Abstract
The authors analyze some of the assumptions underlying most current research on television. They emphasize the dependence on (1) an individual rather than an institutional level of analysis; (2) a model of research utilization that pays little explicit attention to where sources of leverage lie for changes in programming; (3) extremely simple models of the selection processes associated with different levels of television viewing; and (4) uncritical appraisals of the consequences of effects that many would call small or modest. These issues are illustrated by a general discussion of the NIMH report on Television and Behavior and specific discussion of "mainstreaming" and the effects of television violence.In 1972, POQ's editors invited Leo Bogart to prepare a extended review article of the Surgeon-Generars Study of Television and Social Behavior (POQ 36:491-521). When the 10-year follow-up study was released by NIMH in 1982, the editors asked Thomas D. Cook, a distinguished psychologist noted for his research on television, to perform the same function.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 161-201 |
| Number of pages | 41 |
| Journal | Public Opinion Quarterly |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 1983 |
Funding
The essay by Solomon puts forth, in the author's own terms "only one idea. It is time to stop asking . . . 'Do the mass media work in health?' and start asking 'How can we best make them work?' " He answers his own question: through adequate problem analysis (using basic knowledge of the health problem under attack), by careful media selection and use (based on knowledge in communication research and practice), by appropriate message design (derived from theories of attitude and behavior change), a'nd by evaluation aimed at improving the campaign. But we must not be complacent about any of these answers. At any one time medical research is open to multiple interpretations. Note, for example, the recent changes in belief about the role that different types of cholesterol play in cardiac involvement. Communication research is also far from definitive on all is- sues. Do we know, for example, whether a media campaign will be effective by itself or whether it needs a face-to-face complement? The Stanford Heart Health Project, with which Solomon has been connected, is ambivalent on this count, for some data suggest the need for face-to-face services while other data suggest that the media will be just as effective without these services. As to behavior change, Bandura's social learning theory provides the currently preferred strategy in the three health promotion campaigns being funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and in the University of Pennsylvania project in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. But this theory is more a framework of concepts to be considered in developing change campaigns than a blueprint for specific actions. It raises consciousness, but hardly details action plans. More important than Solomon's suggestions are the issues he hardly raises, particularly about how community health promotion campaigns gain and hold their audiences. Solomon is most concerned with the question: "Given that we reach target audience members, how can we change them?" Thus, he considers the program"Feeling Good" a success despite the fact it went off the air because of poor ratings, even by the standards of PBS. The hope was that "Feeling Good" would re-create the success of "Sesame Street." It did not, and for important reasons that should give pause to anyone who wants to use television to promote practices deemed more healthy. Children of 4 are relatively more homogeneous than adults in their interests and background knowledge. They bring comparable cognitive structures to viewing and can mostly be motivated to view by a fast pace, kindly muppets, and cartoons. They probably also want to learn about letters and numbers, know little about these matters before age 4, and when they display their knowledge are sometimes rewarded by significant others. Contrast this with adults. They come from many different generations and have had very different levels of education and experience with health systems. Moreover, adults are (presumably) more motivated to watch television for entertainment than for health education, and few external rewards exist for gaining more health knowledge. If all, or even part, of this analysis is correct, public education about health matters is not likely to get over the first hurdle that commercial networks absolutely have to clear: the gaining and holding of a large audience. The recent experimental health promotion campaigns do not rely on television alone. They are multimedia approaches, using television, radio, newsprint, and posters. Moreover, they have large community components involving physicians, nurses, and other public health workers as well as key local decision makers and local community organizations. Also, health screening is used to detect individuals at serious risk. Such an eclectic approach seems reasonable for gaining awareness, transmitting information, modeling recommended practices, and reinforcing compliance with these practices. However, it also reduces television's major advantage for public policy—its potential ability to reach large audiences at a low per person cost. In the large-scale demonstrations that Solomon analyzes, issues of cost-effectiveness loom large, not only in the sense of whether such campaigns should be preferred over sickness-oriented medicine, but also in the sense of whether television should be preferred over radio, print, etc. for those functions for which television is relevant.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Communication
- History
- Sociology and Political Science
- General Social Sciences
- History and Philosophy of Science