Hyperdermic Needle

This is a theory in which suggests that the Media somehow 'injects' the audience on what they should belive, how they should act and what their veiws should be portrayed. ( as a syringe injects drugs into the body )

- draws attention to the power of the media producers over its audiences and how they are able to forcefeed infomation/views in which the audience should believe/trust
- It makes audiences seem 'passive' and 'powerless'

Does it influence us ?

Many theorists believed that the increase in violence was a direct result of violet images being shown in cinema through the Hyperdermic Needle theory. One such theorist stated that the new found media was manipulating the mainstream masses and deliberately causing crime and violence for financial gain. Although this argument has been cast aside man times it always returns in modern society when there is a severe outbreak of violence on TV.

Violence

This is not only done through influences of media but also how gaming violence and narrative roles influence how the audience portray things.

here are many things society as a whole and individuals can do to appease or inflame the issue, however each argument has a counter argument and a counter argument will exist for that and so on.

Because it is an issue of such heated debate with no answer or possibility of an answer should we just leave the issue be and choose not to address it further? Or should we make the issue widely known so society is more aware of the role the media can play. Or perhaps we should leave it to the media to publicise that. After all the media does have a strong influence.


History and Orientation

The "hypodermic needle theory" implied mass media had a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behavior change.

The theory suggests that the mass media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly by ‘shooting’ or ‘injecting’ them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response.

(a bullet and a needle)
suggest a powerful and direct flow of information from the sender to the receiver. The bullet theory graphically suggests that the message is a bullet, fired from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head". With similarly emotive imagery the hypodermic needle model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience which is immediately influenced by the message. They express the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the receiver or audience is powerless to resist the impact of the message.

Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (1981). A History of Our Understanding of Mass Communication. In: Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (Eds.). Mass Communication and Everyday Life: A Perspective on Theory and Effects (19-52). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Golden, L.L. & Alpert, M.I. (1987). Comparative Analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of One- and Two-sided Communication for Contrasting Products. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18-25.Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.



Cultivation Theory

Core Assumptions

Cultivation theory in its most basic form, suggests that television is responsible for shaping, or ‘cultivating’ viewers’ conceptions of social reality. The combined effect of massive television exposure by viewers over time subtly shapes the perception of social reality for individuals and, ultimately, for our culture as a whole

They emphazine the effects of televison viewing on the attitudes rather than the behaviour of the viewer. Heavy watching of televison is seen as a cutivating attitude which are more consistent with the world of television programmes than the everyday world.

Boyd-Barrett, Oliver & Peter Braham (Eds.) (1987). Media, Knowledge & Power. London: Croom Helm.Condry, John (1989). The Psychology of Television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dominick, Joseph R. (1990). The Dynamics of Mass Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.Evra, Judith van (1990). Television and Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976a). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172-199.Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976b). The scary world of TV’s heavy viewer. Psychology Today, 10(4), 41-89.