)tensive literature review in which they e)amined :9 studies, @awkins and #ingree ,3793/ concluded that there was evidence for a link between viewing and beliefs regardless of the kind of social reality in &uestion. Was this link real or spuriousM The authors concluded that the answer did, in fact, depend on the type of belief under study. Relationships between viewing and demographic aspects of social reality held up under rigorous controls. s far as causality was concerned, the authors concluded that most of the evidence went in one direction(namely, that television causes social reality to be interpreted in certain ways. Twelve years later, Ahrum and *>Duinn ,377</ echoed the earlier conclusion by saying that cultivation research has demonstrated a modest but persistent effect of television viewing on what people believe the social world is like. %ore recently, %organ and Ahanahan ,3778/ performed a meta"analysis of 9- published cultivation studies and concluded
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -?

that there is a small but reliable and pervasive cultivation effect that accounts for about 3I of the variance in people>s perceptions of the world. The authors argue that although the effect is small, it is not socially insignificant. @ow does this process take placeM The most recent publications in this area have focused on conceptual models that e)plain the cognitive processes that cause cultivation. #otter ,377</ presents an e)tensive criti&ue of the original cultivation formulation and offers several suggestions for future research, including developing a typology of effects and providing a long" term analysis. Can 1vra ,377./ posits a multivariate model of cultivation, taking into account the use to which the viewing is put ,information or diversion/, the perceived reality of the content, the number of information alternatives available, and the amount of viewing. Ahe suggests that ma)imum cultivation occurs among heavy viewers who watch for information, believe the content to be real, and have few alternative sources of information. #otter ,3773b/ proposes a psychological model of cultivation incorporating the concepts of learning, construction, and generali6ation. @e suggests that cultivation theory needs to be e)tended and revamped in order to e)plain how the effect operates. Tapper ,377;/ presents a possible conceptual model of the cultivation process that is divided into two phases. #hase one deals with content ac&uisition and takes into account such variables as motives for viewing, selective viewing, the type of genre viewed, and perceptions of the reality of the content. #hase two is the storage phase and elaborates those constructs that might affect long"term memory. Tapper>s model allows for various cultivation effects to be e)amined according to a person>s viewing and storage strategies. Ahrum and *>Duinn ,377</ present a psychological model of the cultivation process based on the notion of accessibility of information in a person>s memory. They posit that human memory works much like a storage bin. When new information is ac&uired, a copy of that new information is placed on top of the appropriate bin. Gater, when information is being retrieved for decision"making, the contents of the bin are searched from the top down. Thus, information deposited most recently and most fre&uently stands a better chance of being recalled. person who watches many TC crime shows, for e)ample, might store many e)aggerated portrayals of crime and violence in the appropriate bin. When asked to make a $udgment about the fre&uency of real"life crime, the TC images are the most accessible, and the person might base his or her $udgment of social reality on them. Ahrum and *>Duinn reported the results of an empirical test of this notion. They reasoned that the faster a person is able to make a response, the more accessible is the retrieved information. 4onse&uently, when confronted with a social reality $udgment, heavy TC viewers should be able to make $udgments faster than light viewers, and their $udgments should also demonstrate a cultivation effect. The results of Ahrum and *>Duinn>s e)periment supported this reasoning. Ahrum ,377?/ reported a study that replicated these findings. 'n this e)periment, sub$ects who were heavier viewers of soap operas were more likely to show a cultivation effect and responded faster to the various cultivation &uestions that were asked of them. The same author ,Ahrum, -..3/ presents evidence that the cognitive information"processing strategy employed by the viewer has an impact on cultivation. Apecifically, when sub$ects were asked to respond to &uestions about estimates of crime and occupations spontaneously, a cultivation effect was found. *n the other hand, when sub$ects were asked to think systematically about their answers, the cultivation effect was not found.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -8

Ahrum argues that those who thought systematically were more likely to discount TC as a source of their information and rely on other sources, thus negating a cultivation effect. 4ultivation has proven to be an evocative and heuristic notion. Recent research continues to concentrate on identifying key variables important to the process and on specifying the psychological processes that underlie the process. =or e)ample, Badi and Riddle ,-..9/ looked at the impact of trait an)iety, psychoticism and sensation seeking on the cultivation effect and found that low trait"an)ious individuals and those high in sensation"seeking were more likely candidates for cultivation and +iland6ic and +usselle ,-..9/ introduced the notion of Etransportation into narrativeF to help e)plain the cultivation process. $ocial -#pact of the -nternet %ass media research follows a typical pattern when a new medium develops. #hase 3 concerns an interest in the medium itself: the technology used, functions, access, cost. #hase - deals with the users of the medium: who they are, why they use it, what other media it displaces. #hase < pertains to the social, psychological, and physical effects of the medium, particularly any harmful effects. =inally, #hase : involves research about how the medium can be improved. Research e)amining the 'nternet has generally followed this pattern. %uch of the research done during the mid"377.s described the technology involved in the 'nternet and some of the possible functions that it might serve ,see, for e)ample, #orter, 3778/. 'n recent years, however, research that falls into #hase < has become popular. %ost of the research reviewed in this chapter concerns #hases - and <. The 'nternet is starting to dominate the attention of mass communication researchers. 'n -..9, $ommunication A#stracts listed 8? studies that dealt with the 'nternet. The 'nternet is such a recent development that this section departs from the organi6ational structure we used earlier. lthough more and more research is being reported, it is still too early to write the history of 'nternet research or to talk about theoretical developments. The methods used to study the net are those discussed earlier in this book: surveys, content analysis, and the occasional e)periment. %oreover, new research methods that use the uni&ue resources of the 'nternet will continue to emerge. 4onse&uently, this section divides the research into relevant topic categories. A%dience Characteristics ccording to the recent surveys, more than 9. percent of all H.A. households were connected to the 'nternet in -..8. bout 399 million people used the 'nternet in -..8, up from ;8 million in 3779. +y the beginning of -..7, the demographic profile of the average 'nternet user was similar to that of the average merican. ccording to -ielsen11-etRatings data, ;-I of online users were women, a percentage that almost e)actly mirrors that of the general population. 'n addition, the average household income of the online population was only slightly higher than that of the H.A. population. The 'nternet population was still generally younger, with 8?I of the online users between 39 and :7, compared to ?<I in the general population. *lder mericans, however, were among the fastest"growing age category of 'nternet users. 1ducation is related to 'nternet

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -9

use. %ediamark survey found that 9.I of users had attended college, a proportion greater than the H.A. average. Research by the #ew 'nternet and merican Gife #ro$ect ,-..</ found that the demographic make"up of 'nternet users had not changed drastically from -..3 to -..<. Gongitudinal usage data suggest that the 'nternet deviates from the pattern followed by other new media. Gindstrom ,3778/ points out that initial use of a medium is abnormally high during the novelty phase and then declines over time as the medium becomes familiar. During the 37;.s, for e)ample, individuals who bought TC sets watched more TC during their first few months of ownership than they did during the rest of the year. Gindstrom cites data from a Bielsen survey, however, showing that 'nternet use actually increased in the 3-"month period following initial use. @e hypothesi6es that it re&uires both learning and practice to get the most utility out of the 'nternet, thus increasing use over time. -... survey by the Atanford 'nstitute for the Kuantitative Atudy of Aociety lends support to this hypothesis ,Bie 0 1rbring, -.../. mount of 'nternet use was positively correlated with the number of years respondents had had 'nternet access. Recent research on 'nternet usage suggests that time spent on the net displaces time spent on other media, particularly television. Television viewing suffers because a great deal of 'nternet usage is during the evening hours, when people traditionally watch TC ,Weaver, 3779/. The Atanford study found that ?;I of their respondents who were online more than 3. hours per week reported they spent less time watching TC. Time spent on the 'nternet was also negatively related to time spent reading newspapers, but the effect was not as great as with TC ,Bie 0 1rbring, -.../. Radio listening occurs mainly in cars and as a result does not seem to be affected by 'nternet use. When it comes to news, however, using the 'nternet seems to have little impact. Atempel, @argrove, and +ernt ,-.../ found that 'nternet users and nonusers were alike in their viewing of local and network newscasts, and, in a finding that is at odds with the Atanford results, they found that users actually were more regular readers of the daily newspaper. Atempel and @argrove ,-..</ found that the 'nternet still lagged behind traditional media as a news source. There are signs, however, that the 'nternet is growing as a news source. -..9 survey by the #ew Research 4enter for #eople and the #ress found that the 'nternet was named as the source of most national and international news by :. percent of respondents while newspapers were named by <; percent. Television was still the number one source, named by 8. percent of respondents. 'n addition, the same survey found that among people aged 39"-7, the 'nternet and television were tied as the number one source for news. Trust in all media seems to declining. -..9 #ew 4enter survey disclosed that only -; percent of respondents reported that the they believed all or most of the broadcast network news programs, compared to about <. percent in 3779. bout the same number said they believed the cable news networks and about -- percent believed all or most of what they read in their daily newspaper, both numbers also down from 3779. *nline news sources were perceived as less credible with fewer than 3; percent rating online sources as believable. 3%nctions and )ses lthough a definitive list of uses and gratifications has yet to be designed, some preliminary results show a few general trends. t the risk of oversimplifying, the main functions seem to be ,3/ information, ,-/ communication, ,</ entertainment, and ,:/ affiliation.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age -7

The primary use seems to be information gathering. #ew 4enter survey found that more than 9.I of their sample had used the net to find information on some specific topic. Bielsen survey found that about 8;I used the net for informational needs, with most looking for information about products or services. The communication function is best e)emplified by the use of email. bout 7.I of the #ew 4enter survey respondents used the net to send email. The Atanford survey turned up a comparable result ,Bie 0 1rbring, -.../. Aurfing the web and generally e)ploring websites illustrate the entertainment function of the 'nternet. The Atanford survey found that a little more than a third of their respondents surf the web and play games for fun. The #ew 4enter found an even greater percentage: ?9I said they surf the web to be entertained. The last function, affiliation, may be the most interesting. Deorgia Tech study found that :;I of respondents reported that after going on the net they felt more EconnectedF to people like themselves ,EDCH Aurvey,F 3779/. bout <;I of the #ew 4enter respondents reported participating in an online support group. =inally, the fre&uency of 'nternet uses seems to be related to age. Lounger people use the net more for entertainment and sociali6ing, whereas older people use it more for information ,4ortese, 3778/. %ore recent research has e)amined more specific applications that involve the 'nternet. =or e)ample, @wang ,-..;/ analy6ed why college students used instant messaging and found five gratifications: social utility, interpersonal utility, convenience, entertainment and information. Gi ,-..8/ investigated the motivations of bloggers. @e found seven: self" documentation, improving writing, self"e)pression, medium appeal, information, passing time, and sociali6ation. Darret and Dan6iger ,-..9/ e)amined why people surf the 'nternet while at work. 4ontrary to many e)planations, they found that workplace 'nternet surfing was not caused by disaffection with work or by stress. They concluded the 'nternet use at work was motivated by the same set of gratifications that operated elsewhere. $ocial and Psycholo+ical Effects #hase < research is still evolving, but e)isting studies provide some early guidance. *ne potential harmful effect has been labeled E'nternet addictionF ,Loung, 5., 3779/. This condition is typified by a psychological dependence on the 'nternet that causes people to turn into Eonline" aholicsF who ignore family, work, and friends as they devote most of their time to surfing the net. Loung estimated that perhaps ; million people may be addicted. Aurveys have shown that middle"aged women, the unemployed, and newcomers to the net are most at risk ,@urley, 3778/. Atudents are also susceptible. *ne study reported that one in three students knew someone whose grades had suffered because of heavy net use. nother found a positive correlation between high 'nternet use and dropout rate ,Loung, J., 3779/. GaRose, Gin, and 1astin, %. ,-..</ used +andura>s theory of self"regulation to determine that many forms of 'nternet addiction were related to feelings of depression. %ore recently, 5im and @aradakis ,-..9/ noted that some forms of 'nternet addiction were more serious than others and suggested that future research be aimed at identifying those factors that were related to the most in$urious form of addiction.
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <.

3779 study done at 4arnegie %ellon Hniversity raised some interesting &uestions about the relationship between 'nternet use and feelings of depression and loneliness ,@armon, 3779/. Aomewhat une)pectedly, a -"year panel study of 3?7 individuals found that 'nternet use appeared to cause a decline in psychological well"being. 1ven though most panel members were fre&uent visitors to chat rooms and used email heavily, their feelings of loneliness increased as they reported a decline in their amount of interaction with family members and friends. The researchers hypothesi6ed that online communication does not provide the kind of support obtained from conventional face"to"face communication. These findings were reinforced by the results of the Atanford survey. Bie and 1rbring ,-.../ reported that heavy 'nternet users spent less time talking to family and friends over the phone and spent less time with family and friends in person. *n the other hand, the #ew survey found the opposite. Their results suggested that 'nternet use actually sustained and strengthened social and family ties. Aubse&uent studies have suggested a Erich get richerF effect. #eople who are outgoing and e)troverted use the 'nternet to link up with friends and family and increase their social contacts. Those who are more introverted tended to shy away from online social contacts ,5raut, 5iesler, +onera, 4ummings, @egelson, 0 4rawford, -..-/. %ore recent research has noted that the concept of loneliness is actually multidimensional and 'nternet use should take into account the personalities of those who use the 'nternet as well as their reasons for going online. %u and Ramire6 ,-..?/, for e)ample, found no relationship between using the use the 'nternet for social purposes and loneliness but did discover a negative connection between 'nternet use and perceived social skills. Gastly, as more people throughout the world gain access to the 'nternet, much recent research has taken a cross"national and cross"cultural focus. =or e)ample, 4heong ,-..8/ found gender differences in 'nternet use in Aingapore while Jhou ,-..9/ studied the adoption of the 'nternet by 4hinese $ournalists. Rasanen ,-..9/ discovered that 'nternet usage in the Bordic countries was related to national and cultural differences and Droshek ,-..7/ found that 'nternet diffusion was positively related to more democratic regimes. )sin+ the -nternet Aome helpful websites for more information about media effects research include: 3. www!pewinternet!org The #ew 'nternet 0 merican Gife #ro$ect creates and funds original, academic"&uality research that e)plores the impact of the 'nternet on children, families, communities, the workplace, schools, health care, and civicPpolitical life. This is a good source for current data on 'nternet usage. -. http:11www!a#er!ac!u+1media1)ocuments1short1cultiv!html contains a helpful overview of cultivation analysis and it s methods. <. www!surgeongeneral!gov1li#rar%1%outhviolence1chapter21sec3!html will take you to the Aurgeon Deneral>s Report on Louth Ciolence. ppendi) :+ is entitled ECiolence in the %edia and 'ts 1ffect on Louth Ciolence,F and it contains a readable and succinct summari6ation of the TC violence literature. :. http:114immer!csufresno!edu156ohnca1spch37718*2*uses!htm! This site contains an e)tended discussion of the uses and gratifications approach.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <3

=or additional information on these and related topics, see www!wimmerdominic+!com! References and $%++ested Readin+s lbarran, ., 0 Dimmick, J. ,377</. n assessment of utility and competition superiority in the video entertainment industries. 9ournal of Media Economics, ?,-/, :;2;3. llen, %., D> lessio, D., 0 +re6gel, 5. ,377;/. metaanalysis summari6ing the effects of pornography ''. :uman $ommunication Research, --,-/, -;92-9<. llen, %., 1mmers, T., Debhardt, G., 0 Deiry, %. ,377;/. #ornography and acceptance of rape myths. 9ournal of $ommunication, :;,-/, ;2-8. nderson 4. ,-..:/ n update on the effects of playing violent video games. 9ournal of Adolescence ;8, 33<23--. nderson, 4., +erkowit6, G., Donnerstein, 1, @uesmann, G., Johnson, J., Gin6, D., %alamuth, B!, 0 Wartella, 1. ,-..</. The influence of media violence on youth. <s%chological cience in the <u#lic Interest, :,</, 932333. nderson 4. 0 +ushman +. ,-..3/. 1ffects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition,aggressive affect, physiological arousal and prosocial behavior: meta" analysis. <s%cholog% and cience 3-, <;<2<;7 nderson, 4., 0 Dill, 5. 1. ,-.../. Cideo games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. 9ournal of <ersonalit% = ocial <s%cholog%, 89,:/, 88-2873. ndsager, J. G. ,-.../. @ow interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 88,</, ;882;7-. ndsager, J. G., 0 #owers, . ,3777/. Aocial or economic concerns: @ow news and women>s maga6ines framed breast cancer in the 377.s. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 8?,</, ;<32;;.. +abrow, . J. ,3797/. n e)pectancy"value analysis of the student soap opera audience. $ommunication Research, 3?, 3;;2389. +andura, . ,3788/. ocial learning theor%! 1nglewood 4liffs, BJ: #rentice"@all. +aran, A. +., 4hase, G., 0 4ourtright, J. ,3787/. Television drama as a facilitator of prosocial behavior. 9ournal of ?roadcasting, -<,</, -882-9:. +ear, . ,379:/. The myth of television violence. Media Information Australia, <<, ;23.. +ehr, R., 0 'yengar, A. ,379;/. TC news, real"world clues and changes in the public agenda. <u#lic @pinion >uarterl%, :7,3/, <92;8. +elson, W. ,3789/. Television violence and the adolescent #o%! @ampshire, 1ngland: Aa)on @ouse. +erelson, +. ,37:7/. What missing the newspaper means. 'n #. Ga6arsfeld 0 =. Atanton ,1ds./, $ommunication research, 392AB29! Bew Lork: @arper 0 Row. +erkowit6, G., 0 Rogers, 5. @. ,379?/. priming effect analysis of media influences. 'n J. +ryant 0 D. Jillmann ,1ds./, <erspectives on media effects ,pp. ;829-/. @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. +iland6ic, @. 0 +usselle, R. ,-..9/. Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre"consistent attitudes and estimates! 9ournal of $ommunication CA ,</, ;.9";-7. +oyle, T. #. ,-..3/. 'ntermedia agenda setting in the 377? presidential election. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 89,3/, -?2::.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <-

+rand, J., 0 Dreenberg, +. ,377:/. 4ommercials in the classroom. 9ournal of Advertising Research, <:,3/, 392-8. +rosius, @. +., 0 5epplinger, @. %. ,377./. The agendasetting function of TC news. $ommunication Research, 38,-/, 39<2-33. +rosius, @. +., 0 5epplinger, @. %. ,377-/. Ginear and non"linear models of agenda setting in television. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, <?,3/, ;2-:. +ryant, J., 0 Thompson, A. ,-..-/. "undamentals of media effects. Bew Lork: %cDraw"@ill. +ryant, J., 0 Jillmann, D. ,379:/. Hsing television to alleviate boredom and stress. 9ournal of ?roadcasting, -9,3/, 32-.. +ryant, J., 0 Jillmann, D. ,1ds./. ,377:/. Media effects! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. 4+A +roadcast Droup. ,378:/. "at Al#ert and the $os#% +ids! Bew Lork: 4+A *ffice of Aocial Research. 4haffee, A. ,379:/. Defending the indefensible. ociet%, -3,?/, <.2<;. 4heong, #. ,-..8/. Dender and perceived 'nternet efficacy. /omen,s tudies in $ommunication, D7 ,-/, -.;"--9. 4ohen, +. ,37?</. The press, the pu#lic and foreign polic%! #rinceton, BJ: #rinceton Hniversity #ress. 4ommission on *bscenity and #ornography. ,378./. The report of the commission on o#scenit% and pornograph%! Washington, D4: H.A. Dovernment #rinting *ffice. 4omstock, D. ,-..9/. sociological perspective on television violence and aggression. American ?ehavioral cientist, C3 ,9/, 339:"3-33, 4omstock, D., 4haffee, A., 0 5at6man, B. ,3789/. Television and human #ehavior! Bew Lork: 4olumbia Hniversity #ress. 4omstock, D., 0 #aik, @. ,3773/. Television and the American child! Bew Lork: cademic #ress. 4ondry, J. ,3797/. The ps%cholog% of television! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. 4ook, T., 5end6ierski, D., 0 Thomas, A. ,379</. The implicit assumptions of television research. <u#lic @pinion >uarterl%, :8,-/, 3?32-.3. 4ortese, . ,3778, %ay ;/. census in cyberspace. ?usiness /ee+, <;-;, 9:29;. 4yberAtats, Apring R79. ,3779/. vailable at www!mediamar+!com1pages1cs D> ngelo, #. 0 Gombard, %. ,-..9/. The power of the press: the effects of press frames in political campaign news on media perception! Atlantic 9ournal of $ommunication 3E, ,3/, 3" <-. De+ock, @. ,379./. Dratification frustration during a newspaper strike and a TC blackout. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ;8,3/, ?32??. De=leur, %., 0 De=leur, G. ,37?8/. The relative contribution of television as a learning source for children>s occupational knowledge. American ociological Review, <-, 8882897. Diefenbach, D. G., 0 West, %. D. ,-..3/. Ciolent crime and #oisson regression: measure and a method for cultivation analysis. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, :;,</, :<-2::;. Diefenbach, D. 0 West, %. ,-..8/. Television and attitudes toward mental health issues. 9ournal of $ommunit% <s%cholog% DC ,-/, 393"37;.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <<

Donnerstein, 1., Gin6, D., 0 #enrod, A. ,3798/. The &uestion of pornography: Research findings and policy implications. Bew Lork: =ree #ress. Dunn, A. ,-..7/. 4andidate and media agenda setting in the -..; Cirginia gubernatorial election. 9ournal of $ommunication, C9, ,</, ?<;"?;-. Dyrli, *. 1. ,3779/. 'nternet stats making news. Technolog% = Fearning, 39,7/, ?.. 1yal, 4., Winter, J., 0 DeDeorge, W. ,3793/. The concept of time frame in agenda setting. 'n D. Wilhoit 0 @. de+ock ,1ds./, Mass communication review %ear#oo+ ,Col. ''/. +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. =erguson, 4. ,-..8/. The good, the bad and the ugly: meta"analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. <s%chiatric >uarterl%, 8A ,:/, <.72<3?. =erguson, D., 0 #erse, 1. ,-.../. The world wide web as a functional alternative to television. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, ::,-/, 3;;238?. =inn, A. ,3778/. *rigins of media e)posure. $ommunication Research, -:,;/, ;.82;-7. =lanagin, . J., 0 %et6ger, %. J. ,-.../. #erceptions of 'nternet information credibility. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 88,</, ;3;2;:.. =orge, 5. G., 0 #hemister, A. ,3798/. The effect of prosocial cartoons on preschool children. $hild tud% 9ournal, 38,-/, 9<29?. =riedlander, +. ,377</. 4ommunity violence, children>s development and mass media. <s%chiatr%, ;?,3/, ??293. =unk, J. +., 0 +uchman, D. D. ,377?/. #laying violent video and computer games and adolescent self concept. 9ournal of $ommunication, :?,-/, 372<-. Darrett, R. 0 Dan6iger, J. ,-..9/. Dratification and disaffection: Hnderstanding persocal 'nternet use at work. #aper presented to the 'nternational 4ommunication ssociation. Derbner, D., 0 Dross, G. ,378?/. Giving with television: The violence profile. 9ournal of $ommunication, -?,-/, 38<2387. Derbner, D., Dross, G., 1leey, %. =., Jackson"+eeck, %., Jeffries"=o), A., 0 Aignorielli, B. ,3788/. TC violence profile no. 9. 9ournal of $ommunication, -8,-/, 383239.. Derbner, D., Dross, G., Jackson"+eeck, %., Jeffries"=o), A., 0 Aignorielli, B. ,378?/. 4ultural indicators: Ciolence profile no. 7. 9ournal of $ommunication, -9,</, 38?2-.8. Derbner, D., Dross, G., %organ, %., 0 Aignorielli, B. ,379?/. Giving with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. 'n J. +ryant 0 D. Jillmann ,1ds./, <erspectives on media effects ,pp. 382:./. @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Derson, W. ,37??/. %ass media sociali6ation behavior: Begro"white differences. ocial "orces, :;, :.2;.. Dhanem, A. ,3778/. =illing in the tapestry. The second level of agenda setting. 'n %. %c4ombs, D. Ahaw, 0 D. Weaver ,1ds./, $ommunication and democrac% ,pp. <23;/. %ahwah, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Dormley, W. ,378;/. Bewspaper agendas and political elites. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ;-,-/, <.:2 <.9. Droshek, J. ,-..7/. The democratic effects of the 'nternet, 377:"-..<. International $ommunication Ga4ette, 83,</, 33;"3<?. Dross, G., 0 %organ, %. ,379;/. Television and enculturation. 'n J. Dominick 0 J. =letcher ,1ds./, ?roadcasting research methods! +oston: llyn 0 +acon.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <:

DCH>s Binth 'nternet Aurvey. ,3779/. vailable at www!cc!gatech!edu1gvu @aridakis, #. 0 @anson, D. ,-..7/. Aocial interaction and co"viewing with LouTube: +lending mass communication reception and social connection. 9ournal of ?roadcasting = Electronic Media, CD,-/, <38"<<;. @armon, . ,3779, ugust <./. 'nternet increases loneliness, researchers find. Atlanta 9ournal* $onstitution, Aection , p. 39. @awkins, R., 0 #ingree, A. ,3793/. Hsing television to construct social reality. 9ournal of ?roadcasting, -;,:/, <:82<?:. @eeter, 4., +rown, B., Aoffin, A., Atanley, 4., 0 Aalwen, %. ,3797/. genda"setting by electronic te)t news. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ??,3/, 3.323.?. @eller, %., 0 #olsky, A. ,378?/. tudies in violence and television! Bew Lork: merican +roadcasting 4ompany. @er6og, @. ,37::/. What do we really know about daytime serial listenersM 'n #. Ga6arsfeld 0 =. Atanton ,1ds./, Radio research, 37:-2:<. Bew Lork: Duell, Aloan 0 #earce. @etsroni, . 0 Tukachimski, R. ,-..?/. Television"world estimates, real"world estimates and television viewing. 9ournal of $ommunication CE ,3/, 3<<"3;?. @ilker, . ,378?, Bovember 3./. genda"setting influence in an off"year election. A-<A Research ?ulletin, pp. 823.. @irsch, #. ,379./. The Escary worldF of the non"viewer and other anomalies. $ommunication Research, 8, :.<2:;?. @ogben, @. ,3779/. =actors moderating the effect of televised aggression on viewer behavior. $ommunication Research, -;,-/, --.2-:8. @uesmann, G. R., 0 1ron, G. D. ,379?/. Television and the aggressive child: A cross*national comparison! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. @uesmann, G. R., %oise"Titus, J., #adolski, 4., 0 1ron, G. ,-..</. Gongitudinal relations between children>s e)posure to TC violence and violent behavior in young adulthood. )evelopmental <s%cholog%, <7,-/, -.32---. @ughes, %. ,379./. The fruits of cultivation analysis: re"e)amination of some effects of television viewing. <u#lic @pinion >uarterl%, ::,</, -982<.-. @unter, 4. D. ,3778/. The uses and gratifications of #ro$ect gora. vailable at www!asc!upenn!edu1 usr1hunter1agoraGuses @urley, %. ,3778, Aeptember 3/: +ut can it lead to the harder stuffM U! ! -ews and /orld Report, 3-<,9/, 3-. @wang, @. ,-..;/. #redictors of instant messaging use: Dratifications sought, gratifications obtained, and social presence. #aper presented to the 'nternational 4ommunication ssociation. 'nternet drawing more women for research, purchases. ,3779/. Media Report to /omen, -?,3/, :. 'sler, G., #opper, 1. T., 0 Ward, A. ,3798/. 4hildren>s purchase re&uests and parental response. 9ournal of Advertising Research, -8,;/, -92<7. 'yengar, A., 0 Aimon, . ,377</. Bews coverage of the Dulf crisis and public opinion. $ommunication Research, -.,</, -?;2-9<. Jeffres, G., Beuendorf, 5., +racken, 4., 0 tkin, D. ,-..9/. 'ntegrating theoretical traditions in media effects! Mass $ommunication and ociet% 33,:/, :8.":73.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <;

Johnson, J., 4ohen, #., Amailes, 1., 5agen, A., 0 +rook, J. ,-..-/. Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. cience, -7;,;;?:/, -:?92-:8-. Johnson, J., Jackson, J., 0 Datto, G. ,377;/. Ciolent attitudes and deferred academic aspirations. ?asic and Applied ocial <s%cholog%, 3?,3P-/, -82:3. Johnson, T. J., 0 5aye, +. 5. ,3779/. 4ruising is believingM: 4omparing 'nternet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 8;,-/, <-;2<:.. Jorg, %. ,-..9/. Beed for orientation as a predictor of agenda"setting effects. International 9ournal of <u#lic @pinion Research ;7 ,:/, ::.":;<. 5amhawi, R., 0 Weaver, D. ,-..-/. %ass communication research trends from 379. to 3777. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 9.,3/, 82-8. 5im, J. 0 @aradakis, #. ,-..9/. The role of 'nternet user characteristics and motives in e)plaining three dimensions of 'nternet addiction. #aper presented to the 'nternational 4ommunication ssociation 5iousis, A. 0 Ahields, . ,-..9/. 'nter"candidate agenda setting in presidential elections. <u#lic Relations Review, D2, ,:/, <-;"<<.. 5lapper, J. ,37?./. The effects of mass communication! Dlencoe, 'G: =ree #ress. 5raut, R., 5iesler, A., +onera, +., 4ummings, J., @egelson, C., 0 4rawford, . ,-..-/. 'nternet parado) revisited. 9ournal of ocial Issues, ;9,3/, :728;. 5rcmar, %. ,3779/. The contribution of family communication patterns to children>s interpretations of television violence. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, :-,-/, -;.2-?:. 5u, D., 5aid, G., 0 #fau, %. ,-..</. The impact of web campaigning on traditional news media and public information processing. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 9.,</, ;-92;:9. Gang, 5., 0 Gang, D. ,37??/. The mass media and voting. 'n +. +erelson 0 %. Janowit6 ,1ds./, Reader in pu#lic opinion and communication! Bew Lork: =ree #ress. Garson, 4. H. ,377:/. <ersuasion ,8th ed./. +elmont, 4 : Wadsworth. GaRose, R., Gin, 4. 0 1astin, %. ,-..</. Hnregulated 'nternet usage: ddiction, habit, or deficient self"regulation. Media <s%cholog% C,</, --;"-;<. Gefkowit6, %., 1ron, G., Waldner, G., 0 @uesmann, G. ,378-/. Television violence and child aggression. 'n D. 4omstock 0 1. Rubinstein ,1ds./, Television and social #ehavior: (ol! III! Television and adolescent aggressiveness! Washington, D4: H.A. Dovernment #rinting *ffice. Gevy, %., 0 Windahl, A. ,379:/. udience activity and gratifications. $ommunication Research, 33, ;3289. Gi, D. ,-..8/. Why do you blogM #aper presented to the 'nternational 4ommunication ssociation. Giebert, R., 0 +aron, R. ,378-/. Ahort"term effects of televised aggression on children>s aggressive behavior. 'n J. %urray, 1. Rubinstein, 0 D. 4omstock ,1ds./, Television and social #ehavior: (ol! II! Television and social learning! Washington, D4: H.A. Dovernment #rinting *ffice. Giebert, R. %., 0 Aprafkin, J. ,377-/. The earl% window ,<rd ed./. Bew Lork: #ergamon #ress.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <?

Gin, 4. ,377</. %odeling the gratification"seeking process of television viewing. :uman $ommunication Research, -.,-/, --:2-::. Gin, S. ,-..9/. %oderation of media issue salience: Retesting the agenda"setting effect within the elaboration likelihood model. #aper presented to the 'nternational 4ommunication ssociation. Gindstrom, #. ,3778/. The 'nternet: Bielsen>s longitudinal research on behavioral changes in use of this counter intuitive medium. 9ournal of Media Economics, 3.,-/, <;2:.. Gin6, D., Donnerstein, D., 0 #enrod, A. ,379:/. The effects of multiple e)posure to film violence against women. 9ournal of $ommunication, <:,</, 3<.23:8. Gippmann, W. ,37--/. <u#lic opinion! Bew Lork: %acmillan. ,reprint, 37?;/. Bew Lork: =ree #ress. Gipshult6, J. ,-..8/. =raming terror. Electronic -ews 3 ,3/, -3"<;. Go, C., 0 Weir, R. ,-..-/. Third person effect, gender, and pornography on the 'nternet! 9ournal of ?roadcasting = Electronic Media, :?,3/, 3<2<:. %anheim, J. +. ,3798/. model of agenda dynamics. 'n %. G. %cGaughlin ,1d./, $ommunication %ear#oo+ ,Col. 3., pp. :772;3?/. +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. %c4ombs, %. ,3793/. The agenda setting approach. 'n D. Bimmo 0 5. Aanders ,1ds./, :and#oo+ of political communication! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. %c4ombs, %. ,377:/. Bews influence on our pictures of the world. 'n J. +ryant and D. Jillmann ,1ds./, Media Effects! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. %c4ombs, %., 0 Ahaw, D. ,378-/. The agenda"setting function of mass media. <u#lic @pinion >uarterl%, <?,-/, 38?2398. %cGeod, J., tkin, 4., 0 4haffee, A. ,378-/. dolescents, parents and television use. 'n D. 4omstock 0 1. Rubinstein ,1ds./, Television and social #ehavior: (ol! III! Television and adolescent aggressiveness! Washington, D4: H.A. Dovernment #rinting *ffice. %cGeod, J., 0 +ecker, G. ,3793/. The uses and gratifications approach. 'n D. Bimmo 0 5. Aanders ,1ds./, :and#oo+ of political communication! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. %cGeod, J., +ecker, G., 0 +yrnes, J. ,378:/. nother look at the agenda setting function of the press. $ommunication Research, 3,-/, 3<323??. %ilavsky, J., 5essler, R., Atipp, @., 0 Rubens, W. ,379</. Television and aggression! Bew Lork: cademic #ress. %ilgram, A., 0 Ahotland, R. ,378</. Television and antisocial #ehavior! Bew Lork: cademic #ress. %inton, J. ,378;/. The impact of EAesame AtreetF on readiness. ociolog% of Education, :9,-/, 3:323;;. %ontgomery, 5. ,377;/. <rosocial #ehavior in films! Hnpublished master>s thesis, Hniversity of Deorgia. %organ, %., 0 Ahanahan, J. ,3778/. Two decades of cultivation research. 'n +. R. +urleson ,1d./, $ommunication %ear#oo+ ;7 ,pp. 32:8/. Thousand *aks, 4 : Aage #ublications. %u, @. 0 Ramire6, . ,-..?/. Who, how, and with whom: n e)ploration of social 'nternet use and loneliness. . #aper presented to the 'nternational 4ommunication ssociation. %ueller, 4., Donnerstein, 1., 0 @allam, J. ,379</. Ciolent films and prosocial behavior. <ersonalit% and ocial <s%cholog% ?ulletin, 7, 39<2397.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <8

%ullins, 1. ,3788/. genda setting and the younger voter. 'n D. Ahaw 0 %. %c4ombs ,1ds./, The emergence of American political issues! At. #aul, %B: West. %urray, J. ,379:/. soft response to hard attacks on research. Media Information Australia, ,<</, 3323?. Babi, R. ,-..7/. 4osmetic surgery makeover programs and intentions to undergo cosmetic enhancements. $ommunication Research DC ,3/, 3"-8. Babi, R. 0 Riddle 5. ,-..9/. #ersonality traits, television viewing and the cultivation effect. 9ournal of ?roadcasting = Electronic Media C; ,</, <-8"<:9. Bathanson, . '. ,3777/. 'dentifying and e)plaining the relationship between parental mediation and children>s aggression. $ommunication Research, -?,-/, 3-:23:<. Bathanson, . '. ,-..3/. #arents vs. peer. $ommunication Research, -9,</, -;32-8:. Bational 'nstitute of %ental @ealth. ,379-/. Television and #ehavior: Ten %ears of scientific progress and implications for the 39A7s! Washington, D4: H.A. Dovernment #rinting *ffice. Bewhagen, J., 0 Gewenstein, %. ,377-/. 4ultivation and e)posure to television following the 3797 Goma #rieta earth&uake. Mass $ommunication Review, 37,3P-/, :72;?. Bewport, =., 0 Aaad, G. ,3779, JulyP ugust/. matter of trust. American 9ournalism Review, -.,?/, <.2<<. Bie, B. @., 0 1rbring, G. ,-.../. Internet and societ%: A preliminar% report! #alo lto, 4 : Atanford 'nstitute for the Kuantitative Atudy of Aociety. *>5eefe, D. J., 0 Reid"Bash, 5. ,3798/. 4rime news and real world blues. $ommunication Research, 3:,-/, 3:823?<. #aik, @., 0 4omstock, D. ,377:/. The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: meta"analysis. $ommunication Research, -3,:/, ;3?2;:?. #almgreen, #. ,379:/. Hses and gratifications: theoretical perspective. 'n R. +ostrom ,1d./, $ommunication %ear#oo+ A! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. #almgreen, #., 0 Gawrence, #. . ,3773/. voidances, gratifications and consumption of theatrical films. 'n +. . ustin ,1d./, $urrent research in film, (ol! C ,pp. <72;;/. Borwood, BJ: ble). #apacharissi, J., 0 Rubin, . ,-.../. #redictors of 'nternet use. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, ::,-/, 38;237?. #arke, R., +erkowit6, G., 0 Geyens, J. ,3788/. Aome effects of violent and nonviolent movies on the behavior of $uvenile delin&uents. Advances in E.perimental ocial <s%cholog%, 3?, 3<;2 38-. #atterson, T., 0 %c4lure, R. ,378?/. The unseeing e%e! Bew Lork: D. #. #utnam>s.#ew 'nternet and merican Gife #ro$ect, ,-..</. The ever"shifting 'nternet population. vailable at www!pewinternet!org1<<"1r1AA1reportGdispla%1asp! ccessed pril 3?, -..<. #eter, J. 0 Calkenburg, #. ,-..9/ dolescents> e)posure to se)ually e)plicit 'nternet material, se)ual uncertainty and uncommitted se)ual e)ploration. $ommunication Research DCH;/, ;87"?.3. #orter, D. ,3778/. Internet culture! Bew Lork: Routledge. #orter, W. 4., 0 Atephens, =. ,3797/. 1stimating readability: study of Htah editors> abilities. -ewspaper Research 9ournal, 3.,-/, 9827?. #otter, W. J. ,379?/. #erceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, <.,-/, 3;7238:.
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <9

#otter, W. J. ,3799/. Three strategies for elaborating the cultivation hypothesis. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ?;,:/, 7<.27<7. #otter, W. J. ,3773a/. The linearity assumption in cultivation research. :uman $ommunication Research, 38,:/, ;?-2;9<. #otter, W. J. ,3773b/. 1)amining cultivation from a psychological perspective. $ommunication Research, 39,3/, 8823.-. #otter, W. J. ,377</. 4ultivation theory and research. :uman $ommunication Research, 37,:/, ;?:2?.3. #otter, W. J., 0 4hang, '. 4. ,377./. Television e)posure and the cultivation hypothesis. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, <:,</, <3<2<<<. Kuick, +. ,-..7/. The effects of viewing Drey>s natomy on perceptions of doctors and patient satisfaction. 9ournal of ?roadcasting = Electronic Media, CD,3/, <9";;. Raacke, J. 0 +onds"Raacke, J. ,-..9/. %yApace and =acebook: applying the uses and gratifications theory to e)ploring friend"networking sites. ! $%#er<s%cholog% = ?ehavior, 33 ,-/, 3?7"38:, Raman, #. 0 @arwood, J. ,-..9/. ccultuartion of sian"'ndian so$ourners in merica. outhern $ommunication 9ournal 8D ,:/, -7;"<33. Ramire6, ., Dimmick, J., =easter, J., 0 Gin ,-..9/. Revisiting interpersonal media competition: The gratification niches of instant messaging, e"mail, and the telephone. ! $ommunication Research, <C ,:/, ;-7";:8 Rasanen, #. ,-..9/. The persistence of information structures in Bordic countries. Information ociet%, ;2,:/, -37"--9. Reese, A. D. ,377./. Aetting the media>s agenda. 'n J. nderson ,1d./, $ommunication %ear#oo+, -o! 32! Bewbury #ark, 4 : Aage #ublications. Roberts, D., 0 +achen, 4. ,3793/. %ass communication effects. 'n %. Rosen6weig 0 G. #orter ,1ds./, The uses of mass communication! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. Robertson, T. A., Ward, A., Datignon, @., 0 5lees, D. %. ,3797/. dvertising and children: cross"cultural study. $ommunication Research, 3?,:/, :;72:9;. Roe, 5., 0 Candebosch, @. ,377?/. Weather to view or not. European 9ournal of $ommunication, 33,-/, -.32-3?. Rosengren, 5. 1. ,378:/. Hses and gratifications: paradigm outlined. 'n J. D. +lumler 0 1. 5at6 ,1ds./, The uses of mass communication! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. Rosenthal, R. ,379?/. %edia violence, antisocial behavior, and the social conse&uences of small effects. 9ournal of ocial Issues, :-,</, 3:323;:. Rubin, . ,3787/. Television use by children and adolescents. :uman $ommunication Research, ;,-/, 3.723-.. Rubin, . ,379;/. Hses and gratifications. 'n J. Dominick and J. =letcher ,1ds./, ?roadcasting Research Methods! +oston: llyn and +acon. Rubin, . %. ,377:/. %edia uses and effects. 'n J. +ryant 0 D. Jillmann ,1ds./, Media effects! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Rubin, . %., #erse, 1. %., 0 Taylor, D. A. ,3799/. methodological e)amination of cultivation. $ommunication Research, 3;,-/, 3.823<?.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age <7

Rubin, . R., 0 +ant6, 4. R. ,3797/. Hses and gratifications of videocassette recorders. 'n J. G. Aalvaggio 0 J. +ryant ,1ds./, Media use in the information age! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Ruggiero, T. ,-.../. Hses and gratifications theory in the -3st century. Mass $ommunication and ociet%, <,3/, <2<9. Aalwen, %. +. ,3799/. 1ffect of accumulation of coverage on issue salience in agenda setting. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ?;,3/, 3..23.?. Aander, '. ,3778/. @ow violent is TC violenceM European 9ournal of $ommunication, 3-,3/, :<2 79. Achramm, W., Gyle, J., 0 #arker, 1. ,37?3/. Television in the lives of our children! Atanford, 4 : Atanford Hniversity #ress. Ahanahan, J., 0 %organ, %. ,3777/. Television and its viewers! 4ambridge, BL: 4ambridge Hniversity #ress. Ahanahan, J., %organ, %., 0 Atenb$erre, %. ,3778/. Dreen or brownM Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, :3,</, <.;2<-<. Ahao, D. ,-..7/. Hnderstanding the appeal of user"generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research, 39 ,3/, 8"-;. Aherry, J. G. ,-..3/. The effects of violent video games on aggression. :uman $ommunication Research, -8,</, :.72:<3. Aherry J. ,-..8/ Ciolent video games and aggression: Why can>t we find linksM 'n #reiss R., Dayle +., +urrell B., llen %., +ryant J., Mass Media Effects Research: Advances Through Meta*anal%sis! %ahwah, BJ, G. 1rlbaum, pp -<32-:9. Ahrum, G. ,377?/. #sychological processes underlying cultivation effects. :uman $ommunication Research, --,:/, :9-2;.7. Ahrum, G. ,-..3/. #rocessing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. :uman $ommunication Research, -8,3/, 7:23-.. Ahrum, G., 0 *>Duinn, T. ,377</. #rocess and effects in the construction of social reality. $ommunication Research, -.,</, :<?2:83. Aiegel, . ,37;9/. The influence of violence in the mass media upon children>s role e)pectations. $hild )evelopment, -7, <;2;?. Aignorielli, B., 0 %organ, %. ,377./. $ultivation anal%sis: -ew directions in media effects research! Bewbury #ark, 4 : Aage #ublications. Ailvern, A., 0 Williamson, #. . ,3798/. The effects of video game play on young children>s aggressive, fantasy and prosocial behavior. 9ournal of Applied )evelopmental <s%cholog%, 9, :;<2:?-. Aparks, D., Belson, 4. G., 0 4ampbell, R. D. ,3778/. The relationship between e)posure to televised messages about paranormal phenomena and paranormal beliefs. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, :3,</, <:;2<;7. Aparks, D., 0 *gles, R. %. ,377./. The difference between fear of victimi6ation and the probability of being victimi6ed. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, <:,</, <;32 <;9. Aprafkin, J., 0 Rubinstein, 1. ,3787/. 4hildren>s television viewing habits and prosocial behavior. 9ournal of ?roadcasting, -<,8/, -?;2-8?.
Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age :.

Atempel, D. @., 0 @argrove, T. ,-..</. Despite gains, 'nternet not ma$or player as news source. -ewspaper Research 9ournal, -;,-/ 33<233?. Atempel, D. @., @argrove, T., 0 +ernt, J. ,-.../. Relation of growth of use of 'nternet to changes in media use from 377; to 3777. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 88,3/, 83287. Atevens, +. ,3779, %ay/. 4lick here. @ff @ur ?ac+s, -9,;/, 927. Aurgeon Deneral>s Acientific dvisory 4ommittee on Television and Aocial +ehavior. ,378-/. Television and social #ehavior! Television and growing up ,summary report/. Washington, D4: H.A. Dovernment #rinting *ffice. Awanson, D. G. ,3798/. Dratification seeking, media e)posure, and audience interpretations. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, <3,</, -<82-;:. Aweetser, 5., Dolan, D. 0 Wanta W. ,-..9/. 'ntermedia agenda setting in television, advertising and blogs during the -..: presidential election. Mass $ommunication and ociet% 33, ,-/ 378"-3?. Tan, . A. ,379?/. Mass communication theories and research ,-nd ed./. 4olumbus, *@: Drid #ublications. Tai, J. ,-..7/. The structure of knowledge and dynamics of scholarly communication in agenda setting research, 377?2-..;. 9ournal of $ommunication, C9,</, :93";3<. Tannenbaum, #., 0 Jillmann, D. ,378;/. 1motional arousal in the facilitation of aggression through communication. 'n G. +erkowit6 ,1d./, Advances in e.perimental social ps%cholog%! Bew Lork: cademic #ress. Tapper, J. ,377;/. The ecology of cultivation. $ommunication Theor%, ;,3/, <?2;8. Tipton, G., @aney, R., 0 +aseheart, J. ,378;/. %edia agenda setting in city and state election campaigns. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ;-,3/, 3;2--. Turk, J. C., 0 =ranklin, +. ,3798/. 'nformation subsidies: genda setting traditions. <u#lic Relations Review, 3<,:/, -72:3. H.A. Department of @ealth and @uman Aervices. ,-..3/. 'outh (iolence: A Report of the urgeon General! Rockville, %D: H.A. Department of @ealth and @uman Aervices. Calentino, B. ., +uhr, T. ., 0 +eckmann, %. B. ,-..3/. When the frame is the game. 9ournalism and Mass $ommunication >uarterl%, 89,3/, 7<233-. Calkenburg, #., 0 Aoeters, 5. 1. ,-..3/. 4hildren>s positive and negative e)periences with the 'nternet. $ommunication Research, -9,;/: ?;-2?8;. Can den +ulck, J. ,-..</. 's the mainstreaming effect of cultivation an artifact of regression toward the meanM Journal of +roadcasting 0 1lectronic %edia :8,-/, -97"-7;. Can 1vra, J. ,377./. Television and child development! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Wallstein, 5. ,-..8/. genda setting and the blogosphere! Review of <olic% Research ;2, ,?/, ;?8";98. Wanta, W. ,3773/. #residential approval ratings as a variable in the agenda"building process. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ?9,:/, ?8-2?87. Wanta, W. ,3778/. The pu#lic and the national agenda! %ahwah, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Wanta, W., 0 @u, L. ,377:a/. Time"lag differences in the agenda"setting process. International 9ournal of <u#lic @pinion Research, ?,</, --;2-:..

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age :3

Wanta, W., 0 @u, L. ,377:b/. The effects of credibility reliance and e)posure on media agenda setting. 9ournalism >uarterl%, 83,3/, 7.279. Wanta, W., Atephenson, %. ., Turk, J. C., 0 %c4ombs, %. 1. ,3797/. @ow president>s Atate of Hnion talk influenced news media agendas. 9ournalism >uarterl%, ??,</, ;<82;:3. Weaver, . ,3779/. Bet worth. /or+ing /oman, -<,3/, -.. Weaver, D. ,3788/. #olitical issues and voter need for orientation. 'n %. %c4ombs 0 D. Ahaw ,1ds./, The emergence of American political issues! At. #aul, %B: West. Weaver, J., 0 Wakshlag, J. ,379?/. #erceived vulnerability in crime, criminal victimi6ation e)perience, and television viewing. 9ournal of ?roadcasting and Electronic Media, <.,-/, 3:323;9. Wertham, =. ,37;:/. The seduction of the innocent! Bew Lork: @olt, Rinehart 0 Winston. Williams, +., 0 4arpini, %. ,-..:/. %onica and +ill all the time and everywhere: The collapse of gatekeeping and agenda setting in the new media environment. American ?ehavioral cientist, :8,7/, 3-.923-<3. Williams, T. +. ,379?/. The impact of television! Bew Lork: cademic #ress. Williams, W., 0 Aemlak, W. ,3789/. 4ampaign 8?: genda setting during the Bew @ampshire primary. 9ournal of ?roadcasting, --,:/, ;<32;:.. Windahl, A. ,3793/. Hses and gratifications at the crossroads. 'n D. Wilhoit 0 @. de+ock ,1ds./, Mass communication review %ear#oo+! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. Winter, J. ,3793/. 4ontingent conditions in the agenda setting process. 'n D. Wilhoit 0 @. de+ock ,1ds./, Mass communication review %ear#oo+! +everly @ills, 4 : Aage #ublications. Winter, J., 0 1yal, 4. ,3793/. genda setting for the civil rights issue. <u#lic @pinion >uarterl%, :;,</, <8?2<9<. Wurt6el, ., 0 Gometti, D. ,379:/. Researching TC violence. ociet%, -3,?/, --2<.. Lang, @. Ramasubramanian, A. 0 *liver, %. ,-..9/. 4ultivation effects on &uality of life indicators. 9ournal of ?roadcasting = Electronic Media, C;,-/, -:8"-?8 Loung, J. R. ,3779, =ebruary ?/. Atudents are vulnerable to 'nternet addiction, article says. $hronicle of :igher Education, :: ,--/, -;. Loung, 5. A. ,3779/. $aught in the net! Bew Lork: John Wiley. Lun, D., Bah, A., 0 %cGeod, D. ,-..9/. =raming effects of news coverage of the embryonic stem cell controversy! $ommunication Research Reports ;C, ,3":/, <3-"<3;. Jhou, L. ,-..9/. Coluntary adopters vs. forced adopters. -ew Media = ociet%, 37,</, :8;":7?. Jillmann, D., 0 +ryant, J. ,379-/. #ornography, se)ual callousness, and the triviali6ation of rape. 9ournal of $ommunication, <-,:/, 3.2-3. Jillmann, D., 0 +ryant, J. ,3797/. <ornograph%: Research advances and polic% considerations! @illsdale, BJ: Gawrence 1rlbaum. Jillmann, D., @oyt, J., 0 Day, 5. ,3787/. Atrength and duration of the effect of violent and erotic communication on subse&uent aggressive behavior. $ommunication Research, 3, -9?2<.?.

Wimmer 0 Dominick: %edia 1ffects 2 #age :-