Ch. 2 (Unit 1B) Media Theories & Effects Current Articles

Current Information

"Too strong a media emphasis on death and violence can lead to despair." Dalai Lama

Article #1

How Does Propaganda Work? Links to an external site.

By 
Arlin Cuncic, MA 
Updated on November 29, 2023 Medically Reviewed by 
Daniel B. Block, MD
woman watching the news

Propaganda is a type of communication that often involves sharing biased or misleading information Links to an external site. to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Propaganda is used to influence people's opinions or control their behavior through various tactics such as name-calling, bandwagoning, or inciting fear.

Here we explore the goals of a propagandist and in what types of situations it is typically used. We also discuss the potential effects of propaganda, along with some steps we can take to keep from being influenced by skewed or false information.

Propaganda can be very effective in influencing people's opinions.1 For this reason, it is important to be aware of the techniques that are used to avoid being manipulated.

What Are the Goals of a Propagandist?

People use propaganda to promote a particular agenda or point of view. The goals of propaganda can vary, but commonly include:

How Propaganda Is Used

Propaganda can be used in a variety of ways. Among the settings it is typically seen include the media, advertising, war, and politics.

Propaganda In Media

Mass media Links to an external site. is often used by propagandists to sway societies or large groups of people to think a certain way.2 One example of propaganda in media is the film "Triumph of the Will."

This 1935 film was made to promote the Nazi regime and to encourage people to support Adolf Hitler using fragments of truth combined with certain images chosen to influence social memory.3 It is considered to be one of the most effective propaganda films ever made.

Propaganda In Advertising

Advertisers use persuasive techniques Links to an external site. to try to convince people to buy their products. One example of propaganda in advertising is the use of fear tactics. Advertisers may try to convince people that they need a certain product to avoid a negative outcome.

Another common technique is the use of bandwagoning. The bandwagon effect Links to an external site. involves advertisers trying to convince consumers that everyone is using a certain product and that they should too.

Propaganda In War

Propaganda is often used in war. It can be used to make people support the war effort or to discourage them from supporting the enemy.

War propaganda often relies on misinformation and name-calling or the use of derogatory terms to achieve its goals. For example, in World War II, the Nazis referred to the Jews as "rats"4 and, during the Islamic Revolution, Ayatolla Hlomeini referred to the United States as the "Great Satan."5

Propaganda In Politics

Propaganda is often used in politics to influence people's opinions about a particular political candidate or issue. Political propaganda can take many forms, but it often relies on emotional appeals, name-calling, and scare tactics.

One example of political propaganda was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads used to attack John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. Another occurred in the 2008 presidential campaign when propaganda was used to claim that then-candidate Barack Obama was Muslim.6

Effects of Propaganda

Propaganda can be dangerous because it often uses partial truths or biased misinformation to shape people's opinions and control their behaviors. Presenting only some of the information or skewing it in one direction fails to provide a complete and accurate picture for people to consider when deciding their opinions and behaviors.

Other negative effects of propaganda include:

In addition to affecting a person's beliefs and attitudes, propaganda also has the ability to impact their emotions and mood.7

Propaganda Techniques

People can use a variety of techniques to spread propaganda. Here are some of the most common:

  • Name-calling: Name-calling involves using derogatory terms to describe an opponent or enemy.
  • Appealing to emotions: Propaganda often relies on emotional appeals to influence people's opinions. For example, propaganda might incite fear Links to an external site. or create anger Links to an external site. to get people to support a particular cause.
  • Bandwagoning: Bandwagoning is a technique that uses peer pressure to convince people to do something. For example, a political candidate might say, "Everyone is voting for me, so you should too."
  • Scare tactics: Scare tactics are used to frighten people into supporting a particular cause. For example, a campaign might warn people that if they don't vote, a dangerous criminal will be elected.
  • Manipulating Information: Manipulating information involves distorting or misrepresenting the facts to influence people's opinions. For example, a political campaign might make false claims about an opponent to make them look bad.
  • Using false statistics: Using false or misleading statistics is a common propaganda technique. For example, a campaign might claim that most people support their candidate, even if this is not true.
  • Making unrealistic promises: Making unrealistic promises is another common technique used in propaganda. For example, a candidate might promise to end poverty, even though this is not possible.
  • Using symbols: Symbols are often used in propaganda to represent an idea or concept. For example, in 1920, the Nazi party used the swastika to represent its belief in racial purity.8
  • Slogans: Slogans are short catchphrases used to summarize an idea or concept. For example, in the 2016 presidential campaign, "Make America Great Again" was one of Donald Trump's slogans.9
  • Plain folks: The plain folks' appeal is a technique that uses average, everyday people to endorse a product or candidate. The idea is that if regular people like something, then it must be good. For example, a political campaign might use ordinary citizens in its commercials to try to appeal to voters.
  • Testimonials: Testimonials are endorsements from famous or respected people. For example, a celebrity might endorse a candidate for office, or a doctor might endorse a new medication.
  • Transfer: This technique uses positive associations to make an object or person seem more favorable. For example, a political campaign might use the American flag in its ads to make the candidate seem patriotic.
  • Card stacking: Card stacking is a technique that only presents information that is favorable to the person or thing being promoted. For example, a company might only show the positive reviews of its product and not the negative ones.
  • Glittering generalities: Glittering generalities are words or phrases that have a positive connotation but don't really mean anything. For example, a candidate might say they are "for change," even though they don't specify what kind of change they are for.
  • Stereotyping: Stereotyping is a technique that uses oversimplified and often inaccurate ideas or beliefs Links to an external site. to describe an opponent or enemy.
  • Snob appeal: Snob appeal is a technique that uses the idea of exclusivity to make something seem more desirable. For example, a luxury car company might use the slogan, "Only the best for you."
  • Loaded language: This technique uses language to evoke certain emotions or feelings. For example, the phrase "pro-life" is loaded with emotional and moral weight.
  • Weasel words: Weasel words are words designed to mislead or deceive people. For example, the phrase, "I'm not saying that X is a bad person, but..." implies that the person is bad without actually saying it.

Tips to Avoid Being Manipulated by Propaganda

One of the best ways to not fall for propaganda is to educate ourselves about the techniques that are used. By being aware of the ways that information can be distorted, we can more easily see through the manipulation and make our own informed decisions.

It's also important to critically evaluate the information that we receive. Seek out multiple sources to verify facts before making any decisions, and don't blindly trust emotional appeals or information presented. Instead, we need to take the initiative to learn if the information provided is accurate before developing our beliefs or changing our behaviors.

Article #2

What Is Cultivation Theory in Media Psychology? Links to an external site.

By 
Cynthia Vinney, PhD  
Updated on December 26, 2023 Medically reviewed by 
Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD
Getty Images - Hand of man pointing remote control at working television screen

At a Glance

George Gerbner’s cultivation theory explains how people are influenced by mass media. For example, Gerbner thought that society’s views on issues like crime and violence could be linked to the messages people get from watching TV.

Cultivation theory was developed by communication scholar George Gerbner in 1969 to explain how mass media (especially television) influences people over time. Gerbner proposed that media presents homogeneous messages about issues like crime and violence. Therefore, people who watch a lot of TV eventually adopt a shared understanding of social reality because they absorb the messages being presented to them.

Cultivation theory is a popular framework used by media psychologists Links to an external site. and scholars who are researching how long-term media exposure influences people's worldviews.

This article discusses the history of cultivation theory, new concepts that have been introduced to the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

History of Cultivation Theory

In the 1960s, Gerbner developed cultivation theory in response to media research that looked at the short-term effects of exposure to a single piece of media at one point in time.

With cultivation theory, Gerbner wanted to explore the long-term effects of mass media in general. He proposed that TV was the dominant storytelling Links to an external site. system through which messages were transmitted to the public and that these messages resulted "in the cultivation of the collective consciousness about elements of existence."

Gerbner was not concerned with specific TV shows or individual viewers' interpretations of TV messages. He wanted to explore the broad patterns of TV messages that promote common, but incorrect, perceptions Links to an external site. of society.

While the content of various TV programs Links to an external site. may seem very different on the surface, Gerbner argued they offer similar depictions of social reality. Content analyses of TV have shown that there are consistent differences between the real world and TV world.

For example, compared to reality, TV:

According to cultivation theory, the consistency of these messages influences the public's shared understanding of the real world.

Cultivation theory has become one of the most cited theories in research on media. One reason for the continued interest is that while television Links to an external site. is no longer limited to a few channels like it was back when Gerbner formed his theory, watching TV is still one of the primary ways that people consume media.

In 2020, Americans spent an average of 3.1 hours a day with TV—including live TV, DVDs, and streaming—making it the most popular leisure activity amongst Americans of all ages.

While there are more choices of shows to watch today, TV is still controlled by a small number of companies that need to make a profit. As Gerbner pointed out in 1998, since these companies tend to produce shows for a global audience, it diminishes the diversity of their messages.

Additions to Cultivation Theory

As interest in cultivation theory took off, Gerbner and colleagues introduced new concepts that provided additional context to its original explanation of media influence. In particular, they contributed to the ideas of mainstreaming and resonance.

  • Mainstreaming suggests that heavy TV viewers who come from different demographic groups come to share the same beliefs about social reality. While people of various ages, genders Links to an external site., social classes, and races have different views of the world, frequent TV viewers from these groups will still come to share perspectives that are reflective of the same TV messages that they consume.
  • Resonance proposes that when a media message lines up with an individual's life experience, it enhances the effects of the message. For example, a person who has direct experience with a violent crime will find TV's messages about the prevalence of crime very resonant, and it will boost the cultivation of the belief that the world is a violent place. Studies by both Gerbner and other researchers have found evidence of this effect.

Social Media

In the modern age, cultivation theory can also be applied to social media Links to an external site.. Like TV, social media often does not portray the reality of real life. Since people can curate their posts to show exactly what they want to portray (and hide what they don’t want to share), our perceptions of the world can be skewed by what we see on social media.

Social media isn’t necessarily replacing TV viewing, either. Some research has suggested that social media has actually boosted TV viewership, particularly because people can post their reactions to a show in real-time on social media.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars have also seen firsthand how social media and cultivation theory were connected. Social media played a significant role in the dissemination of information—and misinformation—about COVID and shaped what people believed.

Scholars are also investigating how other popular types of media such as video games Links to an external site. and mobile apps cultivate users' perceptions of reality.

For example, one study found a connection between more dating app usage by gay men and their attitudes about masculinity, how much they internalized negative attitudes about gay people, as well as their overall body dissatisfaction.

Another study found that users who browse Instagram's public content hold biased views about strangers' physical appearance and show more disordered eating.

Evidence for Cultivation Theory

There is a great deal of evidence for cultivation theory. Many studies have backed up Gerbner’s idea that common messages promoted by TV distort people's perceptions of social reality.

For example, research has shown that frequent TV viewers overestimate things like rates of crime and violence, the risks posed by natural disasters Links to an external site., the number of people employed as police officers Links to an external site. and lawyers, and the prevalence of affluence Links to an external site..

This tendency of heavy TV viewers to form incorrect beliefs about the real world is called "first-order cultivation effects."

While there is plenty of evidence for first-order cultivation effects, there is less evidence for second-order cultivation effects. The second-order effects happen when the messages taken in through TV change people's values and attitudes about the world.

Some studies have suggested that heavy TV viewers are more likely to believe that most people cannot be trusted Links to an external site.. They also feel that they are at greater risk of falling victim to crime—a perception Gerbner called "Mean World Syndrome."

Criticism of Cultivation Theory

While cultivation theory remains a popular framework for media research, it has also been criticized.

Cultivation Theory Treats Viewers as Passive Consumers

One reason some media scholars question cultivation theory is that it treats viewers as passive.19 Gerbner's focus was on the messages that television Links to an external site. conveys, and he used that basis to make assumptions about the way viewers respond to the messages instead of investigating their actual behavior.

While the criticism is valid, research evidence for cultivation theory shows that mass media messages generally influence consumers despite Gerbner's oversight.

Cultivation Theory Does Not Consider How Different Genres Effect Viewers

Some scholars have taken issue with the way Gerbner looked at TV without differentiating between various shows and genres.

While Gerbner argued that it was the general system of messages that TV communicated that was important, recent research has used a cultivation perspective to explore the effects of heavy exposure to specific genres or even individual programs.

These studies have suggested that watching different genres has an even greater effect on a person’s perceptions of social reality than general TV consumption does.

Summary

Gerbner’s cultivation theory states that people’s views of the world are heavily influenced by the messages they get from media, like watching TV. In the modern age, social media may also influence—and skew—people’s perceptions of reality. While there are some criticisms of cultivation theory, it continues to be one of the most popular theories in media and its effects on consumers, and many studies have backed up Gerbner’s claims.

Article #3

There’s a Psychological ‘Vaccine’ Against Misinformation Links to an external site.

A social psychologist found that showing people how manipulative techniques work can create resilience against misinformation

By Daisy Yuhas  March 13, 2023

Misinformation can feel inescapable. Last summer a survey from the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies found that 62 percent of people regularly notice false or misleading information Links to an external site. online. And in a 2019 poll, almost nine in 10 people Links to an external site. admitted to having fallen for fake news. Social psychologist Sander van der Linden of the University of Cambridge studies how and why people share such information and how it can be stopped. He spoke with Mind Matters editor Daisy Yuhas to discuss this work and his new book, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity Links to an external site., which offers research-backed solutions to stem this spread.

In Foolproof, you borrow an analogy from the medical world, arguing that misinformation operates a lot like a virus. How did you come to that comparison?

I was going through journals and found models from epidemiology and public health that are used to understand how information propagates across a system. Instead of a virus spreading, you have an information pathogen. Somebody shares something with you, and you then spread it to other people.

That led me to wonder: If it’s true that misinformation spreads like a virus, is it possible to inoculate people? I came across some work from the 1960s by Bill McGuire Links to an external site., a psychologist who studied how people could protect themselves from “brainwashing.” He had a very similar thought. That connection led to this whole program of research.

How do we get “infected”?

A virus attacks by exploiting our cells’ weak spots and hijacking some of their machinery. It’s the same for the mind in many ways. There are certain cognitive biases that can be exploited by misinformation. Misinformation infects our memories and influences the decisions that we make.

One example is the illusory truth bias. That’s the idea that just hearing something repeatedly—even if you know that it is wrong—makes it seem more true. These learned automatic associations are part of how the brain works.

In your research, you’ve extended the virus metaphor to argue that we can vaccinate ourselves against misinformation through a technique that you call “prebunking.” How does that work?

Prebunking has two parts. First is forewarning, which jump-starts the psychological immune system because it’s sleeping most of the time. We tell people that someone may want to manipulate them, which raises their skepticism and heightens their awareness.

The second part of the prebunk is analogous to providing people with a weakened dose of the virus in a vaccine. For example, in some cases, you get a small dose of the misinformation and tips on how to refute it. That can help people be more resilient against misinformation.

In addition, we have found that there are general techniques used to manipulate the spread of misinformation in a lot of different environments. In our studies, we have found that if you can help people spot those broader techniques, we can inoculate them Links to an external site. against a whole range of misinformation. For instance, in one study, people played a game [Bad News Links to an external site.] to help them understand the tactics used to spread fake news. That improved their ability to spot a range of unreliable information by about 20 to 25 percent.

So you help people recognize and resist incoming misinformation broadly by alerting them to the techniques people use to manipulate others. Can you walk me through an example?

Sure. We created a series of videos in partnership with Google to make people more aware of manipulative techniques on YouTube. One is a false dichotomy, or false dilemma. It’s a common tactic and one that our partners at Google alerted us to because it’s present in many radicalization videos.

In a false dichotomy, someone incorrectly asserts that you have only one of two options. So an example would be “either you’re not a good Muslim, or you have to join ISIS.” Politicians use this approach, too. In a U.S. political context, an example might be: “We have to fix the homelessness problem in San Francisco before we start talking about immigrants.”

In our research, we have exposed people to this concept using videos that explain false dichotomies in nonpolitical scenarios. We use popular culture like Family Guy and Star Wars. People have loved it, and it’s proved to be a really good vehicle.

After seeing a video like this, the next time you’re presented with just two options, you realize somebody may be trying to manipulate you.

In August you published findings from a study with more than 20,000 people viewing these videos Links to an external site., which called out techniques such as false dilemmas, scapegoating and emotionally manipulative language. What did you learn?

What we find is that, using these videos, people are better able to recognize misinformation that we show them later both in the lab and on social media. We included a live test on the YouTube platform. In that setup, the environment is not controlled, and people are more distracted, so it’s a more rigorous test.

These videos were part of an ad campaign run by Google that had millions of views. Google has now rolled out videos based on this research that are targeted at misinformation about Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees in Europe. They are specifically helping people spot the technique of scapegoating.

In the book, you point out that many people who think they are immune to misinformation are not. For instance, in one survey, almost 50 percent of respondents believed they could spot fake news, but only 4 percent Links to an external site. succeeded. Even “digital natives” can fall for fake content Links to an external site.. Can this happen to anyone?

A lot of people are going to think that they’re immune. But there are basic principles that expose us all. For example, there is an evolutionary argument that’s quite important here called the truth bias. In most environments, people are not being actively deceived, so our default state is to accept that things are true. If you had to critically question everything, you couldn’t get through your day. But if you are in an environment—like on social media—where the rate of misinformation is much higher, things can go wrong.

We do have biases that can be exploited by producers of misinformation. It’s not easy, given all of the new information we’re exposed to all the time, for people to keep track of what’s credible. But I’m hopeful because there are some solutions. Prebunking is not a panacea, but it’s a good first line of defense, and it helps, as does debunking and fact-checking. We can help people maintain accuracy and stay vigilant.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Article #4

The Potentially Dangerous Effects of Social Media Reels on the Mind Links to an external site.

By Hannah Smith Pikes Peak Courier  Updated 

With reels — a short-form video format widely seen as a response to TikTok — now available on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, social media platforms are advancing in their capacity to rapidly disseminate vast amounts of information to users in less than 30 seconds.

While it may seem like a convenience to have such an array of information at your fingertips, how would it impact a media user’s mental health to have social media consumed at even faster rates?

Before TikTok and the rise of reels, studies — including those conducted by the National Library of Medicine (NIH) — indicated that while social media platforms can boost moods via connection to others, the apps were still linked to increased mental health issues and symptoms of attention deficit disorder (ADHD). “(Social Media) puts an impact on certain young people, causing them to start comparing their accomplishments, aptitudes, or looks negatively. Studies have connected upper levels of social networking comparison to the depressive symptoms of adolescents,” an NIH article Reviewing the Impact of Social Media on the Mental Health of Adolescents and Young Adults found.

While ADHD symptoms and mental health concerns have been commonly studied in regard to social media, today’s reels bring an entirely new arena to users’ minds with an even more rapid consumption of media. “While I haven’t had TikTok since the pandemic, I quickly learned that every app has its own version of short videos like Instagram reels, and YouTube shorts,” Kayla Shelly said. “I find it difficult to sit through long lectures in classrooms as a direct result of my lowered attention span from spending countless hours watching Instagram reels and falling into the scrolling death trap.

“It feels inescapable.”

Dr. Cara Greene, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at CC, has extensively studied political philosophy and critical theory, including philosophies of “alienation” in the modern world. Greene suggests that social media platforms’ style of communication may desensitize users to intense or traumatic content, like images from the Gaza–Israel conflict, by juxtaposing it quickly with ads or cute cat videos. “Digital communication translates an inconceivable phenomenon like climate change into bite-size units,” Greene said. “Pieces of information like this can be easily communicated as if it were the same kind of phenomenon as more mundane entertainment.”

According to Greene, rapid consumption of stimuli on social media may lead users to develop a “blasé” attitude (reduced emotional engagement or a sense of detachment) as a protective mechanism against this constant influx of stimuli. Greene compared this phenomenon to the “blasé” attitude that some city dwellers may develop as a result of the excessive sounds, smells, and sights surrounding them in places like New York City. “City dwellers are confronted with a huge amount of stimuli: colors, sounds, movements, and demands on their work and social lives,” Greene said. “To maintain a kind of subjective homeostasis, people have to put on this kind of affective armor to not be affected by all of that stimuli in a way that gets in the way with their daily functioning.”

Colorado College students reiterated concerns they have felt from reels on various social media apps, including Greene’s proposals about unintentionally developing blasé attitudes to harsh media.

CC junior Olivia Burkley expressed concerns about mundane ads being placed next to videos of war. “TikTok definitely concerns me,” Burkley said. “I think it desensitizes people in an unhealthy way. It’s incredibly distressing to see videos of influencers promoting overconsumption followed by videos of war and political propaganda.”

CC sophomore Sabra Catalano shared similar sentiments to Burkley. “It is jarring to go from something like a fashion or funny post to seeing a post about the war,” Catalano said. “It has desensitized me to the things that are difficult to say.”

CC sophomore Chris Whalen shared that while social media has personal benefits when it comes to raising awareness for issues, community organizing or staying in touch, it is still concerning to see intense media next to day-to-day media. “I think it’s a lot harder for me to see people post on Instagram about Gaza or other horrific things that are happening and then post a picture of their 5-star restaurant meal or like them doing extravagant things, you know? That just feels so insensitive to me,” Whalen said.

According to Greene, however, younger generations like Generation Z — despite their increased exposure to social media — may be more equipped to reject its effects from their heightened awareness and exposure to the apps. “I think that because of the intimate knowledge of social media that Gen Z has, they have the kind of granular, insight into how to they push back against the apparatus of social media,” Greene said.

Younger individuals like Burkely have decided to stay off of the apps altogether after gaining awareness of their harmful effects. “I think social media has largely defined Gen Z as a whole,” Burkely said. “Overall, social media has been negative for my mental health. I decided to stop using Snapchat and Instagram in high school. I haven’t posted on my personal Instagram since 2018.”

While the reels may keep spinning, the voices of Colorado College students echo a collective unease about the potential desensitization fostered by these platforms, and how active users and younger generations will be affected by these condensed media hubs. “On one hand, I think Gen Z spends too much time on social media and it has had a profound impact on our generation but I don’t know if it’s fair or plausible for us to all ‘get off social media,’” Whalen said. “It seems too ingrained in us and the world at this point for us to ‘go back’ to a time without it.”