Intro to Comm Sci

Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

We are using a very broad distinction into three schools of thought to discuss our
field. Again, these categories are by no means fixed, but they are nonetheless a
useful framing device. First the linear transmission perspective; then a new focus
on reception and signification; and at roughly the same time a focus on social and
cultural effects of communication.
Last week we started with the linear perspective. I explained how the First World
War fuelled research into our field and led to a belief in direct and uniform effects.
The audience was seen as passive and defenceless against mass communication as
a hypodermic needle or magic bullet.
Later this belief in the power of the media became more nuanced. When scientific
studies failed to prove the all-powerful media hypothesis, this led to the more
sceptical minimal effects hypothesis.
But World War Two and the rise of television clearly showed that mass
communication indeed could have huge effects under some circumstances. It was
now appreciated that effects were not always direct, uniform and short term but
quite often non-immediate, long term, indirect and different from person to
person.
Eventually the negotiated effects paradigm balanced a belief in powerful effects
with the notion that the audience was actually capable of selecting and blocking
messages and using them for their own ends. This line of thought was also very
apparent in the reception and signification approach that had gradually
developed since the sixties. We'll further discuss this approach this week.

I explained in our first class that in the 1960s

communication scientists started to pay more attention to
message construction and deconstruction under the
influence of semiotics and literature studies. From literary
theory we adopted the idea that everything that
communicates something is a ‘text’ that can be ‘read’.
The most influential model from semiotics was perhaps this nineteenth century
model by Ferdinand de Saussure in which he explained that a sign was made up of
two things:
1. A signifier, which is the form of the sign and
2. The concept it represents, the signified

1 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

This word: ‘love’ is a set of black lines to a white background in this case on your
computer screen. That’s the signifier. The signified is the concept of love.
If we take a traffic light. The signifier is a red light hanging over the road.
The signified is the idea that you have to stop.
Ferdinand de But, the process of giving meaning to this sign, in other words the
Saussure
signification, is not the same for everyone.
Although it’s quite clear for most people that they have to stop for a red light, for
Judith it also means that she will arrive late at her job interview. She will react
very differently to the red light than Megan, who was not in a hurry at all.

Semiotics tells us that there are two levels of signification:

Denotation: the explicit meaning  denotation and
of a sign.
 connotation
Connotation: what the denotation
represents. Denotation is the first order of signification (in this case a red light).
Connotation is the second level of signification (in this case it means stopping, but
is also results in anger and frustration for Judith because she might be late at her
interview).

We can imagine different people reacting differently to a sign, adding their own
unique background to the signification process. So embedded in this model is the
idea of polysemic messages: messages with a different meaning for different
people. Some signs have a widely shared connotation. On a denotative level this
sign is a little black drawing against a white background. On a conative level most
people will recognize this as the representation for the ladies room. Of course on
a very personal level the connotation will still vary depending on how desperate
someone needs to use the bathroom!
2 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

The Jacobson model from 1960 is a clear example of how these ideas were
adopted by communication scientists. It combined the well-known transmission
perspective (sender, message and receiver) with several of the elements we just
discussed (but with a different name). Each message, according to the Jacobson
model, refers to something outside of the message: a context. A red traffic light
refers to the concept of stopping. A love letter refers to the concept of ‘love’.
Another new element was the explicit mention of the ‘code’ of a message, which is
the form that a message takes (in semiotics the ‘signifier’). So in our two examples
the codes are a red light and a letter consisting of words written in a specific
language. This latter code requires a complicated skillset.
One has to be able to read but also know the specific language in which it was
written. Then, when the explicit meaning was read, the individual audience
member can add his or her own associations to the signification process, creating
a unique outcome on a receiver level.

The idea that message deconstruction requires certain skills, and varies from
person to person depending on their background, knowledge and predispositions
certainly supposes a lot of audience activity.
Traditionally the audience was seen as massive, uniform and passive. Unable to
select or block messages. Therefore media organizations and advertisers,
whenever they commissioned an audience study, were mostly interested in how
many people were exposed to a message. They wanted to know their ‘reach’ since
the number of people you reach is an important indicator of the economic worth
of advertising space. Advertisers paid more for a spot in media with a high reach.
But, when gradually the idea of the powerful audience came into sway, reach
became a more complicated concept. Instead of the simplistic definition above,
Roger Clausse (1968) proposed the following hierarchy of reach.
1. Message offered: let’s say I’m doing a direct mail campaign. This level of
reach would be the number of letters that I sent out.
2. Message receivable: the number of people that have a mailbox and are
therefore able to receive my letter
3. Message received: this is the number of people that actually received my
letter. Please note that this is the traditional reach definition
4. Message registered: since we can imagine many people will throw away
this letter they didn’t ask for without reading
5. Message internalized: the highest level of audience activity, everyone
who read the letter and thought about it.

3 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

Commercially the highest level of audience activity, internalization, is obviously

worth more to advertisers and hence media organizations than merely the people
who receive a message. So not only scientists, but also market researchers, were
very interested in audience activity and the question how and why people select
certain messages for consumption; why they choose to be part of an audience.
This was also something new, compared to the traditional passive audience
paradigm;
 that people choose to be an audience member
 they made conscious decisions about which media to use
 they did this to fulfil their media-related need, because they wanted to
 be informed
 be entertained
 pass the time
 any other reason

This idea of an active audience that was aware of their media-associated needs
was already studied in the early 1940s. In the sixties the theme was rediscovered
and made explicit in the Uses and Gratification theory. Many important scientists
like Katz, Blumler and McQuail made use of this theory and further explored the
issue. They focused on the needs of audience members. Primarily they tried to
answer the question why people use certain media. This theory sees people as
actively seeking out the media that suit their needs best.
If I want to laugh I’ll watch a sitcom on TV. For an
evening of safe suspense, you might pop in a DVD of
some exciting new detective series or read an exciting
book or comic book.
Everyone is aware of which media serve their needs best. So the next person
might not choose a book, but will reach the same goal by using a computer game.
If you want to know something about communication science one person might
read a book on the topic and the other will follow this MOOC.

Uses and Gratification studies taught us that people were actively seeking out
media to fulfil their needs. It makes sense that when people are able to open
themselves up to content, they can also close themselves off to certain messages.

4 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

Closing yourself off to messages may be seen as a coping mechanism. Scientists

who studied the brain discovered that, since we are constantly bombarded with
sensory input, in order to make sense of the world around us, and not get
overwhelmed, we are very adept in blocking unnecessary input and on the other
hand selecting and amplifying relevant data. Note that these processes are
usually subconscious, meaning that they also occur when we do not intend to
filter out information.
A simple example of this, in a crowded room our brain will filter away background
noise and conversations that we are not interested in, focusing on the people we
are talking to. Amplifying their voice and blocking other sounds. But if someone in
one of those other conversations would suddenly drop our name, we would
probably hear that. Our brain knows that we are probably interested when people
start gossiping about us!
Hastorf and Cantril studied this phenomenon in 1954. They asked several
university students from Princeton and Dartmouth to count the number of
violations in a Princeton-Dartmouth football game. Princeton students reported
more Dartmouth violations and Dartmouth students had ‘seen’ more Princeton
violations.

Both groups, despite the fact that they had to observe seemingly
simple and objective facts, had processed the message in a different
way, filtering out unwanted information – whenever their own
team made a violation – and amplifying information that
corresponded with their predispositions.

Hostile media effect: people with These and similar findings later led to the proposal of the so called Hostile Media
strong biases towards an issue
perceive media coverage as
Effect. In 1982, the first major study of this phenomenon was undertaken by
biased against their opinions, Vallone, Ross and Lepper. Pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israeli students were
regardless of the reality. shown the same news and asked to count the amount of pro- and anti-Israeli and
pro- and anti-Palestinian references. Both sides found that the media were biased
against their side. Pro-Israeli students counted more anti-Israel references and
fewer pro-Israel references than the students who favoured the Palestinians, and
vice versa.
These studies indicate that there is an actual difference of perception between
Cognitive bias: an audience sees, members of the same audience. They have a cognitive bias. We think we are
hears, remembers and processes
objectively watching the news or a sports game but in reality our mind is already
messages differently on a
subconscious level. serving as a filter: making selections and blocking out unwanted information.
There are many reasons why a cognitive bias can take place. We’ll discuss some of
the main ones in the next section.
5 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

The study of cognitive biases tells us that we process information subjectively.

Sometimes to the extent that our perceptions get distorted, clouding ‘simple and
objective’ facts like the number of violations in a football match.
Having cognitive biases is in many cases a very effective and healthy phenomenon
because people simple cannot handle balanced processing of all input. Can you
imagine being conscious all the time of all your senses? You’ll probably be
overwhelmed in seconds! It’s great that our mind is able to subconsciously make
all of these processing decisions. Although we may be inclined to see biases as
limitations, we could also view them as cognitive shortcuts since they speed up
information processing.
Perhaps the best known theory about cognitive biases is the theory of cognitive
Cognitive dissonance: a theory
from psychology that explains dissonance. For example, Roger feels he is a well-read intellectual. His friends
how people handle conflicting start talking about the classic book War and Peace. Everyone has read it except
feelings, ideas or beliefs.
Roger. The belief that he is a well-read intellectual clashes with the fact that he is
the only one amongst his friends who hasn’t read this classic.
The theory predicts that Roger will try to avoid the discomfort of this cognitive
dissonance. He can do this in three ways:
1. by making one of the discordant factors less important,
2. by adding new elements to his beliefs that make the picture fit (create
consonance)
3. by changing one of the clashing factors
To avoid cognitive dissonance Roger could say: well, who cares if I’m well read. It’s
not that important!” Or “not having read one classic hardly makes me illiterate!”
Alternatively, he could create consonance by adding new elements to his beliefs
For instance by thinking that – being an intellectual - he obviously hangs out with
other well-read intellectuals. It’s therefore not surprising that his friends have
read the classic.
Finally he could change his view: either by thinking “apparently I’m not that well-
read” or “War and Peace is actually greatly overestimated as a work of literature.”
The theory explains how people balance their beliefs with reality. Sometimes this
can lead to enormous opinion changes. The classic example of this is the fable of
the Fox and the Grapes by Aesop. In the English translation: “Driven by hunger, a
fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to,
although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh,
you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.'”

6 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

Aesop sums up the moral of the story:

People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain

would do well to apply this story to themselves.

The fox had clearly reduced cognitive dissonance by changing his beliefs and
deciding that the grapes he had craved before were actually sour.

A very different theory that makes use of the cognitive shortcut idea is the
Elaboration Likelihood Model: a Elaboration Likelihood Model or ELM in short. It was proposed in 1979 that
model that aims to explain
different ways of processing information can be processed through a central or a peripheral path. When
stimuli, why they are used, and recipients process via the central route they think about a message extensively.
their outcomes on attitude The message passes through the different processing stages. The peripheral
change.
route, however, is a shortcut. It’s activated by so called ‘peripheral cues’ like
humour, credibility of the source, fear, or desire. The theory tells us that
persuasive attempts should take into consideration the predispositions of the
audience, specifically:
a) the motivation to understand a message and
b) the ability to understand that message
An example: Tom wants to buy a car. He wants the best
one out there within his price range so he is a) motivated
to compare information on cars. Also let’s assume Tom is b) able to understand
the information that different brochures and websites give him. Because Tom is
both motivated and able, the central route of persuasion will yield the best
persuasive result. Having sexy models on the hood of his car will less likely
persuade him. His friend Charles is also looking for a car. He is able to compare
cars but actually not so motivated to go through all of these sites and brochures.
Therefore the peripheral cue of the sexy model will perhaps work on him.
These are just some examples of many theories on cognitive shortcuts. It’s
important for every student of communication to understand to some degree
how and why cognitive shortcuts work. Everyone has them. Because, even though
cognitive shortcuts do not always lead to the best logical decisions, they save a lot
of time and energy!

In the previous sections we talked about message construction and audience

activity. We saw that people – contrary to the traditional mass audience paradigm

7 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

– are actually quite adept at selecting the messages they want to process (both on
a conscious level, by selecting specific media for consumption and an unconscious
level because of cognitive shortcuts).
We all have our own shortcuts or filters based on our personal background,
experiences, interests et cetera. But studies also suggest different ways in which
our cognitive shortcuts are actually influenced by mass media. So maybe in some
ways, our filters are not so personal and unique after all.
Some messages for instance, go through our filter because the media tell us that
they are important, that we should concern ourselves with them, form some sort
of opinion on them.
Last week I discussed the agenda-setting theory, which proposes exactly this: the
media don’t tell us what to think, but they do influence what we think about.
McCombs and Shaw asked people, in their study of the 1968 presidential election
in the United States, what the most important election issues were. Interestingly
enough, the results corresponded to a large extent with the amount of attention
these items were given by the local and national news. Of course we could assume
that news professionals were keen observers of public opinion and therefore the
news media serve as a mirror of the public agenda. But McCombs and Shaw
suggested the exact opposite: that the amount of media attention influenced the
public agenda. The idea in its simplest form is that media tell us which (news)
events are important, who important people are and where important things
happen. The theory is usually used in relation to the news. Since the seventies,
many studies have added to our knowledge of agenda-setting.
Priming: people evaluate using the One important later addition to the theory is the concept of priming. Researchers
same criteria the media give
attention to.
noticed that people, when asked to evaluate political candidates, use the criteria
that the media give attention to.
If the media give a lot of attention to, let’s say the near-extinction of pandas, then
people are primed to connect this item to their evaluation of political candidates.
So basically they will start by asking “what is politician X’s view on panda
extinction and how does he or she plan to battle it?”
If the media give a lot of attention to the economy, then people will link this to
their evaluation. A movie review can also prime the potential audience, if the
review goes on and on about the special effects, then the audience is more likely
to include the special effects in their evaluation process. If the review focuses
more on the storyline, than the audience is primed to pay attention to that. You
can see how priming is an addition to agenda-setting, media don’t persuade
people to think this or that, but they do influence what people think about (when
evaluating).

8 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

Of course some items won't receive any media attention at all. This has become a
Gatekeeping: the study of how separate field of study within communication science called gatekeeping.
the filtering process of the
media works.
Gatekeeping theory addresses the question why some items are let through the
‘gate’ while others are filtered out. Media professionals who can make the
decision to admit topics through the gate (or keep them from them from the
media agenda) are called gatekeepers.
The theory was proposed by Lewin in the 1940s (Lewin, Kurt. "Forces behind food
habits and methods of change". Bulletin of the National Research Council). While
the theory originally focused on the mass media, today the theory also addresses
interpersonal communication.
So before messages can reach our own personal filter, they are first filtered by
gatekeepers in the media.

We talked this week about a lot of different aspects of message construction and
Reception theory: focuses on processing. I want to end with reception theory, because it bridges this week’s
how the recipient receives and
perspective with the cultural approach that we will discuss next week.
gives meaning to a message.
Stuart Hall is often mentioned as one of the frontrunners of reception theory
(also known as reception analysis or audience reception). Hall – influenced by
semiotics – saw communication as a negotiation between sender, text, and
receiver:
 A communicator ‘encodes’ a message with meaning.
 Recipients take meaning from that message. Hall called this ‘decoding’.
We talked before about the use of codes and signs in a text. In a way the reader
Closed Open ‘negotiates’ with the text, relying on his or her knowledge, experiences, cultural
background, et cetera. This negotiation can lead to different outcomes, which is
the principle of polysemic messages: the idea that messages can be interpreted by
many people in many different ways. The opposite of polysemic messages are
monosemic messages, messages that have only one meaning. Umberto Eco uses
the terms open or closed texts.
Perhaps it would be more useful to see the distinction between open and closed
texts as a dimension, where some texts leave more room for interpretation than
others. A math formula is relatively closed, while an abstract painting is relatively
open. Likewise, a painted portrait is considered more open than a photo portrait.
But an abstract painting would in comparison be even more open. It’s all relative.

9 of 10
 Intro to Comm Sci
Univ. Amsterdam
J Greenwood
The reception & signification perspective 13/04/2015

Encoding/decoding model: explains To explain his views further, Hall came up with the encoding/decoding model in
the different ways a receiver
can decode a message. which he explains the different ways a receiver can decode a message.
Let’s say Rose publishes a brochure. Rose is a conservative politician and argues in
her pamphlet for more use of nuclear energy as an alternative for the use of fossil
fuels. There is going to be an election on this and Rose want people to vote for her.
It is read by Jake. The sender – politician Rose - has some intent when she
encoded or composed her message.
Preferred reading: the audience 1. If Jake completely internalizes the message and decodes it in the way
decodes a message in the way
Rose intended, he agrees and is going to vote for her, this is the ‘preferred
the sender intended and agrees.
reading’.
According to reception theory this is more likely to occur when Jake
and Rose share a cultural background. For instance if Jake is
sympathetic towards the conservative party. If there is a higher
cultural proximity between sender and receiver, there is a higher
Negotiated reading: the audience likelihood of a preferred reading taking place.
decodes a message in the way
the sender intended, but also
2. Of course, Jake could also partly decode it in the preferred way, but also
reads it partly differently. reading it partly differently. Stuart Hall called this a ‘negotiated reading’.
For instance Jake could agree with Rose’s arguments but he decides
to vote for someone else.
3. 3) A third way of decoding this message would be total rejection by Jake.
He reads Rose’s pamphlet but completely disagrees and he concludes
Oppositional reading: the audience Rose is completely wrong and doesn’t deserve his vote. This is an
decodes a message but ‘oppositional reading’.
completely disagrees with it.
This is more likely to occur if Jake and Rose are, culturally, further
apart. If, for instance Jake is a staunch supporter of liberal politics.
You can see that implicit in Reception Theory is the idea that communication
serves as a carrier, reflection and producer of culture. This theory therefore
bridges this week’s and next week’s topics.
The construction/signification approach and the cultural approach complement
each other. I would like to end this week’s MOOC by emphasizing that in fact
these perspectives on communication are intertwined.

10 of 10