There are a few different types of Decoding.
Sometimes the sender crafts the message well enough that the receiver perceives it exactly the way it was meant to be understood. This is known as Preferred of Dominant reading. With the cosmetic ad example, this would be if the viewer of the ad understands all the messages the ad was created to express. This can most easily occur with written or spoken literal messages. Those leave less room for different interpretations.
Oppositional reading happens when the receiver understands what the message is supposed to be, but has a reason to disagree with it. This would be a person who sees the cosmetic ad and understands the implications of beauty and happiness and love, but perhaps disagrees that the lipstick would cause that. It could also be a male who views the ad, and finds the makeup to be unattractive and disagrees with the man in the commercial who finds it so attractive.
The last type is Negotiated Reading. Negotiated Reading occurs when the message is understood as it was presented, but the viewer reserves the right to disagree slightly. This is in between Oppositional reading and Dominant reading.
Dominant = understands and accepts message as intended by the Sender
Negotiated = understands and somewhat accepts message
Oppositional = understands the message, but doesn't accept it as presented
Occasionally the intent of the message is lost entirely on the audience. This is usually because of some sort of difference in understanding such as culture, gender or age.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Encoding and Decoding Part One!
Encoding and Decoding are the process by which we communicate. To communicate, the sender sends the receiver a message through some form of medium (whether it be spoken, written, drawn etc.)
Encoding is the process by which the sender creates the message.
Decoding is the process by which the receiver interprets the message that was sent.
Messages don't necessarily have to be written out or spoken. There can be implied messages as well.
I'll give you all an example. Say a cosmetic company creates an ad. In the ad, they have the spoken message (Ultra last lipstick lasts for 24 hours and has such and such vitamins that make your lips softer in just 7 days). The spoken message is more likely to be understood as long as the viewer understands the language. The implied message may be that when you wear that lipstick you'll be beautiful and happy and men will love you just like the actress in the commercial. The implied message here (because it wasn't spoken and isn't spelled out) may not be understood as well by the viewer. The message was encoded one way, but decoded another way.
Encoding is the process by which the sender creates the message.
Decoding is the process by which the receiver interprets the message that was sent.
Messages don't necessarily have to be written out or spoken. There can be implied messages as well.
I'll give you all an example. Say a cosmetic company creates an ad. In the ad, they have the spoken message (Ultra last lipstick lasts for 24 hours and has such and such vitamins that make your lips softer in just 7 days). The spoken message is more likely to be understood as long as the viewer understands the language. The implied message may be that when you wear that lipstick you'll be beautiful and happy and men will love you just like the actress in the commercial. The implied message here (because it wasn't spoken and isn't spelled out) may not be understood as well by the viewer. The message was encoded one way, but decoded another way.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Spiral of Silence Part Two (Again with the examples)
Here are some examples of the Spiral of Silence theory I was talking about.
Imagine at your workplace, everyone's hours are cut by 4 hours. You are displeased with the change, but all of your coworkers are fine with it. How likely are you to complain to them about it? Not very likely. As a social creature, you know that your beliefs are not shared by your coworkers and inherently you don't want to be an excluded because of this.
Or imagine you are at work again. You work in a clothes store and someone has returned a shirt that smells heavily of cigarette smoke. Your coworkers are complaining about the smell and discussing what a disgusting habit smoking is. Would you mention to them that you are a smoker, or would you say nothing?
I actually ran into this at work one day. We had a woman return 2 tank tops that smelled very strongly of cigarette smoke. All my coworkers spent a large amount of time complaining about the smell, the audacity of trying to return a shirt that smelled so much of smoke, and how disgusting smoking cigarettes is. Here is the really interesting part, everyone was agreeing how terrible and disgusting smoking is and yet I know for a fact that at least 4 of my coworkers regularly smoke cigarettes. Although they are smokers, they were bad-mouthing them because that was the public opinion and they were simply agreeing with what everyone else was saying.
Imagine at your workplace, everyone's hours are cut by 4 hours. You are displeased with the change, but all of your coworkers are fine with it. How likely are you to complain to them about it? Not very likely. As a social creature, you know that your beliefs are not shared by your coworkers and inherently you don't want to be an excluded because of this.
Or imagine you are at work again. You work in a clothes store and someone has returned a shirt that smells heavily of cigarette smoke. Your coworkers are complaining about the smell and discussing what a disgusting habit smoking is. Would you mention to them that you are a smoker, or would you say nothing?
I actually ran into this at work one day. We had a woman return 2 tank tops that smelled very strongly of cigarette smoke. All my coworkers spent a large amount of time complaining about the smell, the audacity of trying to return a shirt that smelled so much of smoke, and how disgusting smoking cigarettes is. Here is the really interesting part, everyone was agreeing how terrible and disgusting smoking is and yet I know for a fact that at least 4 of my coworkers regularly smoke cigarettes. Although they are smokers, they were bad-mouthing them because that was the public opinion and they were simply agreeing with what everyone else was saying.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Spiral of Silence
The Spiral of Silence Theory was first proposed in 1984 by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann. Noelle-Neumann propsed this theory in part to explain why Germans supported the political positions they did in the 1930-40s despite it leading to national embarrassment.
The theory claims that people are less likely to state their opinions if they believe their opinions are in the minority. It is based of the premises that: people can determine popular opinion without access to polls, people have a fear of isolation and have an understanding of what behavior will lead to isolation, and people are reluctant to express their views if they believe them to be in the minority out of fear of isolation.
This is where it comes to the "spiral" part. If people don't speak up on their perceived minority opinions, others sharing their beliefs will be less likely to speak up because they believe their beliefs to be in the minority. This creates a spiral effect, where less and less people are willing to speak up because no one is speaking up. Weird sort of paradox, isn't it?
The theory claims that people are less likely to state their opinions if they believe their opinions are in the minority. It is based of the premises that: people can determine popular opinion without access to polls, people have a fear of isolation and have an understanding of what behavior will lead to isolation, and people are reluctant to express their views if they believe them to be in the minority out of fear of isolation.
This is where it comes to the "spiral" part. If people don't speak up on their perceived minority opinions, others sharing their beliefs will be less likely to speak up because they believe their beliefs to be in the minority. This creates a spiral effect, where less and less people are willing to speak up because no one is speaking up. Weird sort of paradox, isn't it?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Media Dependency Theory Part Two (Less Science, More Personal)
That whole last post on Media Dependency Theory may have gone over people's heads and seemed a little far-fetched, so I figured I would give you all a few more real world examples. These ones aren't scientific studies, so much as they are things I've noticed and maybe you all have too.
Here's an example of media dependency I've gone through today, and went through about a month ago as well. Today where I live we're suffering through some severe weather. Now, I (like a lot of people I'm sure) have come to rely on the media to tell me what to expect weather-wise. The news on television and on the internet let me know what to expect and what to do. Earlier today, I watched the news and was informed of this severe weather to be expected. When I lived in Colorado we had tornado alarms that would go off when tornadoes were spotted in the area and that was your cue to react accordingly. When I moved to Tennessee I discovered that where we live now, you can't hear the tornado alarm. Our power went out and I spent the day hiding out in my basement because I no longer had access to the television, radio or internet to tell me whether or not a tornado was in my area. I was dependent on the media for this information.
Another example of this is how much people rely on Facebook to communicate with others. I (like a lot of people, again) use Facebook to communicate with a lot of people. There are a handful of people, I have found, that I speak to primarily through Facebook. That means when I'm away from my computer or my internet is down, I don't have the ability to contact those people. I'm dependent on that particular media for social interactions.
Make sense? :)
Here's an example of media dependency I've gone through today, and went through about a month ago as well. Today where I live we're suffering through some severe weather. Now, I (like a lot of people I'm sure) have come to rely on the media to tell me what to expect weather-wise. The news on television and on the internet let me know what to expect and what to do. Earlier today, I watched the news and was informed of this severe weather to be expected. When I lived in Colorado we had tornado alarms that would go off when tornadoes were spotted in the area and that was your cue to react accordingly. When I moved to Tennessee I discovered that where we live now, you can't hear the tornado alarm. Our power went out and I spent the day hiding out in my basement because I no longer had access to the television, radio or internet to tell me whether or not a tornado was in my area. I was dependent on the media for this information.
Another example of this is how much people rely on Facebook to communicate with others. I (like a lot of people, again) use Facebook to communicate with a lot of people. There are a handful of people, I have found, that I speak to primarily through Facebook. That means when I'm away from my computer or my internet is down, I don't have the ability to contact those people. I'm dependent on that particular media for social interactions.
Make sense? :)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Media Dependency Theory
Media Dependency Theory is a media effect theory first proposed in 1976 by Sandra Ball-Rokeach and Melvin Defleur. It stems from the Usage and Gratification Theory.
The UG theory is an idea proposed that society chooses what media to focus on based on what needs the media provides (information, social interaction etc). This came after a realization that perhaps media wasn't controlling society and the ways people think about things. Perhaps, instead, it is society's choice what media they utilize and how much influence they allow it to have over them.
Dependency theory, basically, is the idea that the more dependent a person becomes on the media to fulfill their needs, the more important and influential that media becomes to them.
A really excellent and interesting example of this is the effect that Google is having on our memories. Psychologist Daniel Wegner has proposed that humans have what is called transactive memory. Transactive memory is the idea that humans have sort of a shared memory. Let's say that you have a spouse. If they know what day your child's dance recital is, you yourself don't have to remember that information and vice versa. Humans basically rely on one another for shared information. You may not know when the recital is, but you know that your spouse knows and you can always ask them later.
Our society is beginning to develop this sort of dependency relationship with media such as Google. Betsy Sparrow from Columbia University conducted a series of experiments to see the effects that Google had on our memory. One of the experiments involved 60 students reading 40 trivia statements and then typing them into a computer. Sparrow found that the students remembered fewer of the statements if they were told the computer would save them than the students who were told the statements would be erased. If they knew their work could be accessed later, they didn't feel the need to remember it. “Since search engines are continually available to us, we may often be in a state of not feeling we need to encode the information internally. When we need it, we will look it up,” says Sparrow.
This a great example of Dependency Theory. People are using media like Google to fill their informational needs, and are actually beginning to remember things less and become more and more dependent on Google for that information. Media isn't forcing itself upon them, rather it's being selected and used by society.
The UG theory is an idea proposed that society chooses what media to focus on based on what needs the media provides (information, social interaction etc). This came after a realization that perhaps media wasn't controlling society and the ways people think about things. Perhaps, instead, it is society's choice what media they utilize and how much influence they allow it to have over them.
Dependency theory, basically, is the idea that the more dependent a person becomes on the media to fulfill their needs, the more important and influential that media becomes to them.
A really excellent and interesting example of this is the effect that Google is having on our memories. Psychologist Daniel Wegner has proposed that humans have what is called transactive memory. Transactive memory is the idea that humans have sort of a shared memory. Let's say that you have a spouse. If they know what day your child's dance recital is, you yourself don't have to remember that information and vice versa. Humans basically rely on one another for shared information. You may not know when the recital is, but you know that your spouse knows and you can always ask them later.
Our society is beginning to develop this sort of dependency relationship with media such as Google. Betsy Sparrow from Columbia University conducted a series of experiments to see the effects that Google had on our memory. One of the experiments involved 60 students reading 40 trivia statements and then typing them into a computer. Sparrow found that the students remembered fewer of the statements if they were told the computer would save them than the students who were told the statements would be erased. If they knew their work could be accessed later, they didn't feel the need to remember it. “Since search engines are continually available to us, we may often be in a state of not feeling we need to encode the information internally. When we need it, we will look it up,” says Sparrow.
This a great example of Dependency Theory. People are using media like Google to fill their informational needs, and are actually beginning to remember things less and become more and more dependent on Google for that information. Media isn't forcing itself upon them, rather it's being selected and used by society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)