Slides

PsychExchange.co.uk Shared Resource

Description
1. Effectiveness of TV <ul><li>To discuss the effectiveness of TV we will discuss two ways that psychologists have researched this area:…
Categories
Published
of 19
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  • 1. Effectiveness of TV <ul><li>To discuss the effectiveness of TV we will discuss two ways that psychologists have researched this area: </li></ul><ul><li>Television advertising </li></ul><ul><li>Public service broadcasting campaigns </li></ul>
  • 2. Techniques used to persuade: <ul><li>Pleasant associations – products being sold are often teamed with things the audience will automatically feel positive about, such as humour, success and sex. Through classical conditioning, the product may become associated with these things – the audience may be persuaded through the peripheral route (ELM) that they need to buy it. </li></ul><ul><li>Making the message bizarre – many adverts are ‘off the wall’ and totally unconnected to the product they’re advertising. This encourages deep processing of the persuasion message and access the central route of persuasion (ELM) </li></ul>
  • 3. Does TV have a special role? <ul><li>Research has shown that TV can mean many different things to different people (Gauntlett & Hill, 1999). SLH – This makes it harder to operationalise and measure as a variable </li></ul><ul><li>Rogge & Jensen (1988) followed 420 West German families for a 5 year period, examining their relationship with TV. </li></ul><ul><li>For some people, TV can become part of the family structure, which brings joy, distress, entertainment and shared meaning. </li></ul>
  • 4. TV watching in the UK <ul><li>In 1988, 22,000 people in the UK kept a diary of their TV viewing on 1 st Nov 1988. Later the British Film Institute invited 509 respondents to continue their research diaries for a further 5 years, from 1991 to 1996. </li></ul><ul><li>427 respondents were still participating in 1996. Views of TV ranged from ‘nothing more than electronic wallpaper’ to an essential ‘window to the world’. </li></ul><ul><li>People use TV for different reasons, e.g. way to relax, escape from their own life etc. </li></ul>
  • 5. Hypodermic effect explanation <ul><li>This explanation argues that TV injects the message into the audience. </li></ul><ul><li>It suggests that the makers of TV programmes can make us do whatever they want us to do. </li></ul><ul><li>It is based on the idea that audiences are passive recipients of the message and can be easily manipulated. </li></ul><ul><li>It originated in the Frankfurt School, which examined the influence of Nazi propaganda techniques. </li></ul>
  • 6. Hypodermic effect explanation <ul><li>This explanation has never been taken seriously by researchers and there is little evidence of its validity. </li></ul><ul><li>However, the Bandura Bobo doll study does support it. </li></ul><ul><li>It is viewed as outdated and not applicable to a modern audience. </li></ul>
  • 7. Hypodermic effects <ul><li>This explanation may apply on the rare occasions where totalitarian regimes manipulate the media for their own good and a one-sided, biased portrayal may occur. </li></ul><ul><li>Although the model is largely discredited, it does have continuing influence when people call for greater censorship in the media, mainly due to the latest moral panic over a particularly violent criminal case (e.g. the Jamie Bulger case). </li></ul>
  • 8. Two step flow theory <ul><li>Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1960 argued that messages are filtered through what is known as opinion leaders. These opinion leaders pass on the information to other people in society. </li></ul><ul><li>Lazarsfeld concluded that TV has a quite limited direct effect on the audience. </li></ul><ul><li>McQuail (1971) summarised the research as follows: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TV merely reinforces existing opinions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People selectively tune in to hear the messages that they already favour </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People respond to messages based on their existing predispositions </li></ul></ul>
  • 9. Uses and Gratification theory <ul><li>This theory argued that people use the media to gratify or meet certain needs. </li></ul><ul><li>Fiske (1987) stated “TV and its programmes do not have an “effect” on people. Viewers and TV interact”. There are 5 areas of gratification: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Escape </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social Interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inform and educate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Entertain </li></ul></ul>
  • 10. Public safety campaigns on TV
  • 11. Public-safety campaigns <ul><li>Pierce, Dwyer et al (1986) completed a report on a predominantly TV-based anti-smoking campaign in Sydney, Australia. The ‘Quit- For Life’ campaign aired on prime-time TV in 1983 and cost over ½ a million Australian dollars. A total of 87% of smokers recalled seeing the ads and 50,000 phone calls were made to the Quit Line in the 3 months following the campaign. </li></ul><ul><li>Results showed a 2.8% decrease in smoking in Sydney compared to a 1.6% decrease in the rest of Australia where the ads were not seen. </li></ul><ul><li>This difference was not significant, nevertheless the campaigns are seen as cost-effective in terms of the medical costs saved by increasing the life expectancy of those reformed smokers. </li></ul>
  • 12. Public Safety campaigns <ul><li>Another report investigated the effect of a TV campaign promoting the use of seat belts in the USA (Robertson, 1974). 6 different adverts were shown via cable TV to 7,000 viewers and these were repeated 943 times over a 9-month period. </li></ul><ul><li>To assess the effectiveness of the campaigns, daily observations of seat-belt use were made of car users in the city and the licence numbers of the vehicles were taken. </li></ul><ul><li>The adverts has absolutely no effect whatsoever on seat-belt use (Gauntlett, 1995) </li></ul>
  • 13. Advertising <ul><li>Stewart & Furse (1986) examined the impact of 1,000 TV commercials & found they caused trivial differences in viewers’ recall and differentiation of the products concerned. </li></ul><ul><li>Cashmore (1994) thinks that companies cannot find another way of raising awareness of their brand against their competitors to a large audience simultaneously. </li></ul>
  • 14. <ul><li>It is estimated that TV advertising fails from 90-99% of the time (Gauntlett, 1995). </li></ul><ul><li>2 case studies are of interest: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One company sold 103,000 barrels of beer in 1995 with no advertising campaign, whilst another company ran a TV campaign costing $40 million annually. After 4 years that campaign was stopped with sales loer than before the ads started! (Nolo, 2000) </li></ul></ul>fcuk advertising!
  • 15. Evaluation of the effectiveness of TV <ul><li>Active audience – TV can act as a persuasive tool, but the audience does make a conscious choice as to the messages it hears and takes notice of. TV viewing is both personal and highly variable. </li></ul><ul><li>One researcher may perceive ‘violence’, whereas the viewer may regard it as ‘playful competition’. </li></ul><ul><li>In addition, much of the laboratory experimental research concentrates on short-term effects and may be prone to demand characteristics. </li></ul>
  • 16. Evaluation of the effectiveness of TV <ul><li>Methodological difficulties – It is rare for a publich information campagain to only be delivered through TV, there is normally radio and newspaper adverts, and other literature such as leaflets and posters. </li></ul><ul><li>This makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of TV by itself. Research often involves target and control groups – with national campaigns it is difficult to determine who has watched what and how much attention they have given to the message. </li></ul>
  • 17. Evaluation of the effectiveness of TV <ul><li>TV advertising effectiveness – TV campaigns seem poor at changing behaviour. Advertising merely tries to persuade people to favour one product over another. </li></ul><ul><li>The cost, packaging, image, promotional offer, the taste, appearance, and the prize draw or free gift offered with the product all have an effect on consumer purchasing decisions. Many people argue that advertising simply raises the consumer’s awareness and recognition of the product. Once this is achieved, the product has to stand or fall on its own merits (Gauntlett, 1995) </li></ul>
  • 18. Planning the “Inevitable essay!” <ul><li>“ Discuss explanations for the effectiveness of television in persuasion” (25 marks) </li></ul><ul><li>You may also want to précis the information so you could answer a structured question. </li></ul>
  • 19. HOW do I start revising this? <ul><li>Effectiveness of TV </li></ul><ul><li>Hypodermic effect explanation </li></ul><ul><li>Two Step theory (Katz & Lazarsfeld) </li></ul><ul><li>Uses & Gratification theory </li></ul><ul><li>Public Safety campaigns/Advertising </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation: Active audience, methodological difficulties & effectiveness estimates </li></ul>
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks