ajsthoughtsandthings

[ajsthoughtsandthings]

Is Social Media Telling You What to Think? 

Agenda-setting theory has a long history of helping us understand the influence of media on the masses. In short, the theory examines how the news media sets public agendas, chooses which issues are most important, and controls which political, cultural, and social news stories we get access to. 

But in the social media age, well, things get sticky. We aren't confined to watching a handful of news channels. Some of us get all our news on social media. 

And what about learning? Many of us feel we've learned more history and life skills on social media apps like TikTok than in school. 

So, does the agenda-setting theory still apply to media today? Well, yes, but also, it's complicated. 

Which is why we have people researching it. 

What Is Quantitative and Qualitative Research? 

You probably haven't heard these words since high school. I mean, most people aren't reading research articles on the daily. But I'm here to make it simple. 

Quantitative approach: This type of research focuses on measuring numerical data. Think of surveys, polls, likes, shares, and pretty much anything you can put into a graph. It's closer to a scientific research approach. So, if you didn't like math or science in high school, this was probably the stuff you hated reading. 

Qualitative approach: On the flip slide, qualitative research focuses on things like interviews, focus groups, content analysis, and observations. This approach gives us insights and interpretations into human motivations, emotions, values, and beliefs. If you were a teen who liked social studies and history in school, you probably vibed with these topics more. 

If you want to deep dive into quantitative and qualitative research, check out this LinkedIn article. 

Why do you need to know all this? 

Because these approaches are what researchers use for studying agenda-setting through social media. 

And it's going to make the next part so much easier to understand and a lot more fun. So let's get into it. 

Is Agenda-setting Relevant In the Age of Social media? 

In the article, Agenda-setting in a social media age: Exploring new methodological approaches, Carolina Carazo-Barrantes question the role of traditional agenda-setting theory and study methods within our new social media-saturated world. 

Carazo-Barrantes looked at the 2018 Costa Rica presidential election through the classic agenda-setting lens and beefed up their study using modern data mining and social network analysis (SNA). 

And yes, I know those last two methods sound intimidating. But, to make a long story short, the researchers tapped into big data to understand social media users' habits and preferences online. Then they analyzed their relationships through social media to make a pretty and informative graphic like this one.

Image from article Agenda-setting in a social media age: Exploring new methodological approaches.

How did they get this information? Well, let me tell you. 

First, Carazo-Barrantes analyzed the first and second rounds of Costa Rica's 2018 presidential election using the classic methodology of agenda-setting studies. That is, they identify each agenda (the media, politicians, and citizens) during the campaign and calculate correlations between them. 

Next, they looked at the media's agenda throughout the electoral period. Here Carazo-Barrantes focused on media outlets that Costa Ricans felt were most reputable and had a significant reach on Facebook. The researcher tracked the posts from the news site's main webpage (manually) and those on their Facebook page (automatically using Netvizz software). 

This allowed them to determine the media agenda. 

The coolest part to me is that the Carazo-Barrantes used coding to track the news from these media outlets' websites and Facebook pages. They then organized the agendas under thematic categories like: corruption, education/culture, fiscal situation, and poverty/inequality. 

Hint, there were way more categories, so if you want to see them all, check out the full article here. 

With these codes, the Carazo-Barrantes was able to track Facebook users' interaction with media and candidates' posts, helping them to visualize the relationships between the agendas of the media, the public, and candidates. 

So hats off to science, I guess. 

At the end of the day, the Carazo-Barrantes found that social media didn't convey an agenda-setting effect. In today's world, there are multiple and different agendas across varying platforms, and these agendas can change at a dizzying rate (in less than 24 hours). 

Social media has made the conversation on agenda-setting more complex. This study proved that the typical hierarchical nature of agenda-setting is less influential, and social media dilutes the effects. 

How Do We Set Agendas on Social Media?

In another article, Agenda Selfying and Agendamelding: Advancing The Salience of the Self (I know, it's a mouthful), we get a different look at social media's impact on agenda-setting. 

Like in the last article, Philemon Bantimaroudis questions whether traditional agenda-setting studies work in the social media era. But, instead of tracking agendas and social media users' responses, Bantimaroudis is focused on us. 

Yep, just average everyday people looking for attention online. 

Not that Bantimaroudis put it that way. He used the much more impressive and academic phrase personal salience — a.k.a the effort to make oneself important and noticeable. 

You're welcome for that Word of the Day, by the way. 

In their article, Bantimaroudis uses quantitative methods to make their point, referencing papers and polls to answer their questions. Here they look at social media users who have gained some prominence online —we usually call them influencers. 

Whether they're big influencers or small, these people use social media and the communities they're a part of to set personal agendas. They can use a hybrid approach across social media platforms to achieve many different goals like getting more visibility, promotion, boosting their self-esteem, networking, achieving professional success, and so much more. 

Pretty much anyone online can guess the motivations of influencers. But the world of social media makes this a more nuanced topic. Why? Well, because influencers aren't the only ones setting agendas online. 

Even the average person has reason to make themselves seem more important online. 

Many jobs check out applicants' online presence. We post selfies to make ourselves look good. (Even if you're not trying to rub someone's face into your glorious trip, you've got to admit, we're all posting the best photo we snapped). And we're all following, commenting, and liking posts to share our camaraderie with groups and influencers we like. 

While your average person wouldn't think of this as agenda setting or, as Bantimaroudis puts it, agendamelding, this is how mass communication scholars see it. 

Through their study, Bantimaroudis finds that social media provides more opportunities to seek personal salience and achieve personal and social significance. Influencers set agendas through their actions, and we subscribe to these agendas through our engagement. 

How Research Helps Us

Each of these researchers uses different methods to share their findings with the world.

Carolina Carazo-Barrantes took advantage of big data and technology to track online habits and show the complex relationships between the agendas of the media, politicians, and the public. Philemon Bantimaroudis used polls and research papers to look at how the average person sets their own agenda online.

Through these methods, we see that traditional agenda-setting principles don't exactly fit the social media environment we find ourselves in.

Future researchers can adopt classic agenda-setting theories into new techniques that shed light on the contemporary questions we're asking ourselves today. Personally, I enjoyed Carazo-Barrantes' use of coding to map social media users' habits. It leaves less room for error, like those found in traditional polls, where humans tend to embellish or downplay their behaviors to fit social expectations.

As technology advances, we'll only consume and use more types of media. Research efforts will also need to continue to evolve if we hope to understand the importance of agenda-setting in our communities.

At least, that's what I got out of reading these research papers.

What about you? Let me know what you think in the comments below.

[ajsthoughtsandthings]

Is The Internet Controlling Your Life? 

There is no doubt about it...the internet has changed our lives. You only have to look at the recent COVID-19 pandemic for a ton of examples of how this technology has impacted our day-to-day. 

From video calling family and friends thousands of miles away, remote work, online schooling, and staying connected through social media, we can all think of dozens of ways we use the internet. 

Every day. 

All the time. 

Except when you sleep. (Unless you're like me and HAVE TO play tv shows or ambient videos to help you catch some quality z's). 

Technology has a hold on all of us in one way or another. Ranging from benefiting from to straight-up being addicted to the internet, everyone's lives are impacted by the internet. 

But how much power do we have over such an expansive technology? Or is it the technology controlling us? 

Who Runs the World? Technology?

If you are a Beyonce fan (and let's be honest, who isn't a little bit), you know her hit song Run the World (Girls) celebrates women as leaders and move makers.  

However, some people don't believe any humans have much say in how we live our lives. Instead, it's inevitable technological advancement that influences us. 

Technological Determinism is a theoretical framework that believes technology shapes social change and determines our future. These technological advancements bring about a new phase of human history and change things as people of the time know them. 

Marshall McLuhan's studies of the effects of mass media on thought and behavior contributed to the creation of the Technological Determinism theory. McLuhan viewed media as providing many unique environments with specific characteristics that influence people's actions and beliefs.  

This isn't too hard to see at play in our own lives, right?

The way we interact with the radio vs. a YouTube video or Podcast is different. So McLuhan was definitely onto something. 

Plus, he kind of foretold the creation of the internet way back in the 60s. So, that's pretty cool. 

Why Even Try?

Sometimes, it can feel like technology runs our lives. We've all been there. Maybe you needed some time for yourself, but the thought of turning off your phones felt impossible and selfish and left you riddled with anxiety. 

Or you may have wanted to apply for a great job, but felt nervous about your technological literacy and skipped over the job listing. 

If technology is controlling our lives, it's doing a darn good job of it. 

But hold up. It's not all doom and gloom; you do not have to submit to the AI overlords just yet. 

The Technological Determinism theory has its own limitations. 

Cons of Technological Determinism

Hard Determinism is our first gripe with the theory. Hard Determinists feel technology play's a complete and totalizing role in shaping human society. 

Using this view, all we are — our religions, culture, art, politics, relationships, etc. — are determined by technology and its advancements. 

2. This leads us to another important criticism of Technological Determinism... that it takes a reductionist approach. Aka, this theory reduces a highly complex and multilayered phenomenon into an oversimplified narrative.  It effectively ignores human's role in interactions with and the adoption of technology as individuals and a collective.  I mean, technology doesn't just spring up out of the ether. Humans do have a say in how they live their lives, right?  If you answered 'yes' to that last question, you're not the only one who thinks so.  3. Our last criticism of Technological Determinism is that it doesn't consider human free will. Humans are the ones who have to decide to create, use, and choose how a particular technology will evolve.   Those at Helpful Professor gave an example of how the internet and smartphones brought about the digital era and how, in response to the overwhelming presence of the internet, people have created a 'digital detox' movement to willingly ignore this technology and spend their time in other ways.

Image via tenor.com Still, despite the cons, there is a reason this theory is essential for us to understand.  No one can deny that technology influences our lives. So let's take a look at some of the theory's strengths. 

Pros of Technological Determinism

1. Remember the Hard Determinists we mentioned before? Well, now I'll introduce you to the Soft Determinist.  These people agree that technology has been and will continue to be a critical factor in shaping human history. However, they believe human agency, values, and institutions can influence technology development, spread, and consequences.  2. Some see the Technological Determinism theory's inclusion of these varying viewpoints as proof of the framework's adaptability and another check in the pro column.  I guess we can give them that.  3. Another strength of the theory is its application to all of history. It provides an explanation for all human societies.  We can look back at the creation of stone tools and follow it all the way to the design of AI and walk away with an answer to how we got where we are today.  And, possibly, where we'll go in the future. 

Image via knowyourmeme.com

Is the Internet Friend or Foe? 

Speaking of futures, I don't relish the idea of mine being chosen by some algorithm. Like most people, I resist the thought of my free will being stripped from me.

Even by a theory.

While I'm not arrogantly human enough to ignore how an infinite amount of factors (yes, including technological advancement) influence how I live my life, I don't wholeheartedly agree with Technological Determinism.

Image via Cinema Tweets on Twitter

At its most rigid, the definition of Technological Determinism strips away our human agency and minimizes our and our ancestor's impacts on our lives today.

I view the determinate aspect of this theory as misleading. Many people have worked tirelessly to bring us the technology we have today, even those we take for granted. Some had very big ideas about how these technologies would benefit, or sometimes even harm, us.

And I would argue humans have played a significant role in creating our societies today. Without the technologies we stumbled upon, sought out, built, cultivated, adopted, and resisted; our world could look very different.

Our fate doesn't sound predetermined to me.

And I'll continue to appreciate that I can both immerse myself in and take a break from the internet at my convenience.

But how about you? Share your opinions in the comments.

And if you want to learn more, check out Dr. USP's YouTube video on Technological Determinism here.

[ajsthoughtsandthings]

How To Be More Persuasive — Is It An Art, Science, or Skill? And can you learn it? 

Persuasion.

Jane Austen wrote about it in her 1816 romance novel. Aristotle guided people on how to master it 2000 plus years ago.

And still, people are obsessed with learning about it today. Prestigious companies like Forbes publish articles to help teach people how to get what they want more often. Businesses pay top dollar for marketing that uses persuasion tactics. Students seek out new persuasive writing strategies.

I suppose this is one of those things taught in school we actually do use. So here is probably a good time to give a shout-out to all the literature teachers who have to deal with teenagers grumbling at them.

And yes, I sometimes was one. I must admit.

But what does science think of persuasion, and how do we achieve it?

The Elaboration Likelihood Model

The name of the elaboration likelihood model might sound daunting, but really it's just a way to explain how people can be persuaded to change their attitudes.

This theory looks at how attitudes are formed and changed through messaging and pinpoints three critical characteristics of how we can be persuaded to adopt or reject a specific view.

Messaging Characteristics focus on the message itself, analyzing things like the arguments flow, if it was logical, and if it was written and delivered well.

We've all been to a meeting, assembly, or speech where we found ourselves looking at the walls rather than focusing on the person speaking.

Source Characteristics focus on cues we pick up from the speakers, their sources, and the physical environment. Questions we might find ourselves asking consciously or unconsciously are:

Does the speaker seem trustworthy? Are they appropriately educated on the topic? Where did they get this information from? Is it credible? Is this venue fitting for the conversation, or does it feel out of place?

The last influencing characteristic is Target Characteristic, which looks at the audience. Many individual factors can affect how a listener receives a message. Their mood, education, energy, stress level, and so much more.

So these are the things that influence how persuasion occurs. But what about how interested you are? Someone could have great message and oratory skills, and if you couldn't care less…well, you might as well not be listening.

To Care Or Not To Care 

All the information we just went over has to get filtered and processed. The elaboration likelihood model tells us there are two routes we can take to achieve this. 

The Central Route applies to active audiences. These are people who've sought out the information, are paying attention, and think critically about it. When we adopt an attitude while using the Central Route, the message is stronger, and we're more likely to embrace a lasting attitude change from it.

On the other hand, we have the Peripheral Route. Audiences processing information through this route are less interested and involved with the message. Attitude changes made through this route are less likely to be lasting ones. 

The Peripheral Route isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. While some people might perceive this as flakey or lacking conviction, this route allows us to change our minds and actions given new and improved information.

Personally, I think that's pretty important because —let's face it —we don't always make the right choice the first, second, or even third time around.

Can You Be More Persuasive? 

People have a lot of reasons to be persuasive, but, as you can see, there are many factors that play into someone actually being persuaded. 

I myself love writing, and while not every piece I write needs to persuade someone (just like the one you're reading, which is meant to inform), it's still an important part of my craft. 

For me, reviewing the elaboration likelihood model has reaffirmed the importance of knowing my audience. It's such a simple but critical rule. 

Everyone can't be your audience. Influences like topic interest, timing, and resonance affect who you might persuade. However, starting here seems very important to me. 

Knowing your audience helps you understand how they want to be spoken to, what language inspires them, how they expect you to look and act around them, what venues they might prefer, and what information matters to them. 

Knowledge of your audience can help you lead with your best foot forward and combat some issues that can arise in the variable nature of the messaging, source, and target characteristics we discussed above. 

But humans have been trying to figure out persuasion since ancient times. As times and technology change, forms of persuasion and how they look evolve as well.

So I'd love to see what you took away from this theory.

Leave a comment below, so hopefully, we can all learn from each other and be more persuasive.

And if your want to learn more about the elaboration likelihood model, check out this Khan Academy video.

[ajsthoughtsandthings]

Social Media VS. The News — How People Stay Informed of Current Events 

Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and more. 

There seems to be a social media app to fit every preference. With the global social media industry valued at 49.09 billion USD in 2022, it's fair to say social media is everywhere. 

These platforms are an integral part of our daily lives and have become a primary source of staying informed about the ongoings of the world around us, as 53% of U.S. adults get their news from social media. 

According to the Pew Research Center, social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are the three top social platforms people regularly get their news from. 

But why are people getting their news on apps made to stay connected with friends, be entertained, and maybe find an inspiring decor or recipe idea rather than a proper news outlet? 

Introduction to the Two Step Flow Theory

To answer that question, I'm going to introduce you to the Two Step Flow Theory. 

This theory is a communication framework that explains how people form opinions based on mass media messages. While earlier theories —like the Magic Bullet/Hypodermic Needle Theory — believed the media was highly responsible for shaping people's and society's opinions by inserting messages into their heads, the Two Step Flow Theory shares this credit with opinion leaders as well. 

According to Mr. Sinn's YouTube video on the Two Step Flow Theory, public opinion forms through two steps. First, mass media shares a message that then reaches opinion leaders. These opinion leaders are active in the media, taking this information, interpreting it, and sharing it with their followers. 

Mr. Sinn shares that these opinion leaders can look like influencers or talk show hosts, a.k.a; people we regularly interact with online and trust. 

(Also, yes, I would advise watching the short but informative video linked above.) 

Image via The Two-Step Flow Theory | Media in Minutes | Episode 2

Navigating a Maze of Information.

Humans are social creatures, so I guess it makes sense we like to find, share, and ponder information about the world around us in a community-enriched setting like social media. 

I also get much of my news from opinion leaders through avenues like YouTube and TikTok. Not only is it convenient time-wise, as I'm not waiting for a show or program to start on TV, but I also get to hear from people who speak in a way that resonates with me. 

Still, I rely on traditional news videos and articles to support information I have found online. 

If the message is more fact-based without less likelihood of biases impacting how the information is shared — say something about the natural world or a scientific finding —I might read one or two articles to back up the information. 

However, if the information is about a topic that's highly debated, politicized, or is often related to biased or bigoted views, I usually read a few articles from various sources to get a more nuanced idea of the situation. 

At The Speed of Social Media

When living in a world where news travels faster than light (not literally), it is important to vet information through multiple sources. 

It's a common complaint that one can't trust specific news channels because of biases. Still, this worry doesn't apply only to traditional news outlets. 

The reality is we're getting our information from people either way, and social media is known for facilitating the spread of misinformation. In fact, research done by Yale indicated that social media's reward platforms facilitate this spread. 

So, while it might feel daunting to sift through all this information, it is crucial. With the amount of media we consume daily, I doubt anyone can be perfect at researching every piece of information they hear before internalizing or sharing it with others. 

But we can continue trying to be responsible media consumers and keep learning along the way. 

[ajsthoughtsandthings]

Are We Living In a Real-Life Inception? 

There is no doubt media influences how we view the world. It would be hard to argue otherwise when we buy products we've seen in commercials, flock to the opening night of blockbuster movies, and curate our worldviews based on the news we watch.  

But how much power does media have over the way we think? 

Well, according to the Magic Bullet Theory, a lot. 

What is the Magic Bullet Theory?

The Magic Bullet Theory ( a.k.a; the Hypodermic Needle Theory) looks at how people absorb and process messages from the media. This framework views media as the "gun" or "needle" that shoots the message — the proverbial bullet or injection — directly into the viewer's mind.

Image via Lesson Bucket.

Like Leonardo DiCaprio and his team of dream weavers in the international hit movie, Inception (2010), the idea is that thoughts can be implanted directly into the mind.

Now, if you're not one of the millions who got sucked into the craze following Christopher Nolan's highly reviewed and mind-bending movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio, let me get you caught up.

Be warned, spoilers (for this 12-year-old movie) are coming.

Altering the Human Mind.

The premise of the movie is simple.

In the world of Inception, people can enter and manipulate the dreams of others. Our main character Dom Cobb typically extracts information during these dreams, but now, he's been hired to implant an idea, a process called Inception. Something that has never been done before.

This action-packed film follows a heist unlike any other and gripped audiences worldwide with its fantastic visuals and interesting concept.

So why couldn't people stop talking about this movie besides its excellent cast and special effects?

Because the audience never finds out if Leonardo DiCaprio achieves Inception. He might never have even left the dream world. And everyone is left wondering if Inception is possible.

How Does Media Influence You?

So, is real-world media to our brains what Leo DiCaprio is to the subconscious?

Warner Bros. Productions. Image via BuzzFeed.

The Magic Bullet theory seems to think so (albeit not with as many gripping fight scenes and dramatic performances).

Personally, I disagree that media messages are delivered to a passive audience that accepts and processes them without much extra thought. At least not all the time.

As I said at the beginning, the fact that media can influence our views and actions is rather indisputable. How it does so is debatable. And who is likely to be more affected by media messages depends on many factors, like personal beliefs, culture, time, history, relationships, and much more.

I myself and more naturally inclined to go against the grain, but that doesn't mean I think media has no influence on how I interact with the world around me.

Let's just say when I saw the movie The Mummy (1999), I wasn't even in kindergarten, and I'm still obsessed with ancient history to this day.

Like most people, my knowledge of the subject and opinion has changed over time as new information is presented to me. When one thinks about their own experience and those of others, it's not hard to see how people adapt messages for themselves.

For example, a person can watch an ad and decide to purchase a product based on the commercial. However, if they go online and read negative reviews on the product, they might choose to forgo the purchase. In fact, Forbes found businesses can lose 59.2% of their potential customers if there are three or more negative articles in a search result.

Another example is how retouched images in magazines and on social media can affect the self-esteem of audiences. In this case, constant viewing of these perfectly portrayed bodies is shown to lead to decreased self-esteem, anxiety, and depression.

Clearly, the media message influences people and can lead them to them devaluing their personal appearance.

Image via Gifer.

And yet, people might notice this negative effect on themselves and choose to stop looking at magazine covers when in check-out lines or take breaks from social media while they work to realign their opinion of themselves.

What Do You Think? 

So, as you can see, the idea of the media injecting us with messages that we internalize and adopt outright is a bit of a stretch.

This isn't exactly the world of Inception, where a stranger can implant a thought into our heads and expect it to be accepted and for it to completely govern our actions without additional thought.

Do media messages affect us? Yes. Do we follow them blindly? Rarely.

Overall, I think the Magic Bullet Theory is limiting and doesn't take into account the multifaceted way in which people find and interact with information.

But of course, you can decide for yourself the merit of the Magic Bullet Theory. This YouTube video is a great introduction to this concept.

Both the video and this posts are media, though…so beware.

Warner Bros. Pictures. Image via Tenor.