What is Media Psychology?
I have been haunted by this question for nearly two years. It doesn't seem like it should be hard to answer but the fact is that neither 'media' nor 'psychology' are all that concise and they both carry a certain amount of metaphorical baggage. But I have arrived at a definition that I am comfortable with, although I've no doubt that as Media Psychology changes, my opinion will too.
My current definition is: Media Psychology is the interaction of Human Experience and Media
However vague their definitions, both media and psychology have had major impact on western culture throughout the 20th century. The proliferation of media, however, has reached a tipping point in the collective consciousness and society is clamoring for a new level of understanding. The infiltration of media forms and information technologies into nearly every aspect of our lives demands an expertise that combines an understanding of human behavior, cognition, and emotions with an equal understanding of media systems and development. This is relevant across multiple fields and industries, from education, healthcare, science, business, and public policy to entertainment. Media psychology can answer this need through the study of the reciprocal relationship of human experience and media.
In spite of the obvious need, and perhaps because it is a new field, there is no consensus among academicians and practitioners as to the definition or scope of media psychology. (See the overview of the Media Psychology Awareness study). We need a definition that is representative of not only the work currently being done, but the work that needs to be done.
Contributing to the definitional confusion is the fact that both the words 'media' and 'psychology' are themselves not only broad, but prone to misconception. Does 'media' mean television or does 'media' include computer interfaces that facilitate information management and distribution? Does 'psychology' evoke images of Freud and Dr. Phil, or the study of human behavior? It does not help that much of the research in media psychology has been published in academic and applied disciplines beyond psychology, such as sociology, communications and media studies, education, computer and information sciences, and even business management and marketing, although without much intellectual cross-pollination. Because, however, communication is a fundamental human experience, all media-related theories have, by definition, foundations in psychological thought. Other confounding factors to establishing a clear definition for 'media psychology' include the popular image of a 'media psychologist' as a psychologist who appears in the media. This is due in part to the fact that founding members of the first division (46) for Media Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA) were all psychologists with media shows and the initial emphasis of Division 46 was training psychologists to effectively appear in the media or as a watchdog for the accurate portrayal of psychologists in the media. The definition on their website remains neither illuminating nor, at least to me, inspiring. This is a shame because I think the breadth of the field and the potential leverage media provides for positive change is incredibly exciting.
Another problem with defining media psychology is the word 'media' itself. First impressions of media often conjure up pejorative images of persuasion, manipulation, bias, 'dangerous' content, or, worst of all to the western Judeo-Christian work ethic, leisure entertainment.
Nevertheless, the last 50 years have produced valuable and interesting work in media-related research. Much of the focus has come from social anxiety over the impact of media on individuals and society. This has stimulated a mixed bag of research--some very important well-done and, unfortunately, a few politically-driven research agendas with less rigorous academic integrity. The theory has progressed from viewing media consumers as a homogeneous and passive audience to one driven by individual differences and motivations. However, in spite arguments for reciprocity between individuals and the media-influenced cultural environment (e.g. Baudrillard, McLuhan, and Vygotsky), few psychological or media theories actually focus on media as a by-product of a dynamic interactive system from media content providers to media consumers, co-evolving in a social environment.
Vygotsky and Freud were not alone in emphasizing the role of social interaction to the formation of internal structures. However recent work in neurobiology and evolutionary psychology have clarified these mechanisms by identifying the variations of human brain plasticity in response to the environment and variations in cognitive processing over the lifespan to achieve psychological consonance. From birth to early adulthood is a period of high plasticity in terms of brain maturation and is subject to shaping by the environment. Once past early adulthood, change in the human brain derives from cognitive intervention--which is, as we all know, a lot more difficult. Thus, from adulthood onward, humans find it "easier" to alter the environment to suit their cognitive structures than the other way around. Human alterations include physical structures, laws, codes of behavior, language and the arts. Every generation will make their mark on the environment to support their mental models and with the vast changes in technologies and media today, this goes a long way toward describing the discrepancy in the attitudes toward media use between generations. This is a biological description of Prensky's excellent metaphor of the young as “digital natives” versus older generations of “digital immigrants.”
Because the media survives only by the attendance of the audience, these alterations will be reflected in delivering technology and content that the viewers want. As media psychologists, we must recognize the evolving media environment. Part of our job will be to take up Postman’s challenge of training the next generation to engage positively and productively with media; part will be easing the fears of the digital immigrants about the new media world. We also need to place the study of psychological processes within the context of mediated communications and recognize the dynamic role of these processes in interpersonal relations, social interaction and social structures. We need, in other words, to acknowledge the reciprocal relationship between individuals and media.
The Media Psychology Research Center views media psychology as the interaction between human experience and media. We apply a conceptual model, informed by psychological theory, that recognizes that the interactive and dynamic relationship between humans and media is key to a more accurate and useful understanding of the human-media experience. We use this model to establish domains of assessment throughout the continuum of human-media experience. This allow us to more effectively assess, develop and produce positive media.