See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265727339

Media literacy: The state of research and suggestions for future approaches

Conference Paper · April 2013

CITATIONS READS
0 6,306

1 author:

Melody Stotler
Fielding Graduate University
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Melody Stotler on 17 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 1

Media Literacy: The State of Research and Suggestions for Future Approaches

Melody A. Stotler

Fielding Graduate University

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 2

Media Literacy: The State of Research and Suggestions for Future Approaches

Media literacy is not a new topic, though there are some who would assert that it is

(Potter, 2010). It can be argued that each challenge currently facing the field according to Potter

(2010) (i.e., education, exposition, and bulwark) became apparent decades, if not hundreds of

years ago. Signs of media being used in education began in the early 1920’s (Hobbs & Jensen,

2009). Concern about film’s effect on perception and persuasion remained proliferate throughout

the mid-20th century, though an interest in media’s effects has continued on much longer than

that. As far back as the early 1800’s, with the cost of print going down and the population of

literate individuals climbing, those in positions of influence have challenged the need for, and

benefit of, media (Kutner & Olson, 2008).

Though it seems clear that media literacy is paramount, experts disagree on why. Some

researchers contend that media literacy allows us to access information (Fedorov, 2003). Others

assert that the messages presented via media are not important. Rather, it is the way in which we

synthesize the messages with our own past experiences, and create meaning from them, that is

compelling (Thoman, 2004). Some note that the abilities associated with media literacy allow us

to communicate things about ourselves, as well as communicate with others (Nixon, 2003).

There are also those who focus on media literacy as a ‘critical’ ability (Hobbs, 1998; Kellner &

Share, 2007). One thing remains consistent; those who study media literacy, regardless of

discipline, seem to agree that there are compulsory reasons to understand it.

A large amount of academic literature exists on the subject (Potter, 2010). That being

said, there is some contention as to whether the field is progressing at a pace which is consistent

with a post-modern media landscape that changes constantly (Hobbs, 2011; Potter, 2010). It is
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 3

difficult to analyze major works in relation to one another, as the definition of media literacy

varies from one researcher, and one discipline, to the next. An accurate depiction of the field as a

cohesive unit seems unlikely, though there are those who have attempted it. Potter (2010) asserts

that there is no foreseeable consensus on a definition, but notes that there are themes which

remain consistent in media literacy research. He also notes that there is little debate within the

field, stating that most researchers are content to remain focused on their particular approach to

the study. Ironically, Hobbs (2011) challenges Potter’s assessment of the state of the field, citing

misrepresentation of various aspects of media literacy as well as calling for a unified,

interdisciplinary approach to research and progression within the field.

It is the goal of this paper to present an overview of existing aspects of research in media

literacy (i.e., education, intervention, and definitions) and to suggest additional approaches to

research, in light of the precepts and theories characteristic of various schools of psychology. It

is also the goal of this paper to persuade researchers to examine a variety of unique and atypical

perspectives in the interest of disproving theories for the purpose of facilitating consistent

progress in the field.

Challenges in Media Literacy Research

As mentioned, three areas of focus are prevalent in media literacy research: definitions,

education or curricula, and intervention or critical analysis (Potter, 2010). Each aspect of media

literacy research is valuable, though not mutually exclusive. Researchers seem to address media

literacy from one angle or another, with seemingly very little overlap. Even in academic reviews,

there seems to be some challenge in maintaining consistent and accurate perspectives on all

prevalent issues within the field (Hobbs, 2011). Reflecting on the state of each of these
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 4

perspectives, from an objective vantage point, may provide useful suggestions for future

research.

Definition

Importance of a Definition

The definition of media literacy is under debate by experts from a variety of disciplines

(Hobbs, 2011). Determining a unified definition for media literacy is important. Livingstone

(2004) asserts that a definition is necessary for the observation and acquisition of the skills

necessary to use technology and media to communicate and gather information. Then again in

2008, Livingstone discusses how the definition of media literacy makes it relevant to different

disciplines. Lewis and Jhally (1998) contend that media literacy should be about encouraging

participation rather than passive consumerism.

Understanding why individuals are more susceptible to various media than others, or

more susceptible to various messages than others, may help parents and teachers caution children

and teach critical analysis of content presented to them though there is little empirical evidence

showing support of that notion (Potter, 2004). Educational research is important because with

culture shifting, expectations in education and educational standards shift as well (Hobbs, 2004;

McDougall, 2010). Students are responsible for constantly changing content and production. The

ability to use differing media for education allows for variations in learning style. This also

allows producers of media to include educational content which may increase sales, parent

involvement, or tangential learning (Thoman & Jolls, 2004). Understanding motivations for

literacy provides insight into content inclusion to financial or educational ends, may give insight

into best design practices, and allows us the ability to harness varying motivations to spread

media literacy (Batey, 2008).

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 5

Challenge in Defining ‘Media Literacy’

Researchers do not focus the body of media literacy research in a way which is able to

provide useful results (Nixon, 2003), nor do they make notable progress in the field (Potter,

2004). Examples of ways in which argumentation and analysis of peer research can be useful in

progressing a body of research are found in the history of psychology itself. Seeking to disprove

theories objectively is what establishes progression and accuracy in a scientific field (McBurney

& White, 2010). If the state of media literacy is as Potter (2010) claims, researchers would

benefit from challenging their own theories as well as those of others, rather than analyzing the

field subjectively. Hobbs (2011) suggests an approach which unifies all disciplines. If a

unification of disciplines allows access to more variety of research, but the research itself

remains objective and empirical, there is no reason every discipline shouldn’t value the work

done by others. In order to do this, however, there needs to be a unified definition of media

literacy.

Every discipline and researcher has a unique motivation for studying media literacy. It

stands to reason that their perceptions are unique as well. While this facilitates the need for

varying angles of analysis, it also provides a challenge in defining media literacy. Some

researchers seek to understand how to best teach media literacy, or rather a literacy of media

content. The focus for them is not to stop or interfere with exposure to media, but rather to learn

how to harness it for educational purposes (Hobbs, 2004). Still other researchers see media

literacy as a way of understanding differences between those who are able to successfully create

content in a largely participatory culture and those who are unable to do so (Livingstone, 2004).

Many experts focus on media literacy in children as a function of the ortgeist they were born

into, this being different from those who were born without the vast majority of media currently
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 6

available and creating an explicit call for adult media literacy research noting the difference

between the two (Dennis, 2004).

A Sample of the Definitions

It has been established that definitions are necessary if not difficult with regards to media

literacy. That is not to say, however, that there is a shortage of definitions already in existence.

Though most definitions of media literacy have similar themes (e.g., media education and

intervention), the variety is overwhelming. In fact, papers have been written dedicated only to

reporting vast numbers of definitions by experts in the field (Fedorov, 2003; Potter, 2010).

Kellner and Share (2007) point to four varying approaches to media education. The first

describes a fear driven approach, keen on teaching students how to protect themselves from

being manipulated and becoming addicted to media (e.g., advertisement). The second focuses on

exposure to and participation in art using media. They assert that this approach to media literacy

education allows for a depth of comprehension, as well as the means to become participatory

citizens. The third approach is based on the idea of print literacy; expanding the notion to include

technologies and emerging media. They suggest an alternative approach to defining and teaching

media literacy that threads all three other approaches together.

A large number of those researching media literacy hail from educational perspectives.

Those concerned with education define media literacy as the ability to access and analyze

content in a way which allows for media use in education (e.g., elementary schools or secondary

schools) (Christ, 2004; Thoman & Jolls, 2004). They note that because of rapidly changing

communicative and social landscapes, the ability to participate in political, social, and

educational forums depends on the ability to reach, analyze, and share information (Thorman &

Jolls, 2004). They note the vital need for students to have the ability to analyze content,
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 7

presented over differing media, to understand the presentation of self, legal issues regarding

content ownership, and an eye for what is opinion and what is fact (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009)

Other researchers focus on intervention, defining media literacy as the ability for

individuals to analyze content critically with an eye on the avoidance of being persuaded in

unwelcome or negative ways (Kellner & Share, 2007). Some of these interventions include

instilling morals as the treatment objective (Silverstone, 2004). Several health psychologists

define media literacy as a way of teaching individuals to avoid the temptations of advertising

such as cigarette and alcohol use. They seek to analyze the effects of exposure to various social

campaigns as well, thus seeking to harness media for more positive messages (Livingstone,

2004).

Potter (2010) relays three common assumptions within media literacy intervention: media

is constantly influencing consumers, these influences are negative or harmful in nature, and that

it is possible to teach the ability to avoid that influence. In addition, he notes four typical

approaches to design: the person implementing the intervention, the person receiving the

intervention, the form which the intervention takes when delivered, and the hypothesized result

of the intervention.

Though there are those who assert little argumentation between educators and

interventionists (Potter, 2010), there are those who assert a disconnect in opinion (Hobbs, 1998).

Hobbs (1998) predicates that interventions connote a right or wrong perspective in media

analysis. Educators who are given to teaching from the interventionist angle, teach their analysis,

rather than the ability to analyze.

Though this is in no way representative of all definitions, or even every type of

definition, it is useful to explore the definitions of media literacy before continuing into the field.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 8

A general search of media literacy literature yields a confounding return which prohibits a

coherent summation unless an understanding of the ways in which the various focuses of the

topic interplay. It is only when a foundation for understanding what has been done before has

been established, that a map for current and future directions may be drawn.

A Psychologically Based Approach

Though the schools of psychology were introduced linearly, they all had contributions

which remain recognizable today (Wertheimer, 2000). Researchers from each school crafted

theories about a science whose definition was consistently changing. Each school had their own

perception of what the focus of psychology should be, and each school sought not only to prove

themselves right, but to disprove the other schools. Each school came one after the other, basing

their theories on a foundation of disproving the preceding school. It is by this disproving that the

field of psychology was able to make such great strides in such a short history. This point is

echoed in media literacy literature to some extent, though it is less prevalent than might be

assumed. In order for a field to continue progressing, there must be questions, arguments, and

creativity (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009). Past, current, and new perspectives must be embraced but

critically analyzed to assess what they have to contribute and future directions based on those

analyses (Hobbs, 2011).

The schools of psychology give us differing vantage points for analyzing media literacy

definitions, research methods, exploring possible solutions to problems, or disproving current

theories and research angles. By considering current research in light of the precepts of each

psychological paradigm, we can organize thoughts, assess holes in research, and consider the

issues facing the topic of media literacy. Just as in the general science of psychology, each

school has something to contribute to this field.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY 9

Cognitive Psychology

As mentioned above, each school of psychology remains relevant in certain aspects of

the field today. Currently, in media literacy research, the discipline in psychology which seems

referenced most often is cognitive psychology. Perhaps this is due to the comparisons made in

the approach between the brain and the computer. That is, it takes input, processes it by way of

previous stimuli and experiences, as well as other 'programming', then creates a behavior output.

Potter (2004) calls for a cognitive theory of media literacy citing four reasons for his conviction.

First, Potter asserts the need for recognition that individual responses to media are often implicit.

Second, we as consumers are conditioned by media to think and feel different things (e.g.,

beauty, style, morals, etc.). Though these seem more akin to the school of behaviorism, the third

and fourth reasons are decidedly cognitive: consumers are able to change their responses to

media messages, and that a theory must consider cognitive functions that allow us to perceive

meaning.

Structuralism

Structuralists theorized that thoughts were made of elements which our minds arranged

and gave meaning to, based on previous exposures and stimuli. In other words, we all experience

the same elements but the way in which we experience them changes because we are all

individuals (Wertheimer, 2000). Joseph Campbell (1988), a noted myth historian, discusses what

he calls the 'mono-myth'. His observations are that all stories from all cultures share certain

themes. These themes are universal. The myths remain universal because they provide meaning

to us, based on the perception our previous experiences afford us. Batey (2008) mentions

structuralists when he explains that motivations and experiences drive our connection to various
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY
10
brands. Other researchers echo this contention as it relates to media literacy (Thoman & Jolls,

2004).

One way in which researchers could study the acquisition of media literacy skills, as well

as the potential effect of media on individuals, is to measure ways in which each individual

interprets the same elements of media (e.g., advertisements or game violence). A structuralist

perspective may be useful in considering intervention research in media literacy without

attempting to instill specific ideologies and biases into the student or target. It may also manifest

as a function of digital storytelling research or narrative psychology (Hobbs, 2011).

Functionalism

Functionalists contended that each individual retains their own, personal aptitude

which evolves and adapts to environment, experience, and aptitude (Wertheimer, 2000). Much

like the structuralists, functionalists believed that individuals experience things in unique ways.

Current research in media literacy has briefly noted that individuals may learn and adapt skills

based on pre-existing individual aptitudes that may or may not be teachable. They note that as

the field of media literacy evolves so must the media literate (Hobbs & Frost, 2013). Individuals

overcoming or adapting to media messages based on exposure and comprehension (i.e.,

evolving) (Potter, 2004) may fall into this school. Perhaps an angle for research may be seeking

to understand what personality or motivational qualities lend themselves most specifically to the

acquisitions and adaption of media literacy skills. This may take the form of case studies, self-

report questionnaires, or naturalistic observation.

Gestaltism

Gestaltists believed that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. They maintained

that an individual is more than the parts that make them as opposed to the behaviorists, who
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY
11
believed that every behavior was only measurable by the physical response we experience as

paired with various stimulai (Wertheimer, 2000). Gestaltists, however, believed that people are

more than just mindless drones or elements which have been filtered through experiences.

Gestaltists might say, in light of media literacy, that the concept as a whole must be understood

innately, rather than various components of the concept being taught with the hope or

assumption that those skills will be generalized by the individual. In other words, media literacy

may be something which transcends media.

Humanism

Humanists hold to the notion that people make conscious decisions, that we are social

creatures, and that we seek meaning in what we are exposed to (Wertheimer, 2000).

Socialization via social media, collective intelligence such as that exhibited in wikis, and art all

exemplify our agency, cooperation, creativity, and passions. An approach which harnesses

humanism may be seeking to find correlations between personality traits and media literacy.

There is already research about how we use media to verify our identities (Burke & Stets, 2009),

how we extrapolate meaning from stories and narratives (McAdams, 2001), and use art to create

and communicate (Kellner & Share, 2006). Applying theories from related media psychology

areas of research, may help gain perspective on additional ways to approach media literacy

research.

Conclusion

Whether defined as new or old, education based or interventional, there is no doubt that

media literacy is important. Our ability to understand and harness the skills needed to participate

and communicate in this vastly changing post-modern media landscape is paramount. Building a

foundation of knowledge about what research has come before allows researchers to
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY
12
conceptualize future research. This paper provided a way of sorting research as well as briefly

suggesting various vantage points for research conceptualization, framed by classic schools of

psychology.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY
13
References

Batey, M. (2008). Brand meaning. New York: Routledge.

Campbell,J. (1988). The power of myth (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Christ, W. G. (2004). Assessment, media literacy standards, and higher education. American

Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 92–96. doi:10.1177/0002764204267254

Dennis, E. E. (2004). Out of sight and out of mind: The media literacy needs of grown-ups.

American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 202–211. doi:10.1177/0002764204267264

Fedorov, A. (2003). Media education and media literacy: Experts’ opinions. European

Medi@Culture-Online. Retrieved from http://www.european-mediaculture.org

Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of

Communication, 48(1), 16-32.

Hobbs, R. (2004). A Review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education. American

Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 42–59. doi:10.1177/0002764204267250

Hobbs, R. (2011). the state of media literacy: A response to Potter. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 55(3), 419–430. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.597594

Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Reading

Research Quarterly, 38(3), 330-354.

Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education.

Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1, 1-11.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates,

organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3),

369–386. doi:10.1080/01596300500200169
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY
14
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1(1),

59–69. doi:10.1007/s11519-007-0004-2

Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The surprising truth about violent

video games and what parents can do. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lewis, J., & Jhally, S. (1998). The struggle over media literacy. Journal of Communication,

48(1), 109-120.

Livingstone, S. (2004). What is media literacy. Intermedia, 32(3), 18–20.

McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2),

100–122. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.2.100

McBurney, D. (2010). Research methods (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage

Learning.

McDougall, J. (2010). A crisis of professional identity: How primary teachers are coming to

terms with changing views of literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 679–687.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.003

Nixon, H. (2003). New research literacies for contemporary research into literacy and new

media. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 407-413.

Potter, W. J. (2004). argument for the need for a cognitive theory of media literacy. American

Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 266–272. doi:10.1177/0002764204267274

Potter, W. (2010). The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

54(4), 675–696. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.521462

Silverstone, R. (2004). regulation, media literacy and media civics. Media, Culture & Society,

26(3), 440–449. doi:10.1177/0163443704042557

 PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA LITERACY
15
Thoman, E. (2004). Media literacy: A national priority for a changing world. American

Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 18–29. doi:10.1177/0002764204267246

Wertheimer, M. (2000). A brief history of psychology (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt

College Publishers.

View publication stats