Mass Communication Theory

Overview

With roots across a variety of other disciplines, including psychology and sociology, the study of mass communication exists as an interdisciplinary social science with broad applicability. The field and its many theories and models, which have reflected the changes in thought in the various disciplines over the years, have been forced to evolve or reintegrate in the digital age of new media, as a rapidly changing communications landscape is influenced by technological advancements far beyond that which earlier scholars initially conceived. Doing so means revisiting existing theories and developing new ones.

Numerous theories in mass communications exist, each examining the communications process and its components (i.e., encoder, decoder, message, etc.) through the lens of a particular aspect of mass communication, as doing so gives focus to any examination of the many facets that are inherent in this broad and multidisciplinary field. The following provides brief overviews of some of the most prominent mass communication theories and their main points.

Perception theory asserts that people are selective in their perception of messages. This affects the decoding of the intended message as encoded by the sender. Lasorsa (2002) notes that factors that impact the application of this theory could include psychological factors of perception, such as “past experiences and cultural expectations and attitudes” (p. 246). The semantics theory of communication centers on the use of language to communicate, for example, the use of symbols (encoding) that the audience can receive and understand (decode) as intended. Such factors as the availability of words and overgeneralizations (i.e., stereotyping) play a significant role in the encoding and decoding of the message here, according to Lasorsa (2002).

Group dynamics theory argues that it is inevitable that groups will influence norms, given that humans are social beings. When one’s opinion does not fall in line with that of the group, Lasorsa (2002) argues, individuals will become silent, out of fear that voicing their opinion will prompt their expulsion from the group. Diffusion of innovations theory finds that adopting a new idea is an observable process, as ideas spread through a social system in “predictable stages” (Lasorsa, 2002, p. 251). This theory is grounded the idea that people expose themselves to those others, such as opinion leaders. According to Jeffres, Neuendorf, Bracken, and Atkin (2008), this theory delves into whether the awareness and adoption of new innovations is greater on oneself than on others.

Agenda-setting theory asserts that the news media coverage will tend to emphasize some issues while neglecting others, which makes some issues more prominent. To counteract this, media would need to rely on a bottom-up approach in which the important topics or topics of interest derive from the community, which journalists could then make a concerted effort to cover, according to Lasorsa (2002). A related theory, spiral of silence, asserts the notion that the media dictates popular ideas, which causes people who think they have an unpopular position to not speak up to avoid being isolated. This then leads others to fall silent, thereby causing a ripple effect, or spiral of silence. However, as Lasorsa (2002) notes, it is indeed possible to fight the spiral of silence, as new ideas are often unpopular until adopted by the majority.

Knowledge-gap theory argues that, as mass media information increases in a social system, a disproportionate number of individuals with a higher socioeconomic status will acquire the information at a faster rate in comparison to those of lower socioeconomic status, thus increasing the gap of knowledge between the two groups. According to Jeffres et al. (2008), the knowledge gap theory examines whether the size of the gap that occurs between specific populations directly correlates with actual learning. Jeffres (2015) argues that more educated people have more interest in public affairs, which they access more than others through print media because they are more efficient at processing such information, likely due to its increased relevance in their social environments and their “more substantial knowledge for understanding such information” (p. 526).

Values theory assumes that all people have the same broad values, the difference lies in how they prioritize those same values. As a result, showing them inconsistencies in their prioritization of values, creates an opportunity for them to change (Lasorsa, 2002, p. 252). Third-person effect theory asserts that people tend to think that the media affects others more than themselves, which then influences their behavior. Here, argues Lasorsa (2002), there is an inherent assumption that “you” and “I” know better than others, thus “they” must be protected.

Cultivation (and mainstreaming) theory asserts that watching a lot of television results in a cumulative effect of a scarier view of the real world “because the ‘TV world’ is generally a more frightening place than the ‘real world’” (Lasorsa, 2002, p. 254). Specifically, this theory holds that television consistently conveys not only “who is in power” but also, “who is at risk,” with the latter including groups like “women, minorities, older people, and poorer people” (Lasorsa, 2002, p. 254). Jeffres et al. (2008) add that cultivation (and mainstreaming) theory looks at whether people think that other people have more long-term effects on media content than they do.

Media hegemony theory asserts that the ruling social class controls the media; the media perpetuates their ideas, who then use the media to continue control (Lasorsa, 2002). Here, according to Lasorsa (2002), the perception is that journalists and mass media in general exist to continue the status quo; therefore, they work on behalf (as agents) of the agenda of the ruling class. Media/channel dependency theory looks at whether those who do not rely as much on media sources consider themselves to be less influenced by the media compared to those who do rely on the media (Jeffres et al., 2008, p. 474).

Uses and gratification theory notes that the media audience consists of different types of people who need and seek different things, as opposed to “one big monolithic lump” (Lasorsa, 2002, p. 255). This theory examines whether various media affect diversion and personal relationships to the extent to which the media “has provided a specific or gratification” (i.e., influenced a vote, reinforced values, etc.), according to Jeffres et al. (2008, p. 475). Therefore, according to Lasorsa (2002), in order to accurately serve its audience, the media must assess who makes up the media audience, who it uses the media, and what ultimately is the source of its gratification.

Status conferral theory asserts that a mere mention of a person’s name in the press conveys status automatically. As a result, Lasorsa (2002) argues, the media tends to select specific names to mention and not mention others as part of a systematic bias. Two-step flow theory looks at whether opinion leadership has a positive relationship with the size of the third-person effects gap. Also, according to Jeffres et al. (2008), it examines whether people who are more likely to be influenced in the two-step flow model experience an increased likelihood to see a smaller third-person effects gap or a smaller effect from mass media messages than others.

Normative press theory, which serves as an overarching theory with subcategories of theories, varies in breadth and scope from “what is” to what “should be” (Lasorsa, 2002, p. 256). Two examples include the libertarian theory of the press and the authoritarian theory of the press.

Applications

Albarran (1998) suggests that understanding the role of media economics enhances the understanding of mass media and its subsequent role and function in mass communication theory and research (p. 125). In doing so, media economics adds dimensions such as “structure, conduct, and performance of media firms and industries; the interplay of policy, economics, and regulation; and audience behaviors and preferences” (p. 125). But perhaps even more critically, media economics gives evolving mass communication research an interdisciplinary focus since it is rooted in philosophy and sociology, which can enhance burgeoning perspectives in the field. Jeffres et al. (2008) have agreed with Albarran, suggesting that in order to further develop mass communication research and theory, a synthesizing of the existing theories was necessary. Jeffres et al. (2008) even suggest that three of the prominent theories, knowledge gap, agenda-setting, and cultivation are interrelated. As a result, other media theories can be integrated as well in an effort to advance mass communication theory and its accessibility.

In his discussion of technology and communications, Jeffres (2015) argues that, while some of the mass communication theories are discussed (and relationships drawn), there are still some pertinent theories whose relevance have yet to be fully explored. These include models of the public (“trending” stories, Twitter feeds, and “big data” have an influence on public opinion), gatekeeping (the usefulness of Twitter and mobile media with respect to linking people to events, and how they contribute to the messages), third-person effects (how different digital channels impact according to the perception of the public), and message-processing models, such as the elaboration likelihood model (the operation of these models within a multitasking context).

Weimann, Weiss-Blatt, Mengistu, Tregerman, and Oren (2014), however, contend that it is not so much that mass communication theories are not fully realized, but rather that researchers have to contend with the same issues of “power and resistance, and structure and ownership” (p. 804). Such is especially true with respect to agenda-setting theory, which, according to Weimann et al. (2014), has evolved to “become more refined and complex” in light of the technological changes of the digital age, thereby evolving with the changing times (p. 809). Specifically, Weimann and colleagues note that, given the ease of access to online media, it has become increasingly easy for people of similar agendas to find one another all over the world, thereby fulfilling a “need for orientation” (p. 809).

Yet another aspect of evolving mass communication theory and application, media psychology, is also noteworthy in the digital age, according to Vinogradova and Melnik (2013). Media psychology advances the interdisciplinary nature of mass communication, providing opportunities for parallel research in political science, sociology, and psychology, and it describes a person’s behavior, particularly with respect to conditioning as a result of the influence of mass media or media effects (p. 176). This provides budding opportunities for investigation, according to Vinogradova and Melnik (2013), as mass media “perform[s] the functions of influence, support of the social community, informing, enlightening and entertaining, but the most important thing is that they connect people” (p. 179). With an enhanced understanding of people’s behavior through the lens of media psychology, mass communication theory can evolve to “teach a person to adequately comprehend various information, to understand and to realize consequences of its effects on the psyche, to understand manipulation of technologies and to confront ‘screen violence’” (Vinogradova & Melnik, 2013, p. 186).

Viewpoints

According to Jeffres et al. (2008), twentieth-century communication research and theory was primarily tool-based and focused on “finding new variables, specifying definitions, ordering concepts, statements, and linkages” (p. 472). Such theories relied on “larger systems models” with broader applicability, especially in relation to sociology and psychology. As a result, according to Jeffres et al. (2008), “ideological differences and cultural conflicts” negatively impacted both the development of “branded” or prominent theories and the integration of new ones and, instead, created a breeding ground for “custom” theories, with the intent to advance theorists’ individual goals (p. 472).

Given the constant flux and past complications that have hindered the integration of existing mass communication theories in the past, Jeffres et al. (2008) contend that in the digital era, the complexities of the media environment is such that it does not give way to realistic assessments on the part of the audience with respect to how the media affects them. As a result, they suggest further research that examines “whether people differentiate between what they view as serious risks from media exposure and those that are seen as inconsequential,” which Jeffres et al. (2008) assert may be obtained by linking agenda-setting and cultivation theories (p. 488), as a starting point.

With the advent of the internet, and even more so social media, the longstanding boundaries that previously existed between media and interpersonal communication have blurred, if not disappeared altogether, according to Perloff (2015). As a result, Perloff (2015) urges the “bending” of mass communication theory to provide utility in the digital age, especially given these technological changes. Perloff (2015) argues that, although originally defined as the transmittal of a message from a complex organization to a large audience, mass communication in the digital age, and more specifically, the age of social media, now consists of individuals transmitting messages to large groups, who may or may not be anonymous. Despite this, argues Perloff (2015), “mass communications still command large audiences, albeit across different platforms” (p. 535). Ultimately, the classic perspectives that shaped mass communication prior to the technological changes that ushered in the digital age (especially social media) should not be completely abandoned in light of the evolving context of mass media, but rather used as a foundation upon which integration and new approaches can further develop.

Terms & Concepts

Decoder: The individual on the receiving end of the message in the communication process.

Encoder: The individual on the sending end of the message in the communication process.

Media Audience: Individuals or segment of the population that make up the intended recipients of the message communicated.

Mass Media: The term used to define a variety of media technologies used to reach a wide audience in the process of communication.

Message: The information being transmitted from the encoder to the decoder (or audience) in the communication process.

Mass Communication Theory: Any concept that examines the relationship between mass media and its effects.

Bibliography

Albarran, A. B. (1998). Media economics: Research paradigms, issues, and contributions to mass communication theory. Mass Communication & Society, 1(3/4), 117–130. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=7587983&site=ehost-live

Jeffres, L. W. (2015). Mass communication theories in a time of changing technologies. Mass Communication & Society, 18(5), 523–530. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=109420873&site=ehost-live

Jeffres, L., Neuendorf, K., Bracken, C., & Atkin, D. (2008). Integrating theoretical traditions in media effects: Using third-person effects to link agenda-setting and cultivation. Mass Communication & Society, 11(4), 470–491. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=34934140&site=ehost-live

Lasorsa, D. L. (2002). Diversity in mass communication theory courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 57(3), 244–259. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=8957061&site=ehost-live

McQuail, Denis, and Mark Deuze. McQuail's Media and Mass Communication Theory. 7th ed. Sage, 2020.

Perloff, R. M. (2015). Mass communication research at the crossroads: Definitional issues and theoretical directions for mass and political communication scholarship in an age of online media. Mass Communication & Society, 18(5), 531–556. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=109420868&site=ehost-live

Rosenberry, Jack, and Lauren A. Vicker. Applied Mass Communication Theory: A Guide for Media Practitioners. 3rd ed. Routledge, 2022.

Smith, H., Suldovsky, B., & Lindenfeld, L. (2016). Mass communication research in sustainability science: Moving toward an engaged approach to address society’s sustainability dilemma. Mass Communication & Society, 19(5), 548–565. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=117876773&site=ehost-live

Vinogradova, S., & Melnik, G. (2013). Media psychology: A new branch of theory in mass communication—The problem of psychological protection from adverse media impacts. University Faculty of Communication Journal / Istanbul Üniversitesi Iletisim Fakültesi Hakemli Dergisi, 2013(44), 177–187. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cms&AN=113845100&site=ehost-live

Weimann, G., Weiss-Blatt, N., Mengistu, G., Tregerman, M., & Oren, R. (2014). Reevaluating “The end of mass communication?” Mass Communication & Society, 17(6), 803–829. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from EBSCO Online Database Communication & Mass Media Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=99619007&site=ehost-live