On Media Theory...

Motives Underlying Media Selection

2012-02-08T11:10:00.002-05:00

Guest post by WVU Communication Studies M.A. student Zac Goldman.

Media scholars continue to be interested in the motivation behind the consumption and selection of media. Early researchers like Paul Lazarsfeld indicated that people sought out media to perform one of three functions: informing, transmitting, or correlating. Numerous authors since have suggested the importance of media to also be entertaining. The growing amount of research regarding entertainment as the motivating factor and use of media is generally examined from a macro-level perspective. A narrower focus of this perspective may potentially examine how entertainment, or any motivation factor, alters the effects of the media content.

One frequently used approach to examining uses and needs of media is the Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G). From this perspective, a generally accepted notion was constructed in that gratifications come from social and psychological needs. Although the theory has been used extensively to examine the psychological needs it has produced little predictive utility. The low predictive utility of the theory can logically be traced through the theory’s construction as it encourages recursive thinking; which brings further questions to the practicality of the theory.

The predictability (or lack thereof) of U&G is troubling and encourages alternative considerations. Now more than ever people have become active media users, rather than passive media audiences; and theoretical perspectives should reflect this.

The limited but powerful effects model examines media effects by reevaluating many of the previous models while incorporating key constructs which include the gratifications of social and psychological needs. Media content produces a cognitive, affective, or behavioral script (CAB) which is then received by the user. The user then internalizes this script with the psychological and societal needs in which they are facing. Only after the users complete the internalization will they determine whether to act on the script and demonstrate an CAB effect. In other words, the media content gives the user a puppet, but it is still the user’s decision and behavior which pull the strings and demonstrate the “effect”.

This perspective does not inherently assume that media produces what many would classify as an “effect”. Certainly the typical behavioral-based effect is possible within this model but no assumption is made that a user will demonstrate such an effect. However, as some would argue that discrepancies in the definition of media effects exist, the conversation resorts back to a macro-level perspective. If the definition of media effects shifts from its primarily behavioral connotation, the argument could be made that by learning something (from the script) which was previously unknown, an effect not only exists but it is assumed. Admittedly, this notion of media effects seems to be unpopular throughout the field.

So what are the implications? Well the importance of the user is rapidly becoming more recognized and appreciated than ever before. Previous perspectives of the media model which postulate that stimulus leads directly to response are becoming a thing of the past. The understanding of the moderator is critical in determining the importance of media effects (if any) within our society. The usage and motivation behind media consumption is arguably the starting point in conducting such research. Uses and Gratifications play a prominent role in determining the psychological needs of the user; however these needs must continue to be developed with societal needs to aid in determining their predictive utility as a moderator between the content and effects.

While the content of the media arguably gives the user the “bullets,” it is up to the user whether or not to “pull the trigger” which inevitably results in the media effect.

How does the channel affect the symbols?

2012-02-01T17:04:00.001-05:00

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Betsy Ditrinco, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

In Albert Bandura’s chapter on the Social Cognitive Theory, he describes how mass media and the human brain interact to develop an understanding of our culture. In defining three human functions (symbolizing capability, self-regulatory capability, and self-reflective capability), Bandura explains how humans process information derived from mass media. The symbolizing capability “provides humans with a powerful tool for comprehending their environment and creating and regulating environmental events that touch virtually every aspect” of our lives (p. 122). The self-regulatory capability is the function that controls our motivation, emotion, and behavior through evaluations of our own behavior. Finally, self-reflective capability is how we cognitively verify our accurate thoughts against our flawed thoughts.

When we consume different forms of media, we are constantly assigning meaning to symbols and developing an understanding of our culture. The question is if media channels affect the symbols that are sent. In the aftermath of 9/11, how did we interpret the symbols that a local TV >news reporter sent differently from the messages sent by radio personalities? I would argue that radio may offer more room for visual imagination and potentially a longer connection to the image. Instead of watching the anchor tell you a story from behind a desk, you are only listening to the radio host, potentially visualizing ground-zero the entire time. There are clearly countless variances that can affect the messages sent across different forms of media; what are some that come to mind for you? Can you argue the opposite side of the radio/television example? Along these lines, there are even differences within the same medium on different channels. There are some organizations that produce extreme liberal or conservative views. Depending on the channel (or blend of channels) an individual subscribes to, this can impact the way the person views the world and verifies his or her own way of thinking. In the early 1900’s, mass media created a fear based on this idea- limited channels, limited thoughts. Now we face the reality of inconsistent symbols with varying interpretations. I would argue this leads to broader thinking and stronger critique but could you argue any negative effects?

Social Cognitive Theory and Media Effects

2012-02-01T13:31:00.000-05:00

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Jennifer Seifert, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

In an explanation of Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura states that “symbolic modeling is central to full understanding of the effects of mass communication.” He argues that there are four major subfunctions that govern observational learning- attentional processes, retention processes, production processes, and motivational processes. Offering a simple explanation of each, the attentional process determines what is observed, the retention process determines what is remembered, the production process determines the plan of action, and the motivational process determines the cost/benefit of enacting a behavior.

It could be argued research centering on the effects of mass communication should measure outcomes or behaviors; however, this reflects a limited scope of the full effects of mass communication. In the retention process, observers of mass communication transform the information they receive into "rules and conceptions of memory". Therefore, the effects of mass communication can precede the manifestation of behaviors.

Model of the Social Learning Process

Cultivation Theory

2012-01-31T14:56:00.001-05:00

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Melissa Ceo, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

Gerbner and Gross developed Cultivation Theory to explain the effects that television viewing has on the general population. The basic form of the theory suggests that exposure the television’s singular messages helps develop viewer’s perceptions of reality. The main premise of the theory is that those viewers who spend more time watching television will be most likely to view the world through the “lens” of television’s repetitive messages.

The researchers also introduce the concepts of mainstreaming and resonance. Mainstreaming refers to the “blending” effect that happens when viewers adopt an outlook more consistent with the messages they receive when watching television, while resonance refers to the cases when what is viewed on television actually happens in real life. Most Cultivation Theory research examines the effects of media violence on the wider population. Although the Cultivation Theory has been widely studied, it has also fallen under criticism in recent years. The main criticism that has been identified is a lack in the presence of cognition. Cultivation Theory does not account for the role that human thought plays in the effectiveness of media messages. Another broad criticism of the theory is the possible lack of a single media message. What role does Cultivation Theory play in New New Media? Does it play a significant role?

Effects of viewing violent media

2012-01-31T12:46:00.000-05:00

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Gregory Cranmer, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

The negative effects associated with viewing violent media has been thoroughly studied, with numerous publications concluding that viewing violence increases an individual’s risk of behaving aggressively(Potter, 2003). So the debate is settled, viewing media violence is bad… WRONG. Some scholars suggest that it is the act of viewing violent media is good in the sense that it exposes individuals to violence and allows them todecide that the violent act is wrong. Is it possible, canviewing violence actually be positive?

Yes, it is possible that some positive effects can come from viewing violence.For example,“NRA Gun Club,” a violent game about shooting guns de-glorifies gun use andpromotes gun safety. Some would point to this as a positive outcome, and even go as far to suggest that without this exposure an individual’s decision about gun use is left up to random chance.

However, there are two problems with this logic. First, an individual’s decisions onanti-social behaviors will not be left up to chance without media. There are other factors, such as parenting and the already existing societal biases against certain behaviors that have influence over individuals. Second, for every exposure that may lead to a positive outcome, a negative outcome is guaranteed; desensitization to the anti-social behavior. For example, maybe exposing consumers to rape scenes will gross out the viewer and lead them to decide rape is bad. However, viewing the scenes will desensitizethe consumer to rape. It’s a possible positive, but a guaranteed negative.

One has to feel that the desired message of “rape or violence is wrong” can be achieved without exposing the consumer to graphic displays.

Cultivation and New Media

2012-01-31T09:25:00.000-05:00

The following is a summary post by WVU MA student Zac Goldman following our discussion of Cultivation Theory on Monday night (29 January); the discussion is continued on our course Facebook page.

Cultivation Theory has historically been one of media’s most explored theories. However, with the continuous emergence of new media, one must question is cultivation still relevant. The premise behind Cultivation Theory is the notion that the audience receives the same constant message and develops it primarily through mainstreaming or residence. As we move into the era were television channels range well into the thousands; it should be questioned whether cultivation is still feasible in new media as it is currently defined. To determine this, one must consider with the increase in channels, do people truly have choice? Or, are the masses merely bamboozled with an illusion of choice given to them by the network giants? It is conceivable if choice is truly present, an increasingly amount of smaller niches exist now more than ever. Within these smaller niches it would then be theoretically possible that cultivation could occur, and arguably faster within a smaller more homogenous audience. Perhaps then instead of examining choice, current evaluators of cultivation would elect to critique the role of cognition; which is merely non-existent. The idea that cultivation seemingly bypasses all cognitive function revealing a “monkey see, monkey do” reaction within the audience has been at the heart of many scholarly complaints for decades. The objective behind this blog is not to dispute or discredit one of the most popularized theories ever created. Simply, to bring to question is cultivation still relevant in new media? If yes, should necessary constructs be updated? What role might cognition currently play if an updated description of Cultivation Theory was given? These questions should be considered as we continue to determine the relationship between cultivation and new media.

Transitioning from Old to New Media

2012-01-26T11:44:00.003-05:00

Last week we reviewed the four functions of media (i.e., informative, correlational, transmittal, and entertaining) and as technology continues to accelerate, these four goals will keep emerging as questions to be answered. How has the transition from “old media” to “new media” affected the theory of the niche and the way we interact with our technology?

The theory of the media niche describes the media environment as an ecology of media organizations in indirect competition for finite resources, and explains how these organizations exist within a niche (i.e., using specific resources that others therefore cannot). The theory predicts that media organizations will survive if they can successfully occupy a niche and specifies the conditions by which this is possible.

Old media (i.e., newspapers, radio, cable, books, photography, or the telegram) are differentiated from new media by more than the age of the technology. Some critical aspects of old media are that it is analogue (i.e., physical and not digital), degrades over time, and requires physical space. Beyond its physical nature, old media were expensive to produce and were created to fulfill only one of the four functions of media (e.g., newspapers are informational). A lack of convergence is not the only thing that separates old and new media; Old media is not experiential or interactive.

New media is becoming increasingly convergent as it fulfills all four functions of media. As new media continues to become more convergent, it seems to be outdated to define its niche by a particular channel. This has led to overpopulation of media organizations in any given niche. Organizations that previously existed in different realms are now competing for the same resources (i.e., audience, content, advertising dollars, and gratification sets). To combat this potential problem, organizations that cannot stand ground in a traditional niche will attempt to identify with a smaller niche (e.g., Myspace now focusing on music-networking). New media continues to expand through a digital society as it becomes increasingly ephemeral; departing from previous forms of space consuming outlets. The increasing amount of channels in the digital age makes it possible to prosper in smaller niches (albeit with fewer resources). As participants in the digital society ourselves, humans are often becoming unaware of how extensively they use and consume new media. This development suggests new media is becoming more transparent; or arguably more translucent, than ever before.

Transparent technology is a tool that requires no skill or knowledge to operate. On the opposite end, opaque technologies require skill and capacities, and there is a sharp distinction between the user and the tool. These tools were designed to serve a function and nothing else. While these two categories cover a wide range of tools, it should be argued that another category has emerged: translucent technology. These “translucent technologies” are not actually mapped to the human perceptual system, and therefore cannot be called true transparent technologies. However, humans have gotten so used to using these technologies that they have moved beyond the opaque category. One example of this translucent technology is the computer keyboard. Most humans can operate the keyboard without any thought; however, practice is required to get to this level. Thus they keyboard fits in neither the opaque nor the transparent categories, and a new category must be created, the translucent technology. As reported in the December 2011 issue of Wired Magazine, Masahiro Mori published an article describing the concept of the “uncanny valley” in 1970. Mori, a robotics researcher, forwarded that even though humans would eventually be capable of producing robots with nearly human-like appearance, humans would experience significant aversion to human-like robots. Mori described that as an object looks increasingly human-like, we experience increased levels of empathy and identification with that object; however, at a certain level, our fondness dramatically declines. Mori coined this feeling the “uncanny valley” and it is characterized by “the chilly sensation we feel when we see a robot that looks almost – but not quite – human” (Wired Magazine, 2011).

Clark describes an opaque technology as one that “keeps tripping the user up” and a transparent technology as one that is integrated our “own biological capacities”. The concept of the uncanny valley would suggest that humans will view robots with near human-like appearance as onstrous, which could constitute a technology which trips the user up. Yet, a robot with a near human-like appearance indicative of some of our biological capacities. Given the current direction of our robotic technology and the ever developing skills of humans in relation to technology, new categories between opaque and transparent should be considered. As we have discussed, technology is changing faster than we even realize and it is the job of leaders in these media organizations to keep up. These concepts (i.e. Theory of the Niche, transparency, opaque, and translucence) are important factors to consider while working with media. What else has changed and what other variables may impact these concepts we have outlined?

The History of Media - From Caveman to Current Man

2012-01-11T15:58:00.001-05:00

In 1940, a group of French schoolchildren stumbled upon what is possibly the first known display of media: cave paintings. These cave paintings depict various important themes in early human life. To understand how these pictures are viewed as a form of media, we must first define media and its components. Media can loosely be defined as a “go-between” from the source to the senses of a receiver. Paul Lazarsfeld identified a two-step flow model of communication, which incorporates both the media message and an opinion leader. He also identified a normative approach to the function of media. He argued that media should be informational (we gain knowledge of events or situations), correlational (we learn how society responds to certain events), and transmittal (we learn about culture through our media). Lazarsfeld’s assessment of media was normative and as such overlooked the role of entertainment in media. Charles Wright rectified this issue by introducing entertainment as the fourth purpose of media.

Media has developed and expanded over time. It first appeared with the arrival of spoken language. With this development, humans were able to share their inner monologues, and better communicate with their fellow men. Media then evolved into the written word. These inner monologues could then be recorded to transcend space and time and provide the message with consistency. The next major development of media came in the form of Gutenberg’s printing press. With this invention, media transformed from a message for the select few to a message for the masses. Books became available to people of all economic statuses, and the bible was widely distributed. Thus, many humans were able to experience what had previously only been available to a select rich few. Small newspapers even distributed news and human-interest stories. After the printing press, media organizations began to form. Newspapers, telegraphs, and digital technology made space and time irrelevant in regards to the media. With this latest development, we see two distinct themes: duality and fast adoption rates. Duality of media refers to the repositioning of outdated media function and form, while fast adoption rates speeds the impact of media.

No media history overview is complete without a reference to leisure. Shivers defines leisure as the “time of opportunity where the individual has the ability to create experiences that are gratifying without any redeeming quality.” Human acquired more leisure time by developing fire and organization. These two elements made it easier to hunt, which left the early human with leisure time. During this spare time, early humans developed culture and ritual. Culture and ritual led to the early cave paintings, which taught young members tribal culture. This correlates withLazarsfeld’s functions of media. The cave paintings informed and transmitted cultural and ritualistic aspects of hunting and daily life within the tribe. Thus, early cave paintings can be considered a form of media. These paintings were preserved for over 15,000 years, thus transcending space and time and giving current humans a glimpse of early life.

Leisure gave man the free time to develop culture. Cavemen used precious resources to create cave paintings for secret rituals and expression. From the first form of media, humans have been using it to learn ourselves and our culture. One could even argue that media is culture. It shapes and defines who we are and gives us outlets and means of self-expression. Understanding the history of media is an important step in grasping current human society. Media has become an integral component of our daily lives, and the study of media has a pertinent and real-world application.

What are Video Games, Anways? (IJoC Book Review)

2012-01-10T09:33:00.001-05:00

Recently, I reviewed a pair of books on video game theory and research for Dr. Larry Gross, editor of International Journal of Communication. The two books reviewed were:

Ian Bogost, How To Do Things With Videogames, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011, 180 pp., $18.95 (paperback).

Judd Ethan Ruggill and Ken S. McAllister, Gaming Matters: Art, Science, and the Computer Game Medium, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2011, 155 pp., $35.00 (paperback), $28.00 (eBook).

The growth of the video game medium as an economic force (Shaw, 2011) and a source of cultural scrutiny (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; NPR, 2011) has made the study of gaming anything but trite in academic circles. Likewise, the study of video games has proven to be increasingly complicated as the medium finds itself—as Judd Ruggill (Arizona State University) and Ken McAllister (University of Arizona) astutely point out in Gaming Matters: Art, Science and the Computer Game Medium—at ―the nexus of engineering, mathematics, hermeneutics, logic, kinesthesia, narratology, performativity, art, and many others‖ (p. 3). The authors of both volumes attempt to navigate this nexus to explore the many dimensions of video games by offering various perspectives with which to better understand the medium. In How To Do Things With Videogames, Ian Bogost (Georgia Institute of Technology) argues that video games are best understood in terms of their larger role, and they function in the media ecology, perhaps as an microecology or ―a small, specialized environment within a larger [media] ecosystem‖ (p. 6). Ruggill and McAllister take a different perspective in suggesting video games to be best understood as an amalgation of ―wealth and pleasure through wit and work‖ (p. 103), comparing the process of creating a video game to an alchemist’s mixing of base materials to create something greater than the sum of their parts. For Bogost, a focus on the function of video games rather than on their prominence and providence as a special medium is the best path to understanding their uses and effects. For Ruggill and McAllister, understanding the unique qualities of video game production, marketing, and consumption is the key to understanding their role in society. In short, Bogost maintains that we should see gaming as just another unremarkable offering in the panacea of media choices, while Ruggill and McAllister argue for gaming as a magical union of baser parts that cannot be studied as anything less.

The complete entry can be found here:

How Demanding is Social Media? Predicting Twitter and Facebook Use (early data)

2012-01-08T13:26:00.001-05:00

For the upcoming Eastern Communication Association conference in Cambridge, Mass this April, our West Virginia University communication technology research team (myself, Assistant Professor David Westerman and Doctoral candidate CJ Claus) is pleased to announce that our study "How Demanding is Social Media: Understanding Social Media Diets as a Function of Perceived Costs and Benefits – a Rational Actor Perspective" has been recognized as a Top Three Research Paper by ECA's Communication Technology Interest Group.Here is the paper abstract:

"Using the rational actor perspective (Markus, 1994a) as a guiding frame, this exploratory study examined individuals’ social media diet (i.e., amount, frequency, and duration of use) as a function of task load and expected goal attainment. Surveys were distributed (N = 337) focusing on Facebook and Twitter for informational and relational purposes. Increased task load – conceptualized as a cognitive cost – directly negatively influenced Twitter use but only indirectly influenced Facebook use as a function of perceived benefits. Across conditions, perceived self-efficacy was negatively associated with perceived task load and positively associated with goal attainment, and goal attainment was a significant correlate of increase social media usage. Interpreted, we see that a transparent technology such as Facebook (cf. Clark, 2003) has no cognitive costs associated with its use, while an opaque technology such as Twitter seems to have a salient cognitive cost element. Further, we found that older users of Facebook were more likely to judge the channel as more cognitively demanding and themselves as having lower self-efficacy in using it. Finally, results indicated that for both Facebook and Twitter, males perceived both channels as more cognitively demanding than females. Theoretical and practical explanations and applications for these findings are presented."

We can't share the paper with you just yet (still being prepared for publication consideration) but the main findings are highlighted below.

Our hypotheses:

Goal attainment will be positively related to usage of social media

Perceived task load will be negatively related to usage of social media

Self-efficacy will be positively related to perceived benefits of using social media

Self-efficacy will be negatively related to perceived costs of using social media

The hypothetical research model:

The results for Facebook users:

For Facebook, you'll notice that the presented model is not the same as the hypothetical one. This is because the link between Task Load Index (this was our measure of cognitive demand, developed by Hart & Staveland, 1988) and one's social media diet (their frequency, amount, and duration of social media use; a scale adapted from Kreek, McHugh, Schluger, & Kellogg, 2003) was not significant (.-09), suggesting that there is no association between the two variables - in other words, for Facebook users there does not seem to be a salient cognitive demand for the technology. However, there was a significant association between cognitive demand and goal attainment. It seems that the best predictor of Facebook usage is rather simple - if I can use the program to meet my goals. In other words, Facebook is not really seen as being difficult to use, but it might not be overly-useful for all situations and it is the latter that predicts the program's usage.

...and the results for Twitter users:

For Twitter users, our model holds up just as predicted, with acceptable fit indices: chi-square(2) = 3.13, p = .209, CMIN/df = 1.57, CFI = .982, RMSEA = .059. Unlike Facebook, cognitive demand is seen as a barrier to Twitter usage, while the ability to use the program to attain one's goals (in our study, information- and relationship-based) was a positive predictor of usage. Furthermore, Twitter was seen as significantly more demanding than Facebook overall - though we should not that the mean scores of cognitive demand for both programs were both in the lower quartile of our 21-point measurement instrument (Facebook: M = 5.02, SD = 3.40; Twitter: M = 5.97, SD = 3.90, t(315) = -2.33, p = .020); as well, Facebook was used significantly more by participants in our survey (Facebook: M = 6.80, SD = 2.77; Twitter: M = 4.06, SD = 3.31, t(333) = 8.21, p < .001; 12-point scale).

A note on gender and age:

A rather compelling finding was the association between gender and age as related to social media. An excerpt from our paper:

Across experimental conditions, males alsoself-reported significantly higher levels of perceived task difficulty at usingsocial media than did females (males: M = 6.12, SD = 3.79; females: M = 4.25,SD = 3.10, t(315) = 4.50, p < .001) and lower social media self-efficacy(males: M = 4.53, SD = .85; females: M = 4.79, SD = .743, t(334) = -2.83, p< .001). Age was also positively associated with perceived task difficulty(r = .215, p = .005) and negatively correlated with social media diet (r =-.197, p = .010); these age findings are particularly relevant given the relativerestriction of range in the age variable in our study in which 95 percent ofour sample was between the ages of 18 and 22 (minimum = 18, maximum = 28, mode(n = 56, 32%) = 20). Notably as our analyses are separated for Facebook andTwitter usage, we tested the influence of age and sex on our study variableswithin both conditions. Unexpectedly, we found separate patterns of influencefor both variables. In the Facebook sample, age was significantly correlatedwith perceived task load (r = .215, p = .005) and social media diet (r = -.197,p = .010) and sex was significantly correlated with perceived task load (r =-.184, p = .015). In the Twitter sample, age was significantly correlated withperceived social media self-efficacy (r = -.173, p = .030) and sex wascorrelated with both self-efficacy (r = .180, p = .023) and perceived task load(r = -.312, p < .001).

What's your take on all of this? We'll provide our answers at ECA 2012, and maybe we'll see you there?

References:

Clark, A. J. (2003). Natural-born Cyborgs. New York; Oxford University Press.

Hart, S. & Staveland, L. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Kellogg, S., McHugh, P., Bell, K., Schluger, J., Schluger, R., LaForge, K., Ho, A., & Kreek, M. (2003). The Kreek-McHugh-Schluger-Kellogg scale: a new, rapid method for quantifying substance abuse and its possible applications. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 69, 137-150.

Markus, M. L. (1994a). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 119-149. doi:10.1145/196734.196738

Advertising Lecture - What is Social about Capitalism? Using Social Media in Advertising Campaigns

2011-11-03T16:02:00.001-04:00

Earlier today, I had the pleasure of leading a lecture and discussion for a group of West Virginia University advertising students enrolled in ADV215 "Principles of Advertising" on the basics of social media marketing. I've included the PowerPoint presentation here via SlideShare...

Social Media Advertising (WVU Guest Talk )

View more presentations from Nick Bowman

As always, I look forward to questions, comments, and other feedback!

Masspersonal Communication: Negotiating the Personal, Political, and Civil

2011-10-13T09:57:00.003-04:00

Tomorrow, a group of my colleagues and myself will be in Frostburg, MD to present at a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Maryland Communication Association. The focus of this discussion is to unpack O'Sullivan's notion of masspersonal communication and apply the concept to understanding the influence of social media technologies in a variety of different communication environments. I'm going to try and live-tweet the conversation using the #masspesonal hashtag but I imagine I'll be too entrenched in the conversation to access my phone. Of course, this doesn't have to stop you from sending over questions and comments. Post feedback below or with the #masspersol hashtag (I'm at @bowmanspartan), and we'll look to answer emerging questions together. And if you're in the region, we hope to see you there! [map]

2011 Maryland Communication Association Conference
Roundtable Discussion: “Masspersonal Communication: Negotiating the Personal, Political, and Civil”

Moderator: Lori E. Vela, West Virginia University

Nick Bowman, West Virginia University
C. J. Claus, West Virginia University
John Lombardi, Frostburg State University
Elesha L. Ruminski, Frostburg State University
David Westerman, West Virginia University

This roundtable will begin with an introduction of the topic of masspersonal communication and move to discussion of interpersonal privacy, surveillance, and legal issues surrounding “personal,” “public,” and “mass” uses of social media as well as political correctness and civility in online postings. The question of censorship (self and imposed) will be discussed, with this central question under debate: “Does anything go with social networking?”

“Smallville – Population: 6,000,000,000”
Nicholas David Bowman, West Virginia University

Recent data from the Pew Charitable Trusts has suggested social media to play a binding role in society – drawing individuals together rather than separating them. While not surprising to those individuals accustomed to the ‘wired life’, these data might come as a surprise to those subscribing to Putnam’s assertions that mediated technologies have causes us to lose much of our social capital – a thought echoed to some extent by anecdotal evidence of the technology “geeks” as a socially-awkward and isolated lot. My discussion will focus on the binding role of today’s Web 2.0 technology, drawing on recent empirical and anecdotal evidence (such as the Arab Spring uprisings and the London riots) to explain how communication technology has drawn us closer perhaps than ever before.

“Masspersonal Communication within the College Classroom: The Tension between Instructor and Student Use of Facebook”
C.J. Claus, West Virginia University

The current college student has expectations that college instructors will use at least some form of technology during their courses (Witt & Schrodt, 2006), so long as the incorporation of such technology is relevant to the course objectives (Lane & Shelton, 2001). Given the prevalence of social media within the college population, certain instructors have begun to shift their mediated communication with students from e-mail to Facebook. However, Facebook, is mainly a social website designed to establish and maintain personal relationships and although instructors could use the site to provide information about the course, do students even want to be friends with their instructors? Furthermore, this channel is an excellent example of O’Sullivan’s concept of “Masspersonal” communication, where both private and public messages are manipulated. Thus, students have to then navigate and decide what content is posted for everyone to see and what content should be concealed. Depending upon how weak their security settings are, instructors could inadvertently stumble across information that is highly personal, not related to school, and result in a damaged image of the student. On the other hand, at the point that students block everything from their professors (i.e., status updates and photos), then how does this channel become any more effective or useful than e-mail or BlackBoard?

“Is the Medium Still the Message?”
John Lombardi, Frostburg State University

Perhaps lost in the discussion of the uses of social networking and where it fits academically or even hierarchically is the issue of the medium itself. The concept of “mass” communication is not necessarily tied to the number of recipients. Instead it’s generally from whom the message is sent and how the message is accessed that determine whether the communication is “mass.” The definition of mass communication presented by Baran and Davis (2009) is generally accepted: “When an organization employs a technology as a medium to communicate with a large audience, mass communication is said to have occurred” (p. 5). However, as technology changes it is becoming more possible to target messages to specific individuals. As such the issue of a “large audience” becomes more ambiguous. Of additional concern, though, is the issue of access. Generally speaking “mass communication” messages are reasonably accessible. Most social networking messages lie behind some type of barrier (generally the need to both subscribe to the service and become directly associated with the person creating the message). Within the social networking framework it is generally not possible for someone to simply happen upon a message. As such social networking should be viewed as a personal forum. Civility is not a requirement, at least no more than it is in any other part of our day-to-day lives.

“Situating Me and You (and I and Thou) within the Social Networking Transformation of the Public Sphere(s)”
Elesha L. Ruminski, Frostburg State University

With the rise and prevalence of social networking sites as primary communication channels, marketing forums, and virtual social communities today, we need more textured, ethical understandings of the theoretical and practical interdisciplinary intersection of mass communication, public communication, and interpersonal communication. Critical within this emerging “masspersonal” convergence is the study and application of interpersonal and public sphere ethics and “virtual civility”; drawing on Habermas’s proposals about the transformation of the public sphere and Buber’s impersonal-interpersonal construct of it-you-thou, social networkers might better be able to consider how they situate the self as embedded within multiple publics within the presence of many known and unknown “others.” An assignment that helps students explore how self is perceived, presented, and situated in relation to others within various publics within social networking sites will be shared.

“Masspersonal Communication: What is It, and Why Does it Matter??”
David Westerman, West Virginia University

O'Sullivan has recently discussed the concept of "Masspersonal" communication, suggesting that traditional lines of demarcation in the communication discipline (i.e., mass vs. interpersonal) have been surpassed by the technologies we use for this communication. In other words, many of our newer technologies (although past ones allowed this as well) allow people to use "mass" channels for "interpersonal" communication and vice versa. Thus, O'Sullivan points out that newer divisions may be more fruitful to consider, such as public vs. private interactions. This public vs. private dialectic is one that many people have to navigate today. Walking this tightrope will be discussed, as many people seem to fail at this navigation.

Position Paper: When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the new Digitalengemeinschaft

2011-10-10T10:28:00.013-04:00

In advance of the 2011 Urban Communication Foundation in New Orleans, myself and co-author Lori Vela (doctoral student, West Virginia University) are posting our position paper, "When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the new Digitalengemeinschaft" [also available for download here]. Here's the abstract, full paper to follow the bump:

From the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution to Putman’s (1995; 2000) infamous “Bowling Alone” hypothesis, there has been an assumption among scholars that urban communities feature collections of isolated individuals – that is, dense populations with few and weak social bonds between people. Media scholars invoke Tönnies (1887) concept of Gessellschaft to explain mass audiences with little in common but their shared media experiences, and this assumption is at the foundation of many classic theories of mass communication such as agenda-setting and cultivation theory. In a Gessellschaft, media is thought to hold influence on individuals due to its pervasiveness, consistency, and importance in their daily lives as a sole source of information and leisure, as these individuals lack of interpersonal bonds with others is thought to strengthen media’s potential effect on them. Perhaps most associated with Putnam (1996), this isolationist approach to media has been challenged recently as the popularity of social media continues to rise. The new social media appears to serve as a binding rather than individualizing force, as it features users collaborating and creating content to share with one another – in many ways, helping us reconnect with our past social ways (cf. Christakis & Fowler, 2009). In the new “publish first, filter second” paradigm, media users are increasingly serving as producers and consumers of their own unique content, and this process is playing out globally, particularly in urban areas as witnessed by recent political unrest in major Arab capitals and, more recently, similar civic actions in San Francisco, London, and Philadelphia. This paper will discuss the implications of increased social media adoption in understanding how information is created and shared – suggesting the presence of a Digitalegemeinschaft, or a society bonded through social media and reminiscent of the close-knit Gemeinschaft of older times. Our paper further argues that social network serves to bond otherwise-detached urban communities, and this bonding can have a profound effect on civic engagement by cultivating an environment by which information is delivered to the masses from the masses.

When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the demise of Gessellschaft
Traditional views of the role of media in society have focused on its individualizing role. The earliest theories of media effect assumed strong, universal and direct effects of messages on individuals due to the weakness of individuals’ connections to one another in the new Gessellschaft –the densely-populated-yet-socially-isolated urban environment (cf. Tönnies, 1887). Although this “magic bullet” paradigm (cf. Lowery & DeFleur, 1995) has long since been rejected by media scholars, concerns about the individualizing effects of media on society have remained. For example, Putnam’s (1995a; 1995b) displacement hypothesis argues that media – particularly television (as a dominant form of traditional media) – tends to privatize leisure time in deference to engaging in more social activities resulting in an erosion of civic engagement and an increase in social isolation.[1] Yet, emerging anecdotal and empirical data suggest the assumption of media as an individualizing force to be a flawed one, and instead has argued for the binding role of media – particularly social media – in bringing us together more in line with Tönnies’ (1887) notion of Gemeinschaft, or community of close-knit individuals marked by a “unity of will”(pp. 22). Recent research (Jennings & Zeitner, 2003; Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001;) has reported positive associations between increased Internet usage and several indicators of civic engagement such as increased social capital. Particularly with Facebook, work by Valenzuela, Park and Kee (2009) reported a positive relationship between intense Facebook use and civic engagement among college students, and Leung (2009) found that users who generate their own content felt more empowered in their civic engagement off-line.[2]

A better understanding of social media’s functionality might offer an explanation for these patterns. Shirkey (2008; 2010) noted that social media technology has ushered in a media system in which we collaborate in the creation and sharing of content rather than passively consume it in isolation. Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) suggest communication technology to strengthen rather than weaken our participation in society, finding through survey research that individuals online are more engaged in their communities than those offline. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence points to the role of social media in fanning the flames of political uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia as well as other Arab nations – the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 – as individuals with similar ideas were able to circumvent traditional media controls to collaborate and share messages of revolution through new media channels.[3] Taking these arguments in sum and conceptualizing our past Gemeinschaft with our present Gessellschaft, we argue that while mediated communication channels may distance us physically, their function draw us closer both socially and psychologically, and we suggest implications for this new Digitalegemeinschaft at the theoretical and applied level. We argue that social media has ushered in a demise of the isolated society and the (re)birth of a digitally-connected one.

Media as an Individualizing Force
Traditional media has often been chided for its role in the demise of social capital and civic engagement. Putnam (1995a,b) argued for the individualizing role of television viewing in his infamous “Bowling Alone” treatise, suggesting that while the average American has experienced an increase in leisure time, this time has been filled using forms of media that isolate them from one another. Shirkey (2010) similarly argued that the cognitive surplus experienced by individuals as a result of increased modernization (particularly in the workplace, where the average work week has fallen from 80 hours in the late 1800s to less than 35 today; Cettron & Davies, 1989) resulted in a reliance – not a dependence – on media at the expense of social engagement; a reliance driven in no small part to the attractiveness of media as a form of entertainment (Zillmann, 2000).[4] While attractive, most forms of entertainment media are not designed to be consumed socially but rather are isolated pursuits, and this isolation comes at the expense of social interaction and, eventually, civic engagement.[5] Similar patterns have been reported with the use of new media. For example, Nie and Erbring (2000) found initial evidence that increased time spent with media technology led to decreased interaction with family and friends, and Stepanikova, Nie, and He (2010) reported positive associations between increased Internet browsing and general Internet communication (such as chat rooms) and both increased loneliness and decreased life satisfaction.

(Social) Media as a Binding Force
In response to these criticisms, we first note that new technologies almost always usher in a wave of criticism regarding their potentially-damaging effects on social engagement (cf. Bargh & McKenna, 2004). In many ways, early theorists tend to make “milkshake mistakes” (Shirkey, 2010, pp. 12) by focusing more on the channel of communication and less on its function. For example, the early cues-filtered-out approach to online communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986) argued that sustaining meaningful communication would be difficult through mediated communication because of the lack of social cues in interaction. More current theorizing by Walther (1992) argued instead for a cues-filtered-in approach suggesting that technology users are able to overcome and even take advantage of the lack of cues in order to sustain and even enhance relationships. As well, while the two aforementioned studies by Nie and colleagues argued that technology use displaces us from spending time with one another, scrutiny of data from the former study found no appreciable reduction of time spent with family and friends for 95 percent of participants (Katz et al., 2001) and scrutiny of the methodology from the latter study calls to question whether Internet browsing and general Internet communication are variables focused incorrectly on mere time spent with the channel of communication rather than attending to the manner in which it is being used (cf. Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001).[6]

Indeed, those scholars who argue for the individualizing role of the technology appear to overlook the many communication functions that new media collects in one place (Bargh &; McKenna, 2004). Put simply, while time spent with technology might be increasing, much of this time is spent communicating with friends and family via e-mail, text messaging, status updates, sharing multimedia, and even sharing and discussing traditional media – often during times in which communication might not have been possible (for example, waiting in line while shopping or waiting for a train, bus, or plane at a public terminal). These findings track with the assertions of Christakis and Fowler (2009) who argued that communication technologies tend to draw us closer to, rather away from, our past. Indeed, Robinson and colleagues (2000) argued that survey data suggesting increased social involvement for Internet users is not problematic but rather can be explained by understanding said use as a purposive attempt by users to connect with each other. Katz et al. (2001) reported increased involvement in religion, leisure, and community organizations for Internet users using a similar line of argumentation. Additionally, Kraut et al. (2002) found that after an initial dip in interaction immediately following the introduction of computers to Pittsburgh households, time spent with friends and family face-to-face increased significantly after people learned how to use various programs (e-mail, social network sites, blogs, etc.) to stay in touch with others. Studying urban spaces, Hampton, Livio, and Goulet (2010) found that individuals who lived or spent time in areas with free wireless access tended to have many more strong and weak ties (both face-to-face and CMC) than individuals without wireless access.[7]

Arab Spring and the Case for Digitalengemeinschaft
Perhaps one of the more stark examples of social media connecting otherwise-disparate individuals in a communal fashion is the aforementioned Arab Spring uprisings in early 2011. What started with a vegetable merchant’s self-immolation in protest of government policy in Tunisia evolved into political discourse not commonly seen in this region of the world and certainly not seen through domestic media sources. While state-controlled media provided little coverage of Mohammed Bouzazizi’s protest and death, news of his apparent self-sacrifice in defiance of his government spread through Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube not only through the Arab world but also the global media, a key factor in grabbing world attention to the debates and providing a human face to otherwise-unknown – or at least, under-reported – perceived political oppression (Howard, Duffy, Freeion, Hussain, Mari, & Mazaid, 2011). Regarding new media, Howard et al. (2011) identified three features of the Arab Spring both central to its success and directly attributable to social media usage: the use of social media to circumvent traditional media systems and shape political debates (such as the creation of Youtube videos of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s wife shopping in Europe using state-owned aircraft), a spike in online conversations directly preceding major events on the ground (for example, a 1000 percent spike in criticism of then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – from 2,300 to 230,000 daily tweets – in the week preceding his resignation), and the role of social media in globalizing the democratic revolution (such as the 225,000 tweets discussing Mubarak’s resignation that originated outside of Egypt). Notably, their research uncovered that many of the social media “players” during the Arab Spring were not close-knit friends or political operatives. Rather, they were disenfranchised urban youth whose new-found social media networks allowed them to collectively express their disapproval of their regimes in an extreme form of civic engagement: protest.

Focusing on the functions of technology allows us to understand this binding role of social media in modern society, both in the Arab Spring example above and in general. Anecdotally and empirically, time spent with social media appears to often be directed toward relational maintenance, as said media provide opportunities to maintain connections that otherwise might be lost due to our own daily discourses. As we shifted from the pre-Industrial Revolution Gemeinschaft to the modern-day Gessellschaft, communication technology has continually evolved to bridge the growing gap between ourselves and those we hold close, in some ways in an effort to bring us back to where we came from (Christakis & Fowler, 2009). But just as we have learned to use communication technology to overcome the limitations of CMC (cf. Walther, 1992), might it be possible that we can learn to integrate technology into enhancing our connections with one another as suggested by Hollan and Stornetta (1992)? Indeed, Clark (2003) argued that technologies make us more rather than less human, as we learn to extend our minds beyond their physical limitations. In terms of social media, we have learned to use the programs in order to stay in closer contact with each other by sharing (and remembering) details about each other – such as birthdays, anniversaries and other special events – that not only sustain our relationships with one another, but actually enhance and strengthen them.
Of course, it is still open for debate as to whether or not increased strong ties are necessarily a good thing. Granovetter (1973) argued that that while strong ties are good for social connectedness, weak ties might actually be better for the spread of novel information because there is little fear of reprisal from the other party. Similarly, Kang (2000) suggested that the anonymity and lack of relational closeness typified by some online communication tends to increase self-disclosure because individuals are less concerned with saving face. In short, it can be argued that strong ties tend to formalize and choke communication (particularly of novel information) while weak ties are better equipped to expand communication. Along this vein, social media may be able to help us maintain both types of ties. Social media allows us to sustain (and enhance) propinquity (closeness) with our close relational partners (Bazarova & Walther, 2008), but they also allow us to expose ourselves to new information through the formation of weak ties (cf. Granovetter, 1973) – in other words, the Digitalengemeinschaft (the digital society) might actually function better than the Gemeinschaft (the close-knit but also closed-off form of old society). Perhaps the shift to the Digitalengemeinschaft will help bind rather than individualize users, influencing civic engagement by altering the manner in which information is consumed and shared.

_________________
Footnotes
[1] In confirmation of Putnam’s hypothesis regarding social isolation, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears (2006) found that Americans in general self-reporting having few confidants with which to share information than they did in the mid-20^th century.
[2] Indeed, Putnam’s assertions have been challenged even with regards to traditional media, as research suggests increased traditional media use to increase rather than decrease civic engagement (cf. Moy, Scheufele, & Holbert, 1999) when one considers the goal of media usage – in this case informational rather than entertainment.
[3] Of course, social media has also played a prominent role in more unfortunate Philadelphia “phlash robs” of Summer 2011, where teenagers were using social media applications to coordinate mayhem throughout the city (cf. Timpane, 2011).
[4] In fact, as far back as the early 20^th century Hart (1925) noted that “the eight-hour work day is now the accepted working day in almost all industries. That leaves eight hours in which people may follow their own pursuits. It is a matter of concern in a democracy what those pursuits shall be” (pp. 111).
[5] We are careful to note here that as far back as the Payne Fund Studies (cf. Lowery & DeFleur, 1995) researchers found certain media to be social in nature, such as children attending movies together. As well, anecdotal ‘water cooler talk’ about television has been prevalent since the invention of the medium (cf. the infamous Seinfeld lawsuits early 90s, where employees repeating jokes from the show at work were being accused of harassment; Kauffman, 2009). At the risk of creating a straw man argument, we nonetheless present the media individualization argument in the vein of Putnam.
[6] In fact, both Mannell, Zuzanek, and Aronson (2005) and Peng and Zhu (2011) found that new media users spend significantly less time with traditional media, and both groups spend a relative equal amount of time on social activities – suggesting that new media displaces time spent with old media but not time spent engaging in society.
[7] Moy et al.’s (1999) finding that heavy traditional media users were more civically engaged can also be explained from a functional approach, as it makes sense that in order for an individual to be involved in their community, they would need to be attuned to the issues affecting said community – issues likely represented in the mass media in the form of local television and newspapers.

References
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2005).The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590.
Bazarova, N. N., & Walther, J. B. (2008).Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622-645.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009).Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
Cettron, M., & Davies, O. (1989). American Renaissance: Our life at the turn of the 21st century. New York: St. Martin’s.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986).Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Goulet, L. S. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701-722.
Hart, J. K. (1925). The place of leisure in life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 118, 111-115.
Holland, J.D., & Stornetta S., (1992). Beyond being there. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Human Interaction: Monterey, CA, 119-125.
Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freeion, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Project on Information Technology & Political Islam, University of Washington.
Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 311-322.
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The internet, 1995-2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 405-419.
Kauffman, C. (2009, August 22). ‘Seinfeld’ joke gets man canned for harassment. Des Moines Register.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., et al. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.
Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement, and psychological empowerment. New Media &Society, 11(8), 1327-1347.
Lowery, S. A. & DeFleur, M. L. (1995).Milestones in Mass Communication Research (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mannell, R. C., Zuzanek, J., & Aronson, R. (2005, May). Internet/computer use and adolescent leisure behavior, flow experiences and psychological well-being: The displacement hypothesis. Paper presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Nanaimo, BC.
Moy, P., Scheufele, D. A., & Holbert, R. L. (1999). Television use and social capital: Testing Putman’s time displacement hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 2(1/2), 27-45.
Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Sociology.
Peng, T. Q. & Zhu, J. H. (2011). A game of win-win or win-lose? Revisiting the internet’s influence of sociability and the use of traditional media. New Media & Society, 13(4), 568-586.
Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling along: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28, 664-683.
Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Smith, A. (2011). The social side of the internet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-501.
Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L., (2001). “Connecting” and “Disconnecting” with civic live: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141-162.
Shirkey, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin.
Shirkey, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus. New York: Penguin.
Stepanikova, I.,.Nie, N. H., & He, X. (2010). Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: Evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 329-338.
Timpane, J. (2011, August 14). Flash-mob violence raises weighty questions. Philadelphia Inquirer.Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-14/news/29886718_1_social-media-flash-mob-facebook-and-other-services.
Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gessellschaft. Trans. by J. Harris (2001). Community and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Zillmann, D. (2000). The coming of media entertainment.In D. Zillmann (Ed.), Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal. Mahwah, NJ: LEA, pp. 1-21.

Presentations from 2011 AEJMC Panel "The case for morality and media"

2011-09-22T14:02:00.002-04:00

Earlier this August, I had the pleasure of hosting several leading media scholars in a discussion on morality and media. Our panel, entitled "The case for morality and media: Overviewing, reviewing, and previewing our understanding of morality in media uses and effects", was very well-attended by AEJMC attendees and we are collectively eager to continue the conversation online and elsewhere.

To this end, each of our panel discussants have been gracious enough to share their presentations with us, and I have uploaded them here for anyone interested in browsing the discussions and contacting discussants, either using the discussion forum below or by contacting them directly.

I have included each title and presenter below with the title hyperlinked to the actual presentation notes; presenters names are hyperlinked as well should you want to contact them directly. We welcome you to browse the discussions and engage each of our scholars in future and continued discussion as we all work to better understand the role of morality in media psychology and communication.

"A model of intuitive Morality and Exemplars (MIME)" by Ron Tamborini, Michigan State University