Uses and Gratification studies taught us that people were
actively seeking out media to fulfill their needs.
It makes sense that when people are able to open themselves up to specific content,
they can also close themselves off to certain messages.
Closing oneself 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 have become very adept in blocking unnecessary input
and at the same time selecting and amplifying relevant data.
Note that these processes are usually unconscious,
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.
Because our brain knows that we are interested when people start talking about us!
Hastorf and Cantril studied this phenomenon in 1954.
They asked several university students from Princeton and Dartmouth to count the
amount 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.
These and similar findings later led to the proposal of the so called Hostile Media Effect.
In 1982, the first major study of this phenomenon was undertaken
by Vallone, Ross and Lepper. Pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israeli students
were 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 members of the same audience.
They see, hear, remember and process messages differently on a subconscious level.
This is called a cognitive bias.
We think we are objectively watching the news or a sports game
but in reality our mind is already serving as a filter.
Making selections and blocking out unwanted information. There are many reasons for this.
We’ll discuss some of them in the next section of our MOOC.