There are many elements to human behavior and how it can be altered and effected. Media and the news can have a major effect on human behavior and the way that people act. This has been a topic of interest dating back to as early as 1920. The Payne Fund Studies, in the 1920s and 1930s were conducted to determine the effects of movies on children and adolescents. The studies have been criticized for lacking scientific explanation, but they were the first attempt to study the media.
While in class this week, we discussed the Agenda Setting Theory. The Agenda Setting Theory focuses on the relationship between what we think and how mass media portrays information to us. Ultimately, the news will concentrate on certain issues which leads the public to think that these issues are more important than others. The press does not always reflect reality, and they also filter it to make us believe certain things. This theory is so important because, it shows that the publics thoughts can be altered to believe what the news wants it to believe.
The Agenda Setting Theory is not the only way that our thoughts can be altered by another person. Another example of how human behavior can be affected is its compliance to authority. There have been multiple experiments done to show that people comply to authority quite easily. Two that we learned about in class this week are the Milgrim shock experiment and the Stanford prison experiment. The Milgrim Shock Experiment was conducted by Yale University and psychologist Stanley Milgrim in 1961. The experiment would measure how people would obey to authority. Participants in the experiment were told that they were helping with an experiment, their job was to administer electric shocks to a “learner” in a different room. The participants were accompanied by the experimenter who acted as an authoritative figure. The electric shocks were fake, and the entire experiment was staged but the participants had no clue. Unbelievably, many of the participants obeyed the instructions and complied to authority. Many of these participants administered shocks that would have been fatal if the experiment they were helping with was real. 65 percent of the participants in the experiment administered the final shock, which was 450 volts, due to an authoritative figure telling them that they had to continue. Another experiment that would show how people obey authority was the Stanford Prison Experiment. This experiment was done in 1971 and conducted by a research group led by psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo. In the study volunteers were assigned to be guards or prisoners in a mock prison. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks but ended after 6 days due to the assigned guards acting in authoritative ways towards the prisoners. The study was done to investigate the effects of perceived power on an individual. Both experiments discussed in class showed the power of authority and how human beings comply to it.
The documentary film “Why Be Good” describes how sex and scandals is portrayed in films, even in the early cinemas. Of course this came with the threat of censorship though. Sexuality in the early 1800’s was almost foreign. With the introduction of nickelodeons was possible to see on screen what a kissed looked like.
With this arose the question of what exactly could be screened. Film gave Americans a whole new view of sex and freedom. Women were given the right to vote and could see films. These films could give them a view on fashion but also freedom. Scandals broke out in the film industry when Fatty Arbuckle, an American film star, was caught in the middle of a murder scandal. This was considered Hollywood’s first major scandal.
Censorship would play its part in deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for viewers. It has been constantly debated what exactly “is okay” and “not okay” to screen on TV. Media exposure was known to impact people. That is why politics, parents, and the film industry have argued for years what is okay to show children, especially when violence is being aired. Many people questioned, does exposing children to violence in film and TV make them more violent? This introduced the idea of the mean world syndrome.
The mean world bias is coined by Dr. George Gerbner. The concept suggests that people exposed to heavy levels of violence media, such as violent movies or TV, would see the world as a more violent, or “mean”, place. Gernber wanted people to realize the impact that media could have.
Social Psychology has been known to show the impact and influence that social factors such as authority can have on a person. The famous Stanford prison experiment showed how influential power can be on a person. Normal people were transformed into brutal prison guards. The experiment is famously known for exposing true human nature and many documentaries have been made about it.
The bystander effect was discovered whenKitty Genovese was murdered as multiple witnesses heard and did nothing. The bystander effect states that people are “less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present; the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that one of them will help.” Experiments have since shown similar results supporting the idea of the bystander theory. It must be human nature to diffuse responsibility but the question is why??
The influence people can have on each other is astonishing but so is the influence the media can have on people. News stations set agendas to decide what information they think is most important for people to see. By doing so many news stations will broadcast bias reports, influencing the viewers perspectives on things whether the viewers may realize it or not.
Which news station a person watches may even influence who they decide to vote for in the future. Other stations will broadcast information for the views and what stories they think are the most entertaining whether or not the issues are actually important. So many TV channels focus on celebrity drama and will try to exploit celebrities for the views. People form opinions on celebrities based on the stories they hear online and over and over again on TV. Without even fact checking information viewers minds have been made up. It is important to fact check what you may see or hear on TV because the TV stations agenda may not always be the same as yours….
During the 20’s there were a multitude of scandals over the news media. The main news just became a place where the scandals were told left and right. One of the more famous actors that took the most heat during this time was a beloved actor named Phatty Arbuckle. Because of this scandalous period in news media time he lost everything because the certain legal trouble that he got into. Not only was he attacked for these scandals, but so were the movie themselves. Scandals like these situations are the exact reasons why Hollywood tried to keep negative news out of the media.
In class the other day we watched a documentary about authority. In previous classes I have watched that entire thing, and even to this day, it completely amazes me that those results came about. Why is it that people just obey authority even though deep down they know its wrong. In a real world situation like that I wouldn’t be able to continue at all knowing that someone was in pain due to my actions. I’ve always been about respect because thats how I was raised, but theirs a clear difference between respect and obedience. I was told to obey anything an officer or someone with high power has to say, but in situations like these you need to know the difference between right and wrong and go about it accordingly. If someone important keeps telling you to shock some random person just because they said so I really don’t think I would. Although I know now that the shock was fake and there really wasn’t anyone there, I feel like I’d be one of the certain people who wouldn’t comply.
The Stanford prison experiment is another example of strange obedience. At first it didn’t really startle anyone, but soon enough people began thinking this was the worst idea of they’re lives. Everyone in this experiment signed up for this “torture” and began to hate every second of it, because the people actually began to live they’re assigned roles. These people were completely convinced that they were indeed prisoners or guards of a real prison. These prisoners were humiliated by the guards, to the point they began having mental breakdowns and would lose control of themselves. The torture tactics would only increase from there, and soon enough people wanted out of the experiment. Zimbardos experiment didn’t last very long after that, but the results are clear. If people are given roles they are most likely gonna fill them to they’re perceived view of the role.
Society for the most part makes decisions based
however the media depicts it. That’s what we discussed in class. People have a
hard time differencing what they see in a movie or on the news for how things
go about in real life. We watched a documentary in class about how power can be
used for good, but ultimately for manipulation and self-use as well. The
Stanford Prison Experiment was a social psychology experiment conducted back in
1971, to see psychological effects of perceived power. The experiment was conducted between people
playing roles as prison guards and prisoners. At first, the experiment didn’t really
seem to startle anyone. The guards tried to get into character by trying to
mess with the prisoners but most of the prisoners took it as a joke right away.
However, as days went on, the prison guards found their roll and started to get
inside the prisoners’ heads. Torture tactics started to increase, and prisoners
started to feel like they didn’t want to be their anymore. Prisoners started
asking if they could get out of the experiment, but it seemed as though the
more power the guards gained, the more intense and real the experiment was. We
can’t really say if its good or bad.
Another thing is how news is reported and depicted.
There are cases of people who watch tv that have violence or experience any
violence on media are more subject to violence going forward, however there is
no real case for it. People have different viewpoints towards certain issues
along with different ways that their mind processes events. We watched a Jon Stewart
talk show clip in our last class and the news anchor and reporter went from
talking about government surveillance and spying to a breaking news case
regarding popular singer, Justin Bieber. You would think the government surveillance
topic would get more attention, but Hollywood has a large impact on media
consumers. Most people I bet didn’t even blink an eye when the breaking news
came on because it was more interesting already to them than the government
topic. Why is that?
Hollywood has a crazy impact on society between shows,
movies, celebrities and more. There is so much media that one cannot focus on everything
on the media, but still have focus over certain aspects which still gives
Hollywood an upper hand. Scandals drive up the ratings for sure. When the news
of a celebrity doing something wrong breaks the Internet, everyone is invested because
one way or another they feel a connection towards them. That’s why catching
scandals is so good for the news because this one big topic will drive in
viewers.
Scandals running rampant. In the 1920’s Hollywood was running ramped. The news media loved they found so many scandals that this was the main news for years. One actor was in some senses of the word sacrificed to this. Phatty arbuckle was a beloved actor who lost everything due to some legal trouble.
The actors were not the only ones under fire. The movies themselves were being attacked so much so that a fund to see what the impacts of movies were on children. Even though Chicago refused to do so because it was a biased search but one nonetheless. This created a production code that would change the rules of Hollywood forever.One actor that was destroyed due to these new restrictions was an actress called Vamp. Many of her movies were rated harshly and really hurt her career. Even after these scandals los Angeles grew eight times its size.
One thing that I am going to argue help people try to make the argument that movies influence people. The effectiveness of actress and actors selling war bonds. They were very effective in getting individuals to buy into them in order to help with the First World War. Overall about 20 billion dollars in war bonds were sold overall. A large portion of this can be contributed to the actors selling these bonds.
We have no evidence that people are more violent due to watching violence on TV or playing video games. We do have evidence that the news can have an impact on how people see the world. Even though crime rates have been declining since the 1970’s people in the United States thinks that the world is more dangerous than in the past. This is strange because many people don’t believe that movies have an impact on how people act but the news does. This is part of agenda setting. The news puts up these topics in order to get more ratings and it makes things seem differently than the way things truly are.
In society we are ruled by the idea of mob mentality and higher powers. In the years after WWII people had no idea how the Nazi soldiers were able to go through with the terrible acts they did. So people went to test this. In one study that was done people were to shock people for getting wrong answers. They would do this even after they believed someone died because they were told to.
This week in class we watched Why Be Good? Colleen Moore stars as Pert Kelly, a business young lady in a retail chain by day and a jazz child around evening time. One night she meets a person who happens to be the son of the department store owner. They hit it off, yet when she’s late for work the next morning, she’s called into his office and they find what their identity is. She’s terminated by the storekeeper, yet she figures the son did it. Rich daddy attempts to shield his child from that sort of young lady and convinces him to test her by taking her to an inn to perceive how she responds. Is it true that she is a decent young lady? Does it make a difference? All things considered, for what reason be great? Moore is staggering as the move crazed flapper, who still lives at home with mother and father. With her mark hair-do and scanty dresses, she the very image of the quiet flapper. Hamilton is additionally great as the credulous child. Co-stars incorporate Jack Norton as the smashed sweetheart. The film features in a well-delegated and flawlessly bundled way the discussions about the role of women at the time. Objecting her dad’s strictures about clothing standard and relaxation exercises, Moore contends that on the off chance that she attempts to add to family unit upkeep, at that point she has an option to seem as though she needs and do what she needs. These contentions had been worked through in endless movies.
We also watched a documentary called The Mean World Syndrome. This was a very interesting documentary to me. “The Mean World Syndrome”, represents Gerbner’s development hypothesis by the strife between impression of rising viciousness and rising weapon deals, and real falling wrongdoing rates. The fourth and fifth segments, “Mean People” and “The Fallout”, investigate further ramifications of the development speculation, for example, the media’s proclamation of contrary generalizations of African Americans, Latinos and Muslims, and the residential governmental issues and international strategy associated with it. As indicated by Cultivation Theory, high introduction to “television wrongdoing world” may cause the Mean World Syndrome, as such, watchers discovers that the vast majority aren’t dependable and wrongdoing is uncontrolled in each road. For instance, individuals believe that wrongdoing rate is higher than the past, in spite of the fact that it’s not valid. Another impact is over the top nervousness about wrongdoing.
In the first half of the week, we talked about media’s effects and the theories that go along with this. We began by watching a film called Why Be Good. This film depicted the tensions that could be felt between film makers and censorship makers. Censorship makers were deeming what was appropriate or not to be shown on film. This soon led to the question of what is appropriate? In the early 1900’s, women really did not have much of a say in the film industry. However, that would soon change as actress Mary Pickford would soon become the most powerful woman in Hollywood. Pickford started her career as a well known actress. She soon began producing her own films and helped create the United Artists Studio, which gave her more control in the industry.
Mary Pickford
As this was going on, the United States had entered into World War I. With all of the men at war, women were given more responsibilities including some that men had. This soon began the rise to more rights for women, which included the right to vote. During the 20’s, women began to “test” authority. This gave rise to the “flapper,” which were women that wore skirts, bobbed their hair, and flaunted their disdain for what was then considered acceptable behavior.
Because of this shift, it was later okay for women to appear in art. It was considered “tasteful” and “beautiful.” This also gave rise to the first male and female sex symbols of this time. The first male sex symbol was Rudolph Valentino. Valentino was an Italian-born actor who starred in several well known silent films at that time. The first female sex symbol was Clara Bow. Bow was an American actress who also starred in several well known silent films, as well as “talky” films. These were simply films with sound.
Rudolph Valentino
Clara Bow
We then shifted our discussions to major theories in media. The first theory mentioned was the Cultivation Theory, which was founded by George Gerbner. This theory suggests that exposure to media, over time, subtly “cultivates” viewers perceptions of reality. As Gerbner puts it, “television is a medium of the socialization of most people into standardized roles and behaviors. Its function is in a word, enculturation.” This brings up the idea of the “mean world syndrome.” Heavy users of television would view the world as more “dangerous, mean, and violent” rather than light users of television.
George Gerbner
The second theory mentioned was the Agenda Setting Theory, which was introduced by Dr. Maxwell McCombs. This theory describes the “ability” of the news and media to influence the importance placed on the topics of the public agenda. There are multiple phases involved in this theory. Some of the major phases include the public sphere (where society discusses issues that affect everyone), public agenda, and public policy.
For the next half of the week, we discussed human behavior to authority and the bystander effect. We began by watching a film called The Big Picture. This film was about human behavior experiments that were done by Stanley Milgram. Milgram used a shock generator that increased in voltage from left to right. The machine was hooked up to a person where the current would be sent to a person. This was controlled by the “test subject” using the shock generator. The idea was to see how far the person using the shock generator would proceed before they turned to the moderator to stop. When this happened, the moderator simply told that person to keep going. Because of this obedience to authority, 60-65% of these people went all the way to the end.
Stanley Milgram with the shock generator
Another example of this obedience to authority could be seen with the strip searches at a McDonald’s in Kentucky. A man posing to be a fake police officer called a McDonald’s supposedly investigating a theft, which then turned into a drug complaint. The man ordered the people over phone to do whatever they were told. The employees were ordered to strip as well as perform sexual behaviors. Even though the people knew what they were doing was wrong, they still did it because they felt pressured to obey authority.
Along with behavior to authority, there is another concept of the bystander effect. This is a psychological claim that individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present; the greater number of bystanders, the less likely it is that one of them will help. An example of this can be seen with the death of Matthew Carrington. Carrington was a shy person who wanted to open up a little, so he wanted to join a fraternity at his college. In order to become a part of the fraternity, Matthew had to perform very physical tasks, which included intense exercise. The fraternity brothers then made him drink as much water as possible, which soon poisoned him. He later died right in front of four fraternity brothers. Because there were multiple people there, someone was waiting for the other person to act first and do something.
Another example of this bystander effect was seen with the stabbing of 28 year old Kitty Genovese in an apartment building. There were about 38 witnesses who saw the incident or heard it, but did nothing to stop it. By the time someone acted by calling the police it was already to late because she had died.
Kitty Genovese
The last thing discussed was the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was created by Dr. Zimbardo. This was a social psychology experiment that attempted to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. A group of 24 students were divided into two groups of twelve. One group would be the officers and the other would be the prisoners. The officers were given a uniform, whistle, sunglasses, and billy club. These items represent authority and power. The prisoners were given a number in place of their name and were chained at the ankle. This represented the loss of their freedom and degradation. The prisoners tested the guards several times. In response the guards used their authority and power to stop this by harassing the prisoners and degrading them. Days after the start, there were legit emotional breakdowns by some of the prisoners, which resulted in them having to be removed from the experiment. The experiment would last only 6 days before Dr. Zimbardo had enough.
So, why do people blindly follow authority with out questioning orders even when they know it’s wrong? Why is it that when someone needs help people stand around and kind of watch rather than help that poor soul? Well I hope to answer both of these questions with the use of some stone cold facts! Lets start with authority. One thing that installed in all of us as children is to respect your elders, or when you go to school your parents always tell you to listen and do what your teachers tell you to. You’re told to comply with officers and if not aggressive force may be used. There was an experiment that was called the Stanford Prison experiment and basically what happened was that people were randomly assigned to one of two groups. You were either a prison guard or a prisoner. To save you the details what they found was that these people ended up assuming the roles they were assigned, including the man who was in charge of it all Phillip Zimbardo. These prisoners were humiliated by the guards and they all did as they were told after the rebellion on day two. Even though this was an experiment these prisoners would comply until they had mental breakdowns and Zimbardo ended the experiment. Another experiment was when someone in a lab coat would tell people to give someone in a different room a shock if they had answer a question wrong. The volts would increase with every question answered wrong. The catch was the person receiving the shock was not a real person and no one was given shocks. With encouragement from the man in the lab coat 60 to 65% of all volunteers ended up reaching the highest voltage level they could administer, which would be lethal if anyone had been there.
The bystander effect is when people see some who needs help and doesn’t help them, because they are waiting for someone else to do so. For example someone being bullied and no one sticking up for him, or someone getting stabbed in the street and no one calls the police. In an experiment where one person had to help someone having a seizure they called the police. But, they did the same experiment with three people and no one did anything because they were all waiting for someone else to step up to the plate. This was all under question after a lady was stabbed in the streets of NYC and murdered in front of a building. Over 30 people watched this transpire but no one called the police when it was happening. When someone actually did call the police it was sadly too late and she had died. Or when 4 frat brothers saw one of their friends die. They thought he was ok and they had just put him to bed right when someone was about to call the police. They thought he was ok even though he had died from drinking too much water. People become bystanders because they’re waiting for someone else to do something about it. People also blindly follow authority because it was installed in us as children to follow authority. In my opinion i believe that people need to start asking questions when someone asks them to do something they don’t agree with. People need to start sticking up for each other rather than walk by if someone is being bullied. They could potentially save a life.
This week in class, we discussed many different things.
On Monday, we watched a documentary called “Why Be Good?: Sexuality & Censorship in Early Cinema.” This documentary reflected an overview of the portrayal and influence of sexuality on film, from the silent era until the administration of the Hays Code in 1934. We learned about the earlier days of film, and pre-censorship from state to state. We learned how scandals caused Hollywood to try and keep negative news out of the media. We also heard how stars such as Mary Pickford, Marlene Dietrich, Clara Bow, and Mae West gave others new attitudes and beliefs towards sex.
After the documentary, we talked about cultivation theory. Cultivation theory was proposed by George Gerbner, and is one of the main theories of media effects. According to the theory, people who watch television frequently are more likely to be influenced by the messages from the world of television. The influence goes to such an extent that their world view and perceptions start reflecting what they repeatedly see and hear on television. Television is, therefore, considered to contribute independently to the way people perceive social reality.
Cultivation theory has been widely used in the study of violence in television. The theory has been used to explain how children who watch violent cartoons become violent themselves. Repeated exposure to violence on television reinforces existing beliefs that the world is a dangerous and unsafe place. Exposure to television further strengthens the position that acts of violence are a natural response to situations of conflict.
During Wednesday’s class, we discussed another core theory of media effects, which is agenda setting. In media, agenda setting determines the agenda for which stories are considered important. When major news happens, the world’s mass media organizations take notice. Whether it is the President of the United States making an announcement or an incoming storm approaching, when it is a story that affects people, the news media is on alert to cover it, They provide viewers with the facts and information they need to understand what is happening. But sometimes it may seem, with so much media focus and scrutiny on a single event, that the mass media is missing or even ignoring other important stories. This is agenda-setting theory.
Another thing we discussed is the murder of Kitty Genovese. Genovese was a 28 year old woman who was murdered in her apartment building. There were about 38 witnesses who saw the incident, but did nothing to stop it. This is known as the bystander effect. Her killer was Winston Moseley.
The film we watched in class this week, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”, depicted the world behind the screen and how much goes in to receiving a rating. The MPAA is this highly secret group of individuals that decide what kind of rating a certain film deserves based upon each of their ideals. During the movie, Kirby Dick and a private investigator search for these individuals to find the truth behind the MPAA. They worked together to track the members of the MPAA down and discover what makes them so special. They find out that the members of this secret association are supposed to be “average” adult parents with children.
To be honest, I never knew how difficult it was to receive an appropriate rating. I did not think a small and secret group of parents made the decision for all films. I find it disturbing that these parents have so much power. They only see things through one perspective. There are certain films that will show a powerful message but show it in a different way to get their point across. These parents will only see the negative effects of how powerful messages will be shown. I think it’s important for films to freely show real world problems and spread awareness of certain cruel things that are really happening. The MPAA will give a NC-17 rating purely for sex standards rather than violence or crude language. I do not believe sex should be under strict surveillance. The MPAA restricts film makers to create sex scenes that are ridiculously exaggerated to prove a point to the audience.
The MPAA should not have the ability to disband an entire movie just for crude scenes that depict realistic situations that happen every day. The world has changed but the MPAA has not. They are still following false ideals. A film is supposed to present something that people have never seen before. The MPAA wants to present films based on their own false ideals that are reductant in this day of age. I find it strange how secretive the MPAA really is. They would only be this secretive if they also believed that their system is constructed on ideals that are wrong. They remain in secrecy to avoid the board members being interrupted by their decision-making from any outside influence. I think it construes their decision-making even more because this just means they are only being allowed to see through one perspective. They should be able to here other perspectives to form their own fair and honest opinion.
Mass Media & American Life - Fall 19 