Timing is EVERYTHING!

Communication technology and social change: Theory and implications (2007) suggests that social change occurs after a major (and usually negative) event has taken place; usually in the form of an innovative idea meant to deal with the issue. Timing, as they say, is everything. Jensen and Wagoner (2009, p. 226) suggest note that “Partial adoption, resistance, conflict over resources, dynamism and contingency have always defined social and cultural change.” Examples of the cycle of social change suggested by Jensen and Wagoner (2009) include alcohol prohibition and psychoanalysis.

In fact, this social change cycle can be seen in the history of Psychology as a field. What one theory lacks, the next overcompensates for; there is resistance of ideas, reformation, and a re-presentation of the changed product for implication and continued scrutiny. When structuralism tried to break psychophysics down too excessively, it gave way to the more broad functionalism. However, functionalism only sought to explain ‘normal’ human behavior; Freud manufactured explanations for abnormal behaviors. When psychoanalysis was too subjective, behaviorism looked at only what could be actively observed. Gestalt recognized the need for both observable and cognitive processes, but didn’t have any suggestions for how to make it possible. And cognitive psychology argued that subjects can learn and behavior of their own volition. (Petraitis, personal communication, January – April 2011)

As with paradigm shifts within the field of Psychology, social change is the culmination of norms which have been questioned, reviewed, reformatted, and beta tested (so to speak). While the delivery method of the message is important, in order for a change to be effective and received, the zeitgeist and ortgeist must be right. If there is no need for change at a particular time or place, the change will be resisted.

References:

Communication technology and social change: Theory and implications (2007). In Lin C. A., Atkin D. J. (Eds.), . Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/621547613?accountid=10868

Jensen, E., & Wagoner, B. (2009). Continuing commentary: A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology, 15 (2), 217-228 doi:10.1177/1354067X08099624

Why I Don’t Tweet Anymore

Communication has changed drastically since the advent of the internet. Weblogging allows individuals to share knowledge, opinions, and more. Similar to weblogging, microblogging allows quick sharing in short bursts. With Twitter, for example, users have 140 characters for pretty much anything they feel driven to share. But what makes us feel the need to share with out online community? How are those communities created? Researchers found that three factors determine an individual’s willingness to share via weblogging: fairness, identification, and openness. (Yu, Lu,  & Liu, 2009)  

Fairness, as defined by Yu, Lu, and Liu (2009) is the social equity between those sharing and those receiving the knowledge, the way the individuals within the community are regarded, and the level of trust the individual has of the community as a whole. They cite research which suggests that individuals prefer to be part of a group working towards similar goals, and as such, will strive to maintain reciprocity in knowledge sharing toward achieving collective goals.

Identification is the way which people see themselves fitting into the group. When a person identifies more as a functional influence within the group; or sees a value in themselves with regards to the group, they are more likely to put more effort into sharing and other interactions. (Yu, Lu, & Liu, 2009)

Openness defines the reception of the community to the message. Norms are established within groups, and the openness of the group to additional information, discussion of information already shared, and the introduction of new ideas within the context of the groups norms, is determined by the level of openness. In other words, for an individual to be keen on sharing, they must feel that the group is open to receiving the knowledge they have to share. (Yu, Lu, & Liu, 2009)

Twitter engages individuals in these ways. Research shows that ‘Tweeps’ tend to belong to communities with specific interests, in which they share information and impression; as well as discussing personal feelings and daily goings on (Java, Song, Finin, & Tseng, 2007). But Twitter is one example of microblogging and knowledge sharing. While research has been done to measure variables such as geographic variability in users, as well as user intention, there have been little, if any, studies done on personality variables in medium preference (e.g., Twitter vs. WordPress vs. fan fiction forums). Until we have explored more variables, we have an understandably limited view of what drives people to share information they way they do.

References:

Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Retrieved from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1348556

Yu, T., Lu, L., & Liu, T. (2008). Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior via weblogs. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 32-41.

Article Review: Effects of Songs With Prosocial Lyrics on Prosocial Thoughts, Affect, and Behavior

Theories, Methods, and Procedures

This study initially recalled research done pertaining to the measure of effect that media (specifically negative or violent media) has on behavior. For example, previous studies used the General Aggression Model (GAM) to determine whether violent video games led to aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Because correlational data was found to support the theory, using the GAM, a similar model to promote both violent and non-violent measures of effect due to media, called the General Learning Model (GLM), was created (Buckley & Anderson, 2006). At the time of the current study, that theory (GLM being a valid measure of prosocial media’s effects on the internal state of a participant, and whether that state then effects behavior) hadn’t been tested. The current study aimed to do so (Greitemeyer, 2009).

In addition, the current study used an experimental design to attempt to show that prosocial lyrics in music promote prosocial behaviors in participants. They did this in three experiments: one to measure increase in prosocial thoughts (a dependent variable, operationally defined as the number of prosocial words created via word fragments), one for increases in empathy (a dependent variable, operationally defined as the self-reported feelings for the author of two reviewed essays), and one for increases in action/behavior (a dependent variable, operationally defined by whether or not a P made a monetary donation). (Grietemeyer, 2009)

Experiment one sought to determine whether listening to prosocial lyrics, as opposed to neutral lyrics, would increase prosocial thoughts. Ps included 34 students (most of which were women) from a Germany university. Ps were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental conditions. In the control condition, participants listened to a neutral song, then completed a list of word fragments. They then answered two questions to control for the perceived prosocial content of the song they listened to. Ps in the experimental group did the same, with the only difference being the prosocial lyrics of the song. (Grietemeyer, 2009)

For experiment two, 38 students from a German university (again, mostly women) were asked to listen to a prosocial or neutral song, respective to which group they were randomly assigned to, after which they read two essays (which they were told were written by another, missing, participant). After reading these two essays, Ps were asked how they felt about towards the author with regards to sympathy, compassion, and soft-heartedness. The aim of this experiment was to determine the effects of prosocial music, as opposed to neutral, on empathy towards others. (Grietemeyer, 2009)

Experiment three sought to measure to what extent prosocial songs, as opposed to neutral ones, affected prosocial behavior. They did this by randomly assigning Ps (consisting of 90 German university students, most of which were female) to either the control group or the experimental group; differentiated again by whether they listened to prosocial or neutral songs. After listening to respective songs, Ps were offered the option to donate to a non-profit organization. After given two minutes during which they were left alone, participants were questioned about the perception of anything suspicious. (Grietemeyer, 2009)

In all three experiments, researchers controlled for possible confounding variables in a variety of ways. For example, in order to control for whether a song was understood to be neutral or prosocial, researchers used songs in two languages (one English, and one German song each for control and experimental groups in all three experiments), as well as questioned Ps about perceived level of prosocial content. This was done not only during the actual experiments, but also in a pilot study. Additionally, researchers controlled for mood and arousal during the pilot study by asking Ps to rate their level of arousal and how well they liked the song. This led to the song choice. Researchers also controlled for possible effects that liking a song might have on thoughts, feelings, and behavior. They did so by measuring liking via questions submitted to Ps. Finally, because all three experiments had a greater number of female Ps, researchers compared results from both sexes to control for any possible effects thereby. (Grietemeyer, 2009)

Results and Discussion

            In experiment one, researchers found, after controlling for possible sex differences, that Ps in the experimental condition (M = 0.21, SD = 0.11) completed word fragments with significantly more prosocial words than did Ps in the control group (M = 0.14, SD = 0.08), t(32) = 2.05, p < .05. This suggested that prosocial songs do have an effect on prosocial thoughts. (Grietemeyer, 2009)

In experiment two, researchers found, via 2×2 ANOVA (song type compared with essay story), that a main effect for type of song had occurred. In other words, Ps in the experimental group rated their feelings about the author as significantly more empathetic, regardless of the essay (F(1, 36) = 6.51, p < .05, n² = .15). (Grietemeyer, 2009)

In experiment three, researchers found that Ps in the experimental group were significantly more likely to donate money than those in the control group (x²(1, N = 90) = 4.56, p < .05). They reported that 53% of the experimental group donated, while only 31% of the control group donated. This suggested that prosocial songs do have an effect on prosocial behaviors. (Grietemeyer, 2009)

Researchers mentioned that while the hypotheses were supported in the sense that there was a significant difference in prosocial thoughts, feelings, and behaviors between experimental and control groups, the current study did not allow for an understanding of why the changes occurred. There was no way of knowing whether the changes were due to changes in the Ps’ internal states; there was no way to know what the exact cause of the change is cognitively. As such, researchers suggested that a measure of internal processes be taken in addition to the explicit measures used in this study.  (Grietemeyer, 2009)

Suggestions for further research include examining whether prosocial songs (and media in general) not only instigate prosocial thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, but whether they also serve to decrease aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another suggested study for future research is that of long-term effects of media on thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; the current study only looked at the short-term effects of prosocial media. (Grietemeyer, 2009)    

Reflection

            When reading this article, I was first drawn, naturally, to the claims made at the beginning of the results of the GAM. I am very wary of the aggression by way of violent video games claim. However, as a basis for additional studies, and as long as the measure is, in fact, reliable and valid, I can muscle my way through the irritation. The claims that correlational studies show cause and effect (i.e., violent video games promote aggression based on a correlational study), frustrates me excessively; far more than playing video games does. I found myself overly critical of the steps used to get through the justification of the research, however, knowing that this is not exactly the point, and agreeing that this research is necessary and has to start somewhere, I won’t dwell on these minor criticisms.

I had a few struggles with the actual measures used. As this study is was the beginning of a string of measures on prosocial songs’ effects on thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, I understand that the research has to start somewhere, but in some instances I felt procedure could have been cleaned up a bit. For example, many of the questions asked to rate variables (e.g., the helpful or cooperative content of songs) seemed to prime responses from Ps. Another example of possible priming was the wording used at the end of experiment three, “Participants were told that it would be great if they would donate these 2 € but that it would be also fine if they did not donate. Upon saying this, the experimenter pointed at a box…. (Grietemeyer, 2009, p. 189)” If participants are all hearing the same spiel, regardless of which group they’re in, the priming becomes less of an issue. But I think it somewhat ironic that in a study where they are studying the effects of prosocial songs on prosocial behaviors, they’re using less neutral wording for the experimental procedure.

Another confounding variable may be the stories used in the essays. The subject matter is vague enough that it may have been something similar to an occurrence with a variety of Ps, which may have unknowingly caused the increase in empathy. Relationships and sports injuries are not unusual, after all. A similar confound may be in experiment one, with the use of word fragments. There are those who may not have chosen prosocial words because they don’t have a well-developed lexicon, or aren’t good at word games. Whether a person uses a word that holds prosocial meaning, doesn’t necessarily mean there is not prosocial content to their thoughts.

Typically, it is easier for me to find holes in other researchers’ methods, as I am far less creative than I am critical. That being said, I was unable to think of any other measures of prosocial thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. I feel that there is little external validity in this particular study, though I would intuitively agree with the findings. Empirically, however, students at a German university, and mostly female no less, is not a widely generalizable sample. Researchers could use a more diverse group to collect data, however difficult that may be. Construct validity, for what they claimed to be attempting to measure, seemed to be relatively high, though I think the third experiment would have higher construct validity than the other two experiments. I think that internal validity is also dependent on the interpretation of the person reading the study, as the measures seem to be focusing on very specific definitions of prosocial thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. But this is why we have operational definitions. Certainly, in relation to the research cited in the introduction, this study uses comparable means of measuring results. Results which, I would be hard pressed to come up with a better way of interpreting. That being said, I would have very much liked to have seen a chart of numbers as an appendix; the numbers seemed jumbled and somewhat hard to keep straight.

Overall, I love the concept of this study. I think that it is useful, particularly as a jumping off point for attempting to show the benefits that media can provide. If researchers continue to follow the path set off on in this study, we can continue to further understand the implications of various media and their effects on us mentally, emotionally, and physically.

References

Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Buckley, K., & Anderson, C. (2006). A theoretical model of the effects and consequences of playing video games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences. (pp. 363-378). Mahway NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grietemeyer, T. (2009). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial thoughts, affect, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 186-190.

It DOES Get Better.

In September 2010, the first It Gets Better videos were created. It Gets Better is a non-profit campaign that provides support to 3 different projects, all providing support for LGBT (as well as straight) teens struggling to remain safe from the harassment of others, as well as the threat of suicide. While the campaign has most of it’s focus on various videos (created by countless types of celebrities and authorities, students, and adults who have endured similar hardships or are supportive of every type of orientation or gender identity), there are other media employed as well. Social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube), blogs, marches and vigils, bar and restaurant fundraisers, rallies, film festivals, clothing/merchandise, a book, television commercials and public announcements, theatre performances, as well as parades and walls where supporters can write messages, are examples of other media used to spread this decidedly prosocial message. (It Gets Better, 2011)

ZOMG I LOVE V NECKS!!

Several psychological concepts are used to spread this message via both central and peripheral routes. These include foot-in-the-door principle, celebrity status (which can account for both attractiveness or perceived credibility), speaker credibility (i.e., they have endured something similar, and are perceived as trustworthy), the emotional content of the message, the contact between people giving and people receiving the message, and two-step flow of communication. The message is meant to be persuasive because the plea for support is desperate. (Myers, 2010)

Since the site and the campaign have gone up, calls into The Trevor Project suicide hotline have increased drastically, and over $100,000 have been raised in support of LGBT youth. I believe that the project has done an amazing job of getting their message out, and will continue to grow beyond it’s first birthday. The continuing creativity of site supporters and creators means an increase in number of supporters, as well as the distance they will reach with their message. In my opinion, the sooner and the bigger, the better. (It Gets Better, 2010)

Resources:

Savage Love, LLC. (2011). It Gets Better. Retrieved from http://www.itgetsbetter.org/

Myers, D. (2008). Persuasion. In Social Psychology (10th ed.). (pp. 229-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

 

Defining Vast Movement Towards Obscurity

Though many research papers claim that massive changes due to media are apparent (Grietemeyer, 2009), they tend to be headed towards specificity. The first sentence in an article’s introduction is meant to be vague, but knowing that allows us to miss the point. The point is: Media has changed, and will continue to change, an intense amount of our daily lives (Qualman, 2011). The research is impossible to contain in one post, but examples of how social interactions, employment, and travel have been effected certainly can’t hurt.

Cole and Griffiths (2007) explored social interactions within online gaming environments, specifically massively multiplayer online role playing games. They found that players considered their online friendships to be comparable to their offline friendships. They also found that gamers were just as likely to discuss personal and sensitive topics with online friends, as they were offline (or in real life) friends. Online social interactions allow gamers the opportunity to express themselves in ways they would otherwise feel uncomfortable doing. (Cole & Griffiths, 2007)

Straus, Miles, & Levesque (2000) found that employers viewed prospective employees more favorably when interviewing over the phone, than via video chat, especially when the interviewee was less attractive. As the internet, and more specifically social networking sites, are frequented more consistently (facebook would be the third largest country in the world (Qualman, 2011)?!) employers are using social networking sites to access personal information about prospective employees (e.g., facebook and myspace) (Kluemper & Rosen, 2009).

Xiang and Gretzel (2010) did an exploratory study to find the implications of changing social media on travel. They found that travel agencies must have a comprehensive search engine, as well as online visibility on social networking sites, in order to be most frequented. Travelers need to obtain information for their travelling needs; online connectivity is the preferred method to obtain that information.

The changes in social interactions, employment, and travel, along with a variety of other phenomena, have changed, and continue to change, due to social media. The implications of these changes are vast and indeterminable, but by exploring these changes, we can prepare for, and accommodate future media and their uses.

References:

Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 575-583.

Kluemper, D., & Rosen, P. (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Emerald Insight, 24(6), 567-580.

Qualman, E. (2011). Social media revolution 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SuNx0UrnEo

Straus, S.,  Miles, J., & Levesque, L. (2000). The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in employment interviews. Journal of Management, 27, 363-381.

Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search. Tourism Management, 31, 179-188.

It’s Just A Game… Right?

Story lines in media, whether it be video games, movies, or television, have become more complex. Webs being woven take more concentration, more awareness, and, in general, more cognitive functions to process. (Johnson, 2005) Video games are a great example of a media that motivates complex cognitive processes (Squire, 2005). 

Students learn in a variety of ways. Research in this field is so vast, that meta-analyses have been done just to make sense of all of the reported findings and styles (Cassidy, 2004). The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is one such measure (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Felder and Spurlin (2005) suggest two main uses for the ILS: to provide instructors with insight into how to address the learning styles of students who are struggling in the classroom, and to allow students to understand the implications of their own learning styles.

Because so many learning styles exist, educators must have a variety of tools at their disposal to be most effective. The presentation of information can be done in ways that students are already familiar with. For example, one study of over 1200 lower income students in Chile, found that video games, specifically designed to meet the material criteria for first and second grade students, significantly increased the amount of learning done in classrooms (Rosas et al., 2003).

Studies like this are popping up all over psychology. Rosas et al. (2003), also found that motivation for learning, as well as dynamics in the classroom, were significantly effected by the introduction of educational video games. Other studies have shown increases in social skills such as teamwork, self-expression, and the development of friendships, all via online game play (Cole & Griffiths, 2007).

If we are to afford students the best opportunities for learning, we must offer all the tools we have at our disposal. With the ever developing cognitive tasks required of us, rich and diverse technologies are needed. Video games are one such source of cognitive exercise, with which lessons may be learned, and students may be motivated to continue learning and growing.

References:

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24, 419-444.

Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 575-583. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9988

Felder, R., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles. Int. J. Engng Ed, 21(1), 103-112.

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad for you is good. New York: Berkeley Publishing Group.

Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., … & Salinas, M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40, 71-94.

Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=82

Crystal Clear as Mud

Media literacy shows itself in libraries, coffee shops, and even elementary schools. It’s in the cell phone in our pocket, the gps on our boat, and the cd in our car. It’s not wonder, then, that defining it is necessary. But is defining it enough? Media literacy is the ability to understand and use technologies successfully. That’s deeper than it sounds. Because media is constantly changing, and last month’s elite toy is today’s obsolete dinosaur, we must be flexible, able to make sense of new functions and how they fit into our currently existing schema for the media we have, and work on a very steep learning curve. Johnson (2005) calls this cognitive adaptation the ‘sleeper curve’.  The reason, however, that media literacy is crucial, however, is that we must be able to not only learn the functions of the media; we must be able to communicate (i.e., convey and translate messages) via these existing and emerging technologies.

As Jolls (2008) mentions in her list of 5 questions we must ask ourselves when observing media conveyed messages, we must remember that different people translate messages differently. Sending a receiving texts is a very common example of this: one person sends a playful text, and the receiver perceives it as having an angry tone. Being media literate means recognizing that there are alternative ways to process the same submission; much in the same way that different songs touch people in different ways.

Different media also function better for different purposes.  Transmedia, as presented by Jenkins (2011), is the convergence of different media in order to create a single, more rich experience for the consumer. This is necessary for more than one reason: some media lend themselves better to certain types of people. People who use twitter, use it to keep up on breaking news or write about their every day goings on (Hoover, 2011). Facebook, twitter, and foursquare all serve different purposes, and yet they’re all considered social media sites. Understanding where one is better used over another, especially based on what your message is, or what messages you’re looking to receive, is also part of media literacy.

Jenkins (2011) also points out that media is more and more participitorial, and less spectatorial. Lieberman (2011) echoes this point, saying that we’re prosumers, rather than consumers. This lends itself to the necessity that we are able to comprehend not only the technologies themselves, but the messages/purposes they are serving.

Literacy, which we typically think of as pertaining only to written pieces (e.g., books, theatre, etc.), means being able to read and write. When reading a book, we must be able to use the book (i.e., read) and decipher the message (i.e., understand the plot, characters, themes, etc.). It stands to reason, then, that media literacy means we must be able to do the same; the technologies included in media is far more comprehensive and inclusive. It is for this reason, that media literacy must be vague and we, as prosumers, must be more flexible.

References:

Hoover, T. (2011). Life as a tweet. Retrieved from http://mediapsy.net/2011/09/14/life-as-a-tweet/

Jenkins, H. (2009). Henry Jenkins [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJaqXVaOaI

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad for you is good. New York: Berkeley Publishing Group.

Jolls, T. (2008). Generation m-media literacy, education & choice [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzeVjAM-drg

Lieberman, C. (2011). “America’s Got Technology”: Participator television. Retrieved from http://mediapsy.net/2011/09/06/636/

Advocacy: Putting the “Pseudo” in Science

No where in this do you see the word "activism".

“The advantage of the scientific approach over other ways of knowing about the world is that it provides an objective set of rules for gathering, evaluating, and reporting information.”  (Cozby, 2009, p. 6)

The important word to note here is ‘objective’.  It is this word that ran through my head as I read the summary of the Craig Anderson et al. (2003) article.  What is presented here is not “unequivocal evidence” as is stated; it is pseudoscience. Possible confounding variables are plentiful.

As Giles (2010) and Ferguson (2009) point out, there are weak (if any) effects showing that violent video games cause aggression. What weak correlations there are, are likely due to other confounding variables. Giles mentions taking anger/aggression out on the game rather than real people. An example of this is playing killing zombies in Left 4 Dead, rather than punching your brother in the face (i.e., displacement). Johnson (p. 83) notes the frustration that goes into successfully playing even non-violent games: getting stuck, solving puzzles, managing options, etc. Other research shows that sexual arousal leads to aggression (Jaffe, Malamuth, Feingold, & Feshbach, 1974). If the longitudinal studies done by Anderson et al. (2003) are measuring differences between childhood and adult aggression, sexual arousal might confound those results.

After some research into additional confounding variables, I stumbled on research saying that high levels of caffeine lead to aggression in rats (Wilson et al., 2000), and gamers self-report high caffeine consumption (Izawa & Nomura, 2006). While no research can be found correlating caffeine levels and gaming, could gamers who are consuming high levels of caffeine be the more aggressive ones? Not uncovering all possible causes or even correlates creates some doubt as to whether the scientists presenting their findings as ‘fact’ should even be continued to be called scientists (Ferguson, 2009). Perhaps advocates would be a more fitting title.

Cozby (2009) presents pseudoscience as a bullet list of things to watch for. Anderson et al. (2003), fits this bill nicely, as Ferguson (2009) points out. The hypotheses are not falsifiable, there is high citation bias (e.g., conflicting results are ignored), results are highly dependent on intuition and personal beliefs (or the beliefs of those funding the research), and results are never revised or updated. This is not science. It is pseudoscience.

Ferguson, conversely, presents all sides of the argument, but follows his statements up with facts and qualifies his personal opinions as his own. Those who present information to the public (e.g., the Hip Hop Messages or the Gerbner video) need to make clear their agenda and what information has been shown to be true versus what information is opinion or theory only. As Cozby (2009) points out, there are too many people who rely on intuition and authority alone, and only skepticism will lead to the empiricism that we ‘soft scientists’ yearn for in our field.

Resources:

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81-110.Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi43.pdf.

Cozby, P. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.) [Kindle version]. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Ferguson, C. J. (2009). Violent video games: Dogma, fear,and pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer, September/October.

Giles, D. (2010). Psychology of the media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Izawa, S., & Nomura, S. (2006). The relationship of hostility to health related behaviors, obesity, and hypertension in adolescence. Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 19(2), 11-11-19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/621664203?accountid=10868

Jaffe, Y., Malamuth, N., Feingold, J., & Feshbach, S. (1974). Sexual arousal and behavioral aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(6), 759-759-764. doi:10.1037/h0037526

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad for you is good. New York: Berkeley Publishing Group.

Wilson, J. F., Nugent, N. R., Baltes, J. E., Tokunaga, S., Canic, T., Young, B. W., . . . . (2000). Effects of low doses of caffeine on aggressive behavior in male rats. Psychological Reports, 86(3), 941-941-946. doi:10.2466/PR0.86.3.941-946

*George Gerbner, The Killing Screens: Media & the Culture of Violence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHxTr-59hE

*Hip Hop Messages http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjxjZe3RhIo

You Can’t Tell Me What To Do: Public Perception of Media

Many studies have been conducted attempting to correlate media with negative (and to a smaller degree, positive) effects on things like personality, cognitive processes (e.g., learning), temperament, eating habits, socialization, etc. The effects themselves are not necessarily the measure of whether we cling to new media like varnish to wood or shake our proverbial sticks at them; public perception is. (Giles, 2010)

When instincts and assumptions take over research, not only do we have issues like confirmation bias and experimenter bias; we have an influx of studies that may hold us back from progression. Numerous research articles claim to have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that video games cause aggression. Of course, without studying confounding variables (e.g., previously existing aggression issues, abuse, socioeconomic upbringing, etc.), we cannot make these claims with any certainty. (Johnson, 2005)

One of the most drilled lessons in a Foundations of Psychology course that I took in undergrad, is that when you look for something, you are likely to find it: when you look to negate something; you learn something better.

References:

Giles, D. (2010). Psychology of the media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making us smarter. New York: Riverhead Books.

What is Media Psychology?

As I see it, defining Media Psychology is important for two reasons.

First, a definition allows us to focus our research and contributions to the field. They are like labels for files. When we want to put something into a file, if it’s not labeled properly, it is likely to be lost or misfiled. So if I wanted to research, say, the effects of mnemonics on list item retention, where would I put it if I didn’t have a definition for cognitive psychology? Conversely, if we are hoping to add knowledge to a field, but have no specific interest within said field (e.g., I know I’m intrigued by my concept of Positive Psychology, but don’t know what it truly is), having a definition may be our only source of direction. For example, if you were told to do a research assignment on coagulation, you would need to know what coagulation was before you could even hope to produce anything intelligible.

Secondly, a definition helps everyone within a given field stay on track together. In everyday life, we see it all the time: conflicting or confused definitions cause fights. One of the first things we learn to do in Psychology is operationalize our definitions. We all work with the same definition so we are all on the same page.

 

I am hesitant to define Media Psychology, only because I know so much struggle went into (and continues to go into) defining Psychology as a field. If I had to make a feeble attempt at summarizing the definitions found in articles on the topic that I’ve perused, I would say: The study of how media existence and use effects intrapersonal and interpersonal communication, development, cognitive functioning, and social change.

Reeves and Anderson (1991) suggests that the combination of psychology and communication invariably make a connection in the reaction between the stimuli and the cognitive processes needed to make sense of them. In Everything Bad for You is Good, Johnson (2005) discusses the use of neuropsychological testing to show some of the effects of media on the cognitive processes. Both of these sources, among others, prompted the inclusion of cognitive functioning in my definition.

Johnson (2005) also mentions the educational power that games, for example, have. He specifically talks about teaching his nephew all about SimCity 2000 and how his nephew picked up industrial taxes within just an hour or so of introduction to the game. This is a great example of how media can effect development.

Social Cognitive Theory explains the effect of media (or ‘mass communication’) on how we process information and how we use that information to make decisions. We learn from our own personal experiences as well as the experiences of others. (Bandura, 2001) This is part of the reason I included interpersonal and intrapersonal communication, as well as social change, into my definition.

Given these articles, and numerous others, I know that my definition is incredibly exclusive and falls short of the breadth of the field, however I also believe there must be some level of specificity or the reason for having the definition may begin to falter.

References:

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad for you is good. New York: Berkeley Publishing Group.

Reeves, B., & Anderson, D. R. (1991). Media studies and psychology. Communication Research, 18(5), 597-600