Selectivity and the Active Audience

Page 395

Do you remember all the commercials you saw last night? Did you read every status update that every one of your friends posted on Facebook? As we discussed in chapter 6, we make specific choices about which messages we will select and attend to. This selectivity means that audiences are not passive sponges that absorb everything media throws at them. Rather, many communication scholars argue, audiences, even those made up of children, are instead active cognitive processors of information (Huston, Bickham, Lee, & Wright, 2007). Being active does not mean, however, that we critically evaluate the messages we see (although we can certainly do that); it means that we look for cues that tell us whether something on TV (or in other media) is interesting, relevant, or otherwise worth noticing (Valkenburg & Vroone, 2004). It also refers to the idea that different people have different reactions and interpretations of media messages (Morley, 2006). The concepts of selectivity and an active audience suggest that media effects are much more limited than we might otherwise believe.

Uses and Gratifications. Rather than looking at what media do to us, the uses and gratifications perspective focuses on what we do with media—that is, the way we make media choices (uses) in order to satisfy our needs and goals (gratifications) (Blumler & Katz, 1974). We might watch comedies or fantasy to escape our troubles at work, or we might search the Internet for updated information on local tornado warnings. In fact, media are competing with ways to meet our needs—when we are feeling lonely, we can get together with friends or phone a family member. Media are also competing with each other—we can check Facebook, watch a beloved TV character, or tune in to our favorite sports commentator (Dimmick, Chen, & Li, 2004).

Of course, what solves loneliness for you might just be escapism or entertainment for me. It’s all in the individual’s perceptions of the media choices available. For example, studies of gender and video game use find that male college students play for far more hours than do females. Both men and women report that they are motivated to play by the desire to beat the game, but men are more motivated by the value of the game for competition and social interaction with other guys (Lucas & Sherry, 2004). Women presumably prefer other options for social interaction.

When we come to expect that media will serve certain needs, it can lead to media dependence (Ball-Rokeach, 1998). Certainly in times of crisis, such as after the 9/11 attacks or during local emergencies (such as earthquakes, tornadoes, or blizzards), most of us become dependent on media for information and connection to the world. But even without crisis, many people find that they depend on media for specific needs. One national survey found that one-third to one-half of respondents said that they depend on the Internet for in-depth information about health, science, or business issues on a weekly basis (Riffe, Lacy, & Varouhakis, 2008). Another study found that some college students even label themselves “addicted” to television, particularly those who are easily bored and more introverted (McIlwraith, 1998). All of these studies suggest that what the viewer or listener brings to the media experience is important.

Reinforcing Existing Attitudes. One important way in which selectivity limits the effects of media is our tendency to select and evaluate media in a way that confirms our existing views. For example, we often choose our news sources based on whether we anticipate that they will agree with us. In an experimental study of the effects of perceived agreement on news choices, Democrats and liberals preferred CNN and NPR and avoided Fox News, whereas Republicans and conservatives did the opposite (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009).

Increasingly, diverse media outlets make it easier than ever to select and attend to only the entertainment and news messages that already agree with us—political blogs, fan forums, TV and radio analysts, partisan cable and online news. Some critics lament the fact that we can so easily insulate ourselves from opposing views, arguing that it polarizes us as citizens and is unhealthy for democracy (Sunstein, 2007). But the case can also be made that the ability of audiences to self-filter messages is empowering and is at least better than having others (such as professional media editors or the government) do all the filtering for us.

The Third-Person Effect. Another way that selectivity may limit media effects is that we tend to overestimate how much influence media actually have on people. The third-person effect is a well-documented tendency we have to assume that negative media messages and bias have a much greater influence on other people than on ourselves or people we think are like us (Davison, 1983; Sun, Pan, & Shen, 2008). The third-person effect can lead to censorship when we believe it will protect “other” people who we (or our government or religious community) don’t think are able to handle certain media messages. A recent study finds that the effect is particularly strong for social networking—we think others are more influenced by Facebook than we ourselves are (Zhang & Daugherty, 2009). With all media, you need to be aware that you may be overestimating the effect on others or underestimating the effect on yourself (or both).