Theory 010: Game Theory

I was surprised when Game Theory’s commonly used in terms of mathematics and economics. When I still had no idea behind the context of Game Theory, I thought that the theory is game related. Like, video games type.

Game theory studies about human conflict and cooperation within a competitive situation. Game theory is the science of strategy, or the optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting. The proponents of game theory were John von Neumann and John Nash. Both of them are mathematicians. Oskar Morgenstern, on the other hand, was an economist.

A language and formal structure of analysis for making decisions in competitive settings is created by game theory. This makes the term “game” misleading. Despite the fact that game theory is applicable to recreational games, the concept of “game” means any interactive situation in which independent players share rules and consequences.

Theory 009: Social Marketing

Social marketing is a key concept in marketing that is utilized by the marketer in hopes of changing a target audience’s behavior for their (the marketer’s) benefit. It is able to influence and change behavior in such a way that it is both sustainable as well as cost-effective. The process of social marketing is one that is systematic and planned; it is not the type that can be impulsively worked on as it would effect a certain number of people at a certain scale. It involves combining ideas from both commercial marketing as well as the social sciences.

Social marketing was first introduced as a discipline back in the 1970s by two people named Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman. They discovered that the same marketing principles they were familiar with also had the capability and the potential to sell intangible matters such as ideas, attitudes, and behaviors. Therefore, instead of focusing on selling something concrete, social marketing focuses on matters which are more abstract in nature.

Theories 007-008: Spiral of Silence & Knowledge Gap

SPIRAL OF SILENCE

Spiral of silence refers to the tendency of people to remain silent in order to avoid conflict. Proposed by Elisabeth Nuelle-Neumann in 1974, the theory posits a few reasons why people possibly remain silent. These reasons include fear of isolation after trying to disturb the status quo, fear of reprisal wherein voicing out their opinion might lead to something worse than isolation. It is ‘spiral’ since fears continually build up for the minority and it leads them downward to further silence. This theory also posits that media plays an important role in the perceptual dictating of the majority’s opinion. Some examples of these ‘worse situations’ are losing a job, having a ruined reputation, etc. With this, the minority becomes afraid to voice out their opinion and does its best to bend down or to adjust to what the majority says.

Fear of isolation is the core (or backbone) of the spiral of silence. It is the force that drags one down to the spiral of silence. People would take measures in order to avoid ending up alone and isolated. People would rather agree with ideas which they actually do not agree with rather than stand up against it and be isolated as a consequence.

I’d like to use my experience as an example to this. I was the type who barely voiced out her opinions in terms of politics here in our country. My silence managed to fool nearly everyone that I was uninterested in what’s happening to our country’s politics. My silence, somehow, helped me avoid conflict. Recently, I began voicing out my opinions. Luckily, I haven’t been bashed or threatened by the opposing side of whatever I believe in.

Theory 006: Muted Group

Muted group theory discusses the relationship between the dominant group (majority) and the subordinate group (minority). The minority is usually left with no other choice but to use the majority-influenced language in order to express themselves, leading to distortion of information since the minority’s ideas are not expressed properly. This leads further to the mutedness of the minority. Muted group theory has three assumptions:

1) The world is perceived by men and women differently since they have different experiences. These experiences result to differences on how men and women perform their respective tasks in society.

2) The ideas of men are dominant, which causes women to have a difficult time articulating their ideas.

3) Women are forced to convert their ideas in order to be heard.

The MGT was created by Edwin Ardener and Shirley Ardener. This was further developed by Cheris Kramarae from her feminist standpoint.

Theory 005: Cultivation

Cultivation theory, also known as ‘cultivation hypothesis’ and ‘cultivation analysis’, is a theory composed by G. Gerbner and was later expanded by Gerbner and Gross. They began researching in the mid-1960s about the effects of media, specifically whether watching television influences the idea and perception of its audience in terms of daily life. Cultivation theory states “that high frequency viewers of television are more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real and valid (Gerbner, 1960).” Cultivation theory studies the effects of media. Cultivation theories suggest that television viewing can have long-term effects which gradually affect its audience. This theory studies about the effects of viewing in the attitudes and behavior of its audience.

Cultivation theory proposes that those who are heavily exposed to television ‘cultivate’ attitudes which they perceive to be applicable in the real world. The theory also suggests that prolonged exposure to television can lead to the audience’s violent behavior. Theorists divided the effects of cultivation into two levels: a) the first order revolves around the general beliefs about our world, and b) the second order, which revolves around specific attitudes. Cultivation theory also suggests that media posses a small yet significant influence on the beliefs and attitudes of society about the society they live in. Those who get more from media are the ones who are more influenced.

Theory 004: Agenda-Setting

Also known as The Agenda Setting Function of the Mass Media, the theory of Agenda-setting describes “the ability of the news media to influence the importance of topics on the public agenda”. This means that if a news item is frequently covered, the audience will regard the issue as something more important. The theory of Agenda-setting was developed by Max McCombs and Donald Shaw in their study for the 1968 American presidential elections.

In their 1968 research, McCombs and Shaw focused on two particular elements: awareness and information. McCombs and Shaw attempted to determine the relationship between the actual content of the media messages used throughout the campaign period and what voters in a community believe were important issues. They have concluded that there was a significant influence, which was exerted by the mass media, on what voters considered to be the campaign’s major issues.

There are two basic assumptions which underlie in most researches about agenda-setting:

Theory 003: Semiology

The concept of making and understanding signs is something that is vital to human experience; more so in terms of communication. The official study of it is referred to as "semiology"; this term comes from the Greek word "semeion", which means sign. According to Ferdinand de Saussure, it is a science that deals with the study of how signs are used as part of one's regular social life. Furthermore, semiotics also investigates the nature of signs and the laws which surround them. Semiotic studies prevail in fields such as art, literature, anthropology, and mass media, amongst others, and is studied by those who call themselves "semioticians".

Saussere's understanding of signs come in a number of parts. He enumerates the "signified", which contains the concept it represents, and the "signifier", which refers to the form the sign may take. This may be implied in the following example: an image of a red heart may have love as the signified, while the signifier is the image of the red heart itself. In his definition, he notes that the same signifier may be for different signifieds, depending on the context used. Furthermore, the link between what counts as the signified and the signified is completely by chance; no specific signifier is more belonging to a signified than another.

Meanwhile, Charles Sanders Peirce constructs signs in another way. There is the representmen or the form that the sign takes, the object or what the sign refers, and the interpretant which is the idea or interpretation in mind.