Different models of media effects

Paper 4 – Media: Representation and Effects (Cambridge International AS & A Level Sociology 9699)

1. The Media Landscape

1.1 Traditional vs. New Media

• Traditional media: print (newspapers, magazines), radio, terrestrial TV, cinema. Production is linear – a clear “sender → receiver” flow.
• New media: social‑media platforms (TikTok, Instagram, X), video‑on‑demand services (Netflix, YouTube), podcasts, blogs, streaming radio.
  • Algorithmic recommendation & personalisation
  • User‑generated content & two‑way interaction
  • Instant global distribution & real‑time feedback
• Why it matters for media‑effects: Digital environments blur the line between producers and audiences, creating new routes for influence (e.g., echo chambers, viral memes).

1.2 Media Ownership & Control

1.3 Globalisation & Media – Syllabus Perspectives

• World‑systems / dependency: Media flow from core (USA, UK) to periphery, reinforcing economic hierarchies.
• Cultural imperialism: Dominant cultures export values and lifestyles, potentially marginalising local cultures.
• Hybridisation / glocalisation: Local cultures reinterpret global media content, creating mixed forms (e.g., Bollywood remakes of Hollywood films).

1.4 Globalisation and Identity

• Transnational youth cultures (e.g., K‑pop fans worldwide) illustrate how global media shape personal and collective identities.
• Diaspora media (e.g., Urdu‑language YouTube channels for British‑Pakistani communities) help maintain ethnic identity while negotiating host‑society norms.
• Online sub‑cultures (e.g., gaming, cosplay) provide “imagined communities” that cross national borders.

1.5 Globalisation, Power & Politics

• Media as a site of power struggle – state surveillance, cyber‑war, and digital authoritarianism (e.g., China’s Great Firewall).
• Hegemonic control of news agendas – ownership concentration, state‑owned broadcasters, and the “propaganda model”.
• Digital activism & “hashtag politics” (e.g., #BlackLivesMatter) show how new media can challenge established power structures.

1.6 Globalisation, Poverty & Inequalities

• Digital divide: Unequal access to high‑speed internet reproduces existing socio‑economic gaps.
• Media can both expose (e.g., documentary series on global inequality) and reinforce poverty narratives (e.g., “development” news that frames the Global South as dependent).
• Algorithmic bias often marginalises low‑income or minority groups in content recommendation and advertising.

1.7 Globalisation & Migration

• Transnational news networks (e.g., Al Jazeera, BBC World Service) shape public opinion on migration flows.
• Social media enables migrants to maintain ties with home countries and to organise support networks.
• Framing of migrants as “security threats” vs. “humanitarian subjects” influences policy debates.

1.8 Globalisation & Crime (Terror‑Media)

• 24‑hour news cycles and live‑streaming amplify the visibility of terrorism, creating a “global crime” narrative.
• Cultivation of fear through repeated coverage of “global terror” can affect public support for security legislation.
• Online extremist forums illustrate how digital media can facilitate the diffusion of criminal ideologies across borders.

1.9 Contemporary Digital Issues

• Fake news & misinformation – COVID‑19 vaccine myths, election disinformation; linked to agenda‑setting and framing.
• Algorithmic bias – recommendation engines that reinforce stereotypes or marginalise minority voices.
• Online hate & radicalisation – echo chambers and the spiral of silence can silence dissenting or minority perspectives.
• Data‑driven personalisation – micro‑targeting in political advertising (e.g., Cambridge Analytica case).

2. Religion and the Media

2.1 Representation of Religion

• Media can portray religion as a source of conflict (e.g., terrorism coverage) or as a cultural practice (e.g., festivals, interfaith dialogue).
• Framing influences public perceptions of secularisation, tolerance, and policy (e.g., coverage of “burqa bans”).
• Digital platforms allow religious communities to produce their own content, challenging mainstream portrayals.

2.2 Theoretical Linkages

• Mediatization of religion: Religion adapts to media logic (visuality, immediacy) and in turn reshapes media content (e.g., live‑streamed prayer services).
• Media‑religion feedback loops: Audiences’ media consumption influences religious practice, which then generates new media content (e.g., viral sermons).
• Secularisation debate: Media both reflects and constructs narratives of declining religiosity and, paradoxically, of religious resurgence.
• Religion, gender & feminism: Media representations of women’s religious roles (e.g., coverage of female imams) intersect with feminist critiques.
• Post‑modernity: Pluralistic media environments enable multiple religious voices, fostering “religious bricolage”.

2.3 Analytical Angles

• Identify dominant frames (e.g., “religion as threat” vs. “religion as heritage”).
• Examine audience decoding (dominant, negotiated, oppositional) across age, ethnicity, and class.
• Assess the role of algorithmic recommendation in exposing users to religious content.

3. Different Models of Media Effects

All eight models required by the Cambridge syllabus are presented below, each linked to a contemporary digital example, behavioural impact, and a brief appraisal of strengths and limitations. Two additional theories (Social Learning & Priming) are noted for completeness.

3.1 Additional Theories (Brief Mention)

• Social Learning Theory (Bandura): Observational learning from media models (e.g., imitation of risky behaviours shown in vlogs).
• Priming: Media exposure makes certain thoughts more cognitively accessible, influencing subsequent judgments (e.g., repeated crime coverage primes fear when evaluating policy).

3.2 Linking Models to Behavioural Outcomes

• Voting & political participation: Two‑Step Flow, Agenda‑Setting, Spiral of Silence, Framing.
• Health‑related behaviour: Uses & Gratifications (seeking health info), Cultivation (perceived disease risk), Framing (vaccination narratives), Social Learning (modeling of health practices).
• Consumer choices: Two‑Step Flow (influencer endorsements), Uses & Gratifications (status‑seeking), Agenda‑Setting (advertising prominence), Priming (brand exposure).
• Social attitudes (gender, ethnicity, class, religion): Cultivation, Framing, Reception/Encoding‑Decoding, Spiral of Silence.
• Digital‑specific outcomes: Algorithmic echo chambers (Spiral of Silence), micro‑targeted political ads (Priming & Framing), viral meme spread (Hypodermic Needle‑like bursts).

3.3 Using the Models to Analyse Representation

When examining media portrayals of class, gender, ethnicity, age or religion, students can apply any of the models above:

• Framing – Identify problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation in a news story about immigration.
• Reception/Encoding‑Decoding – Conduct focus groups with working‑class vs. middle‑class viewers to explore divergent readings of a reality‑TV show that depicts gender stereotypes.
• Cultivation – Survey long‑term viewers of crime dramas to test for “Mean World Syndrome” and its impact on attitudes toward minority groups.
• Agenda‑Setting – Analyse front‑page coverage of climate justice across broadsheets and digital news sites to see which aspects become most salient.
• Spiral of Silence – Examine comment‑section participation rates on controversial religious topics.
• Two‑Step Flow – Track how a TikTok influencer’s discussion of body‑positivity spreads through follower networks.
• Uses & Gratifications – Survey why audiences choose LGBTQ+ streaming series (e.g., identity affirmation, entertainment).
• Social Learning – Observe whether viewers imitate risky stunts seen in popular YouTube challenges.

4. Comparative Summary of Media‑Effects Models

Suggested Diagram (for revision)

Flowchart illustrating the historical progression from “direct” models (Hypodermic Needle) → “two‑step” and “social‑cognitive” models (Two‑Step Flow, Social Learning) → “agenda” and “cultivation” approaches → “active‑audience” perspectives (Uses & Gratifications, Framing, Reception). Arrows indicate how each model builds on or reacts to the previous one, highlighting the shift from media‑centric to audience‑centric explanations.