fects argument at http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm. This article was published (as 'Ten things wrong with the "effects model"') in Roger Dickinson, Ramaswani Harindranath & Olga Linné, eds (1998), Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, published by Arnold, London. I have picked the 4 that I find the most important to summarise in my own words and go into more detail about.1. The effects model tackles social problems 'backwards'
Researchers should start with the person who comitted the crime and work backwards, finding out what triggered them, rather than starting with a media text and attempting to create links. Criminologists tend to cite social factors such as poverty, unemployment, housing, and the behaviour of family and peers as reasons for teenage crime rather than media influence.
In a study interviewing 78 violent teenage offenders and then tracing their behaviour back towards media usage, in comparison with a group of over 500 'ordinary' school pupils of the same age - Hagell & Newburn (1994) found that the young offenders watched less television and video
than their counterparts and had no particular interest in violent programmes. The offenders were asked, 'If you had the chance to be someone who appears on television, who would you choose to be?': The response was often that they could not understand why they would want to be a television character, or simply that they could not think of anyone to name.2. The effects model is often based on artificial studies
As a means of saving money, research studies into this area are generally simplified and have artificial elements to them. For example, studies typically take place in a laboratory. Instead of a full and naturally-viewed television diet, research subjects are likely to be shown selected clips which lack the context of the text, showing them gratuitous violence. They may then be observed in simulations of real life presented to them as a 'game,' in relation to inanimate objects such as Bandura's 'bobo' doll, which will not be taken as seriously by children.
Effects studies also assume that the children will not alter their behaviour in response to being interviewed. This has been proven wrong by researchers such as Borden (1975) who have demonstrated that an observer can affect children's behaviour.
3. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence
Violence in media as taken into account by effects studies is almost always in fictitious texts, rather than in real-life examples such as news. 
Violent behaviour in fictional programmes is said to have the greatest effect, even though consequences are often shown, and moral endings are common. The effects debate offers not reason why images shown in the news should not have a similar, or even greater effect. Studies have shown that even children have an inherent ability to tell the difference between real and fictional violence, and have cited that real-life violence has more of an effect on them.
4. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses
Research suggests that while some of society feel that the media may case violent behaviour, almost no-one says they have been affected themselves. Researchers who encounter violent material on a regular basis remain unconcerned for themselves as they believe the effects will
only be on others. This highlights one of the key double standards in the media effects debate, and while it could be argued that the ones we should be looking out for are children and the mentally unstable, the research also suggests that anyone watching a large amount of violent material will be affected and this view seems almost hypocritical when you consider the huge amount of violent or 'controversial' material that a researcher or media theorist consumes. Type of source: Secondary academic
Benefits of source:
- Written by a well-known and respected author
- Acknowledged in more than one book
Limitations of source:
- Very long and quite hard to sift through and summarise
No comments:
Post a Comment