Discussion: FAQ on Communication Theory

As we use more multimedia and the media industry has changed to be more user-active, what happens to the concept of ‘mass communication’? Is it still relevant to the current media industry and why?

As the media became more catered to the specific interests of each user, it is natural for the users to select their desired content to ensure constant engagements. However, nowadays, as we can see on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, there are 'trending', 'explore', and 'recommended' options so that users can peek into what is popular to know the latest trend within the selected demography and location radius.

The concept of mass communication still does happen and it is still relevant even though it has morphed into accomodating to more unique specifications. The advertisers took a careful take into selecting their target audience. For example, along PLUS highways to the north, we often see beauty products or family-related ads because usually, the men will drive the car and do not see those ads. However, the passengers who would most probably are women and children would see those ads and may be persuaded to buy those products. Men-related products would usually be advertised on intersections or traffic lights instead. The sales would still be sky-rocketing without investing money unnecessarily to advertise without specifying the target audience.

Another example is, Google users are free to control the advertisement they want to see as they are using the search engine. The users are given the freedom to personalize their ads by ticking the desired choices that are given. The algorithm will then organize the ads to our priority, age group, interests, and oftenly-searched keywords.

How does a communication model differ from theory?

Bill and Hardgrave define model as a “theoretical and simplified representations of the real world”. They explain that a model is not an explanatory device by itself, but that it helps to directly formulate a theory.

Deutsch (1952) points out that a model is a structure of symbols and operating rules which is supposed to match a set of relevant points in an existing structure or process. This is a form of selection and abstraction, which, as we shall see, is used far more often than most of us realize. When we select the points we include in a model, a model implies judgements of relevance and this, in turn, implies a theory about the thing modeled. However, abstraction carries with it the danger of oversimplification.

A model provides a framework within which we consider a problem, even if in its early versions it does not lead to successful prediction. It may also point out important gaps in our knowledge which are not apparent and suggest needed areas of research (the goal of closure).

A theory - on the other hand - is an abstract system of concepts and their relationships that help us to understand a phenomenon.

Some models are designed after knowing the theories, some required both presence at the same time, and some models are designed before knowing the theory.

Models can be used as the application of theories. For example, let's take the equation of velocity to prove this statement. The equation or the model is velocity (speed) is equal to the distance travelled divided by the time taken. The theory is, when the speed is increasing, the distance travelled is getting further while the time taken to complete the travel becomes shorter. In other words, the theory is that the velocity is directly proportional to the distance travelled and is inversely proportional to the time taken. The model explains how do we get the theory.

As a media communicator, outline one way you would do to overcome the barriers of selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention?

A way to overcome the barriers of selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention, is to put an amount of pressure necessary promise of reward or threat of punishment to induce an individual to act publicly in a way contrary to people's privately held beliefs.

When a large reward or severe punishment was imposed to support a cause or swerve away from it, the individual can always rationalize the public behavior that was contrary to the privately held beliefs or attitudes.

This is closely related to behaviorism study and can be seen through Pavlov's dog and classical conditioning among other theories.

For example, when a lecturer wants the student to attend the lecture, he or she can disclose positive and negative punishments and rewards. Positive punishment means the lecturer will deduct 10 marks when the student comes late. Negative punishment means the lecturer will only deduct 5 marks if the student comes early next time. Positive reward means 10 marks will be added when the student submits an assignment early. Negative reward means 5 marks will be added when the student submits an assignment on time.

Undue identification and stereotyping are frequent in our society. Can you give a recent example from the mass media?

Stereotyping is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Stereotype could be viewed in a positive or negative light. For example, the portrayal of the terrorist, barbarian, and a Muslim Ahmed; or a blonde, valley-girl, and 3-month vegan Jessica; or a nerd, math olympiad champion, and an anime enthusiast, Lee; or the Chicago born and raised, gang member, and drug dealer, Tyrone. These examples are the generic description of the generic names that are usually being stereotyped alongside one another.

The recent example from the media is the portrayal of aggressive and brutal Black minorities in America. Our Black friends from America often get pulled up to the roadside, get denied from entering certain establishments, and get called upon whenever they went for a casual walk around the town. They were perceived as dangerous by the community when they actually have done nothing except... well... breathing. Even after the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement occurred all over the world, some snobbish people still remain ignorant.

Provide an example when the credibility of the communicator of a message people disagreed with is attacked rather than address the contents of the message itself.

This phenomenon is called ad hominem fallacy which is also a part of personal attack. Ad hominem happens when there is a group that is appealing to feelings, character, or prejudices rather than the intellect of the argument.

When Dr. Amalina explains the danger of whitening products to the public on her socials, she got malicious replies that attack her for not wearing the hijab or wear modest outfits.

Her lifestyle does not affect the facts and arguments that she had brought to the table.

When Dr. Amalina explains about the dangers of jamu and post-partum's herbal concoctions if they were being consumed too much, she received backlashes that said that Dr. Amalina knows nothing because she has not birthed any babies yet despite her owning a few medical certificates and researches on medicine - which makes her a credible speaker on addressing these issues, if you ask me.

Why do people tend to attack the credibility of the messenger rather than the message?

Because it is effective in changing the perception of the audience. For example, even if you know Syed Saddiq is a good speaker, knowledgeable, and does not require any scripts or cue cards when giving speeches - I have been to his talk and I can say that he really doesn't have physical scripts and the speech took him almost thirty minutes - but some people tried to find flaws in his speech - and fails miserably - then they used his lisps to downgrade him and try to rub that Syed's disability of pronouncing the words clearly makes him not credible. Some people don't even try to listen to whatever Syed is saying and commented things like, "I can't understand what he is saying. His lisps are getting in the way of communication."

Source: Wix

Have you ever made a decision of some importance and later questioned your correctness in making the decision? If so, what did you do to reduce your doubt about the correctness of your decision?

I have, especially after panic shopping or any decisions that are panic-induced mostly due to time constraints.

What I usually do is mental judgement. I judge on the weightage of the decision. There are some fixed rubrics that I set which are the duration (how long something will last), cost (money or energy), worth (does it really worth my time, money and energy), alternative (is there any other way to get similar results?), and how will it improve my life. With these rubrics, I am able to do decision wisely and get to avoid silly mistakes as well as unnecessary doubts.

Explain the process and why it happens. Support your answer with possible model or theory, if applicable.

The reason why I have doubts about the decision I made can be explained through the theory of cognitive dissonance. By definition, the theory of cognitive dissonance "are in dissonant relation if, considering these two alone, the obverse of one element would follow from the other" (Festinger, 1957, p.13), "being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance", and "in addition to trying to reduce it the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance"

For example, when I was about to buy my laptop, I contemplated between two models. After I had purchased one, I feel that the other alternative was better.

Upon making a decision, the dissonance is predicted to follow to the extent that the rejected alternative contains features that would have resulted in its acceptance and that the chosen alternative contains features that could have caused its rejection. In other words, the more difficult a decision is to make, the greater the predicted dissonance after the decision (post-decision dissonance). It also follows that post-decision dissonance is greater for more important decisions. A number of studies report evidence to support these hypotheses.

One researcher reports that purchasers of new cars were more apt to notice and read ads about the cars they had just bought than about other cars (Ehrlich, Guttman, Schonbach, and Mills, 1957).

Since ads are supposed to stress "benefits" of the products they promote, presumably the new car buyers were seeking reinforcement for their decisions by reading ads for the cars they had just purchased. Evidence has also been cited for a change in the attractiveness of alternatives once a decision has been made.

In other words, after a decision has been made between alternatives ranked as nearly equal in desirability, the chosen alternative is later seen as more desirable than it had been before the decision, and the rejected alternative is ranked as less desirable than it was before the decision was made (Brehm, 1956).

The authors of one book on attitude change state, "The post-decision process involves cognitive change not unlike that of attitude change; indeed the effects of this process may legitimately be referred to as attitude change" (Kiesler, Collins, and Miller, 1969, p. 205).