Media Equation of Real Life
The Media Equation by Reeves and Nass regards computers, television, and other software as inanimate objects. Their theory suggests that although inanimate objects, people tend to react to them as if they were living. In the introduction of their book The Media Equation, Reeves and Nass take a glimpse into how people of all ages and educational backgrounds treat technology. They show that the confusion of real life and mediated life is not rare or unreasonable, yet very common (Reeves & Nass, 1996 p. 4-5). Reeves and Nass have identified in study after study that people equate media with real life. They expect that media will follow social and natural rules which have already been predetermined (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Watching television and movies is my favorite thing to do. I will compare experiences I have had with this visual media to the media equation and see how they match up. I will also compare the Media Equation to three other theories; those of technological determinism, expectancy violations, and cognitive dissonance.
As stated above I enjoy television and movies. On a typical evening I can be found sitting in front of the television watching a crime investigation show. Last evening I was watching CSI: Miami with friends. This crime story was very good, and we were quite involved in it. It made me think about how we were responding to the television. I remember hearing one of us say, “no don’t go in that room, watch out!” We were talking to the television, voicing concerns over something written months ago and filmed weeks ago. As I look back on this, I realized nothing we said or did was going to change the story line or the ending, yet we were still yelling and trying to help the characters along. Utilizing this story as a backdrop for Reeves and Nass’ theory of Media Equation, I will analyze what was going on in my mind and how it relates to their theory.
Reeves and Nass would say that the sights and sounds drew me in, and elicited social responses were been built up in me over time (Griffin, 2003 p. 405). My brain was tricked then and every night I turn on my television. I ingest the media and let it reel me into its web of mystery, suspense, and drama. The media equation exerts that my brain is tricked by the new media of television, as it equates the images I take in as real. Reeves and Nass state it would take a great deal of mental effort on my part to convince myself that it’s only television. According to them this would also take away from the plot, losing the stories mystery and suspense.
I usually view television from about four feet away on a 32” television. Last evening I was 10 feet away from the same television, and I did not notice much of a difference in my reaction to the media. I would say I felt the same about the show at both the four foot distance as I did in the 10 foot distance. Reeves and Nass would say this was a poor study, however to their credit I was more aware of the action on the screen as the camera’s went in for close ups of different characters in key moments of the action.
Using Reeves and Nass’s topics of similarity and attraction I can dissect the characters on CSI: Miami, picking out characteristics such as domination, being forceful, friendly, congenial, and shy. I give the individuals on the screen those characteristics from watching the show; yet I do not equate their characteristics with the attributes the writers of the show want them to portray. I like certain characters because they exude characteristics I admire, and find similar to my own characteristics or those of my friends. I place similarity on them when it is most likely we have nothing in common at all.
Source credibility is the final attribute that Reeves and Nass deal with in the media equation. I place credibility on the messages I receive from Horatio Cane and the other detectives and investigators on CSI: Miami. I place them as the messengers when in all actuality the person who is sending the messages on CSI: Miami are the writers behind the scenes and ultimately the executives at CBS. Reeves and Nass leave their study on source credibility with this, “ social orientations to media indicate that it is natural for people to treat media socially, perhaps easier than treating media in any other way, including as a tool” (Griffin, 2003 p.411).
Prior to this study, I did not think much about how I was reacting to the shows I was watching; I was simply enjoying them. I now know I was using interpersonal distance to judge a show. I would place similar attributes on characters I wanted to identify with, as well as giving them credibility when they probably had little to none. I plan to not watch mindlessly every show I enjoy, but put thought into what I view, making it more beneficial for me.
Marshall McLuhan’s theory of technological determinism holds that inventions in technology invariable cause cultural change (Griffin, 2003 p. 343). A. N. Whitehead states “the major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur” (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967 p. 7). The supposition that McLuhan’s theory puts forth is that content of a message plays little importance when compared to the medium in which the message is presented. The same episode of CSI: Miami would not have been as effective if it would have been played over the radio 30 years ago. McLuhan believes we are now in a global village where everything is overcome by the medium of television. Shows such as CSI: Miami resonate with everything else going on in the global village. When comparing technological determinism to the media equation, both theories agree that the medium of the message is more important than the message. Reeves and Nass believe that media is a tool we use; McLuhan believes those tools are shaping our existence.
The media equation supposes that when an image on the screen becomes closer to the viewer, they should experience stimulation. Judee Burgoon in her expectancy violations theory believed the same thing; unanticipated physical proximity would produce arousal in the person being violated. Reeves and Nass use expectancy violations theory as a way to analyze their own theory. Reeves and Nass felt the media equation should be able to hold true within the confines of any interpersonal communication research. The media equation when stacked up against expectancy violations theory validates Reeves and Nass’s belief that as proximity in media increases, so does a persons reaction to potential violation. When figures on the screen became too close for the viewer their vigilance increased as Burgoon predicted it would. Similar to close ups in CSI: Miami of suspects or crime scenes, Burgoons theory holds the media close ups cause the same reactions as real life, in your face encounters.
Cognitive dissonance is another great theory to view the media equation through. The media equation challenges common beliefs that people can differentiate real from fiction, which is also what cognitive dissonance does. People believe that televisions are inanimate objects but their behavior does not always match. Looking at the studies conducted by Reeves and Nass, alongside cognitive dissonance the two theories compliment each other well. The media equation causes a dissonance when one thinks about how they react to the television, therefore according to Festinger there would have to be an attitude change to reduce the dissonance. Reeves and Nass are not claiming this change in behavior will occur because it takes too much effort to change it.
The Media Equation is an interesting theory to look at, it has survived test after test to validate itself. I personally would not have thought much about my television viewing if I was not studying this theory. Each person reacts in an almost programmed way to television, radio, computers and other forms of media. Reeves and Nass have taken those reactions, studied them, and come to the conclusion; while we know better than to scream at a television or movie it takes too much effort to think about that while we are viewing the show. The media equation might not change how I view television in the future, yet it has made me aware of what I’m doing and made me feel a little silly for all those times I’ve yelled at the television.
References Griffin, Em. (2003). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw Hill. McLuhan, Marshall & Fiore, Quentin. (1967). The Medium is the Massage. New York: Touchstone. Reeves, Byron & Nass, Clifford. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bruckheimer, Jerry (Producer). (2004). CSI: Miami [Television Series]. New York: CBS.
Comments
Post a comment