The rise of mass media (press, film, radio, television, etc.) during the twentieth century has been accompanied by continuous claims and debate concerning their effects. The term ‘effects’ refers to two different things: the potential to inform and influence according to the wishes of mass media senders, and the many, often unintended, consequences for individuals and societies which may have followed the extensive availability and use of mass media. Belief in the power and effects of media in the two senses is founded on certain distinctive features of the new technologies for mass communication, especially their enormous capacity to carry information, sounds, images and ideas of all kinds; the possibility of reaching very large proportions of a national (and now a global) population almost simultaneously or in a very short time; the apparent capacity to overcome old barriers to communication, not only those of time and space, but also those of culture, age and economic differences; and the evidently great attraction of mass media to nearly everyone.
The potential of far-reaching effects of the two kinds mentioned is without question great and real. It is confirmed by everyday experience and simple observation of a world in which distant events are often common knowledge instantly, styles and fashions disseminated by the media are encountered in much the same form across the globe and the routine of daily life is nearly everywhere patterned by the ubiquitous and rather similar television screen, radio and newspaper. Furthermore, an additional witness to the power of media can readily be found in the vast sums which are spent by advertisers and by propagandists of all kinds on mass media.
We can, with some confidence, say that the mass media have, in general, the following main kinds of effects in significant measure. They provide us with much of our information about our near and extended environment; they influence our habits of consumption; they provide models and examples (positive or negative) which guide our development and behaviour; they help us to relax; they help us to participate in and relate more effectively to our social group and environment. At another level, it is also clear that the mass media now facilitate and influence the working of major social institutions, such as those of politics, government, the justice system and business. A longer term and more general effect of mass media is the influence they exert on culture, whether this is taken to mean social habits and practices, symbolic goods produced and consumed, values, language use or cultural identifications (to nation, locality, social group, etc.).
In respect of these different kinds of media effects (individual, institutional or cultural), there is some consensus on the general direction of effects to be expected. In relation to individual information, opinions and behaviour, it is thought that people are influenced according to the dominant emphasis and direction in the media to which they are most exposed. Whatever receives most attention and is portrayed in a positive light by trusted or liked sources is, other things being equal, likely to lead to effects in line with media message content. In respect of institutions, it begins to look as if the media, when taken up for institutional purposes, do serve these ends quite well, but they also have a significant effect on the institutions themselves as they adapt their activities to the potential and the demands of the media. In respect of culture, the main general effects of the media have been said to be in the direction of greater homogeneity of culture nationally and internationally (the phenomenon of cultural ‘globalization’); the rise of a new form of media culture which is an outcome of technology, a new class of cultural producers, and a new industrial and commercial system.
This conventional wisdom concerning the effects of the mass media is often invoked as a general truth, largely because it is tried and tested and fits much everyday observation. It is only part of the story, however; it does not explain why there is so much dispute, debate and continued searching for harder evidence to back the general hypotheses formulated. The main reasons for uncertainty are as follows. Both intended and unintended effects of mass media can be perceived as either good or bad, and there are often vested interests in claiming or denying one or the other; mass media can rarely be separated out and measured as a single single causal factor, except in the most simple laboratory conditions; effects are far from one directional and are rarely predictable except in the most general terms; there are many and varied individual, social and cultural barriers to media effects; the mass media are also continually changing, as new technologies change the potental and as the societal context changes (societies do not stand still).
In respect of individuals, the main dispute has centred on the potential for mass media to encourage the imitation or learning (especially by young people) of aggressive, antisocial or undesirable values and behaviour. This charge by critics of the media has been answered by controls on content, inconclusive research and by claims that the mass media teach many more pro-social than antisocial messages. In general, they do seem to be on the side of the established order (a point of criticism by another group of critics). Advertising and political communication are the institutional forms which have received most scrutiny, and both have been criticized on the mutually inconsistent grounds that they are not really effective and are both inclined to mislead, trivialize and manipulate. The potential for mass communication to integrate society and homogenize culture has to be weighed against the view that mass media can have isolating and atomizing effects on social life, through encouraging privatization and individual consumerism. The media may offer a new global media culture to all, but they also undermine and weaken traditional and particular cultures. In most of these disputes, the standards of evidence required to settle questions of media effects cannot be attained by social research, even if the parties in dispute would be ready to listen.
In any case, it is clear (although only fragmentarily demonstratable) that mass media do normally have inconsistent and even contradicatory effects, which depend on the circumstances of context and place. At the root of this observation is the crucial fact (which has often been demonstrated) that effects are produced by people themselves, individually and in institutions, in interaction with media but not by the media directly. This applies, whether the effects are considered as information, behaviour, opinions or expressions of value. A one-sided media-centric view of social and cultural change has tended for too long to dominate discussion of media effects, although it has been clearly rejected by current theory and research. The expression media effects is itself misleading, although it will have to continue to serve as a signpost for a much more complex phenomenon which is rather older and will endure longer than the media.
Denis McQuail
University of Amsterdam
Further reading
Gomstock, G., Chaffee, S., Katzman, N., McCombs, M. and Roberts, D. (1978) Television and Human Behavior, New York.
Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M. (eds) (1991) Mass Media and Society, London.
Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching, Berkeley, CA.
Hovland, C.I., Lumsdaine, A.A. and Sheffield, F.D. (1949) Experiments in Mass Communication, Princeton, NJ.
Lazarfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, F. (1944) The People’s Choice, New York.
McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory, 3rd edn, London.
McQuail, D. and Windahl, S. (1993) Communication Models, 2nd edn, London.
