purpose driven media literacy

Chapter One: Introduction

Throughout my youth and young adulthood, I struggled with low self-esteem. Undoubtedly there were many factors that contributed to my negative self-image, including my parents’ divorce. However, it was only after studying the mass media and its negative impacts on self-perception in college that I was able to understand the problem fully and turn my self-esteem around. I realized I had been comparing myself endlessly to celebrities and models in the mass media, trying in many ways to imitate their clothing, hairstyles, attitudes, and behaviors. No matter how hard I tried, though, I remember always feeling frustrated and inferior in contrast to these images of perfection. I felt endless discontent when comparing my own unique and real body to the unreal portrayals of perfection surrounding me in the commercial mass media available to me at this time. Every week I saw hundreds of advertising narratives that either subtly or blatantly suggested I was in need of some product or service that would help me achieve what I had always wanted in life.

In college I took media effects courses and learned to critically analyze and evaluate media messages in life-changing workshops hosted by women such as Jean Kilbourne. I finally realized that the comparisons I had been making—between myself and the unreal images that surrounded me in the commercially mass-produced media—were irrational. Even more surprising, I learned that the images to which I had been comparing myself had been doctored; they could not be achieved without special lighting, camera angles, airbrushing, or digital enhancements. I had also been buying into a repetitive storyline that told me about people who mattered in this world, and I was not one of them.

Ultimately, these experiences increased my level of media literacy, which, put simply, meant that I had attained the knowledge and skills to critically “read” (i.e., watch, listen to, and mindfully process) media messages during my exposures. As a result of this development, I felt liberated from the constant comparisons to media images, felt more in control of my media exposures, let go of many faulty beliefs about myself and the world, felt more in control of allowing or disallowing media messages to shape my life, felt more confident and empowered, and therefore have since led a happier life. Since that time, I have not only rejected commercial media definitions of attractive body types, but I have also sought out alternative portrayals and have even advocated for a more representative media system that will allow for more diverse representations and narratives. Even though it is more difficult and time consuming to apply media literacy in my daily life, the personal payoffs are much greater than the effort that is required.

These rewarding feelings drove my desire to research media literacy and to teach what I learned and experienced so that others like me may experience benefits of their own. Later, when developing curricula for the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, I met two high school-aged girls who had produced a video project for their media analysis class. Their production told the story of how each girl overcame her different eating disorder because of the increased media literacy they developed in their media analysis class. Watching their video production reminded me very much of my own situation, and I began to seek out the stories of other students, anecdotally and in published research. As I continued teaching media education courses over the years, I learned through discussion and feedback that other students benefited from increased media literacy in similar ways and also in many other positive ways.

Since then I have heard dozens of stories about how students’ simple increases in media literacy have made real differences in their lives. A young man made a decision to sell his car and instead use public transportation because of what he described as his desire to make a meaningful contribution to a cleaner environment; a young woman changed her political party to support causes that benefited her family; and another young woman stopped feeling so scared to leave the safety of her home. The fact that these students attributed such significant and reportedly valuable changes to a media education course was initially shocking to me. However, after a number of years, I became less surprised when I heard similar stories and began instead to wonder what it was about media education that could produce such therapeutic effects. I wanted to know more about the value of media literacy for students and what drives them to want to apply it in their lives.

Specifically, my interests regarding the effectiveness of media literacy education lie in two areas. First, as I proceeded through my doctoral program, I conducted research and wrote a number of papers about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of media literacy curricula and pedagogies. Concurrently, I thoroughly familiarized myself with the body of media literacy scholarship and the key people who participate in research and practice. As I met and began to understand the perspectives of various educators and scholars, I encountered, at times, a surprisingly combative discourse about the “right” ways to approach media literacy. My own classroom pedagogy avoids what Paulo Friere calls “banking education” (1970) and favors student-centered constructivism and critical thinking. I encourage students to think for themselves about their own purposes, thought processes, and preferred outcomes. In doing this study, I was hoping to find out more about how to approach media literacy curricula in ways that could most effectively produce positive effects, as reported by students.

Second, a great deal of my research has focused on examining whether and how media literacy can mitigate the negative effects of mass-media messages. Prior to this study, I had obtained a thorough understanding of both media literacy and mass media effects literature, and I began to search for more information about why individuals with increased media literacy could be affected in positive ways. As I wondered what occurred cognitively as the transformation took place, I encountered W. James Potter’s “cognitive theory of media literacy,” the first coherent published theory of media literacy (2004). Potter is a scholar with whom I had always aligned myself and whose theoretical explanations mercifully put into words what had been on my mind for years. His foci are on the cognitive element of information processing and meaning construction, on what motivates individuals to expend effort engaging in media literacy, and on the ability of the individual to control his or her interpretations leading to negative or positive effects. These cognitive elements are important to me because they articulate my own views and research goals.

However, in order to progress in my research and to be able to make claims about how media literacy training can lead to positive—even therapeutic—outcomes, it became necessary to construct a platform of understanding from which I could speak with authority. Therefore, in designing this study, I planned to more closely examine and discover the decisions that occur at the point of meaning construction. In doing so, I intended to arrive at a more thorough understanding of not only what motivates students to engage in media literacy but also what prevents them from doing so and what parts of the curriculum they attribute to their decisions to engage in or avoid it. Additionally, I wanted the answers to be specific and student-accessible so that they could be used to effectively motivate others to learn and hopefully benefit from increased media literacy.

Based on my professional and personal experience, then, the purpose of this study was to discover a spectrum of reasons, rewards, and information triggers that act as catalysts for critical thinking in that they motivate students to engage in media literacy practices. Additionally, I examined students’ reported costs involved in media literacy engagement in order to make suggestions for how educators can help students overcome them. The study was intended to strengthen media literacy theory and indicate possibilities for building more effective media literacy curricula. In this chapter I will discuss the fundamentals of media literacy by explaining (1) definitions; (2) approaches; and (3) Potter’s framework, which, ultimately, I position myself within.

Fundamentals of Media Literacy

Media literacy has become increasingly important in the United States over the past 30 years. The late 1970s and early 1980s marked a significant display of interest from educators and social scientists in researching effective intervention skills that could increase a child’s understanding of television content. Concern about the harmful effects of television was spurred by the release of the Surgeon General’s Report in 1971. The report represented a massive research effort, funded by over one million dollars in government appropriations, to probe the issue of televised violence. Several books were published, suggesting that television was not just bad for children, but dangerous, which spurred debate among parents, teachers and Board of Education groups. One outcome was that educators, frustrated by the lack of government intervention regarding program or commercial content, began to develop “critical viewing skills” curricula to protect children from these influences (Neuman, 1991).

Since then, media literacy education has blossomed from what was initially a handful of curricula with a limited focus on advertising and violent content into significant developments in research, theory, and practice from many diverse fields. Some of the contributing fields are: education, communication, media studies, psychology, cultural studies, literature, literacy studies, telecommunications, and library and information science (Hobbs, 2005). Because so much has been written about media literacy education (and its various synonyms such as media education, critical thinking skills programs, critical viewing skills curricula), it is difficult to formulate an exact understanding of its use throughout the nation.

Definitions

The meaning of media literacy greatly depends on the one defining it. Potter (2004), who has written extensively on media effects and cognitive processing of media messages, compares media literacy literature to a “large complex patchwork of ideas” (p. 34) and compiles 22 separate definitions of media literacy from various citizen action groups and scholars (for complete list, see Potter, 2004, pp. 24-27). However, for many years, the most commonly accepted and widely used definition of media literacy was one that was developed at the 1992 National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Scholars agreed upon and later revised a definition that explicated media literacy in this way:

A media literate person—and everyone should have the opportunity to become one—can decode, evaluate, analyze, and produce both print and electronic media. The fundamental objective of media literacy is critical autonomy in relationship to all media. Emphases in media literacy training range widely, including informed citizenship, aesthetic appreciation and expression, social advocacy, self-esteem, and consumer competence. (Aufderheide, 2001, p. 79)

This definition is broad but covers a wide range of approaches included throughout the field, which itself is so expansive and fragmented it has been difficult to reach any kind of meaningful convergence. Consequently, existing conceptualizations of media literacy are so broad and varied that unified, systematic development of media literacy theory seems almost impossible. Media literacy traverses academic disciplines from communication studies to women’s studies, to political science, to health and nutrition and many others. It easily crosses the boundaries of academics into churches, communities, and activist groups. Ironically, it is used both as a means to protect innocent children and as a means to protect powerful corporations. To understand how this is true, one must understand how media literacy advocacy is currently organized in the United States.

A few local, regional and national non-profit organizations, established in the early 1990s, have functioned successfully and continued to grow (e.g., New Mexico Media Literacy Project, Center for Media Literacy, Center for Media Education, National Telemedia Council, Citizens for Media Literacy and others). More recently however, two large national organizations have been established, indicating an upswing in interest towards the benefits of media literacy education: Alliance for a Media Literate America (AMLA) and Action Coalition for Media Education (ACME). The contrasting goals of these two organizations, however, instigate infighting among media educators that illustrates the lack of any real agreement about the standards in the field. Media corporations have also jumped on the media literacy bandwagon, producing and promoting curriculum that integrates programming from their networks or content from their newspapers. The issue of “big media-produced” media literacy curricula, as some call Channel One- or Cable in the Classroom-sponsored curriculum, is what divides the discipline on the national level.

An illustration of this divide can be seen in the following description of the two national media literacy organizations. The AMLA, founded in 2001, aims to unify media literacy educators and provide networking and curriculum resources for individuals and organizations. ACME, founded in 2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, actively disassociates itself with AMLA, and is more activist oriented, focusing on media reform policy and social justice issues. Both organizations have held successful, well-attended, annual events that have attracted thousands of concerned citizens. Each of the groups possesses goals for increasing media education throughout the country. However, the contentious division between the two centers on their attitude towards the media industry. AMLA encourages partnerships between media-literacy organizations and commercial media makers, accepting funding from and developing curriculum for companies such as Comcast and Channel One. ACME, on the other hand, refuses any support whatsoever from media organizations and maintains committed independence from “corporate media ‘literacy’ and its PR machine” (Acme Coalition for Media Education, n.d.). Kellner and Share (2005) describe the division between the two groups as relating to three key differences: (1) AMLA stresses literacy over media, but ACME is the other way around; (2) AMLA suggests that media literacy belongs within an academic field, while ACME sees media literacy as more of a social movement; (3) AMLA takes a “more liberal educational approach” and ACME takes a more “radical advocacy position” (p. 13). This dichotomy is often the subject of heated debates and diatribes among members at national conferences, in publications, and in online listservs.

Potter (2004) suggests that any reasonable definition of media literacy needs to be re-conceptualized so as to be more useful and functional within the field of media literacy. He proposes a three-part definition composed of: (1) a broad overview; (2) a description of cognitive processes; and (3) purpose, this last element being the area to which my study most relates. Since Potter’s views are at the heart of my own research perspective, it is necessary to explain his vision for the theoretical future of media literacy. The following explanation of Potter’s definitional elements is provided to aid understanding of the problem under investigation.

First, Potter argues that a general umbrella definition is useful because it can provide an important rallying point for scholars, activists, and others to gather and gain a sense of group identity. His idea for this broad overview rests on the assumption that the more knowledge structures (e.g., media content, effects, industry, real-world and self) we develop and apply during mindful media exposures, the more likely individuals will be to use media exposures to meet their own goals and to avoid risks for negative effects.

Second, Potter posits that there are degrees of media literacy existing on a continuum, suggesting that knowledge and skills can continually grow and develop, based on the presence of two cognitive processes. These two processes, both actively involved in the construct of media literacy, are: the building of strong knowledge structures during an individual’s media literacy development and the application of media literacy knowledge structures and skills during exposures to media messages. In contrast, Potter indicates that people with low or no media literacy tend to process messages passively. This passive process is a state that allows the media to be more in control of interpretations, and subsequently, the effects of those interpretations.

Potter suggests that possessing higher levels of media literacy involves processing messages actively, rather than passively. Doing so requires, first, the acquisition of a good set of knowledge structures. To develop such structures, according to Potter, it is important to actively and consistently acquire and process information from both the media and the real world, and also to acquire a set of skills that will need to be continually practiced and improved. As such, Potter notes that highly media literate people:

(1) are more consciously aware of their goals for exposure

(2) make more conscious decisions about filtering these exposures

(3) more consciously make decisions about the meaning that is constructed through those exposures

The following example, which I adapted from student feedback prior to this study, illustrates these elements of mindful processing, the two cognitive processes that make up the second part of Potter’s definition.

Suppose a highly media-literate U.S. citizen was seeking information that would help her cast a vote for an upcoming election that would best serve the interests that most concern her (e.g. increasing funding for public education). To begin, she would actively start her information search with a clear awareness of her goal (e.g., making an informed decision that would benefit her and the causes she cares about). As she continued, she might attempt to access as many sources for information as possible, using her skills to critically evaluate each one for such things as accuracy, persuasive intent, and the degree to which the information meets her goal. Additionally, as she processes many different types of messages, she might access some of her knowledge structures about media content, media effects, and self. As a result, she might remind herself of certain production values used in news bites or advertisements (e.g. the flag waving in slow motion, editing that takes comments out of context, patriotic music) and resist adopting an attitude based only on an emotional response to such intentional and influential strategies. Thus, this individual has an increased (1) awareness of her goals; (2) ability to make conscious decisions about filtering her exposures; and (3) ability to make decisions about the meaning constructed through those exposures.

Third, Potter argues that purpose (i.e., the “why” behind media literacy) must belong in the synthesized definition. He explains that because building a media literacy perspective and applying it during media exposures requires a great deal of effort, the payoffs for doing so must be large. Generally, Potter claims, “the purpose of developing media literacy is to give the person greater control of exposures and the construction of meaning from the information encountered in these exposures” (p. 63). My study clarifies and develops the purpose aspect as it is stated here by investigating the reasons students give for wanting to increase their media literacy and apply it in their everyday lives. For example, the woman in the above example might indicate that she experienced a rewarding sense of satisfaction and self-assurance that she voted in a way that ultimately would serve her and her interests.

Approaches

Potentially, hundreds of varying goals exist within media literacy approaches ranging from promoting faith and social justice to reshaping communication policy to the facilitation of personal growth, with dozens of goals in between (summarized by Hobbs, 1998). Several scholars have categorized differing approaches to media literacy (Buckingham, 1998; Hobbs, 1998; Potter, 2004). In this section I will provide a brief overview of key concepts and principles, and broadly define three “camps” housing those who perceive media literacy in oppositional ways, positioning myself among them.

Key concepts and principles. Most media literacy conceptualizations involve recognition of and agreement on principles and key concepts. Recently, in an overview of the past 20 years of media literacy discourse, Buckingham (2003) pointed out four foundational concepts that underlie the framework used by most practitioners and scholars. Hobbs (2005) describes them as:

(a) production—recognizing media texts are consciously manufactured, often for commercial profit and often by media companies that operate on a global scale; (b) language—appreciating the codes, genres, choices, combinations that are used to construct texts; (c) representation—understanding media texts not as windows on the world, but as messages that selectively portray ideas, values, and ideologies; and (d) audiences—examining how messages are aimed at specific audiences and noting how audiences select and use media and make interpretations of what they read, listen to, and view.

Similarly, Christ and Potter (1998) explain that most media educators agree on the following media literacy training principles:

Media are constructed and construct reality; media have commercial implications; media have ideological and political implications; form and content are related in each medium, each of which has a unique aesthetic, codes and conventions; and receivers negotiate meaning in media. (from Aufderheide, 1997, cited in Christ & Potter, 1998, p. 8)

Schools of thought tend to depart from each other, however, when considering the aims of media literacy toward its recipients. Groups tend to differ in their tendencies to steer toward or away from media effects scholarship. These considerations and tendencies are related to beliefs about whether media audiences are active participants in the interpretation of media messages or more passive victims of powerful media influence.

Media literacy as an extension of traditional literacy. This relatively innocuous approach emphasizes the “literacy” in media literacy and holds a neutral perspective about the amount of harm the media effect in their audiences. It is similar to traditional reading and writing courses in that it encourages students to be able to “read” (i.e., analyze and interpret) and “write” (i.e., produce). The difference is in its expanded focus on newer forms of electronic and digital media instead of traditional print messages. The approach promotes an understanding and analysis of production codes and conventions and encourages students to produce their own media pieces. With this approach, the discussion of media effects is virtually absent. The next two approaches emphasize media effects, but each to different degrees and both in starkly contrasting ways.

Protectionism. This perspective emphasizes the “media” in media literacy, ignores the concept of “active audience,” and usually uniformly condemns popular culture while promoting the appreciation of high or classical culture. Leveranz and Tyner (1993) review this historical position often taken by media educators in the U.S. throughout the twentieth century. They suggest the protectionist stance toward media is derived, not from sound scientific research, but from reactionary assumptions such as:

(1) popular culture is inferior to fine arts as a subject for study; (2) popular culture directly causes anti-social behavior; (3) audience members have little control over the power of media; (4) Americans would prefer classical books and music to popular culture, once they were educated to enjoy them by those with discriminating taste; and most of all, (5) even though “the business of America is business,” commercialism in any form is bad. (p. 21)

The problem with this approach, which relies on the hidden (and sometimes not-so-hidden) agenda of the teacher or program leader, is that it ignores the students’ media preferences, underestimates the possibilities for popular media to function positively in students’ lives, and discounts the idea that students might already interpret media content in a relatively distant or critical way (Buckingham, 1990). Additionally, the approach is criticized for being reactive and defensive (Buckingham, 2003). Many protectionists encourage students to consume less media, especially television. Potter (2001) states that while the media may be responsible for many negative effects, they are also responsible for many positive effects. He opposes the idea the certain media messages are considered to be inherently “bad,” and claims it is a sign of media illiteracy to condemn a tool that can be used for many good purposes.

A broadcasting industry trade publication provides an excellent example of the way in which the apparently harmful nature of violent content can actually be useful and “good.” In an editorial defending its anti-censorship position, the author points out ways in which violent messages, often deemed as “bad” by health officials, parents, religious groups, or government, can be interpreted in an entirely different way: “The very children we seek to protect have often grown up meeting and defeating their deepest fears through vicarious violence—in fairy tales, read to them by their parents” (Broadcasting & Cable, 2004, p. 28). This view refutes the proposition that children need to be protected from media content and holds that it is the individual who determines the degree of usefulness of media content.

Critical media literacy. In stark contrast to protectionism, this camp is influenced by the critical cultural studies paradigm and holds the views I bring to this study. This view encourages critical awareness about the constructed nature of representations in the media; explores social, political, economical, and cultural contexts in which media messages are created (i.e., by whom for what purpose); and encourages learning about the ways in which individuals uniquely construct meaning from a message (Samali & Pailliotet, 1999). While protectionists aim to protect students, this approach aims to prepare them (Buckingham, 2003). It aims to help students develop knowledge and skills that will establish critical autonomy and a sense of empowerment over the meaning-making process that occurs during media exposures. Buckingham (2003) describes this approach as more evolved and “mature” than protectionism, and as one that “does not seek to replace ‘subjective’ responses with ‘objective’ ones, or to neutralize the pleasures of the media through rational analysis” (p. 14). In other words, while protectionism endeavors to enter into the students’ meaning-making processes, hoping to replace the “wrong” or “bad” beliefs with the “correct” or “good” ones, the critical approach gives students the tools to examine their own meaning-making processes and make changes only if they see fit. Critical media literacy enables students to make more informed decisions on their behalf while still respecting the pleasure that students enjoy from their media experiences.

One example of a critical media literacy approach is explained by Lewis and Jhally (1998) who contend that examining message context allows students to participate in a deep exploration of media texts. These authors argue that media literacy efforts should go beyond deconstruction and textual analysis to a deeper analysis of the political, economic, and social context surrounding the media and society. They assert that students of media literacy should be asking questions not only about how a message is constructed but why it is constructed. Additionally, students should be analyzing the media environment as a whole, and should consider not only what is left out of a portrayal, but why it is left out and in whose interest it is to portray the message one way and not the other. Analyzing the whole media environment involves considering the ownership structure and commercial nature of U.S. media and its relationship to public interest and democracy. Lewis and Jhally (1998) suggest that media literacy can help students develop skills that foster good citizenship.

For example, in my class, I show a Nike commercial in which it is easy to see how the creators expertly apply the Madison Avenue strategy of “emotional transfer.” They use lighting, camera angles, music, sound effects, and rhetoric to build an inspiring and motivating story of American athletic success. Words such as “I can” appear across the screen suggesting that if you try hard enough (and wear Nike clothing) you can be anything or do anything you want. When analyzing this commercial, my students are asked to think about all the stories that are left out of the picture and why. Most often, students bring up Nike’s use of unfair labor practices and sweat shops. This approach does not discount students’ potential enjoyment of Nike commercials or even of Nike athletic wear. However, it does recognize that in order to make responsible and well-informed decisions for herself, a media consumer needs to consider the broader picture, which is often hard to find in commercial advertising.

Framework and Purpose for Study

Compared to other academic disciplines, media literacy in the United States is still in its infancy, and it is unlikely that the discord plaguing the field will disappear anytime soon. Until 2004, when Potter published Theory of Media Literacy: A Cognitive Approach, no one had put forth any significant theories unique to media literacy. In his theory text, Potter (2004) provides a valuable synthesis of approaches and perspectives, and claims that theory development is necessary and can help to unify the discipline. Potter argues that such a theory “needs to illuminate the particulars about why being media literate is good; that is, it needs to elaborate on the purpose definition” (p. 36). [ital added] Further, he suggests that a theory is needed to provide an important foundation for educators to articulate and assess treatments or trainings.

In explaining the rationale for his theory, Potter addresses three factors that form the framework for my study. First, he contends that media literacy education must address the cost-benefit ratio for developing and applying knowledge structures and skills. In other words, people must believe that developing and applying media literacy is important enough warrant their investment of energy. In his words, before curriculum and strategies are developed, it is important to address the

costs that present considerable barriers preventing people from being more media literate. Before we can expect people to expend the considerable effort to develop skills, to build elaborate knowledge structures, and to pay attention during media exposures, we must demonstrate that the rewards for such effort are worth it. (p.36)

My study investigates the specific barriers reported by students to prevent or impede the development and application of media literacy. Discovering these barriers adds to Potter’s theory and aids educators in designing effective curriculum.

Second, the goals of media literacy are frequently expressed throughout the literature in abstract terminology, “such as getting people to understand messages better (Masterman, 1985) or helping people think for themselves (Aufderheide, 2001) and make better choices (Desmond, 1997b)” (cited in Potter, 2004, p.37). The assumption that the goal of media literacy is to improve individuals in some way exists throughout media literacy scholarship. After synthesizing 22 definitions of media literacy, Potter contends that the shared goal of improving individuals through media literacy essentially means that media literate people are able to “make better constructions of meaning from media messages” (p. 37). If this, in a general sense, is the main objective of media literacy education, what exactly does it mean to students in a classroom? What does this phrase tell individual students about their purposes for attending a media education course? Explaining to them that “they will be improved in some way because they can make better constructions of meaning” is unlikely to incite interest that would stimulate the drive to learn and apply media literacy. As I am sure many educators will agree, unless students become aware of what an educational experience can do for them (e.g., better employment, better health, etc.), they are less likely to invest serious effort in it. My study improves on this purpose statement by providing specific student-reported reasons for being media literate, which can be used to develop Potter’s theory and also to stimulate interest for learners in the beginning stages of media education.

Third, Potter suggests that in order to achieve a high degree of media literacy, a person first must acquire five foundational knowledge structures about: (1) media content; (2) media industries; (3) media effects; (4) the real world; and (5) self. The possession of more elaborate knowledge structures in these areas gives people not only more available options for accessing media messages, but more options for constructing meaning from those messages. Essentially, this knowledge affords people the ability to approach problem-solving with a greater variety of tools. Better-developed knowledge structures can also help a person more effectively evaluate their increased options according to conscious criteria that leads them to make better choices. Finally, Potter suggests that well-developed knowledge structures help shape the drive to learn and apply media literacy in a positive direction because of emotional elements. People who possess these foundational knowledge structures and apply media literacy tend to experience either (1) good feelings about their media exposures that stimulate the desire to repeat those feelings; or (2) frustration over the idea that new information does not fit with their existing thoughts, which can trigger a desire to reduce that negative emotion through media literacy. The third part of my study investigates the specific knowledge structures that students find to be most stimulating in terms of increasing their drive to learn and apply media literacy in their lives.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the costs and payoffs of processing media messages more mindfully, as perceived by students who have completed a media literacy course or program within the past year. This exploration will focus on three specific areas of inquiry: (1) perceived reasons to engage in media literacy behaviors, (2) perceived barriers to engagement in media literacy behaviors; and (3) class materials and activities that are perceived to stimulate the drive to process media more mindfully. I believe the findings of this study can provide media literacy scholars, educators, and programmers with a powerful rationale for funding and promoting media literacy programs, a framework for effective curriculum design, and a foundation on which to further build theory.

The next two chapters synthesize literature and outline the theoretical framework upon which my research questions are formulated. Specifically, I provide (1) a description of the current state of media content and media industries in the U.S.; (2) an overview of media effects research, audience research, and media literacy research; and (3) an explanation of Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy. Chapter four describes the methodology used for this study. Chapter five reports the findings from the participants’ responses. Chapter six relates the findings to Potter’s theory and makes suggestions for purpose-driven media literacy curricula.

Chapter Two: Overview of U.S. Media Environment

The purpose of this study is to discover what motivates or blocks individuals from engaging in media literacy. The need for media literacy is especially important in the U.S. media environment. In this chapter I describe the current state of concentrated media ownership in the U.S. and the pervasiveness of media content in our lives. Then I explain the limitations that media concentration places on available media content and how those limitations can be problematic in terms of the narrow options available for meaning construction.

Concentration of Media Ownership

For the past two decades, federal deregulation has fostered fast and tight concentration of media ownership, which means that today most of our media outlets are controlled by a few giant transnational conglomerates. In 1983, Bagdikian explained how the entirety of U.S. mass media was dominated by some fifty conglomerates. In an updated edition, Bagdikian has put that number at five (2004). After President Clinton signed into law the 1996 Telecommunications Act, billions of dollars and thousands of media companies changed hands. One journalist wrote that the act “fueled a consolidation so profound that even insiders are surprised by its magnitude” (cited in McChesney, 1999, p. 75). Referred to as “the Big Five,” Bagdikian explains that Time-Warner, Walt Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, and Bertelsmann own most of the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, motion picture studios, television networks, and radio and television stations in the United States, with only a few more conglomerates owning most of the rest of what we consume.

Ownership of U.S. media is concentrated even further than what appears on the surface due to joint ventures formed between the conglomerates. Companies that would normally compete for market share have made deals with and invested in each other. For example, Comedy Central (a cable network) is half-owned by AOL Time-Warner and half-owned by Viacom. Perhaps more disturbing, however, are the strategic alliances built between the conglomerates and the telecommunication industry. This means that producers of media content are intricately tied to technology firms that distribute the content, fostering even further concentration. Hundreds of these joint ventures exist between media companies leading to cross-ownership that, according to a 1997 article in Variety magazine, result “in a complex web of interrelationships" that will "make you dizzy" (cited in McChesney, 1999, p. 2).

It is easier to see the clear benefits for the media conglomerates than it is to see any public benefits. Consider the predicted impact evident in a 1999 News Corporation press release where Healtheon/WebMD CEO Jeff Arnold touted the new partnership formed between the two companies: “The scope and influence of News Corporation’s media properties combined with Heatheon/WebMD’s comprehensive reach and established relationships in the healthcare industry positions us to affect and influence the healthcare market worldwide.” A healthy democracy depends on diverse views and a free and open market of information, not a limited market where one entity controls most of the medical information people view online. Ironically, News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch based his lobbying efforts for deregulation on the argument that relaxed ownership rules would spur greater competition.

The concentration trend is problematic mostly because it does limit the entry of new and independent voices into the marketplace, particularly within the broadcast industry. These few corporate giants, who control most of the airwaves through which citizens can access radio and television content, give majority voice to commercial messages, which are those that generate a large portion of their income from the sale of advertisements. Commercial messages are not really designed to sell information and entertainment to audiences. Instead, they are structured to sell audiences to advertisers and are designed to get ratings or increase circulation. Kilbourne (1999) explains that audiences are the real products being sold. She cites the example of a Chicago Tribune advertisement placed in the trade magazine Advertising Age stating “the people you want, we’ve got all wrapped up for you” and featuring several people neatly boxed according to income level (p. 34).

In contrast, the funding of noncommercial media does not depend on delivering audiences to advertisers. Broadcast networks such as PBS and NPR are funded by private institutions and federal tax dollars and are, according to McChesney, “ultimately accountable in some legally defined way to the citizenry, and aimed at providing a service to the entire population…which does not apply commercial principles as the primary means to determine its programming” (1999, p. 226). Because of this, public broadcasting programmers are more able to treat Americans like citizens, instead of consumers, which means they can deliver more diverse, in-depth, informative and sometimes controversial content. Noncommercial television networks such as Free Speech TV, Paper Tiger Television and LinkTV feature similar content and are funded through public grants, private foundation grants and individual subscribers and are not accountable to the power structures inherent within transnational conglomerates. Noncommercial broadcast media, however, are in the great minority, with only a few and sometimes only one station per market. Cable systems are required to provide “public access” channels if they are desired by the local communities within which the cable system operates as a monopoly. However, one needs only to scan the channel lineup of any cable system to understand the stark contrast between the amount of commercial and noncommercial channels available to the public.

Entry into the print or computer marketplace is more accessible to individuals. However, without the powerful marketing arm of the giant corporations, the chances that newer and more independent print voices will reach as many people as the corporate media do are slim. Some scholars suggest that the downsides of media concentration are exaggerated, especially in light of the present and future growth of the Internet and its potential to increase competition exponentially. Robert McChesney (1999), a media scholar who has written extensively on communication politics, acknowledges this argument but insists that the evidence suggests “the content of the digital communication world will appear quite similar to the content of the pre-digital commercial media world” (p. 183). He cites six reasons that the Internet will not become the panacea of competition that will rise up against the media giants and defend public interest (McChesney, 2000, Why the iceberg didn’t hit, para 2-8). These reasons are:

the giant media firms are willing to take losses on the Internet that would be absurd for any other investor to assume….the media giants have digital programming from their other ventures that they can plug into the Web at little extra cost….to generate an audience, the media giants can and do promote their websites incessantly on their traditional media holdings, to bring their audiences to their online outlets….as possessors of the hottest ‘brands,’ the media firms have the leverage to get premier locations from browser software makers, ISPs, search engines and portals….with their deep pockets, the media giants are aggressive investors in start-up Internet media companies….to the extent that advertising develops on the Web, the media giants are positioned to seize most of these revenues.

What this means for everyday consumers is that most of the information and entertainment available to us is, and probably will continue to be, market-driven, which is very different from being driven by what is in the public interest. Essentially, the combination of ownership concentration with the proliferation of various media sources spells unprecedented opportunities for just a handful of companies to reach Americans with persuasive appeals and commercial ideologies that may not serve the best interest of the public. The commercial media diet does not consist of what citizens of a democracy need to stay fully informed on a wide variety of issues: a full range of ideologies, stories, images, and information from which to develop a well-balanced sense of self and an understanding of society and important issues. It does not (very often) act as a tool to improve public health and well-being or to develop effective communities. Instead, the commercial media provide us with what we want, or what will keep our eyeballs on and our eardrums tuned into regardless of its relative importance in our lives. The most successful media content is that which delivers the highest number of people to the advertisers, and which, unfortunately, is not usually designed to provoke critical thought about its relative worth. Bob McCannon, Director of the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, has often referred to the fundamental problem of media concentration as one of global corporate conglomerates possessing a loudspeaker through which millions of commercial messages and ideologies saturate our culture when millions of U.S. citizens can barely access a whisper.

Those people with low levels of media literacy have less understanding of the ways in which our current concentrated and commercialized media system limits information and portrayals that might be important or useful in helping them meet their own goals on an individual or societal level. They are less aware of how and why content is designed to benefit the message producers. Advertisers and politicians spend millions of dollars, hire the best experts in the field of persuasion, and use the commercial media to influence our decisions and behaviors to satisfy their goals rather than the goals of the individual. At the 2005 National Conference for Media Reform, journalist Bill Moyers makes a dramatic point about the effects of an unthinking society drowned in publicity and propaganda.

An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy, or worse.

Of course, the issue of concentrated ownership may be less problematic if exposure to media messages was not so voluminous. This, however, is not the case.

Media Exposure

Americans spend an enormous amount of time watching, listening to, or reading mass media messages. According to McChesney and Nichols (2002), “in 2002, the average American spent almost 12 hours per day with some form of media” (p. 47). Despite a rise in Internet use, watching television still occupies the average American’s time more than any other medium. A recent time use study performed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that Americans spend half their leisure time and 11 percent of their lives in front of the television (2005). These results show that watching television takes up the most amount of our time, after sleep and work. According to Kilbourne (1999), the average U.S. citizen is exposed to at least 3,000 advertisements every day and will spend three years of his or her life watching television commercials. Additionally, while the Internet seems to be a growing source of news for Americans, adults still get most of their news from network and cable television, and an increasing number of young adults are getting their news from late night comedy programs (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2004). This trend is especially problematic because most television news is structured for the visual medium which often favors the image, the special effect, or the sound bite over depth and analysis. It is estimated that the entire transcript of an evening television newscast can fit into one newspaper column. Additionally, commercial principles dictate that television news must attract audiences to advertisers. Often, this means following the advice of television news consultants such as Frank N. Magid Associates, who, for example, warned in 2003 that covering war protests could be harmful to a station’s bottom line (Farhi, 2003).

Most notable is the media consumption of U.S. children. Children, who are in precarious stages of development and are learning to understand themselves and the world around them, spend an alarming amount of time with mass media. A typical child, between the ages of eight and 18, lives in a home containing three television sets, three CD/tape players, three radios, three VCR/DVD players, two video game consoles and a computer (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005). Children spend an average of almost six and a half hours a day using mass media during which time they are exposed to a surprising eight and a half hours of media messages per day (Woodard & Gridina, 2000; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005). This statistic may seem confusing, but the extra exposure is made possible by media multitasking. This practice involves the use of two or more media simultaneously. For example, many kids read while watching television, or listen to music while searching the Internet. In stark contrast, an earlier study by the American Family Research Council finds that children spend only 38.5 minutes per day in quality conversation with their parents (as cited in American Youth Policy Forum, 1998). Consequently, by the time U.S. students graduate from high school, they will have spent more time in front of the television than in school or with any other socializing agents, such as parents (Graber, 1997; Kaiser 2005).

Kids today also have easier access to most media with few limitations and governance. Television use substantially outweighs all other media use combined. There is little evidence that computers and video games are drawing young people’s attention away from television (Kaiser, 2005). The Kaiser study, which is based on a nationally representative sample of 2,032 children between the ages of eight and 18, reported that two-thirds of the sample have a television in their room, almost half have no rules in the home about what they can watch and how much they can watch, half indicate that the television plays in their home most of the time even when no one is watching, and almost two-thirds say that the television is usually on during meals.

As a result, according to estimates by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public Education (2001), American children and teenagers see nearly 14,000 sexual references, innuendoes, and behaviors each year on television with only one percent featuring responsible or healthy messages about sexuality and risks. In addition, by the time a child reaches her teenage years, she has witnessed 200,000 murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults (Huston, et. al., 1992).

New innovations in media technology have ensured that people continue to have even easier access to an ever-growing number of media messages, most of which are commercial in nature. In the United States, Americans now can access over 600 television channels and over 150 radio stations in their homes and cars via satellite transmission. Some of us can even access millions of entertainment websites, scan dozens of advertisements, and tune into hourly news updates all from one small remote device (such as a cell phone or personal digital assistant). New personal video recording devices (e.g., TiVo) allow us to pre-plan and record endless hours of programming into a hard drive for convenient access during our leisure time. However, the advantage of such technology is that it allows us more “user control” over our media experiences.

Ironically, that increased control may have led to additional time spent with television programming. During a classroom discussion on this subject, one student noted that after purchasing a TiVo he now watches more television than ever before. Indeed, he admitted that in addition to filling his 180-hour hard drive, he has also rigged his computer to provide even more space for saved programming. A trade industry briefing noted that, in 2002, personal video recorder owners reported watching 20 percent more hours of television (Avtrex, 2003).

Additionally, new state-of-the-art developments in digital technology have led to media that have the potential to produce more emotionally powerful messages than ever before, which have the potential to affect us more than ever before. Zettl (1998) explains that the aesthetic form that packages media content is especially influential because it is more hidden in the way it constructs meaning. He suggests that lighting, color, motion and sound are powerful aesthetic codes that frequently provide associative context. Specifically, these elements have a tendency to “bypass our rational faculties and penetrate directly to our emotional sphere” (p. 86). Soundtracks, for example, can influence the way a film scene is interpreted. Perhaps more importantly though, consider the additional influence of close-ups, slow motion flags waving in the wind, and patriotic music accompanying a newscast clip of a presidential speech.

Clearly, technology has fostered easier access to an unprecedented array of potentially influential media messages. One might think that these developments have spurred a more democratic media system, one that offers more diverse content that better represents and serves society. However, this is not the case. The locus of control for this social, political and cultural space is an issue of great concern to media researchers, sociologists, parents, public policy groups, and consumer protection advocates. This concern stems from the present situation in which most of the mass media messages Americans consume are not designed to promote awareness and critical thinking in order to serve individual and community goals. Instead, commercial mass media messages are expertly designed to make a profit for the media corporation. As a result, audience members can be exposed to covert persuasive strategies by which people are unwittingly influenced in many complex ways. In addition, commercially driven media content often provides U.S. citizens with only a fragment of possible narratives, images, and news items from which to make sense of the world.

Media Content

Why does it matter that Americans are heavily exposed to content produced by a shrinking number of profit-oriented conglomerates? This section will describe and illustrate how media content is shaped by commercial principles and how this narrows the full spectrum of possibilities for exposure to and construction of meaning from media messages.

Blurred Lines

Many Americans are often unaware of increasingly insidious persuasive strategies used by advertisers, politicians and media industry insiders to influence audiences in expert and strategic ways. In fact, it could be difficult for even the most media literate person to tell the difference between benign programming and intentionally covert persuasion, especially when full or even partial disclosure of sponsorship is often completely absent. When processing media content automatically, people do not consciously make an effort to understand these strategies and how they may be affected by them. Potter suggests that such processing puts people at higher risk for negative effects.

We have seen a shift in broadcast advertising strategies over time from the overt sponsorship of a programming hour in the 1950s (e.g. Camel Newsreel or Chesterfield Supper Club) to what FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein recently referred to as “covert commercial pitches” (Teinowitz, 2005). Advertisers, fearing the fading effectiveness of 30- and 60-second ads due to increasing digital video recorder usage, have increasingly turned to product placement within programming content (e.g. placing a visible Pepsi can in the hands of a film character). Overall product placement spending has increased from $190 million in 1974 to $3.46 billion in 2004 (PQ Media, 2005). This is one way in which advertisers work to influence us, by inserting their message into what would otherwise be neutral programming.

Most product placement occurs within fictional content. However, recently, vice-president for marketing at Lexus, Deborah Wahl Myer, proposed to several major magazine publishers the idea of placing photos of its cars into editorial content. According to Myer, “ideas can cross between advertising and editorial. It doesn’t always need to have the ‘advertorial’ note on top” (cited in Fine, 2005). FCC Commissioner Adelstein, who is calling for a mandate to require a more clear disclosure of product placements, would likely disagree. Again, the problem that exists for audience members with low levels of media literacy is that they do not have the knowledge structures in place that would allow them to meaningfully distinguish between the blurred lines of advertising and content. In addition, they will have less understanding of how these blurred lines can construct meaning for them.

Perhaps the most troublesome niche market that advertisers seek to influence is that of children. Children are becoming increasingly important to advertisers. By one estimate described in a 2005 policy report by The Progressive Policy Institute, marketers are spending 150 times the amount they spent 1983 to target children (Stockwell, 2005). A typical ten-year-old today can identify between 300 and 400 brands and logos (Schor, 2004). The lengths marketers go to in order to reach children with persuasive messages have changed too. Advertisements are often masqueraded as something else, such as cartoons, product tie-ins, product placement within program content and even as school curriculum.

More than ever before, marketers are spending time and money on research designed to capture children’s attention and exploit their natural vulnerabilities. One company even masks its market research as a fun slumber party where hosts ask their girlfriends to provide feedback on sample merchandise provided free to the participants. Douglas Rushkoff’s film Merchants of Cool describes the actions being taken by “coolhunters” who seek to infiltrate the culture of teens through ethnographic research and then use the findings to appeal to kids who no longer respond to traditional marketing techniques. Media companies attempt to become “cool” themselves in a technique that Rushkoff refers to as “under-the-radar marketing” (Goodman & Dretzen, 2001).

Another popular marketing strategy purposefully circumvents parents. A PBS film producer once told me in a face-to-face conversation (1999) that he was asked to cease filming and leave the premises of a national marketing-to-kids conference just as the keynote speaker was about to begin his presentation entitled Softening the Parental Veto. It is clear from this title that the content of the speech dealt with a blatant strategy designed not only to influence kids, but also to interfere with the power of the parent’s influence. Advertisers also often portray adults as annoying, boring or uncool “implicitly [pitting] children against adults, and [making] companies the good guys who are trying to help kids be cool and have fun” (Stockwell, 2005, p. 6). Marketers also get access to captive audiences of children in their schools via Channel One, an organization that provides school with free video equipment in exchange for the agreement that students will view a daily 12-minute newscast (including two minutes of advertisements).

While these covert strategies can be profitable for the advertisers and for the media industry, they often teeter on the edge of legality or on what many in the media industry would consider to be ethical. Adelstein has stated his concern about the use of video news releases (VNRs) and the appearance of “so-called experts” who appear on news programs to endorse a product or idea without full disclosure of its paid origin. Referred to as “fake news” by media critics at PR Watch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, a VNR is a pre-packaged news segment (often complete with video, animations, script, sound bites, unedited interviews and location shots) that is produced by both public and private industries and distributed to newsrooms for use in their newscast. The problem that exists for the public is that news stations often do not disclose the source of the story. Daniel Price, a staff member at PR Watch, illustrates how commonly these nondisclosures actually occur. He tells of a January 2005 news segment produced by American Pharmaceutical Partners, who makes a chemotherapy drug called Abraxine, that “seamlessly blended into at least seven different newscasts in five major cities. Not one of the stations had identified American Pharmaceutical Partners as the source of the story” (Price, 2005). Interestingly, the ethics code of the public relations industry professional organization, Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), encourages its members to “build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making,” and to “reveal the sponsors for causes and interest represented” (PRSA.org).

In another example of fake news, conservative commentator Armstrong Williams received negative public attention when it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Education paid him $240,000 to weave his support for the controversial “No Child Left Behind” act seamlessly into his syndicated newspaper column and into his dialogue in several news and talk show appearances (Elliot, 2005). PR Watch staffer Diane Farsetta explains that the House Committee on Government Reform estimated that, since 1997, “at least nine public relations firms have received at least one million in public funds in a single year,” a practice, she explains, that the Government Accountability Office ruled as illegal “covert propaganda” (Farsetta, 2005) This practice is harmful to citizens because promotional efforts disguised as news can shape public opinion.

Of course, it is impossible to list here the hundreds, if not thousands, of such examples that exist within the modern media industry. Another example of questionable ethics, however, merits a mention in this chapter. Recently, the issue of “payola”(a pay-for-play practice in which record labels offer gifts and/or money to radio programmers in return for favoring their songs on the playlist) received national attention as a result of New York’s attorney general Eliot Spitzer’s investigation into Sony BMG’s use of the practice. Sony BMG agreed to a $10 million dollar settlement when it acknowledged that “various employees pursued some radio promotion practices on behalf of the company that were wrong and improper, and apologizes for such conduct” (Leeds & Story, 2005).

Skewed and Missing Information

This section will describe and illustrate how commercial principles shape and limit media content options in many ways. A more thorough discussion of how people are affected by limited options will appear in chapter two. Scholars have argued that the narrow palette of media content possibilities can lead to a fragmented (Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes & Sasson, 1992) or fractured sense of reality (Carlie, 2002). In other words, American media consumers, who possess low levels of media literacy and who rely on mostly commercial programming for their information and entertainment, may be negatively affected, not always because of what is included or even blurred in media content, but because what is often left out of media content. For example, it is difficult to make an informed ballot decision if all sides of an issue or candidate’s platform are not fully aired. Important context necessary to completely understand an issue is often missing from news bytes. Additionally, the stories through which Americans are socialized are defined by commercial principles.

According to renowned media scholar George Gerbner (1999), stories “weave the seamless web of the cultural environment that cultivates most of what we think, what we do, and how we conduct our affairs” (p. 10). Our exposure to media content is massive, and every article, program and advertisement has a story to tell. As mentioned in chapter one, Americans spend more time in front of the television than any other activity besides work and sleep.

According to Gerbner (1999), however, the plots, the characters, and the values of these stories that play such a powerful role in our socialization are not the same as the hand-crafted, community-inspired stories told in previous eras by families, schools, churches, tribes, or neighborhoods. He sees the stories of today as a mass-produced result of a complex manufacturing and marketing process. Furthermore, he explains that stories come from a “handful of global conglomerates that basically have nothing to tell, but a great deal to sell” (Gerbner, 1998). For decades, Gerbner and his Cultural Indicators Project have been assessing the media environment by way of television content analysis. Gerbner maintains that over the thirty years they have kept the database, the pattern prevalent in television content remains the same. The pattern includes white male-dominated scriptwriting, universal presence of sex and violence, and depictions absent of real-life consequences. The frequency of these portrayals by themselves do not necessitate concern. However, Strasburger and Wilson (2002) provide a summary of the 1998 National Television Violence Study and point out that the contextual features of violence are important and increase the chances that media violence will have a harmful effect on the audience. Violence on television is different from real violence in that it (1) is frequently glamorized; (2) is frequently sanitized; and (3) is often trivialized (Strasburger & Wilson 2002).

Both Gerbner and cultural studies scholar Sut Jhally insist that what shapes our cultural environment is not only the stories that are told, but the stories that are not told. He contends that audiences literally are surrounded by stories of consumption, so much so that they are potentially unaware of any alternatives that are contrary to those stories. Marshall McLuhan posed the question of whether fish know they are swimming in water, since they have never been exposed to anything different. Jhally likens this statement to the environment of advertising in which audience members swim through advertisements (which are essentially stories of consumption), unthinkingly absorbing them (Boihem, 1997). To counter the effects of the commercial media environment, Lewis and Jhally (1998) insist that de-contextualizing messages be an essential part of media literacy. De-contextualizing helps people take the fish out of the water, so to speak, critically examine what that water contains, and consciously consider how that water shapes our existence (Jhally, 1997).

Jhally has produced several films that highlight the individual, cultural, and societal effects that result from stories that are virtually nonexistent within commercial media. One such film, entitled Advertising and the End of the World, points out that advertising encourages us to engage in cycles of disposal that could lead to the destruction of the world’s natural resources, a narrative that is virtually absent from commercial discourse. Also missing are portrayals of where products come from (e.g. livestock, natural resources) and where they go (e.g. sewage, landfills). Even though some messages and ideas are contrary to the daily barrage of glamorous product narratives, they are perhaps even more important for citizens to hear, understand, and consider. Lewis and Jhally (1998) give an excellent example describing automobile ads that show cars driving along empty roads, “often across pristine landscapes with cloudless skies” (p. 113). What are not mentioned, however, are the realities of pollution, traffic, smog, and the price of energy. Of course, one would not expect an auto company to blatantly focus on information that would reduce sales. However, the concentration of commercial media guarantees that the frequency of narratives such as advertisements designed to increase sales will far outweigh those that address issues that may negatively affect everyday citizens.

According to Potter (2004) it is vital that U.S. citizens understand as much as they can about (among other things) media industries and media content. There is evidence to support the fact that a number of different stories are not covered because an airing of the information might provoke public debate that directly affects the daily function and/or bottom line of the parent conglomerate. Staff members at Project Censored, an organization housed at Sonoma State University, dedicate their work days to researching the year’s important “under-covered” news stories. These stories, referred to as “missing news,” do not receive adequate coverage in the mainstream press for a number of different reasons, including the desire to avoid offending powerful interests such as advertisers, corporations and government (Phillips, 1999). Journalist Bill Moyers illustrates this perspective in his speech to the 2005 National Media Reform Conference, “I came to see that news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.”

A case in point takes us back to the debate (or non-debate) over the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Part of the Act proposed changes to digital television, which will eventually allow communities to receive anywhere from fifteen to twenty high definition channels to as many as sixty or seventy analog-quality channels. In 1995, according to McChesney (1999), the National Association of Broadcasting and top television broadcasting lobbies used their influence to add a clause to the existing proposed Telecommunications Act. The clause required the FCC to give each existing broadcaster an additional six megahertz of spectrum so they could begin broadcasting in digital. A few prominent members of Congress (including John McCain and Bob Dole) opposed the give-away of such valuable airspace and pushed for a public auction of the spectrum so that the conglomerates would pay fair market value (valued at $70 billion) and the taxpayers would be duly compensated for use of the airwaves (Moyers, 1999).

Not surprisingly, the issue received little to no media coverage which would have allowed for public debate. As Senator John McCain remarked to the Senate, “You will not see this story on any television or hear it on any radio broadcast because it directly affects them” (Moyers, 1999). Coverage was particularly absent from television news (McChesney, 1999; Moyers, 1999) and the Act was quietly passed by both the House and Senate in the spring of 1996. The digital spectrum, the primary means of distribution for mass commercial content, is now controlled by the conglomerates at no cost to them. McChesney writes: “…given the vast qualitative difference between digital and analog television, there has been no reason to assume that the old broadcasters are automatically entitled to rule the new millennium without review. Indeed, such debate might have raised the question of how and why the commercial broadcasters had won the right to rule the old millennium” (p. 151).

Other instances of “missing news” include stories that were not covered because they would have a direct and negative effect on the parent company or on the politics of the parent company. Specifically, ABC News (owned by parent conglomerate Disney) dropped a 20/20 investigative segment about hiring practices that led to the employment of several pedophiles at the family parks. Consumers Union Director Gene Kimmelman explains the problematic effects of such practices: “If ABC doesn’t cover Disney, maybe for some good reasons, we may not have enough other people to cover Disney” (Moyers, 1999). Concentrated ownership and joint ventures reduce the number of possibilities for access to free-flowing, open, and diverse information. In the film, Outfoxed, former FOX News anchor John Du Pre describes the daily “memo” generated every morning by either CEO Roger Ailes or Senior Vice President John Moody: “When headquarters sent a memo every morning and said ‘we want to touch on the following issues, we want to cover the following stories, we want to do them in this particular way,’ our job and objective was to execute the plan” (Greenwald, 2004). For example, an April 28, 2004 memo written by John Moody suggested “Let’s refer to the U.S. Marines we see in the foreground as ‘sharp-shooters,” not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (Greenwald, 2004).

Perhaps as damaging to public well-being is the fact that a widely commercialized media system limits information and portrayals that might be adverse to the advertisers who pay the bills yet necessary to citizens. Kilbourne (1999) writes:

Advertising’s influence on media content is exerted in two major ways: via the suppression of information that would harm or “offend the sponsor” and via the inclusion of editorial content that is advertiser-friendly, that creates an environment in which the ads look good. (p. 49)

Specifically, advertising encourages producers of media content to offer narratives that are “likely to create a ‘buying mood’” (Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes & Sasson, 1992, p. 377). Steinem (1990) writes about a problem that has occurred with the editorial content in women’s magazines. Various advertisers for Ms. (before Ms. went advertising free) ordered that their ads should not be placed next to articles featuring controversial and emotional subjects such as abortion and religion or even in any issues that include such topics. More relevant, however, is the rule some advertisers had about their messages not appearing opposite material “antithetical to the nature/copy of the advertised product” (cited in Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes & Sasson, 1992, p. 378.), preventing, for example, cigarette ads from being placed next to anti-smoking content.

Kilbourne (1999) explains how magazine content can be affected by alcohol ads. She describes several ads that appear in Advertising Age attempting to sell the audiences of several newspaper and magazine publications to advertisers. One particularly shocking ad promoting the Black Newspaper Network features this copy: “Black people drink too much. Too much, that is, for you to ignore” (p. 48). She also points out how one issue of Ebony magazine, which contained eleven alcohol ads, featured a story about the ten most serious health problems affecting blacks. The story, interestingly, did not point out that alcohol is related to nine out of the ten health problems.

More recently, two corporations (Morgan Stanley and BP) have adopted advertising policies that require magazine publishers who carry their ads to notify them in advance of any editorial coverage that mentions the companies, competitors or the industry in either a positive or negative manner. BP’s media agency, MindShare, has developed a policy that allows them to pull an ad without penalty or, if not given enough advance notification by the publisher, to suspend advertising altogether (Sanders & Halliday, 2005). These policies are not necessarily new to the industry. Croteau & Hoynes (2001) cite a 1997 case in which Chrysler Corporation had adopted similar requirement. Such practices likely discourage magazines from publishing anything that might result in a loss of advertising dollars.

In another example, two investigative reporters for Fox Television-owned station WTVT were fired in 1997 for violating an unwritten policy to avoid negatively reporting on a major advertiser, Monsanto. The reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, described their termination as resulting from top-down orders to avoid reporting on “anything that had the potential of making trouble for a business whose chief aim now was making money, as much and as fast as it could” (p. 154, 1999). Akre and Wilson contend that some of the first words spoken to employees by David Boylan, their new manager after Fox Television had acquired WTVT, were “We paid $3 billion for these television stations, we’ll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is” (p. 154).

Not only is advertiser-adverse content often left out of news, but stories relevant to the poor and working class—audience members outside the desirable 18-49 middle class demographic—are often absent or under covered (Bagdikian, 2004, McChesney, 2004). Commercial media content caters most to Americans who can afford to buy the advertised products. Advertisers create a high demand for narratives and information that will be attractive to the largest audience within a desired market. Media, then, provide the audiences to the advertisers. Therefore programming content generally reflects the wants of those who have, and are willing to spend, a disposable income. Because of new technologies and the proliferation of media sources, advertisers have been able to reach “niche audiences” (Croteau & Hoynes, 2001), which are smaller and more homogeneous market segments. This strategy allows advertisers to reach the desired consumers more effectively and more efficiently. It is less important that advertisers reach a large audience than that they reach the “right” audience. Media content, then, is fixed around what will deliver these eyes and ears to the advertisers.

In a recent in-depth interview, Viacom co-president and CBS chairman Leslie Moonves touted his recent successful turn-around of CBS into the number one network in ratings and profits. He claimed proudly that CBS has captured the prized 18 to 49-year-old demographic, stating that “we are no longer the old fogy network” (Sheff, 2005). What Moonves is saying, then, is that the media wants and needs of the “old fogy” demographic are irrelevant because they do not fit the description desired by advertisers. Bagdikian (2004) cites several other examples of broadcasters boasting about their abilities to reach this desired demographic. Most notable was a booklet designed for the advertisers of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network, which said in part: “Some people are more valuable than others,” referring to the idea that their audience would be able and willing to buy advertised products (cited in Bagdikian, 2004, p. 229). One can only imagine, then, what percentage of the public is not considered valuable and is, therefore, not served well by the commercial media.

Sensationalism

Another problem that exists for the media illiterate stems from news content that is driven by the selling of audiences to advertisers. News organizations are businesses that need to drive up ratings in order to deliver large audiences to advertisers. Sensationalism is one way in which so-called journalists attract more viewers/readers to their stories which often dominate a large portion of program time. Project Censored refers to these stories as “junk food news” which they explain as news that is over-reported and insignificant. For example, in 2004, the top ten “junk food news” stories, as rated by Project Censored staff, were: “Janet Jackson and her Super Bowl exposure…Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's breakup…The Hilton heiresses…Britney Spears marriage and next-day annulment to childhood friend Jason Alexander…Martha Stewart's trial” (Phillips, 2004, para 5). When asked by Project Censored staff about this trend, Dennis Foley, an ombudsman for The Orange County Register explains a negative effect on U.S. citizens (Coleman, 1999):

Media emphasis on “celebrity” news is, I fear, driving out substantive news and is alienating people from becoming involved in the public life that makes for healthy communities. Media have a responsibility to build community, not just entertain people for profit. (p.231)

Sensationalism in news is not necessarily the result of selfish profit-seekers. More likely, it is an inevitable result of a mostly commercialized media system influenced by the circular process of media supply and audience demand that will be explained later in this chapter.

Media content is changing. Lines between entertainment, information and persuasion are blurring. Marketing strategies are becoming increasingly advanced in their attempts to persuade people to consume. Commercial principles dictate most of what Americans read, watch, or listen to. Corporate conglomerates control the culture through which children are socialized and adults are politicized. The current media system does not serve the public interest as well as it serves the media giants. A diverse and free marketplace of information is vital to the healthy socialization of our citizenry and to the effective functioning of U.S. democracy. The next chapter reviews several media effects theories and includes a discussion of factors that contribute to or lessen effects. In addition, I address the issue of media audience and its role in the supply and demand cycle of media content. Last, I discuss media literacy as a mitigating factor in the effects process and present Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy as a frame for my study.

Chapter Three: Overview of Media Effects and Media Literacy

The purpose of this study is to discover what motivates or blocks individuals from engaging in media literacy. This section outlines bodies of literature that explain the ways in which media content interfaces with individuals—the way they interact with and affect each other. Specifically, I discuss media effects and media literacy outcomes literature. Also included is an explanation of key elements in Potter’s (2004) cognitive theory of media literacy. This chapter ends with the three specific research questions driving this study.

Media Effects

Media effects research usually falls into one of several categories, which are compiled by scholars such as Bryant and Zillman (1994), Croteau and Hoynes (2003), Perse (2001), Sparks (2002), and Strasburger (2002). It would be nearly impossible to describe all of the specific study findings that exist in the effects literature. However, the broad categories of concern synthesized from the above sources are as follows: effects of advertising; effects of violent content; effects of sexuality portrayals; effects of alcohol, drug and tobacco portrayals; impact of media content on body image and eating behaviors; impact of media content on identity; effects of pornography; effects of media content on public opinion; effects of media stereotyping; effects of media content on fear of the real-world; effects of song lyrics and music videos; media influence on ideologies; and effects of time spent with media.

Rather than address all of the specifics in the above categories, I will explain and support several media effects theories that underlie these categories of concern: social cognitive theory, schematic learning, and social reality effects. These three theories were chosen because they are from the cognitive model of effects, meaning they best explain effects that result from the cognitive process of meaning construction. First, I will discuss these theories as they explain individual effects and second I will demonstrate how effects pose a systemic problem at the societal level that prevents media regulation from better serving public interests.

Learning from Media Content

Social learning. One of the most well-known effects theories in mass communication research was postulated by Albert Bandura (1965, 1977). Bandura’s social-learning theory predicts that children learn from and model behaviors of those whom they see as role models. Some of this learning can occur in interpersonal interactions with others, especially parents, siblings, peers, teachers or religious leaders. Anyone who watches children at play can observe social learning in action when children sip tea at a tea party, or imitate Mom by playing dress-up or Dad by mock shaving. Increasingly, as children spend more time with media messages, the potential grows for observing and modeling media heroes. This can be positive or negative, depending on whether the “hero” displays pro-social or anti-social behaviors.

During the 1960s, Bandura began his examination of social learning with the famous series of Bobo doll experiments, with which he established that a relationship exists between viewing violent content in a video and the modeling of that behavior by children. Children watched a filmed model portray physically and verbally aggressive behavior toward a large rubber doll and receive either a reward or no consequences for the behavior. After this, the children were more likely to imitate the behavior of the model when left alone in a room with a similar doll. Since then, Bandura and others have continued to develop, test, and validate the theory of social learning, providing one important explanation for the socialization effects of television and other media.

Factors that enhance learning from media. Of course, seeing behaviors on television does not automatically lead one to perform those actions. This is a significant point because it recognizes that not all people are uniformly affected by media. Several scholars (Bandura, 1986; Perse, 2001) combine theory from mass communication and cognitive psychology for a useful discussion about not only what people learn from the media, but why they learn it. This distinction is especially relevant to this study which also explores the why element by looking at how people become motivated to enact and apply media literacy during media exposures.

In the mid-1980s, Bandura recognized that a more complex process occurs when learning from the mass media and changed the name of the theory to social cognitive theory (1986). The new theory places more emphasis on the cognitive activity that takes place in the mind as a precursor to action. It acknowledges that the likelihood of an individual actually reproducing a viewed behavior depends on many factors, including motivation (Bandura, 1994). Specifically, individuals who socially learn behaviors and who have the ability to enact the behaviors will not necessarily do so, especially if there is no motivation, or further, if the behavior has been or will be punished. In contrast, individuals are more likely to produce a learned behavior if motivated by direct, self-produced or vicarious rewards (Bandura, 1994).

The rewards people are most likely to experience from viewing media content are vicarious. One can observe various types of rewards and punishments stemming from a character’s behavior in a story or advertisement. For example, a criminal might be arrested, tried, and jailed in a cop show, or shot in a medical show (illustrating negative consequences of criminal behavior). On the other hand, violence in television and film is often glamorized (Smith, Wilson, Kunkel, Linz, Potter, Colvin, & Donnerstein, 1998), which can be seen as rewarding by the viewer. The more stories that illustrate violent behavior as being rewarded, the more likely the viewer will be to produce the same behavior. Programming that portrays glamorous violence without realistic consequences is much more prevalent in commercial media than punished violence. Examples of glamorized violence can be found in popular films such as The Matrix, where Keanu Reeves wears a long, black trench coat and mirrored sunglasses and carries a gleaming silver gun he uses to blow people away with incredible ease and aim. The computer-generated imagery (CGI) and sound effects seen on the giant screen in a theatre can make the action overwhelmingly “cool,” as many students describe it. Additionally, just being featured in the mass media makes some content attractive because people often idolize icons of popular culture and fame.

Besides motivation, other factors that influence the likelihood of reproducing a viewed behavior are attention (whether the individual paid attention to the behavior), retention (whether the individual possessed the mental capacity to learn and remember the behavior), and production (the ability to and belief that s/he can reproduce the behavior). In addition, Bandura (1994) points out that several individual differences may influence the motivation of the observer. Perse (2001) organizes them this way:

(a) selective exposure based on preferences, arousal level and perceptual abilities; (b) abilities to learn based on cognitive skills; (c) abilities to replicate the act based on physical capabilities and self-efficacy; and (d) motivation based on perceptions of rewards and preferences for incentives. (p. 195)

Perse (2001) distinguishes between two types of learning that are involved when people encounter media messages: active learning (which assumes that people are conscious of and mentally engaged in the acquisition of information), and passive learning (which assumes that audiences may not be motivated or may be less able to learn new information). Upon outlining several active learning theories, Perse concludes that “learning depends on the amount of effort the individual is willing and able to put forth to learn” (p. 141). More specifically, variables such as motivation and level of effort required for processing are associated with lesser or greater learning. Learning is greater for those who are motivated to consciously invest mental effort into information processing. These factors are also discussed later in the chapter when explaining Potter’s theory for why people are motivated or are not motivated to engage in media literacy.

It is important to recognize that individuals process information in unique ways. Learning about media literacy ensures that new knowledge and skills enter into the mental processing of media information. Potter asserts that “knowing the factors that increase the probability of [a media] effect occurring is the first step in the process of controlling their influence on you” (2001, p. 312). Specifically, understanding more about what motivates us to model behaviors that are potentially harmful or damaging to ourselves can give us more freedom to make smarter choices. For example, one media literacy principle, “media messages are constructed using identifiable techniques to inform, entertain or persuade,” sheds light on the production values used in film that make violence look so “cool.” An analysis of the lighting, costuming, sound effects, and camera angles in addition to a discussion of reality and real-life consequences that would result from such violence allows a student to more mindfully participate in the meaning construction process and to separate herself from the conditioned effects.

Of course, viewing some media content may also lead to the learning and modeling of prosocial behavior. For children, this may be socially preferable. However, for adults, even if media content leads to the production of behavior that is deemed positive by some in society (e.g. quitting smoking), if it is done mindlessly without conscious awareness of the effect process, more of the control is still in the hands of the media, rather than the individual. If an individual is processing media content actively, they have exposed themselves to a variety of different sources of information on the subject. They are aware of the realities, consequences, and rewards of smoking and are more in control of their choice to smoke or not smoke.

Schematic learning. Schemas are “mental representations of our knowledge about various people, events and issues” (Perse, 2001, p. 46), and are important factors that affect our media exposures, understanding of content and interpretation of meaning. People use these schemas, for example, both consciously and mindlessly to infer what is happening in a bedroom scene when the camera fades to black, or when the camera blurs to indicate a dream sequence. Schema theory is categorized within the cognitive model of media effects and details more about the processes that occur during media message consumption.

Perse (2001) explains that learning occurs through the linkage of new information to pre-existing schemas, and that as people gain more experience and knowledge within one area, their schemas about that domain develop and become more elaborate. As we grow older, we develop hundreds of schemas that allow us to make sense of all the people, events, ideas and things we experience (Potter, 2001). Potter suggests that we have two goals in mind when selecting schema: accuracy and efficiency. Accuracy is the desire to “get it right,” to find the schema that matches the experience perfectly. When we use efficiency, we find the first schema that seems to fit okay and then we move on to something else. Potter claims that because of the media-saturated information-flooded culture we live in, more people are likely to use efficiency over accuracy which is problematic for five reasons. According to Potter,

While we may save time by using the efficiency goal, the danger is that we are too quick to (a) throw away important information, (b) give up searching for elements in an experience, (c) select peripheral rather than important information to put into our schemas, (d) put an element in the wrong schema, or (e) put an element in the correct schema but in the wrong place, such as linking it with the wrong elements. (p. 75)

In order to avoid these problematic effects, people need to be motivated to choose accuracy over efficiency, even if it means investing more time and effort.

According to Perse (2001), while preexisting schemas influence learning, learning also involves developing new schemas. However, the development of new schemas is often very difficult because it involves learning new information and searching the mind for schematic links. A person must be motivated to undertake the effort to develop new schemas that may lead to more accurate interpretations. Perse holds that motivation is a key component of learning, and explains that greater motivation stimulates greater mental activity that leads to greater learning. Additionally, a person’s goals direct which schemas are used during information processing. According to Potter (2004) the media-literate person is more conscious and aware of her goals when confronted with information.

The schematic approach to learning explains why people can be affected negatively by media messages. Potter (2001) suggests that people often confuse real-world schemas with media-world schemas. As an example he describes the disappointment people might feel if they ignore all of the previous experiences they might have had at real-world parties and instead expect a party to be as it would in a Hollywood movie. Potter summarizes three differences in how schemas are used in the two different worlds. First, he suggests that people need a wider range of schemas to understand and interpret all of the events, people and issues that occur within the media-world. Second, people tend to attribute a sense of authority to the media. Often, just because something has been recorded or published, people believe it is important and/or credible. Third, level of involvement is usually lower when processing media messages. Because of the face-to-face nature of interpersonal situations, we are able to negotiate and receive feedback that helps us modify our schemas. During media exposures, we are more likely to access our schemas early in the process and stay with them.

Media as Socializing Agents

Socialization is “the process whereby we learn and internalize the values, beliefs, and norms of our culture and, in so doing, develop a sense of self” (Croteau & Hoynes, 2002, p. 13). While there are many socializing agents in our lives, including parents, peers, schools and churches, the media increasingly occupy more of our social space than ever before. As mentioned in chapter one, the mostly commercialized mass media paint pictures that do not often accurately represent the real world because programmers are less concerned with portraying reality than with portraying content that will draw in the “right” audience. The media act as a passageway to learning about ourselves and about our place in larger society. As a result, the content that embodies that passageway portrays a skewed reality and limits our exposure to a full range of narratives, images, and information that teach and shape us.

Social reality effects. The vast body of research demonstrating that viewing television contributes significantly to the construction of social reality most heavily relies on George Gerbner’s cultivation theory, which explains media’s influence on viewers’ conceptions of the real world (also referred to as social reality effects). Gerbner’s theory is centered on television and predicts that the more a person is exposed to television the more likely the person’s perceptions of social realities will match those represented on television. In addition, people may be influenced in a number of ways by the roles, relationships and values that are implicit in the television entertainment they view (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan and Signorelli, 1986).

For example, Gerbner and his associates have found that heavy viewers are more likely than light viewers to respond with a television answer to questions about how much crime they perceive to exist in the real world, an amount which is congruent with the amount of violence on television, according to content analysis (Gerbner, Signorelli, Morgan & Jackson-Beeck, 1979). These results were reinforced by Pingree and Hawkins (1981) with young viewers in Australia. Again, heavy viewing was associated with more answers that were congruent with television content. Gerbner and various colleagues have maintained over the years that television viewing cultivates not only inaccurate perceptions about the reality of crime in the world (referred to as the mean world syndrome), but also cultivates inaccurate stereotyped views of various social groups (Gerber, Gross, Morgan & Signorelli, 1994).

Perception of gender roles can also be cultivated through media consumption. Although portrayals of gender roles have become increasingly nontraditional, much of television content continues to stereotype according to traditional masculine and feminine roles. Signorielli and Lears (1992) found that television viewing is positively related to children’s attitudes toward sex-stereotyped chores. Children who watched more television were more likely to say that only girls should do those chores traditionally associated with women and that only boys should do those chores traditionally associated with men.

Television viewing may also cultivate certain ideas about marriage. Signorielli (1991) found a positive relationship between television viewing and the agreement that having an intimate relationship with only one person is too restrictive. This belief is consistent with television portrayals of sexual relationships.

There is little doubt in the literature that media exposure is related to the formation of thin body ideals in adolescents and teens. However, Field, et.al (1999) argued that most studies had derived this connection simply through comparing the two simultaneous trends of shrinking weight in media models and over-concern with weight among young girls and women. Their study uniquely assessed the direct influence of exposure to mass media on weight, weight concerns, and weight control behaviors. Evidently, according to study findings, discontentment with body weight and shape was directly impacted by the frequency of reading fashion magazines. In fact, 69 percent of the 548 5^th- through 12^th-grade girls reported that such magazines influenced their idea of the perfect body shape, and 47 percent reported that they wanted to lose weight because of the magazine photos. The results suggest that these young women learned about themselves through comparison to media portrayals

Occasionally, the recognition that social reality effects exist can result in some important recommendations designed to protect the public. Diem, Lantos and Tulsky (1996) recommended—after a content analysis of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) portrayals in three top medical programs on television—that physicians discuss with patients and families the possibility of misperceptions they may hold about the circumstances and success of CPR. For example, CPR was successful in television dramas much more frequently than in real-life statistics. Additionally, the television shows portrayed the outcome of CPR as either full recovery or death, which is problematic because these narratives skirt the complex risks of the procedure. The research team concluded that these misrepresentations, coupled with drama of “miracle recovery” portrayals, can foster false hope for patients and families and can undermine trust in doctors’ recommendations based on real-life data. Physician and ER producer Neil Baer (1996) argues against the position of concern taken by the study team. He points out that “it is difficult to determine exactly how the depiction of CPR on television influences beliefs and attitudes” (p. 1604). While it is true that the above study did not connect media content to incorrect beliefs or attitudes, it is difficult to refute the possibility of such, especially among volumes of social reality effects findings.

After two decades of cultivation research, studies continue to demonstrate a cultivation effect across a wide range of sample populations and specific social reality effects (Morgan & Shanahan, 1997). What is more developed, however, is a better understanding of factors that increase or reduce the cultivation effect, including the psychological process that occurs during the acquisition of these social reality beliefs.

Factors contributing to the cultivation effect. Several audience factors appear to strengthen the cultivation effect further distorting social realities. Studies have confirmed, for example, that those who watch the greatest amount of television have been reported to exhibit the highest levels of the perceived reality of television content (Elliott & Slater, 1980; Greenberg, Neuendorf, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Henderson, 1982; Greenberg & Reeves, 1976; Hawkins & Pingree, 1982; Slater & Elliott, 1982). Heavy viewers of television potentially spend more time with television characters and plots than with real-life people and experiences. The television world, then, becomes the frame of reference for their own social roles, beliefs, and actions.

Another strengthening factor is the amount of real-life experience the audience member has with the content that is viewed. Because the world of television is so unrealistic, it should be expected that viewers who have had real-life contact with people and events similar to those presented on television will be most able to recognize the unreality of television. In addition, those who have had little experience with the content should be more likely to believe in the reality of it. For example, a study by Donahue and Donahue (1977) indicated that African-American children with low socioeconomic status may be more likely to believe in the reality of the portrayal of television lawyers and doctors than upper-class Anglo-American children who have possibly had direct experience with real people in these professions. Specifically, African-American children in the 1970s viewed specific television characters such as Marcus Welby and Maude as significantly more real than did young white children. While these particular findings may not be reliable in today’s altered climate, other studies have also demonstrated that without direct contact or knowledge of the televised subject, a child can derive a distorted perception of the reality of that subject (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, 2002). Potter (2001, 2004) advocates for a broad base of knowledge about the real world in order to counter faulty beliefs provided by commercial media content.

Age and IQ can also influence this reality distortion. Younger viewers have not yet developed the analytical capabilities to distinguish between fantasy and reality in television content (DeGaetano & Bander, 1996; Dorr, 1986). In addition, children with lower IQs are more likely to perceive television programming as reality (Donahue & Donahue, 1977; Greenberg & Reeves, 1976).

More personal interaction with others seems to be a factor that can lessen the cultivation effect. Children whose parents are more involved in their viewing showed smaller relationships between amount of viewing and perceiving the world in terms of television representations (Gross & Morgan, 1985). In addition, children who are more integrated into cohesive peer groups are less receptive to cultivation effects (Rothschild, 1984).

Factors contributing to general media effects. Potter (2001) contends that the strength of a media effect is contingent on both media factors and personal factors, confirming some of the previously discussed findings and adding a few additional ones. According to Potter (2001) these factors influence the probability of an effect occurring. Providing an understanding of the factors that mitigate the effects process should be an important goal in media literacy education.

First, motivation is a key factor relevant to this study. When people have a conscious need, they are more likely to actively seek out information to satisfy it, and learning will occur. When people are passive, learning can still occur, but is less likely to satisfy the goal of the individual. While most media educators are aware of the need for media literacy, students may not be. A vital part of media literacy training should involve raising students’ awareness of their needs and discussing purposes or reasons for media literacy. Such a discussion can provide a student with their own internal reasons to engage in media literacy rather than, which can result in a more gradual but more lasting and meaningful change for student.

Next, Potter suggests that the content to which people expose themselves can influence their general attitudes about the world. Consider the different beliefs that may result from watching a lot of television crime and violence (mean-world syndrome) than from watching only pro-social programming. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the context of content portrayals can exert influence on effect probability. A 1997 study (Bahk) found that exposure to portrayals of alcohol drinking featuring negative consequences elicited the least favorable attitudes toward alcohol drinking, whereas exposure to the same presentation absent of the negative consequences led to the most favorable attitudes.

The degree to which a person identifies with a media character can also influence the effects process (Potter, 2001). For example, a young girl who strongly identifies with an attractive model of similar race and age might become influenced by the model’s real-life or fictionalized actions. Briefly, Potter’s other three factors suggest that media effects are likely to be greater when a person is emotionally aroused during exposures, when a person’s set of values is not very developed, and when a person has less opportunity for real-life experiences.

Potter stresses the need for expanding our knowledge structures about both the media and the real world, which requires becoming more conscious of our exposures, actively seeking multiple sources of information, recognizing useful information, screening out faulty information and “knit[ing] together the elements of good information into a useful pattern” (2001, p. 344). He suggests that in order to take control of the meaning construction task, people need particular kinds of knowledge about media content, media industries, media effects, the real-world, and self. Media literacy gives us the tools that allow us to enter more fully into the socialization process.

At this point in the chapter, it should be clear that the effects process is complex and is, itself, influenced by a host of diverse factors. It is worth devoting an entire section to the notion that media effects are not uniform and do not affect all people negatively. The concept of the “active audience” is central to this line of reasoning and will be discussed next.

The Active Audience

Essentially, this view holds that individuals are intelligent and autonomous and can interpret messages in many different ways. Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes and Sasson (1992) claim that there are two realms of media content: “one ‘naturalized’ and taken for granted, the other contested terrain with collective actors offering competing interpretations” (p. 375). They suggest there is an important distinction between “audiences” and “readers.” The term audience implies a group of blank slates passively impressed upon by one dominant meaning. Readers, on the other hand, act as “active agents in constructing meaning” (p. 374). In addition, according to Gamson et. al., the process of negotiating meaning with media messages, or texts, is often interactive, occurring in conversation with other readers who can see different meanings. One message can be read in dozens of different ways.

Even though our media world is often framed for us by producers, journalists, and advertisers, Gamson et al. insist that we are “active processors and however encoded our received reality, we may decode it in different ways. The very vulnerability of the framing process makes it a locus of potential struggle, not a leaden reality to which we all must inevitably yield” (p. 384). Potter (2004), who shares this perspective, stresses the importance of media literacy in learning to shift the locus of control from the media to the individual. In fact, one of the outcomes of media literacy education is knowing “how to sort through all the choices of meaning and select the one that is most useful from several points of view—cognitive, emotional, aesthetic, and moral” (Potter, 2001, p. 10). Potter (2004) believes that “it is far better for the individual to be in control of the meaning-construction task” (p. 66).

Two lines of mass communication research focus on the active construction of meaning by audience members: (1) uses and gratifications; and (2) reception analysis studies. Each of these is discussed next.

Uses and Gratifications

The uses and gratifications perspective presumes that it is the individual, not the media, that is most important in the relationship between the two. Its view is that audience members actively choose which media to use and how to use them in order to gratify certain needs. The focus is less on the “what effects do media have” question and more on “why do people seek out particular media experiences?”

This approach has been criticized in the past because it largely absolves the media industry of responsibility for what it carries or produces. The media simply give the people what the research says they want. Additionally, it assumes that people have a clear awareness of why they make the choices that they make. This is simply not the case for some people some of the time, especially in a pervasive media environment increasingly dominated with technologically-advanced messages that reach us on emotional, rather than rational, levels.

Some research in this area focuses on understanding the audience members’ needs and motives as a path to understanding media impact. In this area, researchers tend to reject a “mechanistic” model of media effects and subscribe to the idea that a complex web of psychological and sociological factors plays a role in mitigating the effects process (Rubin, 1986). More recently, mass communication research has turned to the integration of uses and gratifications and other effects theories, such as cultivation Bilandzic and Rossler (2004). The combined approach bridges theories of media consumption and effects with the goal of explaining what is increasingly found to be a complex interrelationship between viewers’ motives, beliefs, and actions. Recent inquiries are less about the “why do people seek out particular media experiences” question and more about “how do their motives explain effects?”

In the past few years, several studies have contributed to the understanding of how motivation heightens or lessens effects. Haridakis and Rubin (2003) found that ritualized use of violent programming was most often associated with greater aggression. Holbert, Kwak, and Shah (2003) looked at how environmental attitudes act as one of the many internal motives that determine the particular media content selected by individuals. They found that a complex and strong relationship exists between the attitude of environmental concern, the use of public affairs and nature programming, and pro-environmental behaviors. Bilandzic and Rossler (2004) reviewed 18 published studies of genre-specific cultivation effects (e.g., crime drama, soap operas) and ultimately proposed a Gratification/Cultivation Model suggesting the importance of viewer motives in explaining cultivation effects.

Scholars are beginning to obtain a better understanding of how audience motivations affect the media effects process. More research is needed, however, about how media literacy abilities intervene with motivations and effects.

Reception Analysis

Media literacy scholars assume that meaning in media messages is not something that is “fixed” or inherent within the text. Meaning is acquired at the point of reception and is determined by an individual’s own social and cultural circumstances. Thus media messages are media “texts” (Ang, 1995) and media consumers (i.e., members of the audience) are “readers” (Gamson et al, 1992).The text itself is polysemic in that it is “open” (Hall, 1980) to different readings in different ways by different people. Potter (1996) explains that “when an author finishes a work (a novel, a musical score, or a script), it represents a schemata…[that awaits] concretizing by the reader” (p.55).

Ang (1995) reviews literature on how the popular prime-time soap opera Dallas was interpreted as more realistically representative of Americans by non-Americans than by Americans themselves. Radway’s (1984) study of romance novels found that the act of reading itself was, for white, middle-class, midwestern women, a way of resisting the constraints of traditional wife and motherhood roles. Radway found that these women’s reasons for reading romance novels related as much to the act of reading itself (as an escape from the everyday demands) than to the story content. Evidently, reading time allowed these women to nurture themselves, thereby meeting needs that are not normally met within their traditional wife and mother roles. Additionally, the study finds that the stories act for these readers as a protest against, and a compensation for, the constrained social conditions of women by allowing them the opportunity to escape and vicariously experience roles of heroism and total relational fulfillment. Croteau and Hoynes (2003) point out the contrast between this interpretation of the romance novel and that which might be proposed by “trained academic literary critics” (p. 286), which is an illustration of the polysemic nature of texts.

Cortes (2000) provides an excellent review of reception studies related to cultural and value differences influencing interpretations of the television sit-com, All in the Family. The show’s creator encoded the show to portray a critique of racial prejudice verging on the ridiculous, and was perceived as such by viewers already inclined towards social equality. Studies showed that viewers already predisposed to racial prejudices, however, saw the comedic portrayal of verbal bigotry in Archie Bunker’s character as a validation of their own beliefs.

Interpretive Resistance

Some people clearly have the ability to ignore the preferred meanings encoded by the media producer. This ability to read and interpret content in an oppositional way allows individuals to contest the power of corporate conglomerates and their dominant and pervasive ideologies, especially if they are aware that their best interests are not being served by those currently holding all the cards. Evidence of interpretive resistance exists within the narratives of satire and parody. Producers for The Daily Show, for example, often select clips from various television news reports and re-edit them to construct a new meaning which often exaggerates or criticizes the original intent of the news piece, or constructs a new meaning. A popular Saturday Night Live segment featured comedian Jerry Seinfeld as a news anchor exaggerating the formulas of “fear” (e.g. “What ordinary product stored somewhere in your household right now can kill your toddler?”) and “teasing” (e.g. “The answer after this message from our sponsor.”). This humorous piece constructed new meaning for television viewers by hinting at the ridiculous nature of news strategies designed to get viewers to sit through the commercials. Another popular form of resistance, culture jamming, occurs when people remake existing advertisements by parodying the original message. Several examples are included in every issue of Adbusters, a magazine popular within the anti-commercialism, anti-consumerism movement. Among them, for example, are parody ads (called anti-ads) critiquing tobacco ad slogans (e.g., “Joe Chemo”, featuring a camel in a hospital bed hooked up to an IV). For students, producing anti-ads allows them to talk back to the advertising narratives that have inundated their cultural and social realities. These examples illustrate the possibilities for audience members to actively reinterpret the preferred meanings in oppositional—even subversive—ways.

Results of a study on media and self-concept (Milkie, 1999) are intriguing because even “interpreted” media content can be found to indirectly affect self-concept negatively. The findings showed that minority girls who participated in the study did not identify with the “white” media images presented and thus were able to resist negative feelings about themselves. In contrast were the white girls who, despite understanding the unrealism of the images and stating a preference to see more “real” girls in the media, were still negatively affected because they believed that others in the local culture, especially boys, find the images important and evaluate real girls in comparison to the media images. Milkie suggests that further research consider how media images play into the social comparison and reflected appraisal processes of self-concept development.

Limitations on the ‘Active Audience’ Perspective

Clearly, a complex relationship exists between media content, audiences and meaning. The assumption that an active audience exists and is present is significant to this study. While Buckingham (2005) subscribes to the perspective of active audience, he cautions scholars not to overestimate the amount of competence held by audience members, especially children. He is concerned over what he sees as an audience perspective that is as romantic, sentimental and limited as the one held by protectionists. Over the past fifteen years, sociologists of childhood and some mass communication researchers, particularly within the Cultural Studies tradition, have “increasingly moved away from the notion that children are merely innocent and vulnerable,” arguing that children uniquely possess a form of media literacy that “enables them to make sophisticated, critical judgments about what they watch and read” (pp. 1-2). In fact, according to Buckingham, some commentators have suggested that children are more competent than adults when it comes to their involvement with media and digital technology. Indeed, this is most often the stance of the media industry that fears government regulation. In and of itself, these arguments are not problematic. The danger, according to Buckingham, is that this notion “may lead to a celebratory stance” that children are inherently autonomous and competent creatures without need for protection from adults.

It is true that people, including children, often recognize and dismiss the blatant persuasive intentions of advertising. Buckingham points out that even by the age of eight, most children are able to engage in a cynical discourse about advertising (Young, 1990, cited in Buckingham, 2005). He points out that children often give savvy responses to inquiries about advertising, responses that mirror those that many media educators, including myself, have heard. Yet, the case is made by Buckingham that, at least in part, children present this competent image because “they are bound to be aware of the public discourse that presents them as quite the opposite” and that “by displaying their expertise as critics of advertising, [they] are effectively answering back to the public debate” (2005, p. 7). What he labels as “superficial cynicism” can be held by adults as well, and does not really demonstrate the ability to detect more subtle, less visible forms of influence that dominate the U.S. media environment.

As a media effects scholar, I am attracted to the idea of protecting people from negative media effects. However, I am averse to the idea that audiences are passive victims of influence. Audiences are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with information and culture deposited by those who control the powerful U.S. media. Audience members have great potential to decode meaning in many ways other than the meaning intended by the originator. Audience members interact with media messages in sophisticated ways that make the debate about audience much more rich and complex than the simple polarization of competence vs. incompetence.

However, because of media concentration, options for exposure to diverse ideas and representations are limited. Also, because producers and persuaders often blur lines, leave out important information and engage in covert persuasion, decoders are often on an uneven playing ground for constructing meaning. As Buckingham suggests, audience members, especially children, are often not aware of the deeper, more subtle ways that people are affected by media content.

This lack of awareness is problematic because the media industry and its regulators support the free market model which recognizes the rights of citizens to make decisions on what they want to see, hear or read. The free market model focuses on the autonomous consumer and on the idea of self-regulation. It places responsibility for the regulation of children’s exposures mostly on parents and educators, putting the burden of child protection on people who may not be equally prepared, willing, or motivated to take it on. Buckingham points out an important limitation of people’s ability to make the best decisions on their own behalf:

these decisions should be informed: if people are to be trusted to make decisions for themselves, then they have to be shown to be competent to do so – and if they are to be competent, then they need to be properly informed and educated. They have to become – indeed, learn how to be – competent consumers (2005, p. 4).

It is unlikely that, outside of the classroom, consumers will be exposed to the kind of information that teaches them this competence. Critical thinking skills are learned, not innate. Furthermore, the media conglomerates employ the best psychologists and market researchers money can buy, making it harder for the average person to contend with powerful tactics designed to compete for “mindshare.” As educators, then, it is our responsibility to give students more options and tools for constructing better meaning from media content. Citizens in a free and open democracy should be equipped with the tools that allow them to participate equally in the production of culture and meaning in society.

The Problem with a Media Illiterate Society

Admittedly, many people already do select and process media messages with a greater awareness of the media industry and its effects on individuals and society. While doing so requires extra effort and mental energy that is not always desirable to expend, for a variety of reasons these people are already self-motivated to consciously sort through and critically analyze media messages. In contrast, most people select and process media messages less consciously with little regard for the effects of those exposures (Potter, 2004). Potter refers to this latter state as “automaticity.” He argues that, for most people, this defines their default state of information processing, especially in an age where an overwhelming information overload makes it difficult to mindfully process media messages.

Automaticity

Automaticity exists because people are either too tired to raise their levels of conscious information-processing, or they want to do so but do not have the knowledge or skills to do so. When people do not have to exert too much mental effort during media exposures, experiences are relatively pleasant, which makes this a natural and easy choice for information processing. Ironically, reaching this state of effortless thinking is also desirable if it means a procedural task has been mastered, which can mean less demands on our attention and cognitive resources (Sweller, 1988). Mastering higher-order critical thinking to the degree that it could be performed in a state of automaticity would be a worthy goal for comprehensive media literacy training. However, it would a very difficult achievement for the average person because the cognitive toll is high. People with advanced levels of media literacy may be able to practice effortless mindful processing during media exposures, but most people, especially introductory level media education students, could not.

The problem with constant automatic processing, according to Potter (2004), is that the media stand in a position of control over interpretations, defining for the audience member “what news is, what entertainment is, and how to solve problems with advertising” (p. 11) and “profoundly [shaping] the way we think about health, body image, success, relationships, time, and happiness” (p. 10). Additionally, he suggests, people do not often recognize the potential to control their own exposures and the effects of those exposures on them.

In a society where the mass media occupy volumes of our cultural, political, and social spaces, processing messages automatically (rather than mindfully) comes with some high costs. According to Potter (2004):

Because the media have a very different motive for presenting their messages than we have for receiving them, we end up satisfying the media’s goals at the expense of our own. Thus, we risk misperceiving the real world and misunderstanding its true nature. (p. 3)

Potter explains that when we have little awareness of media effects, of the process of influence, and of our own selves, it is the media that tell us what is important and who we should be. This can negatively affect our feelings and our actions, and is especially problematic when most of the U.S. media are controlled by a handful of transnational profit-seeking conglomerates.

Because of loose regulation, U.S. media have unwieldy, unfair, and unrepresentative political, economic, and social power. The problem with this situation is that a very narrow range of choices for meaning exist from which we make sense of the world and our place in it. Further, without media literacy, people lack both an understanding of how that narrow palette affects us and a drive to do something different with their media exposures and their cognitive processing of those exposures. Specifically, they are not mindful of the media choices they make and the way in which those choices may or may not serve their best interests, and as a result, they are not media savvy and see no reason to be. Potter predicts that, with increased media literacy knowledge and skills, an individual will understand more about the payoffs of processing media content mindfully and how such payoffs can often outweigh the costs.

Proposals for Mitigating Negative and Encouraging Positive Effects

By this point in the chapter, it should be clear that Americans are exposed to a vast amount of limiting narratives that have the potential to affect us in many ways, an issue of widespread concern in the U.S. What, then, has been suggested to encourage positive effects and reduce negative effects? In this section, I review several potential solutions that range from censorship to changing media policy to allow for production of more positive portrayals (e.g., Gerbner, 1999, McChesney, 2004, Strasburger & Wilson, 2002) to increasing media literacy (e.g., Potter, 2004; Strasburger & Wilson, 2002). Surely, some of these suggestions—whether taken together or separately—must have the potential to change media content for the better. Below, I briefly review each proposal and eventually make the case that, because commercial media content is market-driven, media literacy education has the strongest potential to change the individual’s demand for quality programming. This can, in turn, more effectively shift the supply of media content toward better serving public interests.

Censorship

Some advocates might suggest censorship (i.e., government censorship of media content) as a form of protection from negative effects. Many school boards have made decisions to ban books from school libraries or reading lists because they contain controversial or offensive content or are alleged to promote to violence, sex, or other antisocial behavior. Most scholars and media reform activists, however, consider this an extremist position that is neither viable nor effective. Therefore, most do not support this unconstitutional idea. Think tanks such as the Free Expression Policy Project write about why media literacy is preferable to censorship. Among the many reasons cited is “the right to explore art and ideas is basic to a free society. Without it, children and adolescents cannot grow into the thoughtful, educated citizens who are essential to a functioning democracy” (Heins & Cho, 2002, p. 2).

Media Reform

One proposal that has gathered considerable momentum in recent years is driven mostly by activist groups. In the mid-1990s, Gerbner founded the Cultural Environment Movement, an activist-oriented coalition designed to work towards general diversity in media employment, ownership and representation theorizing that what we need is not less but more messages reflecting a greater and more diverse range of narratives, images and information. Gerbner (1999) proclaims the need for a “liberating alternative” (to current media practices), which he says exists in various forms in all democratic countries:

[The alternative] is an independent citizen voice in cultural policy-making. More freedom from inequitable and intimidating marketing formulas, and a greater diversity of sources of support, are the effective and acceptable ways to increase diversity of content. (p. 18)

In the past decade, many scholars, parents, politicians, consumer advocates and community groups have organized to challenge the conglomerate concentration trend and to lobby for a more representative media system that puts all our interests at heart, not just those of a few profit-seeking corporations. Some of these groups are well-known such as Free Press, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters. Some are citizens who secretly operate unlicensed low-power radio stations and whose humanity and constitution-challenging spirits have been likened to Rosa Parks (Ruggerio & Hiken, 1999).

Some notable successes have been achieved by media reform advocates. Last year, the FCC received a huge backlash of resistance to a newly proposed rule change to media ownership that would allow one company to reach 45 percent of the nation’s citizens and would allow corporations to own both a television station and a newspaper in one market. Later in the year, a U.S. Appeals court ruled in favor of a motion to stay the proposed rules and preserve America’s diverse, local voices. The motion was brought forth by Prometheus Radio Project—an activist organization that fights for more democratic ownership and regulation of the media—on behalf of activists who work to build low power, independent radio stations. According to a Prometheus press release,

the court determined that the FCC relied on “irrational assumptions and inconsistencies” in determining the new cross-ownership caps, and ordered them to make a new decision that takes seriously their duty to regulate media to preserve the public interest. (2004)

While these activist groups are able to minimally affect the system, Potter asserts that real change to the media system will not occur until a greater number of individuals demand it.

If substantial and lasting change is to come about, it will be in response to a shift in demand for different messages from a large number of individuals. Therefore the individual is prime, whereas the media industries and society and its institutions are more downstream of the actions of individuals. (p. 267)

Media content is market driven and its development is based on market research (i.e., what people say they want). Potter makes an important case against pressuring governmental regulators or media businesses to reform the system without first understanding much more about why individuals have created the current demand.

Perhaps that understanding will lead them to realize that the existing demand is not a bad thing; that is, it might be the case that when people expose themselves to all those “bad” messages, they are laughing at them and thereby reinforcing their own “good” beliefs. But if the demand is found to be bad for the individuals, then the advocates need to work to convince individuals of this and thereby change the demand. (p. 269)

Furthermore, low levels of awareness about how the media industry works and how media messages affect us tend to lead to audience demand for more of the same commercial content.

The Case for Media Literacy Over Media Reform

In this section I explain why the push for media reform will not have greater success without more of the public behind it, and that to truly make a systemic change, individuals have to be more aware of the reasons to do so. First, I discuss the cycle of media supply and audience demand, and then I argue that media literacy is the most effective way of mitigating negative media effects, at the both the societal and individual levels.

Audience demand slows success of media reform movement. McChesney (1999) refers to this paradoxical relationship between media supply and audience demand as a circular process whereby media conglomerates continually provide content that has been commercially successful in the past and which, over time, creates a demand for the same fare that is commonly presented. He further explains that audience research often asks consumers to choose from a small selection of “the sort of commercially lucrative selections that are already widely distributed” (p. 33). This type of research leaves little room for any kind of content demand that is different from what has previously been offered, leaving consumers little choice and little opportunity to contribute new and creative ideas.

The problem with this narrow palette of media offerings, according to McChesney, is that there is little incentive for a public to develop other tastes over time. What the public wants is what the media have previously delivered, and many people are unaware of options for news and entertainment other than to which they have already been exposed. In other words, even if we have a conscious goal to be smart consumers or informed citizens with well-rounded tastes, we may not always know what we need to see or hear to make those goals a reality.

William Shawn, a past editor of New Yorker magazine, describes the effects of editing media content to give the audiences what they want:

…if you edit that way, to give back to the readers only what they think they want, you’ll never give them something new they didn’t know about. You stagnate. It’s just this back-and-forth and you end up with the networks, TV and the movies. The whole thing begins to be circular. Creativity and originality and spontaneity goes out of it. The new tendency is to discourage this creative process and kill originality. (cited in Bagdikian, 2004, p. 227)

Critical cultural scholars refer to the cycle of media supply and audience demand as hegemony, which is defined by Straubhauer & LaRose (2004) as an underlying consensus of ideology that favors the dominance of one entity over another. Those who own and control the mass media have control over American culture and over the very information that we need to understand and function within our culture and society. The media reflect and promote what is in the media’s best interest, helping to maintain the status quo and public support for the status quo.

For example, the majority of American television is funded by commercial advertising. Because anti-commercial stories would bite the hand that feeds them, it is unlikely that many networks or stations would air, for example, stories that describe the debilitating effects of American consumption on the environment. Instead, audiences are likely to see stories that glamorize and make desirable the process of consuming products and services. Without an increase in media literacy levels, it is probable that people will continue to consensually support the status quo.

Media literacy as impetus for systemic change. Potter argues that, in media education, it is not enough to simply inform individuals about the nature of the media and the potential harm of media messages. He explains that lasting change to the media system will not come about until we know more about how the human mind works during media exposure. His cognitive theory of media literacy, he contends, can elaborate on those processes and will then allow us to design the most efficient and effective media education programs that can “create meaningful changes in how people think about the media and how they use them” (p. 267). Consequently, rather than a few public policy groups advocating for more representative media that better serve the public, it is possible that a newfound demand from media literate individuals could be what stimulates change in the entire media system. In other words, media literacy may be able to change the relationship between supply and demand because the more mindful we are of who is controlling our culture, the more likely we will be to demand from the media content that serves us well. Potter’s stick and carrot metaphor eloquently explains this assumption: “Rather than relying on the stick of regulation to force change, I prefer to believe that the carrot of higher insight will motivate people to make changes that they see are in their best interests” (2004, p. 111).

In contrast to a reliance on media reform, media literacy acts on the individual level. According to Potter, “we do not have much power to control the media, but we have a great deal of power (if we will use it) to control the media’s effects on us” (2001, p. 260). Media literate individuals should be able to actively search for messages that meet their own goals, rather than defaulting to media conditioning. This is significant because when individuals seek the change themselves, motivated by something intrinsic within themselves rather than being forced to alter their choices via regulation or ridiculed into altering their choices via arrogant teachers, it is more empowering, lasting and meaningful (Levin, 1999).

Media literacy as mitigator of negative effects. Because of the relative newness of media literacy as an enhancement to the educational curriculum in the United States, assessments have been limited and infrequent. Since the early 1980s, only a few more than a dozen evaluative studies have been carried out following the implementation of media literacy curricula. These studies demonstrate the potential for powerful positive impacts on students and the reduction of negative influence, including all of the following: increased understanding of media profit motives and production values (Dorr, Graves & Phelps, 1980; Singer, Zuckerman & Singer, 1980); increased skepticism about advertisements (Roberts, Christenson, Gibson, Mooser, & Goldberg, 1980); increased understanding of persuasive intent (Austin & Johnson, 1997); reduction in violent and aggressive attitudes and behavior (Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, and Fischer, 1983; Rosenkeotter, Rosenkeotter, Ozretich & Acock, 2002; Sheppard, Sheehy & Young, 1989); increased perceptions of the seriousness of television violence, increased factual knowledge of real-world violence, reduced approval of television violence and reduced perceptions of the reality of television violence (Vooijs & van der Voort, 1993); increased accuracy of perceptions about alcohol and the consequences of alcohol use (Austin & Johnson, 1997); increased ability for adolescents to counterargue and resist television beer advertising (Slater, Rouner, Murphy, Beauvais, Leuven, & Domenech-Rodriguez, 1996); reduction in likelihood to smoke cigarettes, increase in negative attitudes towards tobacco companies and less desirability to identify favorably with the fantasy world of advertising (Strasburger & Wilson, 2002); reduced desirability of looking like a fashion model (Irving & Berel, 2001); reduced internalization of the slender media-constructed ideal, reduced desire for thinness, an increased sense of self-acceptance and a greater sense of empowerment (Piran, Levine & Irving, 2000); and reduction of risk factors for eating disorders (Wade, Davidson & O’Dea, (2003).

In the literature, much is understood about the fact that media messages can negatively affect people and that media literacy can mitigate negative effects and impact students positively. Most evaluative research of media literacy occurs within the areas of public health concerns. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that U.S. government funding agencies seem to view media exposure as a risk factor and media literacy as a protective factor. Because of this, the majority of studies have been quantitative in nature; seeking to confirm a hypothesis suggesting media literacy is a panacea for all media ills. An area in which exploration is just beginning, however, is how media literacy affects individuals positively, and why it does so. As a result, media literacy scholarship seems to be moving in the direction of qualitative research, exploring much more about how and why it works (Fox, 2005).

Needed: An Exploration of Cognitive Media Literacy

Croteau and Hoynes (2003) make the case that more research is needed to explore the interpretation process, specifically the process and conditions under which individuals choose to actively resist the definitional power of authorities. They claim that the theoretical argument for the possibilities of resistance is

largely the result of faith in the power of citizens to think and behave as active subjects rather than passive objects of history. Such faith and optimism, while admirable political qualities, do not adequately explain the relationship between active audiences and a powerful culture industry, nor do they provide the basis for understanding the possibilities for and conditions conducive to actual resistance. (p. 290)

Because most study findings provide quantitative outcomes, there has been little in-depth exploration of how the changes occurred. However, a few scholars are beginning to explore the cognitive processes that occur during the sense-making of media exposures (e.g. Dumlao, 2003; Shrum, 2001, 2004).

One rare study approached the evaluation of a media literacy program both quantitatively and qualitatively (Piran, Levine & Irving, 2000). This media literacy program included an activist component and was designed to develop positive body and self-image for 16- to 18-year-old girls. The qualitative evaluation revealed several important changes reported by participants: “greater self- and body shape acceptance . . . confidence in expressing views . . . a sense of empowerment” (p. 90). Participants reported their thoughts, which effectively illustrated how and why these changes occurred. For example, one girl explained that “after learning of the pinned clothes, computer animations, etc., I realized how unrealistic it was to want to look like something that has been made to look perfect” (p. 90). Another example illustrates interpretive resistance: “After being in [the program] it cut back personally a lot of the power [the media] had over the way I see things” (p. 90). Another theme illustrated satisfaction with the effort required to execute activism and advocacy projects. These types of responses help to illustrate the process of change and the underlying reasons that individuals might engage in media literacy.

A more thorough understanding of the cognitive processes involved in the cultivation effect can help us understand ways to lessen it. Strasburger points out that “the way in which people make judgments about social reality may determine how influential television is” (Strasburger & Wilson, 2002, p. 105). For example, one study (Shrum, 2001) revealed that college students were less likely to show a cultivation effect when encouraged to think carefully and accurately about their answers to questions about the amount of crime in the real world. An earlier study showed that cultivation effects were stronger when students were not primed to disregard television information (Shrum, Wyer & O’Guinn, 1998). These findings are consistent with Potter’s assumption that mindless, automatic processing allows the media more control over the effects process.

More research is needed to explore the processes and motivations that underlie the drive to enact and apply media literacy in order to serve one’s own goals rather than those of the commercial media. According to Buckingham (2005), “we need some way of understanding how media literacy develops or is acquired,” and “we clearly need a theory of development that will enable us to understand this process.” Investigations of this missing piece are vital to a thorough understanding of how media literacy can benefit individuals. As stated in chapter one, more research and theory development is needed to “illuminate the particulars about why being media literate is good” (Potter, 2004, p. 35) (ital added).

I believe Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy to be a significant beginning to explaining the way media literacy interacts with students’ thoughts and the subsequent development of positive or negative media effects. His theory has put into words some of what I had been hearing in student feedback for so many years. Furthermore, because the theory is so much at the heart of my own research perspective, I feel it is important to briefly describe the axioms on which this theory rests.

Potter’s Cognitive Theory of Media Literacy

Potter’s perspective is aligned with the critical pedagogical approach in that it suggests that media literacy can transform an individual’s exposures and method of information-processing, however, it should do so in a way that meets each individual’s distinctive goals. It is possible and even probable that a message that is interpreted negatively by one might be interpreted positively by another. Understanding media values, profit motives and persuasive strategies allows people to interact with and reconstruct realities that unwittingly may be harming them. However, it should be up to the individual, after developing as many knowledge structures and skills as possible, to decide which realities are harmful and which ones are not. He acknowledges this in what he calls the responsibility axiom, which is the first of six axioms he puts forth as vital to understanding his perspective. The others axioms are: effects, interpretation, power, shared meaning and purpose.

Responsibility Axiom

According to Potter (2004), an individual will not be motivated to increase her own level of media literacy unless she sees a reason to and is willing to take responsibility for doing so. This perspective is what sets Potter apart from many other scholars and media critics and what inspires my own interests in this study. He is careful to avoid blaming solely the media for their negative influences. At the heart of his responsibility axiom is a warning about “simple-minded condemnation” of television or any other medium in its entirety (1998, p. 33). He suggests that uninformed skepticism and anger toward the media ignores personal responsibility and furthers the problem of unquestioned acceptance of faulty beliefs without engaging in critical thinking. Potter warns that blaming the media is easy and absolves us from expending any effort to fix the problem ourselves. However, because media content is market driven, it is precisely the desires of the individual that are at the heart of many media decisions. Thus, the individual is, at least in part, to blame for negative media effects in our society.

According to Potter (2004), all stated purposes and impacts of media literacy are perceived as “good” and helpful to us in some way. His emphasis, however, is on what the individual perceives as “good.” For example, some anti-smoking campaigns use media literacy to advocate choosing not to smoke or to quit smoking, which most can agree are healthy decisions. The problem with such a media literacy program, Potter says, is that the leaders have a desired meaning that they want to impose on their students. In other words, media literacy is used as a tool in a public health anti-smoking campaign. It is through media literacy that these program leaders attempt to persuade students to make the choice not to smoke (i.e., to accept meaning from an authority outside yourself). Clearly, health benefits exist for those who choose not to smoke. However, programs like these are value-laden and suggest to students that they need to be “protected” from “bad” messages that portray and/or promote smoking. Such an effort is just asking the student to shift control to, not the media, but authority figures outside the self. Additionally, Potter claims that the suggestion for media producers, programmers and editors to change and provide better quality content is “arrogant, because they are telling the media industries to reject their business practices and cut their profits because they, the advocates, do not like the messages for some reason” (2004, p. 269).

The purpose of media literacy should be to give us more control over our own interpretations (Potter, 2001). If individuals still choose to smoke after they have developed their levels of media literacy this would be seen as failure by public health programs. In contrast, Potter argues that making an informed choice to do something unhealthy (e.g. the choice to smoke) should be acceptable because it is a decision in which the individual possesses the control over her interpretations of media messages and her ability to be influenced, and possesses the power to make choices that meet her own goals. In other words, smoking can be decided upon by the individual as something she wants to do in spite of the health risks and in spite of the fact that tobacco companies spend millions to portray smoking as desirable. Just because an individual chooses to smoke does not mean she is not in control of her own interpretations and her own decisions. This perspective significantly differs from media literacy interventions designed to “protect” students.

Effects Axiom

Potter insists that any theory of media literacy must include, at its core, an explanation about how people are affected by the media. Knowing what effects to look for in their own lives can help people monitor and control the effects the media have on them. There is no doubt that all of this exposure to a narrow palette of commercially-driven media content influences our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. After all, mass media messages dominate our cultural, social, and political space.

The concept of effects can be understood more clearly by contrasting it with a uniquely different communication context—that of an interpersonal conversation. When interacting with another individual in a face-to-face setting, one is able to ask questions and clarify meaning to ensure mutual understanding. Mass-media messages, however, do not allow this type of clarification to occur. Therefore, audience members need to rely on other resources to make sense of these messages. When we do not have a solid understanding of how we process media messages and when we do not have the skills of analysis, we let the media control and shape us (i.e., we rely on acquiring meaning from sources outside ourselves). In contrast, individuals with higher levels of media literacy have both the knowledge structures that help them understand exactly how media can construct meaning and the drive to enter into that process.

Interpretation Axiom and Power Axiom

As explained previously, most of the mass-media messages U.S. citizens consume are produced by only a handful of transnational profit-driven conglomerates. Potter contends that low levels of media literacy allow those media giants to be more in control of our interpretations of those messages. His theory “rests on the belief that it is far better for the individual to be in control of the meaning construction task” (2004, p. 66). In addition, his belief is that the theoretical knowledge gained from research with his theory at the foundation could empower individuals to “use the media rather than default to the media using them” (2004, p. 271). And he predicts that “these changes…could accumulate to shift the market for media messages…” (2004, p. 271).

Share (2003) writes about transformative media literacy programs that use a “constructivist pedagogy in which students actively construct and reconstruct knowledge, thereby transforming meanings to arrive at new understandings and different ways of thinking.” This process can shift the power of meaning construction from the media to self (Potter, 2004). Consequently, over time, higher levels of participation in such practices could eventually shift the media market to provide messages that better serve our individual needs.

Shared Meaning Axiom

Potter suggests there are some meanings that citizens need to share in order to be able to communicate and function in communities. Also, new technology enables us to access a form of media content akin to the “Daily Me” providing completely individualized content that only interests the consumer. Such practices could reduce the importance of the “public sphere” and prevent exposure to differing people and perspectives.

Purpose Axiom

This final axiom is the main driving force behind my approach to the present study. Potter contends that the purpose of media literacy “is to empower individuals to shift control from the media to themselves” (2004, p. 68). Zettl (1998) explains that the more thought people put into considering various aspects of the mass media, “the easier it is to find ways to maximize the media’s positive effects and minimize the negative ones” (p. 83). Perse explains that motivation is a key component of learning new information. She states that “learning depends on the amount of effort that the individual is willing and able to put forth to learn” (p. 141).

Essential to Potter’s theory—and therefore to my research overall and to this study in particular—is the question of what drives individuals to filter their media exposures and to process media content more mindfully. What rewards do people gain from becoming media literate? What value do people see in expending the effort to think critically about their media exposures? And, what components in a classroom curriculum are perceived to trigger the drive to develop and apply media literacy?

The questions to be investigated in this study are important for many reasons. First, finding out more about how media literacy can be personally rewarding to individuals can provide a rationale for funding and inclusion of media literacy in schools. Second, understanding the particulars of why media literacy is valued by some people will supplement Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy. Third, a change to media supply and audience demand could mean a different media system that better serves public interest. Fourth, identifying which class materials and events are reported to drive a student’s motivation to engage in media literacy practices could have important implications for the development of more effective media literacy curricula.

Research Questions

The specific questions that drive this investigation are:

(1) What reasons do participants give for engaging in media literacy?

(2) What reasons do participants give for not engaging in media literacy?

(3) What specific class information or classroom activities are reported by participants to stimulate their motivation to engage in media literacy and why?

Chapter four will describe the proposed methodology, including a justification for the use of interviewing, a description of how participants will be selected, a description and example of the interview method, and an explanation of the method for data analysis.

Chapter Four: Methods

The purpose of this study is to discover what motivates or discourages individuals from engaging in media literacy practices. Because processing media messages more mindfully comes with some additional and often uncomfortable effort, people need to be able to see a reason for shifting themselves out of what might be the more comfortable default mode of information-processing. Personal locus, defined as “a term that refers to the place in a person’s mind where decisions get made about information-processing tasks” (Potter, 2004, p. 97), is the essential element that helps a person develop greater degrees of media literacy. Potter suggests that the more people know about their personal locus, “the more they can make conscious decisions to shape it” (p. 99). He further explains that

the more researchers understand a person’s locus, the more they should be able to predict the person’s level of media literacy and thereby explain the effects the person will experience. Studying the locus focuses research at the decision-making point for exposure and meaning construction. The locus holds answers to research questions such as why do people choose to switch from automatic processing to conscious processing. (pp. 99-100)

Because of the flood of information Americans are faced with today, most media messages are processed in the default state of “automaticity,” defined in chapter three as a state in which a person is not actively thoughtful. In this state, audience members either do not have the knowledge structures or skills to apply media literacy or do not see any reason to apply their skills. In the state of automaticity, the media are more in control of a person’s exposures, more in control of the habitual conditioning of repeated associations that define cultures, identities, values, and relationships, and more in control of the effects or consequences of those messages. This is problematic in a society where media generally exist to generate large profits through commercial messages.

When people engage in media literacy practices, they make a conscious attempt to process media messages more mindfully. Not only do they know how to engage in media literacy practices, but they also see clear reasons for doing so. They are more aware of their goals for exposure; they are more conscious and decisive about their exposures; and they are more in control of the way they think about, and therefore are affected by, those exposures.

Most of the existing evaluative research of media literacy programs measures the adoption of ideals put forth by educators, scholars or program leaders, whether they be health, well-being or prosocial ideals. While many people probably would not argue that they could benefit from adopting these suggested healthier behaviors and attitudes, Potter suggests that change will not be truly lasting unless the individual interprets the change as important. Therefore, this study fills a needed gap in that it queries students about their own discovered purposes for media literacy. Additionally, reasons for media literacy found in the literature are usually articulated in the abstract (e.g., “students in a democracy must learn how and why news stories are produced in order to think consciously and critically about information they learn from news media” or “to promote critical autonomy”). In keeping with the critical thinking perspective embedded in media literacy, my study is designed to identify more specific and student-centered reasons that further explicate and make concrete the reasons put forth by media educators. The best way to assess peoples’ own reasons for expending mental or physical energy to engage in media literacy is to ask them. The best way to assess what class materials or activities, if any, drove them to engage in media literacy practices is to ask them.

Procedures

In order to gain insight into the reasons why people make decisions about whether to engage in media literacy, it was necessary to conduct a qualitative investigation. Specifically, I utilized the tools of respondent interviews and focus groups to gather data. Details of study methodology, including justification of methods, participants, procedures, and method of analysis, are provided below.

Interviewing

Qualitative interviewing allows the researcher to explore open-ended questions that might lie outside of a set theory or hypothesis. In order to effectively explore participants’ reasoning, the method needs to allow for in-depth probing of their thoughts and perceptions. Lindlof (1995) points out that qualitative research can be characterized by its attention to human interpretational processes that are examined through the tool of human investigation.

Specifically, I employed the use of a “respondent interview,” which Lindlof (1995) describes as a tool that “elicits open-ended responses to a series of directive questions” (p. 171). Lindlof claims that the goals of this interview type have changed little since 50 years ago when Lazarsfeld pointed out five distinctive aims. Three such aims provide the justification for use of the respondent interview in this study. Lindlof categorizes them as helping the researcher (1) “to understand the interpretations that people attribute to their motivations to act;” (2) “to distinguish the decisive elements of an expressed opinion;” and (3) “to determine what influenced a person to form an opinion or act a certain way” (p. 172).

According to Lindlof (1995), interviewing can allow a researcher to understand the interviewee’s perspective and to learn about things that cannot be directly observed by other means. The respondent interview treats each participant as “an authoritative speaker on behalf of his or her own behavior” (Lindlof, 1995, p. 172). Additionally, interviews allow “the interviewer and respondent to explore and negotiate mutually the meaning of the objects of inquiry” (p. 164). Since it is impossible to be present within the media literacy participant’s mind at the time of decision making and information processing, the interview can compensate by examining the interviewee’s own account of that process.

As Lindlof suggests, I attempted to standardize an interview protocol so that the same questions would be asked of all respondents in a similar order. This procedure allows the researcher “to [minimize] interviewer effects and [achieve] greater efficiency of information gathering” (1995, p. 172). However, in order to excavate root causes for motivation in as much depth as possible, I integrated the “five-why” tool and a series of other follow-up probes that include Socratic questioning techniques proposed by Paul (1993) (see Appendix B). And, because the depth of the inquiry comes from probing questions, and because the direction of the responses would likely be unpredictable, it was difficult to predict the usefulness of a rigidly sequential questioning tool. Aspers (2004) suggests an interview guide that employs a technique called the A-scheme, useful for “[exploring] the social world in a less pre-determined way, reflecting actors’ meaning structures, rather than her own” (p. 10). The A-scheme allows the researcher to explore the meaning structures of participants through what they say, and not through the researcher’s perspective. The set-up of the A-scheme allows the researcher to address all necessary themes and to cautiously avoid “driving” the interview according to her own line of reasoning. Furthermore, its flexibility allows the interviewer to control the themes of inquiry but to remain focused on the participant and what s/he says (see Appendix A for interview guide).

Five why-tool. The “five-why” tool, which is a method for asking successive “why” questions (i.e., five or as many as necessary) is often used within quality-improvement initiatives as a means for discovering the deepest underlying root or meaning of a situation (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross & Smith, 1994). When respondents give surface-level answers, the interviewer can probe more deeply. “Why” probes can explore the cognitive process behind motivations for media literacy of which participants themselves might not be aware. Below I provide a sample dialogue illustrating the “why” tool in use. This dialogue is loosely based on an excerpt from an informal evaluation done previously with a former student (not a participant in the current study).

Interviewer: Have your feelings about yourself changed in any way or have they stayed the same after this media literacy class you took?

Respondent: Yes, they have changed actually. I just feel better about myself.

Interviewer: Why is that? Can you be more specific?

Respondent: Well, I just feel more confident about the way I look, I guess.

Interviewer: And why is that? What made you get from feeling less confident to feeling more confident?

Respondent: I think that I just feel less pressure to be “all that” now, you know?

Interviewer: Sure. I can understand that. Can you tell me why you feel less pressure?

Respondent: I don’t know. I guess it’s thinking about how much energy advertisers spend to make us feel like we need something else. It’s kind of a fake ideal, constructed by

advertisers, that a lot of people spend time and money striving to live up to. I just don’t see any reason to starve myself trying to look like something that’s not even real.

Interviewer: Do you look at advertisements differently now?

Respondent: Oh yeah—definitely.

Interviewer: In what way?

Respondent: Well, first I try to pay close attention to see what persuasive strategies and computer technologies they might be using to convince me to buy their products. And…I always point them out to my kids, especially my teenaged daughter.

Interviewer: And why do you do that?

Respondent: Because she needs to know that our feelings about ourselves are affected by the images we see in the media…but that these images aren’t even real. What normal person has a make-up artist, a personal trainer, and a fashion consultant at their constant disposal? Not to mention all those lights and camera angles…sometimes the models even tape up their body parts under their clothes. And…in magazines, many of those women’s bodies are so doctored by the computer, it’s a wonder they even recognize themselves. I just think it’s ridiculous for real women to hold themselves up to that kind of ridiculous ideal.

Interviewer: Bear with me. One more why. Why is that ridiculous?

Respondent: Because when we do…we are essentially handing over power and control of our own feelings and actions to these huge profitable companies. Personally, I’d like to retain my own power to do and feel what I like, thank you very much.

Use of the “five why” technique allows the researcher to probe deeply to levels of cognition that underlie participants’ motivations for engaging in media literacy practices. In the above example, the interviewer was able to extract meaningful data that demonstrated the desire for power as the driving factor for applying media literacy.

During my study, in response to such probing questions about what motivates them to engage in media literacy practices, participants gave reasons that, at first, were vague. For example, participants stated that practicing media literacy helps them with voting decisions. When probed with several “why” questions and other types of Socratic questioning probes, responses became narrowed and concrete enough to reveal some sort of specific past, present, or future benefit to the individual. For example, when asked more specifically about why voting decisions were important to them, these participants replied that elected officials have power over their lives, and that it was important to carefully analyze and consider media information about candidates in order to avoid voting for a policy that may actually hurt them or their families. The use of “why” questions facilitated their ability to discover the root causes behind their media literacy motivations.

Focus groups. Focus groups are used in this study for two reasons. First, they provide a validity measure in the form of member checking. Second, they foster an environment similar to the classroom in that the insights are the products of interaction between many.

Participants

Participants consisted of ten students who had completed my introductory media literacy course, Mass Media and Society, within the past year. Participation was completely voluntary; students had given their names and contact information only if they were interested in being involved. I contacted the first ten participants on the list and all agreed to participate.

Demographic information and pre-existing factors. Four males and six females participated in the study. One of the male students is Native American and the other nine students were of European-American heritage. Three of the males are in their early to mid 20s and one is in his 30s. Three of the females are in their early to mid 20s; two are in their 30s; and one is in her 50s.

Several pre-existing factors existed that I believe influenced some students’ tendencies toward or away from critical thinking. For example, the young Native-American man described an experience with a car crash that made him examine his desire to “keep up with the Jones’s.” He had bought a very expensive car in order to convey a particular image to other people, and when he drove it, he worried all the time about money, insurance, gas prices, and theft. When he crashed it only a few short months after he purchased it, he began to question how important it really is to own expensive items simply for “show.”

Secondly, a young female student described her childhood experiences with media, and indicated that her mother allowed her and her siblings only a very small amount of television exposure. She described herself as “really out of it” in terms of her ability to relate to the popular culture many that saturated many other kids’ experiences. She also explained how “zoned out” she felt when she was exposed to television, indicating that she was not able to focus or think about anything else other than the screen because it was so mesmerizing to her. Additionally, she stated that she was taught to value nature and other types of entertainment experiences over television and to think critically about everything.

Lastly, two young females claimed that they were completely caught up in mass media, spending the majority of their days watching mostly entertainment-related television. Each also indicated that they frequently bought the latest advertised products or fashions in order to keep up with mass-media trends. According to their descriptions of class experiences, these two young women seemed to have the least exposure to critical thinking and seemed to find it the most difficult to apply.

Data Collection

A one-hour interview was held with each of the ten participants. Each signed a consent form issued by the University of New Mexico Institutional Review Board, and the raw data was kept in a locked file cabinet in my home office. A couple of weeks later, nine of the same ten participants attended two focus groups, one with five in attendance and one with four. Each session was approximately ninety minutes. In three cases, a follow-up email was sent to clarify the accuracy and authenticity of a hastily written quote.

Method of Analysis

In order to organize and interpret the data, I employed steps that were adapted from an empirical phenomenological approach described by Aspers (2004), which he describes as “useful for anyone doing qualitative studies and interested in safeguarding the subjective perspective of those studied” (p. 2). Other scholars have successfully applied the phenomenological approach to similar educational research that examined and coded reasons, in participants’ own words, for certain classroom decisions (Flowerday & Schraw, 2000).

Specifically, I incorporated the use of “bracketing,” which is how the researcher sets aside her own preconceptions and biases. Aspers suggests the researcher focus the inquiry onto first-order constructs, which refers to the meaning conveyed by the participants. The data from the participants should be able to stand and be defined on their own terms. The researcher attempts to remain distant from second-order (i.e., theoretical) concepts at this point in the study. This step was particularly important to the measure of validity in this study, especially because I have had my own personal experiences with the topic of study. It was important for me, as the researcher, to first attempt to understand the participants’ perceptions and explanations from the perspective of the participant, not the researcher. Second, it was important to let the data emerge before making second-order connections, if any, to theoretical concepts espoused by Potters or anyone else. My efforts in this area are apparent in the objective and Socratic questioning techniques used for interviewing and focus groups (see Appendix B).

In the next step, the researcher brings her existing fields of experience to the task of constructing second-order constructs, which Aspers (2004) calls “accounts of accounts” from the first-order data. In other words, the researcher attempts to make sense of the first-order data, identified and sorted previously, in relationship to second-order theoretical constructs. This is the step where I, based on my advanced knowledge of the subject area, produced meaningful constructs that related to and illuminated the respondent data. For example, I noticed in a variety of responses that participants seemed to feel discomfort when faced with the revelation that their original beliefs about journalistic or political strategies may have been inaccurate. Some described the desire to avoid this uncomfortable feeling by using the popular phrase, “ignorance is bliss.” I was then able to organize and include responses that referred to this discomfort in a category labeled “cognitive dissonance.”

Aspers (2004) suggests that, once identified, the second-order constructs must be further developed in a way that is understandable to both the participants and to the scientific community through which the study findings will circulate. To ensure this was the case, and to add another measure of validity, I utilized a form of member-checking by meeting with all interviewees a second time in the context of a focus group. During these sessions, I was able to check and re-check quotes to ensure that I had noted them accurately and that they appropriately reflected the originally reported thoughts. Using the techniques of questioning and paraphrasing, we discussed the statement until participants agreed that their statements or quotes accurately reflected their thoughts. Additionally, I was able to share most of my second-order constructs (i.e., the categories into which I had sensibly grouped their interview responses) and check that participants not only understood them, but also felt that they accurately and authentically reflected their thoughts. The participants were also able to expound on and clarify their responses and give additional supporting examples. After the focus groups, I contacted three participants via email to elicit further clarification or authentication about their responses.

In my final step, I related the data back to the literature and theory within the media literacy field. The details from these steps are included in the next two chapters. Chapter five categorizes the first order interview responses into second-order constructs. Chapter six relates the findings to Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy, proposes a theoretical perspective on personal growth as intrinsic motivation for developing and applying media literacy, and makes suggestions for what I call a “purpose-driven media literacy curriculum.”

This chapter describes the results of the interviews and focus group research and is organized in order of each research question. Because this study is designed to elicit participants’ opinions, I felt it was important to include all distinct categories that arose from the data, no matter how slim. The purpose of the study is to not to discover the significance of any one reason given (in which case quantity would be more important) but to discover the range of responses that are potentially beneficial to improving media literacy theory or curriculum.

(3) What specific class information or classroom activities are reported by participants to stimulate their motivation to engage in media literacy and why?

In general, findings related to research question one show that participants are driven to engage in media literacy because they perceive that they have gained or will gain some sort of personal benefit (see Table 1). Findings related to research question two indicate primarily that participants find it more difficult and uncomfortable to engage in behavioral acts of media literacy than it is to engage in cognitive acts (see Table 2). Findings related to research question three indicate that participants’ drive to engage in media literacy is triggered by a variety of different curriculum components, most of which relate to the five knowledge structures described in chapter one: media content, media industry, media effects, real-world, and self (see Table 3).

This section addresses the purpose aspect of Potter’s theory described in chapters one and three. The categories that emerged during analysis of RQ1 data explain the benefits participants perceive to be catalysts to engage in media literacy in their personal lives. The categories include increased: (1) ability to make both responsible political decisions and responsible product choices; (2) feeling of physical safety in community and world; (3) positive feelings about self; (4) ability to avoid stereotypes and generalizations that limit understanding of and interactions with others; (5) ability to spend time meaningfully; (6) feelings of enlightenment due to conscious exposure to a variety of perspectives; and (7) feelings of enjoyment during mass media exposures.

The first reason given for engaging in media literacy, and the one mentioned most often, was an increased ability to make informed and responsible decisions that benefit participants’ own goals. Participants pointed out, however, that a clear distinction should be made between the benefits gained from an increased ability to make responsible political decisions and the benefits gained from an increased ability to make responsible consumer decisions. Specifically, participants indicated that the course helped to prevent inaccurate and irresponsible political attitudes, beliefs and voting behaviors, and helped to ensure responsible decisions that saved them money, time and effort. The “political decisions” category is important notably because it contains information about how people can participate more effectively in American democracy, which is why it is addressed first and the “consumer decision” category is discussed second.

The first theme emerging from within this category of responses indicates that attaining media literacy knowledge and skills allows participants to be more mindful and cautious of the way they process information during their media exposures, which can result in avoiding the influence of intentional and well-researched strategies of persuasion. Participants claimed that media literacy knowledge and skills help them to understand how and why they decide to vote for or support certain political candidates or issues.

Specifically, they reported that thinking more consciously and logically when processing political information affords them the increased ability to resist persuasive appeals based on emotion. One participant mentioned that learning about the use of propagandistic techniques (e.g., framing issues with words, framing issues with image and sound, incorporating government-produced video news releases into news broadcasts) to influence public opinion made her want to question her own attitudes and more thoroughly research political issues. More specifically, another participant pointed out that he was more skeptical about the use of powerful phrases within issues advertising such as “Clear Skies Act.” The wording, he suggested, could have been strategically designed to influence voters’ emotions. It made him want to look further into the details of the act in order to avoid supporting something that sounded environmentally friendly (a goal to which he relates) but might not be so. Similarly, another participant noted that examining “what’s presented and not presented” and “what’s told and what’s left out” in news coverage, political discussion, political speeches, and political advertising “helps us decide whether we’re being ‘led’ by politicians.”

Another response indicated that learning about the focus on ratings-driven content and form in television news made one participant want to “go outside that to find out more.” A second participant supported this idea, indicating that after attending the media class he became more aware of “show-business coverage” of news events. Rather than watching sound-effect ridden and graphically attractive news bytes and headlines on television, he now takes extra steps to become fully informed about important events by viewing Congressional hearings and reading Congressional reports. This further research helps him to make more informed and responsible voting decisions that benefit his life.

A further realization addressed by participants was that politicians are “much more than the image they portray.” One woman explained how her parents voted for President Bush because of “Bush’s good ‘ole boy” image. She felt they were unaware of what he stood for, but instead related to his “let me tell it to ya Texas” and “rancher-for-the-people” photographs featuring the President dressed in chambray shirts with rolled up sleeves. “This,” suggested the participant, “is the opposite of critical thinking, and can sometimes end up hurting you rather than helping you.”

Such information reportedly helps participants to realize what type of information their political attitudes and decisions are based on. Additionally, developing their media literacy levels helps them to actively reflect on their own goals, to analyze whether the political decisions they are making actually connect to their goals, and motivates them to actively alter their information exposures to be sure they are making beneficial decisions. Most participants indicated that the most valuable benefits gained from the course were a direct result of this type of self-reflection. One participant explained, “We need more information about the information we receive in order to avoid making decisions we really don’t want to make.” All participants made strong references to the idea that critical thinking helped them make the right decisions for themselves.

The second theme, then, refers to the behavioral act of filtering and controlling actual exposures to political information in order to meet personal goals. Participants suggested that media literacy knowledge makes them more likely to avoid mindless media consumption and to consciously select and expose themselves to a variety of information sources, ensuring that they get more thorough details on issues, candidates and products. Most participants indicated that it is important to seek out a variety of different sources for information, avoiding mindless exposure to dramatic and divisive news coverage or sources that support only one perspective. The same participant described how, after she took the course, she noticed news programs often pitting one political party against another but never really providing much complex explanation of the issues. “It is easy,” she notes, “to get sucked into rooting for your guy like you would root for a football team. But in the end, you end up not really knowing why you’re rooting for that person or what you’re actually supporting.” She now chooses to expose herself to a variety of different types of source information in order to make sure her political choices support her as well as her family’s values. Specifically, she attempts to read newspapers more frequently and do more in-depth research on the Internet.

One participant described her frustration with the “political blame game,” explaining how people often expose themselves only to information that supports their party line. According to her, when making important voting decisions, we should avoid simple bashing of another political party. Instead, we should open our minds and expose ourselves to a variety of different perspectives, even if it is initially uncomfortable or unpleasant. Another participant referenced several of his friends who unquestioningly support the party-line on political issues. He explained that his friends consciously expose themselves only to information sources that overtly support one party or another (e.g., Fox News with a conservative perspective, Democracy Now with a progressive perspective) and that this does not give them the information they need to “make critically informed decisions for themselves.”

Consumer Decisions.The reasons for engaging in media literacy behaviors described in this category are parallel to those in the politics category in that understanding how and why media consumers are persuaded to buy products was reported to be most valuable. The participants claimed to have developed a greater awareness in three areas: the way they process advertising, their consumer goals, and the desire to actively alter their exposures in order to best meet their goals.

First, many participants explained that a greater awareness of advertising strategies and effects produced a newfound ability to resist being influenced by flashy advertisements or by strategies designed to make individuals feel less than adequate without certain products. For example, one woman described her benefit from engaging in media literacy as “the ability to avoid falling prey to a want or need manufactured by an advertiser.” Another woman explained that she benefits from the ability to “avoid wasting money on stuff I don’t need that’s created by a marketing fantasy.” She indicated that we “sometimes buy things because they are part of a new trend, but we forget to ask why we’re buying them or why the trend even exists.” Specifically, this participant was referring to the anti-bacterial soap trend, explaining that there are larger biological effects that result from wiping out so many different types of germs. She gave another example of how her relationship with her husband flourished after a lengthy media analysis of the messages embedded in Valentine’s Day marketing. The analysis enabled her and her husband to discuss the differences between what her husband thought she expected from him on Valentine’s Day and the reality of what she really wanted from him. After the analysis and discussion, she explained, her husband realized how much of his guilt and lack of confidence had revolved around his inability to afford or provide her what he thought she wanted, which was based on Valentine’s Day advertisements (e.g., for diamonds and pendants). She was able to communicate to him that what she really wanted from him on Valentine’s Day had nothing to do with buying products, and they were both able to feel good about not having wasted money.

The second, and arguably most potent, stimulus in this category was the reported benefits participants gained from examining their own habits of and goals for product consumption. Many participants found that understanding how media audiences are specifically targeted by advertisers and how other people are affected by these efforts made them want to reflect on ways in which they also may be affected. Specifically, participants described numerous benefits arising from awareness and examination of their own buying habits and of the differences between what they believed they wanted compared to what they believed they actually needed. Saving money and avoiding debt, stress and waste seemed to be the biggest rewards resulting from this type of self-examination. One young woman noted that some of her friends are, in her opinion, “enslaved by brands” yet “none of that has to do with us and whether we’re good people.” She stated that she feels good in “cheap clothes” because she has saved money and “it really doesn’t matter.” She further described her disappointment that many people do not reflect on what really does matter which, to her, are things like family, education, and community.

Another participant told a story about how information from the media course helped to validate the way he was beginning to feel about the importance (or lack thereof) of “keeping up with the Joneses.” He explained how caught up he used to be in worrying about what others have and what he needed to buy to keep up. During that time, he purchased a brand new car “tricked out” with all the accessories, and found, much to his surprise, that owning the car came with added expenses (e.g., insurance), worry (e.g., possibility of theft), and stress (e.g., constant maintenance). After owning the car for only a few months, he wrecked and totaled it and lost a lot of money as a result. This event was the primary trigger for his realization that keeping up appearances is not as important as he had originally thought. However, he also claimed that this realization was solidified by learning more about how advertising can contribute to the desire to convey a certain image. “It is in the best interest of advertisers,” he explained, “to make me want to buy more stuff.” Another participant added that “being a mass consumer is good for them and being a critical thinker is good for me.” According to the first participant, when he learned more about how youth culture is, in part, commodified and constructed by marketers he was then more able to confidently ignore pressure from others (e.g., comments such as “That coat is so ‘80s, dude”).

Thirdly, participants reported an increased desire to actively seek additional information about products in order to make more informed choices that more effectively meet their goals. One interviewee explained that she used to buy products like “Swiffer” because the advertisements made them seem so beneficial and easy to use. She now does more research on the Internet and in other publications before she buys any expensive products. Thus, according to her, she is more able to “avoid blowing money” and “get the best value for her family.” Another important point was made by a woman who stressed the importance of finding out as much as possible about products, especially products that can affect health. She explained that recent research has led her to become concerned about potentially harmful dioxin levels in bleached tampons used to create a “clean and sterile-looking whiteness,” thus illustrating her ability to put logic before emotion for her own benefit.

The second reason given for engaging in media literacy was described by participants as a resulting feeling of greater safety and security due to examination of faulty beliefs. This reward, which was explained as a trigger to critical thinking about news reports, seemed to arise from participants’ understandings that heavy viewers of television tend to overestimate the amount of crime and violence that exists in the real world. Participants acknowledged that participating in a classroom survey of crime statistics, which featured both television and real world percentages, was what alerted them to the fact that they held misconceptions about the amount of actual crime and violence that exists around them. Participants described feeling more confident and safe in their communities and in the world because of the following knowledge and skills: (1) actively cutting back on exposure to television news; (2) understanding the difference between crime coverage and real crime statistics; and (3) possessing the ability to analyze production values used to dramatize and often exaggerate health and safety threats. Responses that illustrated this feeling include “things don’t seem so bleak,” “I don’t feel so creeped out and afraid,” and no longer “feeling as down and depressed.”

A mother in the group pointed out that she carefully monitors not only what her son watches but what she and her husband watch in his presence so that he is exposed to neither news nor entertainment messages that might produce irrational levels of fear. She compared her consciousness of what is on the television set in her house to the mindlessness of her friend, who has news channels on all the time in her young boy’s presence. Her concern for her friend’s son stems from understanding that a child’s brain is not developed enough to understand that what he sees on television often is not an accurate depiction of reality. She believes that her own awareness of this issue helps prevent her son from becoming fearful and thinking that society is more alarming than it actually is. According to this participant, knowing what messages kids are exposed to and knowing about how those messages can potentially influence them is an important, but often neglected, parental duty. She comments, “Our greatest task as parents is to protect [kids] but we don’t often take the time or energy to learn about and reflect on how [media] play a role in caring for our kids.”

The third category of reasons given for engaging in media literacy was described as an increase in rewarding feelings of confidence, adequacy, intelligence, and power that resulted from a greater understanding of media strategies and effects. These positive feelings were reported to have acted as a stimulus for the drive to further engage in media literacy. Responses indicate that one of the most valuable and desirable outcomes of the class was the ability to become conscious of, and alter, the way that media messages affect their self-concepts.

Essentially, participants reported feeling less pressure to be something they are not, therefore perceiving themselves as having more confident and secure self-images. Learning more about how media affects self-image seems to make them more aware of the unrealistic standards they often apply to themselves. Media literacy promotes an understanding of the comparing and contrasting they do and helps them reflect on and analyze their conceptions of how they fit into the world.

One participant commented that the course helped her to “understand why I make certain decisions and the reasons why I believe in the things I do.” Many of her beliefs about herself were formed as part of a comparison to the mass-generated images of perfection that pervade her entertainment experiences. “I mean,” another participant chimed in, “think about how many people there are to do hair and makeup for these women.” Understanding that mass-produced images reflect only a very small percentage of real women who have access to extraordinary resources enabled her to “feel less insecure and undesirable because of my size.” She realized that she had been using the characters she encountered in her television programs as comparisons for other standards as well (e.g. the way her boyfriend treats her). If a man on television did something wonderful for his girlfriend, she would feel her own boyfriend was inadequate. She reported a powerful realization that she should not be letting an emotional connection with these characters affect her negatively. She also indicated that, while she has not changed her viewing behaviors, she has changed the degree to which she takes these portrayals seriously, thus illustrating a change in the way she processes media information.

Referring to her body image, another participant explained that media literacy has promoted awareness that “allows me to value myself more and realize I don’t have to live up to those expectations.” Ironically, she also described this realization as a downside because it makes her “lazier” about improving her physical health. In addition, she reported feeling more confident about her behaviors that are “less feminine than typical TV characters,” such as not dressing in the latest fashions, not having the latest house decor, and taking on jobs that require physical labor. This is because, she explained, “it is not healthy to be influenced by fictional characters that do not represent the majority of real women.” A third participant reported feeling more confident and less alone when she realized that many other women in published studies (and in class) described similar feelings of inadequacy resulting from comparisons to media characters.

A second motivating factor emerging from this response category refers to the gratification resulting from an increase in both knowledge about the mass media and the ability to articulate that knowledge. The participants noted that increased levels of media literacy made them “feel more intelligent” and led to greater, and therefore more rewarding, confidence levels. “I like the feeling of being more educated,” stated one participant. Another said, “The more intelligent I am, the better.” A third referred to the pleasure she experienced from feeling smarter and more able to engage in intelligent conversation with her father. A fourth participant described her engagement in careful and critical thought during media exposures as “interesting and fulfilling. I enjoy being curious.”

Third, responses indicate that feelings of empowerment can be a powerful catalyst for the desire to engage in media literacy. Greater levels of media literacy reportedly gave some participants a compelling “insider view” into what motivates and persuades people, which, indicated one woman, “makes people feel more powerful.” Being privy to the strategies used by people (such as advertisers and politicians whose goals are to influence) apparently leads to an increased ability to resist potential negative effects. Media literacy was described as something that has helped participants sort through and “get at” their own thinking processes as opposed to allowing themselves to be mindlessly influenced.

Seemingly, one of the biggest motivators for critical thinking is the anger and/or disappointment participants felt for not already knowing about the subtle ways in which they may have been persuaded to think or behave. For example, a few participants described their anger as stemming from a belief that marketers are “trying to steal my power.” “I can’t believe how many times I’ve fallen for something an advertiser made look really cool,” said one participant. The stronger feelings of anger seem to have resulted from learning about how much marketers and advertisers know about the preferences and values of today’s youth and about the ways in which they gather this information and use it to influence attitudes and behaviors. The lengths marketers go in order to influence buying habits seem to have made participants especially uncomfortable and angry, which reportedly stimulates a desire to “take back my power.” “I hate being told I should or shouldn’t do something. When I notice that someone is trying to influence me, it sets me in critical thinking motion.” Participants noted that the power to make beneficial decisions is reduced without the careful thought, analysis and reflection that media literacy provides.

The fourth reason given for engaging in media literacy was described as benefits to human relations resulting from the awareness and avoidance of stereotypes. The stereotypes that are often reinforced in the media can restrict viewers’ perceptions of those other than themselves, unless critically analyzed. Once a stereotype is recognized, avoiding it enhances understanding of and interaction with others.

This reward was first brought up by a woman who described how, before the class, she had been closed off to the idea of interacting with people who appeared to be of Arab descent. She admitted to being unaware of that fact that she held or acted on any such stereotype until the issue of mass media stereotypes was discussed in class. After the issue was raised in class, she explained, she started paying closer attention to her own thoughts and behaviors. She realized that she had based her thoughts about the narrow possibilities for Arab and for Muslim people on only a small selection of “terrorist-based” portrayals she had seen in films, dramas and news clips. Evidently, once she realized this fact, she opened herself up to interacting with all kinds of people, regardless of appearance. She explained two situations as examples of the way she benefited. First, she stopped avoiding a young Muslim man in one of her classes and got to know him instead, which she enjoyed. Second, she now feels less suspicious and uncomfortable while traveling on airplanes and through airports. Whereas she previously felt like all Arab men were dangerous, she now realizes that this suspicion is irrational. She attributes her newfound openness to the realization that the mass media often characterizes entire groups of people in limited and inaccurate ways, and that it is not logical to believe that all people within that group act in these narrowly defined ways.

When further probed about why this awareness of media-generated stereotypes is important, other participants added “because people should realize that other cultures are different…that it’s more complex than a simple stereotype;” “because it makes us more tolerant, more open, more available as a human;” “because it’s important to know we have choices, that there are other ways to behave and interact with others in the world;” and “because the humane and logical treatment of others leads to a more harmonious world.”

The first participant added that she now realizes the U.S. is more diverse than she thought. After watching the news coverage of the hurricane disaster in New Orleans, she recognized her lack of knowledge about both the number of African American residents in the area and the number of people who live below the poverty line. “I was shocked,” she claimed, “at the faces of Katrina that I didn’t know about. I should care more about this stuff and these people.”

A second example of this benefit was described by a woman who referred to the class information as having “only confirmed what I already knew.” She reported that learning a little more about some of the ways women are portrayed in the mass media, especially in advertisements, made her more aware of her own desire to remain open to communicating with all types of women. She explained that she now reflects more consciously on how many of her own thoughts and beliefs may have originated from mass media portrayals, and how this may affect her interactions with women. “By not making assumptions,” she stated, “it opens the doors for relationships. It’s conducive to friendships and bonding with people I may not have previously considered friendship material.”

A third participant described a problem he had with the publicity given to an accused (but not yet convicted) person. He explained that he does not necessarily think that the news about an alleged crime should not be reported at all. However, he explained that people should be more aware of the fact that some of their attitudes are generated and fed by the news media. He recalled several conversations with acquaintances in which the other person would automatically condemn the accused as guilty. His frustration, he reported, stemmed from the fact that these people had already made assumptions about the person without being open to the possibility that he or she could be innocent.

A fourth participant explained that he is driven to think critically and carefully about the mass media because of his desire to understand how real people do and do not act. “Instead of just believing that the fighting and ignorance on Jerry Springer is normal behavior, I’d rather find out for myself by interacting with more real people.”

The fifth reason given for engaging in media literacy was described as the desire to reduce the amount of time spent consuming programming that “doesn’t really do much for me other than entertain me.” Participants explained that one of the benefits resulting from their initial exposure to media education was the drive to continually and actively reflect on the time they spend consuming mass media. They both described a feeling of shock at how much time they spent “plopped in front of the TV.” They explained that watching television is easy and fun but that too much of it is wasteful and is not of any value to their lives. “It’s hard,” one noted, “but I’m trying to avoid giving up so much of my time to it.” She reported feeling that not enough people consciously reflect on how they spend their time and on whether or not that activity contributes to any of their goals. “There’s so much people can gain,” another participant explained, “from tuning in to their own [lives].”

The sixth reason given for engaging in media literacy speaks to the gains people receive from making a conscious effort to broaden their exposures to a variety of different perspectives and media options. They explained how the course information made them want to take a more conscious role in actively seeking out different kinds of media experiences, including: (1) watching shows they had never before thought of watching, (2) conducting research about news events in media they had never used for information-gathering, and (3) actively exposing themselves to opinions and perspectives that are the opposite of their own.

One participant explained that she is concerned about present and future media experiences being too narrow because Americans are so busy and have such little time to dedicate to seeking out information. Further, she pointed out that her friends all get news from Internet blogs and from websites that are tailored to their interests only. “The narrowing of media audiences means that we’re exposed to less and less,” she said. “It’s separating us. Nothing is unified. We’re feeding ourselves on only what interests us.” According to this participant, actively exposing ourselves to a variety of media experiences means that we see and hear other perspectives, which is important because people come up with things they never knew or thought of before. She mentioned the news coverage of the war in Iraq as an example: “We never see the realities like how many dead children there are in our news. A lot of people I’ve talked to have never even considered that this could be a real outcome of our weapons attacks.” When describing her intentional efforts to expand her media exposures, another participant described the resulting rewards as having multiple facets:

being able to see other what other people know and think, and ideas of what’s important, exposing myself to things I’ve never been exposed to or thought about made me think I need to open up my exposure, to know more things that might benefit me, to think about things more thoroughly in ways that might benefit me.

The seventh and final reason given for engaging in media literacy was described as a newfound and rewarding appreciation for media messages during exposure to them. One participant said he enjoys picking out the “clever” production techniques employed throughout film and television. He reported being able to appreciate more layers of meaning in a film than ever before. And he describes feeling a level of satisfaction with analyzing what he thinks is the director’s intention for such things as camera angles, lighting, positioning, and special effects. The second participant said that she just feels more satisfaction knowing why people might be doing what they are in an advertisement or a film. She explained that she looks forward to the challenge of analysis during her media exposures. However, she also described her ability to observe and analyze as “annoying because it’s hard to turn it off.”

Emerging from the data were seven barriers that were described by participants to be factors blocking or impeding their efforts to engage in media literacy behaviors, the subject of the second research question. These barriers address some of the problematic aspects of becoming mindful (i.e. engaging in critical thinking). They include reasons that participants find difficult or unattractive the acts of thoughtful information-processing, conscious awareness of goals, and purposeful exposures that serve those goals. The following barriers will be addressed: (1) lack of time; (2) cognitive dissonance; (3) pressure to conform; (4) level of effort; (5) lack of purpose; (6) lack of knowledge and skill; (7) lack of access to a variety of perspectives.

The first barrier blocking engagement in media literacy is lack of time. Most participants agreed that it was hard to find the time to thoroughly engage in the critical thinking process. Responses in this category are organized around three specific themes: lack of time to dedicate to analysis and mindful exposures, life in a society of information overload, and the need for immediate gratification in a fast-paced society.

First, most participants were full- or part-time students who were also working full-time jobs or raising families, or both. Their very busy lives did not allow much extra time for thorough analysis and evaluation of media messages, nor did they allow much time for active filtering (e.g., seeking out a variety of different types of exposures that provide detail and complexity). One woman mentioned that she was frustrated that television news was so uninformative because “as a student, it’s hard to find the time, energy and stamina to go beyond just basic survival stuff.” Other participants explained that their desire to do more careful research and analysis does not always match up with their ability to find the necessary time to do so. “Watching TV news is just easier,” one participant stated. Another described critical thinking about media as “complicated” and requiring time “that most of us do not have.”

Second, most participants reported feeling overwhelmed with the amount of information available that they must process in daily life (i.e., information overload) and the lack of time available to do so effectively. According to one participant, “there is so much information out there that, on some levels, you just have to trust,” and “it would be impossible for us to fully examine all of the messages we’re exposed to.”

Third, a discussion arose in one focus group revealing that our fast-paced society makes people want their goals met quickly, which can seriously interfere with adopting media literacy habits. Improved technology has allowed us to expect quick solutions to problems. Applying media literacy takes time that many people not only do not have but also do not want to spend on meeting a goal for information. People are more attracted to less informative news briefs, sound bites and factoids for this reason.

The second barrier blocking engagement in media literacy is cognitive dissonance. Thinking critically and purposefully exposing one’s self to perspectives that are not one’s own are behaviors inherent to media literacy, but these behaviors can be difficult and uncomfortable to enact. Cognitive dissonance refers to the feeling people experience when met with thoughts that are inconsistent with previously held thoughts. For example, cognitive dissonance can occur when people learn about how much money and time a government body spends on public relations and propagandistic strategies designed to influence public opinion. A prior feeling of trust and unquestioning support can be uncomfortably dismantled by such information.

One participant, who described herself as belonging to the “older generation,” explained that “it is difficult to acknowledge that your belief structure might be flawed.” She further explained that many people avoid critical thinking because it can reveal things that feel like “fabric unraveling.” Instead of thinking actively and energetically, some people prefer to look for information that already confirms their beliefs. As an example, this participant offered a description of a friend who hushed her when she admitted to doing in-depth research about the situation in Iraq, saying “something along the lines of ‘Be quiet. Don’t you know there’s a war on?’”

The responses in this category also supported the phrase “ignorance is bliss.” Essentially, the result of active investigation into facts and issues that go beyond evening news bites is that, occasionally, one uncovers an injustice. For example, careful research into U.S. military action in Iraq might reveal previously unknown details about Iraqi civilian deaths. The less you know about an issue, many participants explained, the less important it seems. Overall, responses indicated the feeling that once people are exposed to something that may be uncomfortable, they either have to think about it and/or do something about it. If not, they must deal with the discomfort of actively choosing to remain ignorant. Either way, learning that you may have held misconceptions about something produces a certain amount of discomfort that many participants reported the desire to avoid.

Another aspect of discomfort was identified as a level of frustration that resulted from sharpened observation skills. Specifically, the ability to spot product placements in a film or television program was described as “distracting,” “annoying,” and something that “takes away from the enjoyment” of a story. Some participants even expressed dismay at having ever learned about them, which definitely, according to one woman, did not stimulate her to want to develop this aspect of her media literacy.

The third barrier blocking engagement in media literacy is pressure by peers to conform to the norm. This barrier contrasts with cognitive dissonance, in that the pressure to conform illustrates problems that people encounter when they actively choose to engage in, rather than avoid, media literacy behaviors. Participants described difficulty resisting frequent pressure to conform to average, mainstream ways of experiencing mass media, noting how it is hard to be the one who resists what is popular, who asks questions, or who refuses to accept things at face value. One participant pointed to the difficulty she feels as a parent “being accepted by your peers unless you pretty much go along with what others do” (e.g., letting your kids watch the shows all the other kids watch).

The fourth barrier blocking engagement in media literacy is the level of effort required to do so. Critical thinking requires a level of effort that goes beyond typical behavior, which is problematic for those who are not used to expending the necessary mental and physical energy. One participant, who is particularly adept at making comparisons, put it this way: “Because our brains are like muscles, we have to work them out and make them stronger,” and that is not always a pleasant or easy thing to do. Almost every participant pointed out the unusually high degree of effort it took to answer the “why” questions not only in class but also during the interview and focus group process. Some mentioned feeling drained afterwards. One student recalled that, when asked to dig deeper into an issue in class, she felt “frustrated and chaotic and didn’t know what direction to go.”

Other responses illustrated the difficulty involved in actively researching details about a news event that go beyond the simplicity of television news coverage. The number of references to the mental and physical energy required to do research was notable; however, lack of stimulation and enjoyment were more frequently cited as an example of the effort barrier. The actual difficulty stems from consciously choosing to remove that form of stimulation in exchange for a more thorough understanding of an issue or event. For example, many participants mentioned that television as a source for news is hard to avoid because it is more dramatic and entertaining than print sources. The medium of television appeals to people because moving images are more enjoyable to consume. According to one woman, “reading a story in the newspaper or on the internet just isn’t as appealing or entertaining.” She cited an example referring to the way Cody Posey, a boy who shot his mother, father and sister, was portrayed in both television and print news: “TV news covers things close to the way CSI portrays things. It’s just more interesting.”

Additionally, different aspects of media literacy require different levels of effort. Several students described feeling that there is less effort involved in the thinking aspect than in the behavior aspect. In other words, they reported changing the way they process and think about the information to be easier than changing the media choices they make. One student, who stated a boost in self-confidence as a result of the course, described it this way: “I still enjoy ‘vegging out’ on TV but I don’t let it affect me the way it used to.”

The fifth barrier to engagement in media literacy is a lack of understanding why doing so matters. Participants described that throughout their educational experiences, they were rarely asked to reflect on why they were learning certain information, which meant they often did not see a reason to make an effort to learn more or to apply what they were learning. Many participants explained that because most Americans are relatively secure, stable and safe, we are afforded the luxury of not caring about why we should think better. In our everyday lives, stated one participant, “we’re consuming and we’re caught up in entertainment; we’re not doing or thinking because it’s easy and fun to do the other.”

It seems people are conditioned to be unaware of their goals and of the reasons they do things, buy things, watch things, feel things, and believe things. Others agreed that they have had little exposure to the perspectives of why people should engage in media literacy. For example, a participant referred to a friend whom she had been educating about media literacy who admitted “she had never really considered that she should be thinking about these things for herself or for her child.” If people are not aware of the reason to do something, they will be less likely to do it, especially when increased effort is not the status quo.

The sixth barrier blocking engagement in media literacy is the lack of know-how. For these participants, their blocks to critical thinking were less about not knowing why they should do it than they were about not knowing how to do it. This lack of know-how applies to both knowledge (e.g., an understanding of media, messages and themselves) and skills (e.g., analysis, evaluation, and reflection). Many participants acknowledged that, before the course, they were not aware of “how they think.” Several students recalled a feeling of shock at the number of people they believed to be unaware of how they are affected by the media, and how those people do not seem to take the time to reflect on this. One woman said that “it’s laughable” how many people she believes do not think for themselves. Most participants expressed a belief that society has influenced mental laziness, and a few referred to the presence of a “critical thinking deficit” in the educational system. “Most Americans,” one man said, “tend to take what they see at face value, looking at information and images with blinders on.” He further explained that Americans are not conditioned at home or in school to expose ourselves to a variety of perspectives, or to compare and contrast things. In his opinion, “we are trained not to concern ourselves with such things.” Another participant described her experience in school as “simplistic.” She recalls being asked to “do this poem, do this paper, do this problem” without any kind of deeper explorations into why those things are important. A third participant added that he had taken this same class at a Texas college and was asked to recall “the big five media conglomerates” but was never asked to consider why knowing about them would be important to him.

The lack of knowledge or skill relates to other barriers in two ways. First, according to one participant, not knowing how to engage in media literacy stems from the lack of time we have to dedicate to careful selection, analysis and evaluation of media messages, and also from information overload. This is a fast-paced society that allows little time for reflection, research and deeper investigation. “We act like drones. We’re too busy consuming to take the time to investigate ourselves. We don’t reflect on what’s important or why it’s important.” Ironically, as one participant pointed out, “having the knowledge makes it easier to take the necessary time and make the effort.” He suggests that gaining media literacy knowledge will help to overcome the time barrier many complained about.

A seventh barrier blocking engagement in media literacy was described by a few participants as the difficulty in accessing media experiences that are free from the influence of marketing and commercialism. As explained earlier in the literature review, messages that promote critical thinking about the effects of mass media or that promote engagement in the political process surrounding media regulation are rarely found in the majority of U.S. mass media exposures. This barrier relates to two others—lack of knowledge and skill and lack of purpose—in that limited exposure to media effects, media policy or media criticism results in people not perceiving why they should care about media literacy or apply it. Additionally, it relates to cognitive dissonance and level of effort because (1) the more people know about the possibilities that the mass media are not effectively serving them, the more uncomfortable they feel which can lead to avoidance of the issue; and (2) people who tend to feed themselves on only the types of exposures that have been of previous interest to them are unlikely to demand anything different; this promotes a stagnant media culture, resulting in people not perceiving why they should care about media literacy or apply it. “Because we only watch what we want to watch, it’s a downfall because we don’t know about perspectives like from this class,” a participant noted.

This barrier relates to the others but makes a special point about the reciprocal cycle of media demand described earlier in chapter one. Because the commercial media culture is funded and pervaded by sponsorships, advertising, marketing, and persuasion, it is difficult for people to access information that is critical of the status quo. Referring to the class concept of hegemony, one participant said “since people don’t know how that affects them, they aren’t going to protest and the cycle will never change.” It’s a cyclical process that continues to serve the best interests of those who control it, which can have negative effects for people who feel the media should better serve the public interest. One participant effectively illustrates this sentiment: “without critical thinking, a society blindly follows those in power which can lead to decay and doesn’t allow for growth.” She continued, “for people who care about society and not just selves, it would be a better place to live if we all asked more questions.”

Another example of the hegemonic media culture being a barrier to critical thinking was pointed out by one participant as the predominance of entertainment programming. He felt that our vast access to and attraction to pop culture contributes to the “dumbing down” of Americans. He stated his belief that heavy involvement in pop culture prevents us from critical thinking because those types of exposures are “certainly not going to make us want to think a lot.” He referred to the lack of programming that takes a critical perspective on the mass media, with the exception of, he pointed out, an occasional episode of The Daily Show, which tends to poke fun at cable news strategies and often makes significant points about the lack of substance in television news. He explained, “because there’s not a whole lot of info out there, people aren’t gonna know much about this stuff, and because people don’t know how that affects them, they aren’t going to protest and the cycle will never change. People will not necessarily see any reason to.” Another participant optimistically points out that without critical thinking and media literacy, it would be difficult to affect a media system change for the better. Referring to covert persuasive strategies such as the placement of company-produced video news releases in morning news programs, “the more people know, the less acceptable some of these media strategies would become. It’s like we can change the system.”

Course Content and Activity Reported to Stimulate Drive to Engage in Media Literacy

The following section, which addresses the third research question, organizes participants’ responses into categories of (1) classroom materials; and (2) classroom activities for an average, introductory, college-level, media literacy education course. Specifically, the information and activities included in this section reportedly functioned as catalysts triggering participants’ motivations to develop and apply media literacy.

This section discusses four broad categories of class content identified by participants to spur critical thinking about the mass media. The categories are: (1) news and information; (2) concentration of ownership/conglomeration; (3) persuasive strategies/effects of persuasion; and (4) fantasy vs. reality.

News and Information.The first theme of content acknowledged as driving participants’ motivations to engage in media literacy pertained to news and information. More specifically, the information mentioned by most participants as critically important and most likely to provoke beneficial reflection and critical thinking included: political mass media effects, persuasive political strategies, the use of public relations to influence, and the business of news.

Most frequently mentioned as definite triggers for media literacy engagement were the concepts of framing and priming covered in lecture and text and illustrated in film clips. Participants reported that, prior to the course, they were largely unaware of the idea that issues are intentionally constructed in many ways (e.g., by choices and/or decisions re: wording, production values, candidate appearance, backdrop and setting, control of information flow), and that the amount of coverage an issue receives can affect how important the public finds it. A few students reported feeling significantly shocked at how much time, effort, and money is often spent on influencing public opinion, and further, at how effective the efforts often are.

Participants stated that theory and research findings presented in the text and in lectures promoted and reinforced their learning about media effects. For example, they learned that heavy television consumption leads to the belief that the real world is a lot like it is on television. Heavy viewers, therefore, tend to overestimate the amount of real violence and crime occurring in the world. This fact was reported as vital to students’ realistic understandings of actual threats to their health and safety. One student recalled the surprise (and, subsequently, the relief) she felt in class one day at the overestimation most students made about the real amount of violent crime in our country. She mentioned that she was particularly stimulated by a film segment explaining the unrealistic and repetitive threats of shark attacks hyped by reporters who peppered their news broadcasts with the sensationalist phrase “summer of the shark.” Understanding the potentially negative effects of news seemed to be critical to motivating participants to learn more and to apply media literacy skills in their lives. Perhaps even more significant, it reportedly drove them to want to share the information with others. Similarly, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, other participants pointed out the value of a classroom survey of crime statistics, which featured both television and real world percentages. Realizing there was a gap between what they believed to be true about crime and the reality of crime in the U.S. made them want to think about other misconceptions they may hold.

Other participants pointed out that their tendency to blame “the media” for poor news reporting was shifted by their understanding of news “as a business.” Instead of simply blaming those who produce and report the news, participants acknowledged a more complex understanding of the role played by market demand. One participant was emotionally moved by a visit from a local news anchor who pointed out the commercial and ratings-driven nature of television news. She reported feeling stunned when he pointed out that he and his producers knew exactly how many “peoplemeters” (devices that collect ratings data) were in each city in New Mexico. The anchor admitted to, for example, giving Farmington more news attention and coverage because there were seven peoplemeters there, more than in many other rural areas. The participant described astonishment at what she believed to be an outrageous strategy that put profit above public interest. It was this feeling, she explained, that triggered a strong desire to apply critical thinking to her media exposures, and even to change the way she consumes news.

Another participant reported that she was motivated to learn more about media literacy and reflect on her own role in creating the demand for commercially appealing television news after watching a classroom video clip. The clip featured CBS news anchor Carol Marin reflecting on the failure of her self-described “serious” investigative news experiment in Chicago, which only lasted for eight months. Particularly interesting, mentioned this participant, was Marin’s explanation of the use of teasers, sound effects and dramatic visuals (at the expense of details and depth) to attract audiences and encourage them to stay tuned through the commercials. A third participant indicated how important it was to her to learn about the existence of alternative news sources that are not connected to, or dependent on, commercial profits. Learning about places to go for news variety helps to reduce the barriers of added time and effort of thinking critically about news.

Concentration of Ownership / Conglomeration Trend. The second theme of content acknowledged to motivate participants’ desires to engage in media literacy pertained to the concentrated state of media ownership. Class lectures about deregulation and FCC rule changes, including both recent proposals and those from the 1996 Telecommunications Act and their effects, were described as particularly valuable. One participant pointed out that knowing and being tested on the names and holdings of the conglomerates and on the specific ownership rules was not particularly compelling. According to him, it was the information about how these things can affect society and individuals that was most provocative. “Control of the public airwaves translates to control of ideas, which affects my whole life,” said one participant. Participants in one focus group agreed that what stimulated them to want to engage in media literacy—and even to encourage others to engage in media literacy—was being taught to examine what it means to them that the majority of mass media content is controlled by only a few large conglomerates. This information stimulated one participant to regularly read the business section of the newspaper in order to explore how money can influence information flow.

Persuasive Strategies / Effects of Persuasion. The third theme of content acknowledged to motivate participants’ desires to engage in media literacy pertained to a basic understanding of the existence of persuasion tactics in advertising and politics. Most participants expressed feelings of shock at the amount of time, money and effort spent on attempts to influence public opinion. Learning about the various effects of these attempts was reported to create similar feelings of shock. Reflecting on the ways they, themselves, have been negatively influenced by persuasive tactics seemed to generate a small amount of anger, mostly directed inward for allowing the effects to occur. It was this anger, stemming from a greater awareness of persuasion tactics and effects, which seemed to provide the greatest stimulation to engage in media literacy.

One participant referred to a classroom video clip about the use and prevalence of video news releases and satellite media tours in business and government news, and stated, “It never occurred to me that news might not be news, that news could contain PR images and information. I was stunned.” She indicated that this strong emotional reaction what triggered her to want to learn more about media literacy and to think critically about her exposures. Referring to her negative feelings about what she views as a massive decline in journalistic credibility and objectivity, she said “Remember, I came from a generation that thought Walter Cronkite walked on water.” Another participant supported this point when he expressed distaste for the placement and use of video news releases in television newscasts. “How are we supposed to know the difference between what’s news and what’s public relations,” he complained, “especially without full disclosure by the station. It’s not a good thing, and it’s something more people should know about.” Another participant described her reaction to the realization of how public relations is used as “the most influential thing I learned,” in terms of wanting to further engage herself in media literacy behaviors. A third participant indicated that “it’s important to become informed about the way ideas, not just things, are sold to you.”

Participants admitted to knowing little to nothing about public relations, propaganda or “spin” tactics used by businesses and politicians. One woman remarked on how “outrageous” she found politicians’ use of satellite media tours to be. She described feeling astonished by examples in a classroom film clip that demonstrated how politicians use the satellite media tour to speak personally with dozens of local news anchors each day during a campaign. The film example showed Barbara Bush and former president Bill Clinton campaigning in 1992. Each of them would station themselves in a nearby studio, connect via satellite to a local news program, read a script (substituting the name of the city or state each time) and/or answer questions, disconnect, and then do the whole thing again. The participant explained that she had mistakenly believed that these politicians took time out of their days to pay special attention to our community by speaking with someone on our local news program. After considering this campaigning technique, she described her future intention to avoid the faulty belief that national candidates are necessarily making a “personal commitment” to any specific location, such as Albuquerque. “It makes me want to think more,” she said.

Another piece of information reported to stimulate participants’ desire for critical thinking was the “spin” technique that some politicians use to avoid answering a direct question. Particularly memorable to the participants was a classroom film clip that showed examples of politicians and their media consultants in behind-the-scenes discussions deliberating about how to best “spin” questions in favorable directions. One man said that, since he took the course, he started noticing how infrequently many politicians, including the President, give direct and complete answers to reporters’ questions. Another man said that learning about “spin” and other similar strategies such as red herrings and ad hominem attacks makes him more skeptical and analytical when listening to political arguments made by politicians, talk show hosts, or radio listeners. “I can see how sometimes there is little logic to what they’re trying to argue. It makes me feel smarter and more in charge of my decisions.”

One participant indicated that learning about production values (e.g., lighting, backdrop, makeup) drives her to pay close attention to “what politicians—their wives, too—wear, what’s in the background, stuff like that, and how that influences us to think of them a certain way.” She, too, emphasized her anger at and desire to resist what she described as “the time and money spent on trying to emotionally manipulate us through an image.”

All participants seemed to feel that the persuasion involved in politics was more important to understand than the persuasion involved in advertising and marketing consumer products. Participants in one focus group claimed that most people already know that advertising and marketing campaigns are direct attempts at persuading people to buy things. “It’s more important for us to know about the stuff that looks like information but is really persuasion.” Nonetheless, many pieces of advertising-related information learned in class also seemed to motivate them to think critically about their media experiences.

Most students reported knowing prior to class that an advertisement or commercial is an attempt to “get you to buy something.” However, they stressed that it was learning about the more subtle techniques used to influence buying behavior that really drove them to want to learn more. The idea that they could be influenced “without their knowledge” was notably the most frequently stated reason for engaging in media literacy behaviors. They seemed to be driven by the importance of (1) being in control of their decisions; and (2) resisting any attempts to undermine that control. For example, several participants mentioned being stunned by the techniques advertisers use to infiltrate the youth culture of “cool” illustrated in a 2001 PBS Frontline special. In one focus group, they referred to two specific clips: one demonstrating MTV’s use of ethnographic research by visiting the homes of teen boys, going through their closets, and talking to them about their love lives, and the other an illustration of a technique called “coolhunting” where researchers and photographers hit the streets to find out the newest trends in “cool” and then share the data with marketers. Responses indicated that participants reacted with shock at what they described as “the lengths advertisers go to influence us.” They felt it was important to state that they understood how market research could benefit them by improving programming designed for them. To them, this idea seemed healthy in contrast to the idea that marketers were trying to understand and enter their culture in order to influence them from within it. This fact seemed to make them angry, which was apparently their primary trigger for critical thinking. The ability to resist these covert persuasive attempts seemed very important to them.

One concept learned in the classroom was reported most frequently by female participants to trigger media literacy engagement. They explained that the most important factor driving them to question the media, themselves and the underlying reasons for their beliefs and attitudes was the understanding that the beauty ideal portrayed throughout advertising was not only unrepresentative of the norm, but also unachievable for most. Specifically, one participant was emotionally moved and referred to a feeling of disgust that she had been evaluating herself in many ways using “the unrealistic standards” generated by advertising. “Understanding that the average woman [in the U.S.] is much larger than what’s in the media goes a long way in making me feel more confident about my own size,” explained this woman. She and the other women in one focus group described how important they feel it is for women to realize the ways in which the unrealistic beauty ideal is created. Knowing what is real and what is not can really help women feel less inadequate, they explained. When asked what information women should attend to in their analysis of advertisements, they pointed out the following: (1) the fact that models and actors in television and film usually have their own personal trainers, hairstylists, makeup artists, and all the time in the world to dedicate to appearance; (2) the fact that many models and actors have had plastic surgery to alter their bodies in ways that could not be achieved naturally; (3) that fact that models and actors are often “enhanced” by way of computer graphics and alterations, special lighting and camera angles, and even the use of tape under their clothes; and (4) that fact that people tend to feel inferior to these mass-communicated, unrealistic ideals, and that doing so is not necessarily sensible.

Both males and females brought up the third idea that stimulates the desire for critical thinking in this category: the fact that advertising works best if a need can be generated and/or exploited. A specific clip from a video about ad criticism was brought up by one participant in a focus group and expounded upon by the others. It was a clip featuring scholar Jean Kilbourne explaining that in order to sell anti-wrinkle creams, advertisers also need to sell a certain amount of anxiety about aging. Stuck in their minds was an example pointed out in the film that featured actress Melanie Griffith declaring “Don’t lie about your age—defy it!” When asked about the importance of this example in stimulating their desires to engage in media literacy, they explained that “we just need to reflect more often on the ideas sold to us in commercials to be sure that what we believe about life isn’t influenced too much by these attempts to sell products. We need to be smarter about buying things because we need them, not because of the idea that ‘getting older is ugly’ is fed to us by advertisers.” Evidently, participants feel that an important part of being media literate is reflecting on the role mass media play in defining our attitudes, beliefs and values.

The fourth idea addressed in this category relates to a handout given in class that was adopted from the New Mexico Media Literacy Project’s Tools of Persuasion list (see Appendix C). Specifically, the factual details noted to stimulate critical thinking involved how advertisers use: (1) emotional transfer techniques in message design such as fear, nostalgia and scientific evidence; and (2) production techniques such as lighting, camera angles, special effects, and sound effects to influence emotion and generate meaning. When questioned about the value of consciously reflecting on techniques of persuasion, one participant stated “it’s so easy to be swept up and not really think about the persuasive intentions and careful thought that goes into getting you to feel a certain way.” Essentially, participants reported that critical thinking about persuasive techniques helps them to avoid being mindlessly influenced.

Interestingly, understanding these same techniques reportedly stimulates participants’ desires to raise levels of media literacy for reasons of enjoyment also. For example, participants described feelings of pleasure and satisfaction resulting from the ability to appreciate new layers of meaning in an advertisement or political speech (e.g., noticing how backdrop subtly enhances meaning in a political campaign commercial).

Most participants indicated that prior to the course they possessed a high level of awareness of the use of product placement in film and television. Covering the concept of product placement in the course reportedly sharpened their skills of observation and analysis, which meant an increased ability to spot examples throughout a program or film. The result of these increases in skills was apparently a mixed blessing. Most students found that their increased ability to spot the use of product placement produced feelings of enjoyment, which further stimulated their desire to continue applying the skills. These participants seemed to laugh at what they viewed as “a new way of advertising that is harmless.” In fact, one focus group got a discussion going that took the shape of a competition designed to see who could remember the most products placed in recent films. They expressed an enormous amount of enjoyment at being able to spot as many placements as possible, particularly the most subtle and hard to identify.

When probed about why spotting placements held entertainment value, they suggested that the enjoyment was a result of feeling more control over “seeing the strategies [advertisers] are using to influence us.” According to one participant, being able to spot the placements seemed to make him feel equal to or superior to “under-the-radar” advertisers, rather than a passive victim of what he sees as intentionally veiled manipulation. In opposition, some participants felt annoyed by their sharp acuity for observation because it distracted them from being able to fully engage in their appreciation of a film. “When I watch a movie, it’s like a fantasy, an adventure, and seeing a brand in my face reminds me of the money aspect, which can be annoying,” said one participant, “because it’s hard to turn it off.”

Fantasy vs. Reality.The idea that fictional entertainment features characters and behavioral norms that are exaggerated or distorted representations of reality was reported to be another incentive to further engage in media literacy. For example, one participant realized that she had allowed herself to avoid interaction with people of Arab descent because she was influenced by terrorist stereotypes perpetuated through entertainment and news programming. She indicated that these portrayals were “the only thing I ever really knew about Arabs,” meaning that she had never been exposed to Arab culture in any form other than U.S. entertainment and news. “It makes me want to figure out how many other ways I’m affected by media this way,” she said.

Another participant explained her tendency to over-generalize the amount of politicians who behave unethically. Because those are the people that get featured in the news, she admits, she forgets that there are probably lots of other involved politicians behaving ethically and serving the public interest. For her, this realization motivates her to apply media literacy to political media messages in order to avoid complete disillusion with politics. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, most of the female participants acknowledged feeling more confident and secure about their own appearance due to understanding that the small sample of mass-communicated images are frequently unrepresentative of the average American women.

Discussion and Debate.All participants reported a strong feeling about the importance of discussion in aiding their understanding of certain subjects. They indicated the desire for more of their teachers to include discussion in their classes. “Sounding opinions off one another in a group that hold widely varied experiences, knowledge-levels and values is good,” states one participant, “because you, yourself, may not have all the information needed to come up with a critically informed stand on something.” Another response indicated that the benefits she gained from exposure to people of different ages, gender, culture and experience-levels stimulates her to want search for more diverse media exposures.

Reflection and Analysis.Another idea pointed out by participants is also important notably because it has the power to affect citizenship, equal access to democracy, and the entire media system itself. All participants pointed out that being asked to reflect on one’s self was a valuable exercise that stimulated important insights. Specifically, they referred to exam questions and classroom discussion questions that provoked thought about their thinking processes and the underlying reasons for their behaviors. They pointed out that, while difficult and tiresome, “why” questions and questions asking them to draw their own conclusions produced the most valuable rewards. For example, one participant was especially affected by learning about how visual and sound production techniques can both supply and alter the meaning generated media messages. He further explained that in a class discussion about what we watch on television and why, he realized that he is attracted to the emotional drama supplied in many programs (e.g., home improvement and makeover shows) by slow motion, sound effects, editing, and music. This realization made him question how much time he spends on something he now feels may have been important to him only because “it’s manufactured” to be especially dramatic. “It doesn’t mean I still won’t watch [programs] and enjoy them, but somehow it just doesn’t feel as important now.”

A similar realization was described by a participant who described herself as a “news junkie.” One class discussion on television news and politics stood out in her memory. When asked to reflect on their news consumption behaviors and the reasons behind them, she realized she had been attracted to cable news programming that included “horse race election coverage” and “talking points selected to play off each other like sports games.” In fact, she attributed her self-described “addiction” to such programming to the dramatic draw provided by the coverage of competitive opponents. It occurred to her after class discussion, she explained, that certain politicians and issues are probably featured in news programming for the reason of attracting viewers. Realizing this made her think further about what kind of political information she is not attending to, and how that might affect the level to which she feels completely informed. As a result of this realization, she decided that it was important to her to pay closer attention to her goals for information and to consciously seek out more complex information. This type of information, she explained, may be “more boring” to consume, but may provide more meaningful detail of a candidate’s platform and explanation of a political issue. Another participant added that “we should reflect on the fact that we are naturally attracted to this kind of coverage and that it’s easier to watch stuff like this than do our own research. That doesn’t mean it’s particularly useful though.”

Last, the insight gained from reflecting on the effects of advertising was mentioned as a trigger for the desire to further develop media literacy levels. One man remembered a film clip and subsequent classroom discussion that involved reflection on a comment from scholar Sut Jhally in the video The Ad and the Ego. Referring to products, Jhally claims that American consumers are, for the most part, virtually ignorant of where things come from and where they go. In the discussion, the participant remembered specifically a discussion about the mindless consumption of products, and about the fact that so many of us drive through a fast-food restaurant, grab a burger, and then toss away the containers without ever really thinking about the origin of the hamburger patty and the final resting place of the trash in the landfill. Further, he referred to how most of us know little or nothing about raising and butchering cattle, food processing and distribution, and waste management, and do not necessarily see any reason to know such things. This particular comment was made in a focus group and the other participants seemed to agree that many Americans go through their lives never being asked to reflect on matters of consumption. To summarize responses from this focus group, the following questions, related to advertising and its effects, were determined as most effective in provoking useful insights: (1) how much do we consume and why; (2) why do we seem to want the latest stuff; (3) why does examining consumerism and/or materialism matter; and (4) how does consumerism and/or materialism affect people (e.g., health effects, stress, debt) and the environment (e.g., pollution, reduction of natural resources).

Being asked to reflect on these issues in class was described as something that generated valuable insights about their own lifestyle choices and the effects of these choices. In turn, it made them want to continue reflecting on their own consumer choices and possibly changing some of them so that their choices brought about more positive and less negative individual and societal effects. A couple of participants mentioned the desire to share the skill with others. Of particular interest, however, was the consensual acknowledgement that, even though they believed their own purchasing behaviors were probably unreasonable and that they potentially had negative affects on themselves and others, they had not made any changes to this behavior nor did they have plans to change it in the near future. In other words, they thought that changing their thinking was tremendously easier than changing their behaviors. The section on barriers earlier in this chapter further addresses this issue in more detail.

Classroom Visits from Media Professionals. Participants indicated that visits from media professionals (e.g., news anchors, deejays, promotions directors) were valuable to them in two ways. First, participants enjoyed learning about audience measurement, market research techniques, and strategies to target programming toward specific groups of people. The information that seemed to most drive the desire to develop and apply media literacy was related to persuasive strategies. For example, one participant said she appreciates the fact that audience research is used to obtain and develop better programming for the target audience. To her, she explained, this felt like the media professionals valued and respected the audience members and wanted to give them good media content. On the other hand, she and others reported feeling resentment towards strategies that use audience research to manipulate people. For example, she felt dismay towards a local television station promotions director whose visit resembled that of a focus group. “It was like he wanted to get information from us so that he could use it to persuade us,” she commented, “and I didn’t like the way that felt. That’s the kind of stuff that makes me want to think better, and even turn it off.” Others agreed with her and further explained that the use of these strategies makes them feel defensive because they know they are a target for manipulation. The defensiveness is what drives them to increase their media literacy. Another participant claimed that she also gets a little resentful when she notices the use of promotional strategies that she believes are designed to “sucker people into watching.” She continued, “I know I have a choice to watch or not watch, but when they make it look so cool in the commercial, and when they start a series with two back to back episodes, it draws you in, and then you want to watch the series. I just have to be more aware of that stuff.”

Second, participants explained that the visits from professionals made them realize that “blaming the big bad media is too simple” and that “there’s a human being behind this stuff.” It was the discussion that took place after the visit that students seemed to find most stimulating. A few participants explained that the discussion made them reflect on the human element involved in strategizing and producing media. “He’s just doing his job,” one participant commented as she was explaining how she felt it was much harder to criticize “the media” as a whole for poor or manipulative content when she stood face to face with the person who produced it and believed in it.

Counter-Ad Project. A few participants stated that they were stimulated to look at advertisements in new ways because, in the counter-ad project, they were able to step outside of an advertising message, rearrange a few things, emphasize a few things, ignore a few things, and add a few things. Essentially, they were better able to enter into meaning construction and its effects because they had to sort through, manipulate, and reconstruct the layers of meaning. Reportedly, the counter-ad project made some participants want to seek out satirical media texts in order to deconstruct and appreciate the juggling of meanings. One participant said the project “brings up things that you never really thought of before” such as “the fact that parents don’t really think about what’s in those games when they give them to their own kids for Christmas.” This man was referring to a counter-ad designed by a fellow student that featured a graphic depiction of a blood and gore-filled video game wrapped up in a pretty package with a bow and tag that said “To Tommy.” He explained that he believes a lot of people are unaware of the significance of media effects, and he plans to not only increase his awareness of media literacy but also to encourage other people he knows to do the same.

The next and last chapter discusses the findings within the framework of Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy and makes suggestions for purpose-driven curricula. The curriculum portion provides specific steps for applying purpose-driven media literacy in the classroom and precautions to be considered. Also included is a discussion of study limitations and suggestions for future research.

The purpose of this study was to discover what motivates or blocks individuals from engaging in media literacy. In general, the findings showed that students are most likely to engage in media literacy practices when they can see a connection to a direct and personally relevant benefit. Also, their drive to develop and apply media literacy is triggered by information about how media texts come to have meaning, about media effects and the mitigating factors, and about how individuals are able to actively enter into the meaning construction task. This information makes attractive the desire to be in control of one’s own interpretations.

Throughout this chapter I refer to the distinction between the cognitive element of information-processing and the decidedly more behavioral element of filtering exposures. Because this distinction appears repeatedly throughout the chapter, I will define and explain these elements here. The cognitive element of media-literate information processing involves the awareness and mindful consideration of goals for exposure, media strategies and media effects, and the person’s own interpretations of media content. Additionally, media literate thinking involves mindful participation in meaning construction (i.e., ability to shift the locus of control to self and transform meaning construction). The task of filtering involves more action-oriented tasks such as seeking new exposures, changing existing exposure patterns, and/or actively sorting through exposure options (although the latter involves a significant amount of cognitive effort as well).

In this study, I answered three questions: (1) What reasons do participants give for engaging in media literacy? (2) What reasons do participants give for not engaging in media literacy? and (3) What specific class information or classroom activities are reported by participants to stimulate their motivation to engage in media literacy and why?

This chapter briefly summarizes the findings of each question, relates the findings to Potter’s cognitive theory of media literacy, proposes a theoretical perspective on personal growth as intrinsic motivation for developing and applying media literacy, and makes suggestions for purpose-driven media literacy curricula.

Research Question One: Personal Rewards as Motivation for Developing and Applying Media Literacy

The first research question examined students’ reported reasons for engaging in media literacy. In short, the answer was: to achieve personal rewards. As mentioned in chapter four, the use of the “five why” tool and other probing questions enabled me to closely examine the cognitive processes that underlie the given reasons for engaging in media literacy. In doing so, I discovered that the reasons given are driven by perceived beneficial outcomes (i.e., personal rewards) that result from the application of media literacy to their exposures. The specific perceived benefits include the following: increased (1) ability to make both responsible political and consumer decisions; (2) feeling of physical safety in community and world; (3) positive feelings about self; (4) ability to avoid generalizations that limit understanding of and interactions with others; (5) ability to spend time meaningfully; (6) feelings of enlightenment due to conscious exposure to a variety of perspectives; and (7) feelings of enjoyment during mass media exposures.

Overall, students gained a variety of concrete and positive benefits that directly affected them on an individual level. The findings indicate that most of the benefits cited as reasons to engage in media literacy are associated with rewards that stem, specifically, from the ability to overcome, or the desire to avoid, negative media effects. Mostly, as Potter contended, as students’ knowledge levels increased, their sense of control over their interpretations of media messages was also increased. The gratification resulting from the shifted locus of control further motivated them to continue developing and applying media literacy. It was clear throughout the findings that increased media literacy helped students become aware that the possibility of an unwanted media effect exists. As a result of this cognition, they were better able to make personally beneficial decisions during meaning construction. Thus, the personal and direct benefits resulting from increased cognitive insight and control are primary intrinsic motivators for engaging in media literacy.

Second, the findings revealed that, to a lesser extent, students became more aware of their goals for media exposures, were more able to mindfully sort through (i.e., filter) media options, and were more able to actively choose or refute messages that would fulfill those goals. The filtering task of media literacy—as opposed to the cognitive tasks—was less prominent and less attractive to students. Specifically, students were less inclined to change their media habits than they were to change their thinking about the messages incurred in those habits. The reasons for this are due to the barriers that arose from the findings for research question two, which is discussed next.

The second research question asked students to give reasons for not engaging in media literacy. The reported barriers relate to levels of difficulty and include: (1) lack of time; (2) cognitive dissonance; (3) pressure to conform; (4) level of effort; (5) lack of purpose; (6) lack of knowledge and skill; and (7) lack of access to a variety of perspectives. Students claimed that these blocks to media literacy efforts are more likely to impede the behavioral acts of filtering than the cognitive act of information-processing. For example, it is more time-consuming and difficult to purposefully seek out a variety of different sources for information on a political candidate’s platform than it is to watch the 10-second video clip of her speech on the evening news. In part, lack of time and effort pose larger barriers to behavioral acts of media literacy than to cognitive acts because of the nature of the U.S. mass media experience. People in the U.S. are flooded with choices for information and entertainment and do not have much time to sort through all of these options, especially ones with which they are less or even unfamiliar. Additionally, it takes more effort to seek out new options for exposures than it does to think differently about the already familiar ones, especially in a media environment that favors entertainment and image over depth of information.

Along the same lines, putting effort into changing familiar behaviors was reportedly more difficult than putting effort into changing familiar thoughts because of two types of uncomfortable feelings that can result. First, after developing a better awareness of their media goals, students acknowledged that they should probably seek out better sources for information and cut down on “wasteful” time spent consuming entertainment messages. However, as the saying goes: “easier said than done.” Students indicated that a level of discomfort results from limiting something as enjoyable and entertaining as television news, even though they know that consulting additional sources would help them to better meet their goals for information. Also, when a person changes their behaviors as opposed to their thoughts, it is more noticeable to others and may generate undesired reactions such as pressure to conform to the norm. It was clearly easier and more beneficial, at least at first, to think mindfully about media content than it was to actually behave in new ways.

According to Potter, in order to develop one’s media literacy a person has to be shown that the payoffs outweigh the costs involved. Any amount of critical thinking or change to familiar media experiences is clearly a difficult process on many different levels. In this section, I address this cost-benefit ratio and demonstrate that when students benefit in a personal, relevant, and direct way from learning and applying media literacy, they are more likely to attempt to overcome the barriers impeding the learning and application of media literacy. In this section I will synthesize data from research question one and two by addressing each reason given by participants for engaging in media literacy and explain how benefits and costs weighed in.

The first reason—increased ability to make responsible political and consumer decisions—was important to students because it allowed them to resist constructing meaning from emotional appeals rather than from sound evidence and reasoning. Before exposure to media literacy, many students did not only know how to make decisions based on logic, but also did not have time to do so and did not know why they should do so. After increasing their media literacy levels, they were able to see how making uninformed decisions or emotion-based decisions could actually prevent them from achieving their true goals. More specifically, students seemed happy to discover that media literate decisions could help them to support political movements inherent to their interests, to save money, and to reduce stress, all of which were described as rewarding. Learning how to engage in media literacy and why media literacy can be beneficial eliminated those two barriers and seemed to make the attempts at finding the time more worthwhile.

The second reason—increased feelings of physical safety—resulted from a better developed awareness that the fear of being a crime victim was irrationally magnified due to their exposure to television violence in news or other programming. Students found this benefit to largely outweigh the costs of engaging in media literacy. According to them, there was little effort involved in achieving this media literacy benefit which students enjoyed because it made them feel more in control of the meaning-making process. Specifically, the actions required to occasionally seek out realistic information, to turn off the television now and then, and to analyze the production values used to dramatize crimes stories were seen as worthwhile and relatively easy to carry out.

The third reason—increased positive feelings about self—seemed to generate the most amount of personal gratification. Several very positive emotions resulted from the application of reason and logic in this category. These resulting good feelings are what drive them to continue expending effort on media literate behavior. None of the reported costs seemed to outweigh the significant emotional benefits reported in this category. Again, most of the rewarding feelings in this category were a result of developing a more advanced awareness of their cognitive processing of media content, rather than of changes to filtering behaviors.

The fourth reason—increased ability to avoid stereotypes—was interesting because the personal reward they achieved in this category resulted from having interpersonal interactions that they had not considered attractive until they attended the course. Students who indicated this benefit as a motivating factor did not initially realize that the hasty judgments they made about people were based on illogical overgeneralizations. Because they did not realize this, they had no desire to interact with someone they had negatively stereotyped and were not aware of any gains that could come from interacting with someone completely different from them. The costs for achieving this benefit were fairly high because of the time and effort it takes to access authentic information about people with whom they had previously limited contact. However, the largest reward came from putting forth the time and effort to personally interact with another human being and find out real-world information about them or their culture.

The fifth reason—increased ability to spend time meaningfully—was a benefit that came from reflecting on their goals and the amount of time spent consuming different types of mass media. It was also another benefit for which the costs were particularly high. In other words, students felt the desire to reduce the amount of media time they considered to be wasteful, but they found it very difficult to actually do so. The most prevalent barrier in this category was level of effort, in that they found it very difficult to tear themselves away from something that is so easy, accessible, and entertaining.

The sixth reason—increased feelings of enlightenment—was similar to the outcome of the fourth, in that they discovered benefits from behaving in ways they had not considered desirable prior to the course. It is common for people to tune into an information source that is familiar and trustworthy, mostly because we do not want to take the time to actively expose ourselves to something unfamiliar and possibly uncomfortable. Students found the costs of this benefit to be high also, less because of the time and effort factor and more because of the dissonance factor. Some of the uncomfortable issues, however, proved to be important because of the perceived direct effect on the student or on his or her family members. This potential for positive change made some students more willing to face it head-on and manage the resulting discomfort. Also, the discomfort often fostered anger towards politicians or other people in power which drove the quest for more information.

The seventh reason—increased feelings of enjoyment during media exposures—resulted from, as Potter predicted, the ability to “see” more things in a media message. Once students understood specific production techniques, they found it hard to “un-see” them, which was reported to be a little annoying for some. However, the pleasure that resulted from the ability to “spot” things seemed to outweigh costs, especially for students who viewed analysis as a challenge. Additionally, “spotting” production techniques was rewarding because it made them feel powerful, in that they were able to see the possible intentions of the director toward the audience.

Overall, the findings demonstrate that participants perceive the “why” of media literacy as the most important element in reducing the costs and making worthwhile the development and application of media literacy.

Research Question Three: Curriculum Components that Stimulate Drive to Apply and Develop Media Literacy

In general, the findings for research question three indicate that students are motivated to engage in media literacy after actively considering the importance of the meaning-making process and its direct effects on their daily lives. When students were asked what class information or class activities triggered them to want to develop and apply media literacy, most often they indicated components that helped them to distinguish between fantasy and reality because this was the type of information that could help them gain control of their interpretations and avoid the chances for negative effects. Most often, they were emotionally motivated to enact media literacy because of a desire to avoid being negatively influenced by messages that were designed to be purposefully covert (e.g., framing political issues with compelling but manipulative language). However, they were also motivated by the desire to gain more control over their interpretations of all media messages in ways that would best serve them. Taken together with the findings from research question one, the key element of motivation is the desire to gain positive individual benefits and to avoid negative media effects. Information about media effects seems to be extremely important to establishing a sense of purpose for students of media literacy. Rather than addressing more of these findings here, I will dedicate an upcoming section to explaining how the data help to develop a new theoretical perspective on media literacy motivations. Additionally, I will use the data to make suggestions for a purpose-driven curriculum that fosters an intrinsic motivation for media literacy development.

Potter’s emphasis on cognition is important because, as seen in this study, it is the awareness of effects and the ability to take control of the meaning construction task that elicits the most amount of personal reward. Media literacy shines a light on our thought processes, and then forces us to examine and evaluate them for validity, authenticity, and personal value. As Potter predicted, learning about the media, effects, real-world and self draws attention to the sense-making process and the consequences of controlling it more mindfully.

According to explanations given throughout the responses, the benefits of media literacy were largely a result of a complex cognitive process involving the development of what was previously unconscious into several levels of awareness. Learning about media strategies, the business of media, and the control of the industry leads students to develop an awareness of the encoding of media content (i.e., how texts come to have meaning). Learning about media effects and developing the ability to reflect on self leads students to develop a metacognitive awareness of the decoding process—or their own meaning construction processes—(i.e., how they came to their interpretations). Learning about market research, persuasive tools and production values leads students to consider where the locus of control for interpretation lies, and to analyze whether the control is in the proper place according to their goals. Reflecting on the benefits of media literacy allows students to realize they can assume more power in the struggle between self and media for meaning construction: they have the ability to construct new and better meanings. Learning about a wide range of options for information and entertainment allows them to more easily make their exposure patterns work for them.

Potter talks about media literacy existing on a continuum, and that levels of media literacy are always in constant development. The results of this study show that introductory level media literacy students find the cognitive task (i.e., mindful information-processing) easier which makes them more likely to invest effort in it. Additionally, most of the personal benefits directly resulted from engaging in the cognitive task. Because applying media literacy was rewarding and involved a manageable amount of effort, students were more able to buy into its value. In contrast, the findings demonstrated that costs are higher for developing and applying the behavioral task (i.e., active filtering) because it takes more time and effort to access diverse media content, actively sort and select certain content, and/or actively make changes to comfortable and familiar media habits.

It is less likely that a media literacy program suggesting substantial behavioral changes, such as those that promote forms of “popular culture abstinence” will be as effective with introductory-level students because of the significant discomfort and amount of effort involved. When students are able to see direct benefits that result from easing into the process—beginning with building knowledge structures and developing an awareness of the meaning construction task—they will be more likely to want to continue their development of media literacy, a drive concept Potter refers to as inertia (2004).

In an introductory media literacy course, students are just beginning to form their initial drive for media literacy. Educators should realize that building knowledge structures and developing awareness of thinking and its consequences are important as first strokes in the development of media literacy. Any personal rewards that result from a focus on cognition, then, can act as a stimulus or purpose to further develop media literacy. As seen in the findings for research question two, the barrier created by a distinct lack of purpose demonstrates that the levels of effort required to engage in media literacy was higher if students did not see a reason for doing so. This finding is particularly valuable because it points out the significance of purpose in easing the workload involved in developing and applying media literacy. Educators can help students discover that the costs will be lower for those who have established a sense of purpose. As media literacy levels increase, the costs involved will decrease, which makes it more likely that students will eventually want to develop their abilities to actively filter their exposures as well.

In addition to the above cognitive element, a significant affective dimension emerged from the data. The affective dimension is an area that is only briefly addressed in media education literature, and usually only in reference to the negative emotions that can arise from media effects (e.g., fear resulting from heavy exposure to scary or violent portrayals). Very little has been written about affect in terms of the positive emotions that can result from increased levels of media literacy. Many of the benefits described by participants as catalysts to critical thinking were “feeling” oriented (e.g., to avoid stress and worry, to feel more powerful, to feel more confidence, to feel more safe, to feel more comfortable, to enjoy new experiences). Additionally, a few of the costs or barriers to engaging in media literacy were also related to affect (e.g., discomfort, frustration, hard, less enjoyable).

In the cost benefit ratio discussed above, the benefits that considerably outweighed the costs were primarily affective. This indicates that students felt the positive emotional outcome was worthwhile to pursue even in light of the knowledge that the path may be difficult. Thus, an increased awareness of emotions and the ability to control our emotions in our favor can result from the heightened cognitive awareness media literacy can provide. The connection between affect and cognition can be made most clearly, however, if guided effectively by the educator.

Therefore, the results of this study suggest that introductory-level media literacy education that focuses on the cognitive and affective elements of media literacy and that guides the student in discovering direct and personal benefits will be most effective at intrinsically motivating individuals to increase their drive for applying and developing media literacy. The next section explains more specifically how personal rewards develop as a result of the increased awareness of cognition and affect. I also address how curriculum components addressed in research question three findings play a role in this process.

Clearly, these outcomes support the literature discussed in chapter three, in that understanding more about media strategies and media effects can give us: (1) the ability to separate ourselves from potentially conditioned effects; and (2) more freedom to make smarter choices for ourselves. However, what surprised me a little was that developing one’s media literacy seems to yield outcomes, in some cases, that are similar to those one gains from participating in personal therapy. The benefits functioned in some ways as a means to personal growth for some individuals. Specifically, some of their feelings, thoughts or behaviors were changed for the better in comparison to what they felt, thought, or did before they had developed their media literacy levels. Surprisingly, these transformations brought about by critical thinking made me think of those that result from the process of rational emotive therapy situated within the field of cognitive psychology (Ellis, 1977). I am familiar with the technique because I teach it in my interpersonal communication courses as a strategy for managing debilitating emotions. As I more closely examined participants’ responses, I began to realize the significance of the cognitive aspects of media literacy in managing negative media effects and producing personally relevant rewards for students. In this section, I explain and give examples of rational emotive therapy and then demonstrate how the study findings relate to this concept.

Rational emotive therapy is a cognitive approach to managing emotions that allows people to realize that it is thoughts that cause emotions, not events, people or actions. More importantly, it is irrational thoughts or faulty beliefs that often cause debilitating emotions. For example, imagine a young woman who makes a few blunders in her first job presentation she had expected to go perfectly. When she sits down, she is overcome with negative self-deprecation and worry. After a week, she is still debilitatingly depressed over her errors and cannot seem to function as effectively as she once did. This perspective would explain her depression and inability to function effectively as a result of this faulty belief: that she should have been able to pull off the presentation perfectly without error. Ellis would label this belief as irrational because it suggests that unless a person is absolutely competent in all respects during an event, s/he is inadequate and worthless. The therapeutic benefit comes from one’s ability to recognize the irrational belief and reframe their thoughts in a more sensible direction. If a person is able to shift their thinking to a more rational belief (e.g., all humans make mistakes and it does not necessarily make sense to expect that a first job presentation would go perfectly), the resulting emotion is not debilitating. In fact, more rational thoughts can actually be facilitative to personal growth. For example, recognizing that mistakes can be improved upon can lead to the desire to improve one’s skills.

The drawback to this approach to thought is that people can end up completely rationalizing away any need to improve themselves. For example, she could end up reframing her thinking in the opposite direction, believing that there is no need to be concerned about making mistakes in a job presentation. This type of belief can affect a person negatively in that s/he does not strive to grow or improve, and she could end up making the same mistakes again. In other words, the best approach is to avoid glossing over the errors, and to focus on the rationality of how badly she should really feel about having made them.

The mindful information-processing element of media literacy is a lot like rational-emotive therapy, in that it allows a person to consider how they may be negatively affected by faulty meaning construction. The development of media literacy knowledge and skills gives people the ability to illuminate their thinking and to consider the effects of that thinking. It also allows people to better steer the meaning that is constructed during media exposures in a rational and self-serving direction. There are several personal benefits mentioned in the findings for research question one that are directly related to the benefits one gains from participating in rational emotive therapy. I describe three of these next.

First, negative feelings arise when we are fearful of leaving the physical safety of our homes and believe that the crime in our communities is so rampant that we are likely to be the victim of a carjacking or some similar form of violence. Yet, many people feel this way due to heavy consumption of local television news programming that focuses the first quarter of its broadcast featuring criminal activities of the day. Additionally, news programming often adds layers of subtle meaning with sound effects, slogans, and lighting that can exacerbate the feared threat. Without the knowledge or the skills that give us the ability to reflect on ourselves and analyze media messages, it is fairly natural for heavy television news viewers to believe that the real world is more dangerous than it actually is. This belief, however, is faulty. When we make the extra effort to acquire real crime statistics, we find that the percentage of violent crime is much lower than what we expected based on our consumption of television news. We also find that random acts of violent crime are very rarely committed by strangers. Learning more about media practices and strategies, media effects, the real-world, and self forces us to: (1) consider why television news dedicates so much time to violent crime; (2) become aware of effects concepts such as “the mean world syndrome;” (3) consider seeking real-world input; and (4) reflect on whether our perceptions of reality may be inaccurate.

A specific concept relevant to rational emotive therapy is “the fallacy of overgeneralization,” which means that, much like stereotyping, we often form beliefs that are based on limited amounts of information. Most of us have had little to no experience being a victim of violent crime. However, because of mass media, we are able to see and hear several stories about victims and their assailants each night. Interestingly, what we do not often see on television news is how many hundreds of thousands of people just had “a regular old day.” Unless we know how, take the time, and expend the effort to reflect, analyze, and consider the idea that we could be distorting reality and overestimating crime, our distorted beliefs can cause high levels of undue fear. In doing so, however, we are able to reframe our thoughts to reflect logic and evidence and, in this case, liberate ourselves from debilitating anxiety and fear.

A second example of negative feelings resulting from faulty beliefs and over-generalizing can be seen in the responses of women who, prior to developing their media literacy, felt less confidence about the normality of their own appearance. Again, because of mass media, we are exposed daily to thousands of images that feature models, actors, athletes and other celebrities that are often made-up, taped-up, sutured-up, or drugged-up to gain their images of perfection. Some older female news anchors even demand that the camera operator use a filtered lens that blurs and softens her facial features, eliminating the reality of blemishes and signs of aging. It is natural for us to compare ourselves to other people as we develop a sense of self. In fact, another psychological concept, social comparison (Festinger, 1954) states that we tend to evaluate ourselves in terms of how we compare to others. We tend to compare ourselves in terms of superiority and inferiority to others, and in terms of sameness or difference from others. Surely we compare ourselves interpersonally to the real people in our lives (e.g., siblings, coworkers, friends), but it is also true that we compare ourselves to people in the mass media. And, for those with heavy levels of mass media message consumption, unrealistic images of unachievable perfection are pervasive. According to cultivation theory, the tendency to believe that television images reflect reality is especially powerful for heavy viewers, children, and those with very few interpersonal relationships.

Again, unless we consciously and actively analyze and consider the meanings these images convey, it is natural for some people to be negatively affected as a result of these unrealistic comparisons. As in the first example, the belief that we are somehow less of a person because we do not look like the people in the mass media is faulty. People who are negatively affected by making comparisons between themselves and these images of perfection can benefit immensely by developing their media literacy. Once they take the time to really think about how many of these techniques are used to aggrandize mass-communicated images, they are better able to correct their faulty belief (i.e., recognizing that most people in the world do not really look this way). As participants explained, acquiring knowledge about techniques used to enhance appearances and reflecting on the fact that it may not be sensible to compare ourselves to these images helps us feel more content with ourselves.

The third example of the limiting effects of faulty beliefs can be seen in the example of the participant who generalized that most if not all people of Arab descent are terrorists. Again, this belief was based on the fact that the only exposure she ever had to the Muslim culture was encountered in the mass media. Because she had never known or even talked to anyone who looked like an Arab, she based her belief on the extremely limiting portrayals featured in major action films and television news coverage of terrorist bombings.

Because she acquired knowledge about the limitations of these portrayals and reflected on her tendency to inaccurately over generalize, she was able to adjust her belief to reflect a more accurate understanding of a complex culture. As a result, her feelings adjusted to reflect intrigue rather than disgust, and she was able to open herself up and enjoy the benefits of getting to know someone interesting and new.

The sequence of steps involved in rational emotive therapy is interesting because it puts the recognition of effects at the front end. The first few steps involve developing an awareness of the way one feels and then examining the beliefs behind the feelings and the consequences of those beliefs. Then, the person considers the rationality of this belief and can dispute irrational or faulty beliefs by choosing to think in a more sensible way that better serves her own goals. Later, I address the significance of this sequence of steps as it applies to purpose-driven media literacy.

In summary, both rational emotive therapy and media literacy education put a spotlight on the way we think and on how our thoughts affect us. They both allow us to examine the soundness and rationality of our thinking and to make conscious decisions to change it, if necessary, to better serve our personal goals.

As noted in earlier chapters, even though there are many diverse approaches to media literacy, Potter suggests that the goal for any media literacy program is to “improve individuals in some way.” However, what that improvement should specifically look like varies widely throughout the field. As I explained above, I believe the improvement should have a personally relevant connection to the student. The findings from this study show that students are intrinsically driven to engage in media literacy because of the possibility of achieving some type of personal reward. A media literacy program that helps the students make relevant and meaningful connections to the material will be more successful at furthering students’ drive to develop their own levels of media literacy. An effective curriculum should consistently encourage the students to ask “why does this matter?”

Additionally, a curriculum should focus on media effects because it is the area to which the student feels the most direct and personal connection. However, the educator needs to use caution to approach media effects not in a protectionist way, but rather in a nonjudgmental manner that allows students to decide their own goals and interpret their own individual rewards. Again, students are more likely to personally engage themselves in a curriculum in which the focus is on connections that are relevant on a variety of individual levels. For example, a media literacy course that teaches students about conglomeration and concentrated ownership will not be as effective without reflecting on how that affects students individually. Through the presentation of knowledge and skill sets, educators should lead the students through their own personal discoveries about why conglomeration matters (i.e., why they might care about it). This approach avoids protectionism and does not seek to “neutralize the pleasures of media through rational analysis” (Buckingham, 2003). In contrast, it points the students to the pleasurable aspects of being media literate (i.e., the personal rewards), as determined by the individual student.

Last, a purpose-driven curriculum should contain some elements that are similar to a cognitive therapy approach. Specifically, the front-loaded focus on effects found in the rational emotive therapy approach can be a significant way to approach introductory media literacy education. Rather than acquiring knowledge and skills first and being assessed on the impact later, students should engage in an exploration of effects first and then again continually throughout the course in a way that is similar to rational emotive therapy. Helping students to develop a cognitive awareness of their beliefs, the ways the media can influence beliefs, and the effects of those beliefs, is instrumental. These levels of awareness help students to take on more agency in the meaning construction process which can lead to personal rewards and growth. In the next section, I explain the specifics of how this can be done effectively in a classroom.

The following suggestions for curriculum are derived from the findings of this study and are designed to help students directly connect to their purposes for learning about and applying media literacy in their lives. As does rational emotive therapy, media literacy education can help students examine their cognitive processes and enter into them more fully in order to achieve more control over the effects related to those processes. Students need to be shown that, in a complex and roundabout way, it is they who are responsible for negative or positive media effects. Effects are a product of their beliefs, which can be shaped and altered to better serve the individual rather than the media. Instructors can help students develop knowledge structures and skills that allow them to take responsibility for meaning construction and its influences on the self. In the next section, I describe how media literacy instructors can utilize the findings from this study to approach a course in a way that helps students develop and maintain an awareness of their individual purposes for media literacy.

To begin each section of a media literacy course, an instructor should present one of the eight benefits of media literacy described in this study to the class of students. In discussion format, they should fully explore the reward by defining it, by giving examples of it, and by giving examples of what it is not. Additionally, the students should individually explore what the reward means to each of them. This exploration should examine specifics and consequences, including a discussion of emotional consequences. The instructor should guide the students in helping them clarify for themselves the value or insignificance of specific manifestations of this reward. For example, when addressing the “ability to make responsible political decisions,” an instructor can make this abstract phrase more concrete and meaningful to students by asking for examples of what a specific “responsible political decision” might look like (e.g., voting for a policy that helps to ease traffic in your neighborhood). To further clarify, students should discuss the potential consequences of making specific “responsible political decisions” and of not making them (e.g., continued smog and driving hazards in your neighborhood). This is the point where an instructor can guide students through the process of making a connection between the benefit and any emotions it may yield (i.e., how it feels to make responsible political decisions). This thorough exploration generates a preliminary purpose for the student by examining possibilities for avoiding negative consequences and achieving personally relevant benefits.

Second, the instructor should help the student build knowledge structures by presenting information on media content, industry, and effects, intimately tying the three together as often as possible. A connection needs to be made between the strategies and procedures used in media and the potential effects on media consumers. For example, one might introduce the concepts of framing and priming by giving (or showing) examples of their use in televised political speeches, examining possible reasons for why these messages may be constructed in a particular way, and then examining related effects concepts and theories. An examination of the possible persuasive or propagandistic intentions behind particular message construction strategies can help students recognize the need (i.e., purpose) to be in control of their own interpretations.

The third step should encourage students to reflect on their own beliefs and related behaviors in this area, and to determine if their beliefs are rational and sensible. For example, a middle-aged Hispanic woman might remember that she voted for a local candidate because she liked his ad campaign. She might remember specifically that the ad campaign featured the candidate strolling down the banks of the Rio Grande with two middle-aged Hispanic women while emotionally moving music played in the background. After considering her reasons for voting, she may realize her decision was based on this campaign, which she would then, after knowing about persuasive strategies and related effects, determine to be irrational or faulty reasoning. However, she may also realize that she did not base her voting decision on this ad campaign, and that she had obtained real-world information about this candidate also. This realization may lead her to determine that her vote was well-placed, in which case she may feel more confident about her abilities to make good decisions.

The fourth step involves helping students correct faulty or irrational reasoning. At this point, the instructor should again connect students back to their purpose by examining and discussing the potential consequences, including the emotional consequences, of allowing the media control over our interpretations. The more specific and personally relevant the consequences are to the student, the more driven s/he will be to increase her media literacy. In the sample case of the middle-aged Hispanic female, let us imagine that she realizes she was influenced by the strategies that were probably used to target market her demographic. If she determines her beliefs about the candidate (and the subsequent voting decision) to be irrational, then the instructor can help her to examine the resulting feeling and to set goals for managing the feeling in a desired direction. The instructor can then help her to shift the locus of control for her interpretations in two ways. First, the instructor can help point out the possibilities for interpretive resistance and the ability to construct meaning in new ways (e.g., see the marketing strategies as marketing strategies instead of indications of compassion for her demographic group). Second, the instructor can help point the student to real-world information sources that she can incorporate into the meaning construction process.

Finally, the purpose-driven media literacy curriculum should include an examination of outcomes, including emotional outcomes, that result from the ability to be more in control of the meaning construction process. This step makes the hypothetical discussion in step one more tangible to the students and allows them to reflect on personal benefits, which can then serve as future catalysts for further engagement in the development and application of media literacy. In the example of the Hispanic female, her drive to continue developing and applying media literacy may gather momentum as a result of her awareness of the positive and empowering feeling she gains as a result of casting a competent and efficacious vote. The instructor can repeat the process for each section of his or her course, addressing media literacy concepts and skills within the context of the eight benefits (or other benefits suggested by individual instructors or students).

Before delving into the purpose-driven media literacy curriculum, an instructor should consider two precautions. First, in helping students to determine the rationality of their beliefs, the instructor should be careful to point out that a marketing strategy is not always ill-intentioned, and s/he should caution students to avoid cynicism of all things persuasive. Just because a person based her belief (and her voting decision) on a marketing strategy in a political ad, this does not mean the politician’s message is illegitimate or that the person made a bad decision. Making such a protectionist assumption supposes that students need to be rescued from ominous negative effects generated by exposure to clandestine commercial messages, which is a prime example of overgeneralizing. Additionally, such a stance not only assumes student ignorance, but ignores the legitimate attractiveness of commercial messages and the benefits students can gain through such exposures. In this case, the only way a student’s own belief can be diagnosed as rational or irrational is through that student’s own analysis and search for real-world information about the candidate.

Second, because of the possibilities for strong emotions to arise during the process of self-reflection, an instructor should take care to provide safe conditions in which a possibly uncomfortable exploration of self may productively take place. Therefore, the following four suggestions are made to assist the instructor in building a supportive and open classroom environment. First, and most simply, at the beginning of purpose-driven media literacy education an instructor should prepare students by acknowledging the possibility for strong emotions to arise. Part of this preparation could include a class discussion about how others manage uncomfortable emotions when they come up. Secondly, because of the discomfort students may feel at publicly acknowledging strong emotions, instructors should provide opportunities for private or semi-private discussion either through student-teacher writings or small group discussion. Thirdly, an instructor should apply interpersonal skills suited for building a safe classroom environment, including the application of empathy, equality, openness, and non-judgment, and the establishment of mutual respect and sense of immediacy. Lastly, if so inclined, humor and satire can be used to break down barriers generated by uncomfortable emotions (or fear of uncomfortable emotions) and to cultivate a sense of camaraderie.

The above purpose-driven media literacy curriculum is developmentally appropriate for entry-level college students, but could be usefully and effectively adapted for late elementary school, middle school and high school students. In addition, the curriculum could be fine-tuned to serve a host of adult programs and trainings in which the focus may range from therapy to citizen welfare (i.e., health, consumer protection and/or civic literacy). The results of the present study can help advance media literacy curriculum in valuable ways that span elementary to adult education. However, there are limitations to the research design which could be improved for future related research. These ideas are discussed next.

Clearly, a major limitation to this study is the potential for biased results due to: (1) the fact that I held preconceived notions about the impact of media literacy due to my personal experience with positive outcomes; and (2) the fact that the participants were my own students. In any scholarly investigation, it is difficult to remove all traces of spurious influence. However, I believe I took steps to maximize the authenticity of the data in several ways. I conducted two types of member checks by holding focus groups with the initial interview participants and emailing follow-up questions when needed. I also used bracketing (defined in chapter four), which allowed me to set aside my preconceptions and inductively gather data in the form of first order constructs conveyed by the participants. Additionally, during the focus groups, I was able to check that the second-order categories I assigned to the original data was understood and authenticated.

It did seem to me that, because I had been their instructor, students were a little nervous and possibly wanted to impress me with their knowledge. However, I do not feel like this skewed the data in any way. The fact that they may have put effort into demonstrating their knowledge to me did not seem like a disadvantage. In addition, the students seemed to feel comfortable sharing their personal thoughts because they were familiar with me. The responses were specific and personal and seemed authentic to me. Future studies could employ an investigator unfamiliar to the students.

A final limitation to this study exists because of the limited focus of my media literacy curriculum. Hundreds of media literacy educators include in their curricula the development of production skills, a focus that was virtually absent (with the exception of the counter-ad project) in my introductory curriculum. Future studies could assess the impact of the production skills focus on students’ motivations to engage in media literacy.

Other suggestions for future research include interviewing students from a wide range of diverse media literacy programs in order to develop the full spectrum of benefits and class materials that trigger the drive to engage in media literacy. This is important because participants in this study minimally addressed benefits, effects and/or class materials related to violent and sexual media content, an area that is richly explored within the media effects tradition. Secondly, this study or one like it could be more deeply developed if more participants were included and more time was available for interviews and focus groups. There were a few interview situations where I felt like I had just begun the interview when it was over. I believe the data would have been more fully developed had I spent at least 90 minutes in the interview session. Lastly, a study that more closely examines the relationship between affect and motivations for engaging in media literacy could be an important supplement to ongoing research in educational psychology. Such research could fill a need to develop the debate about the relationship between motivational and emotional factors and cognition (Pintrich, 2003).

In conclusion, this study makes three valuable contributions to the field of media literacy education. First, students are more willing to put forth the effort involved in developing and applying media literacy if they are directly aware of a personally relevant purpose. Therefore, media literacy curricula need to consistently address “why this matters” for the student.

Second, students report that the costs are fewer for engaging in the cognitive task of information-processing and meaning construction than for behavioral tasks of filtering or changing their media exposures. They are more willing to put effort into the cognitive aspect of media literacy, and are more likely to experience rewards from this aspect that further increase their motivation for developing and applying media literacy. Therefore, an introductory curriculum should first focus on the rewards students can gain from mindful cognitive processing, rewards which will then act as intrinsic motivation to further develop and apply the behavioral tasks.

Last, when students develop their cognitive media literacy, make connections to their purposes, and become more aware of the struggle for control of interpretation between the media and self, they are ultimately motivated to change their exposure patterns to better serve their goals. Changing exposure patterns can create a greater demand for the supply of media content that better serves public interests. Media conglomerates are not likely to ignore large shifts in market-driven audience demand. Therefore, it is likely that advocating for funding and implementation of purpose-driven media literacy education will be more effective and efficient than the push for media reform.

Table 1
Reasons Reported to Stimulate Drive to Engage in Media Literacy Practices
Reason	Specific Examples of Reason
To make responsible political decisions	To vote for and support politics that benefit me and the people I care about To become more thoroughly informed and enlightened about the world
To make responsible consumer decisions	To avoid wasting money To buy products that benefit and don’t hurt me and the people I care about To gain more confidence from wise purchasing decisions To avoid stress and worry that results from buying ‘too much stuff’
To increase feelings of physical safety	To feel more physically safe To feel less like a victim To help children feel more safe
To increase positive feelings about self	To gain more self-confidence about appearance To gain more confidence in ability to resist the pressure of unrealistic expectations To feel smarter To feel more power over feelings and thoughts

Table 1 (continued)
Reasons Reported to Stimulate Drive to Engage in Media Literacy Practices
Reason	Specific Examples of Reason
To increase ability to avoid stereotypes	To feel more comfortable around people different from self To enjoy interaction and relationships with people different from self To help and care about others To treat others fairly and justly To understand how real people behave as opposed to fictional characters
To increase ability to spend time meaningfully	To limit time spent in passive and less meaningful mind frame
To increase feelings of general enlightenment	To enjoy experiencing something different To become truly informed
To increase levels of enjoyment	To get more fun and satisfaction out of media exposures

Table 2
Barriers Reported to Discourage the Development and Application of Media Literacy
Barrier	Specific Examples of Barrier
Time	Very busy lives Information overload Need for immediate goal satisfaction
Cognitive dissonance	Discomfort from realizing I held faulty beliefs Discomfort from realizing I may have made bad decisions Discomfort involved in knowing about injustices but choosing not do take any action Frustration involved in higher levels of perceptiveness
Pressure to conform to norm	Difficulty making choices that are different from the norm
Effort	Hard Energy-draining Less entertaining and less enjoyable
Lack of purpose	Not understanding why media literacy should matter to me
Lack of know-how	Lack of knowledge of media or media effects Lack of knowledge of real-world Lack of knowledge of exposure options Lack of critical thinking skills Lack of educational system that actively encourages critical thinking

Table 2 (continued)
Barriers Reported to Discourage the Development and Application of Media Literacy
Barrier	Specific Examples of Barrier
Lack of access to a variety of perspectives	Lack of options for accessing noncommercial information or perspectives Leads to not knowing how to engage in media literacy or why I should engage in media literacy

Table 3
Curriculum Components Perceived to Trigger Drive to Develop and Apply Media Literacy
Course Content
Narratives featured and not featured, including frequency of certain narratives How messages are framed with words and images Cultivation theory and other socialization effects News as a business News alternatives Conglomeration, concentration Public relations tools Image construction: production values Persuasive tools Market research Generation of need and production of discontent in advertising Behind-the-scenes realities Limiting representations and overgeneralizations
Course Activities
Discussion and debate Lecture and videos Reflection and analysis Guest visits Counter ad project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF U.S. MEDIA ENVIRONMENT 21

CHAPTER 3 OVERVIEW OF MEDIA EFFECTS AND MEDIA LITERACY 46

CHAPTER 4 METHODS 89

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS 101

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION 151

APPENDICES 180

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE 181

APPENDIX B TAXONOMY OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONING 182

APPENDIX C PERSUASIVE TOOLS 184

REFERENCES 185

LIST OF TABLES

Appendix A: Interview Guide

Appendix B: Taxonomy of Socratic Questioning

Appendix C: Persuasive Tools