PSYC 325 Mid 1

lifelong process through which people learn the norms, values, behaviors, and social roles of their society

An intermediary to transmit info beyond one person

Internet platforms/sites that allow users to create, share, exchange their own content

They are mechanisms (routes) by which the media might engage with that might impact us

There is a direct relationship between media consumption and behaviour

yes

lack of evidence
believes the audience is passive, no response to media
does not take into account how people personally respond to media

Media gradually cultivates certain views in the audience over time

Different impacts based on amount of use and on resonance:*\

The similarity between media and an individual's circumstances (What you see fits with what you experience)

Heavy exposure to TV leads to homoginization of perspective across viewers

we reach the main idea that the media is trying to push

Learning behaviour by observing the behaviours of others (IRL or through a screen)

Individuals are driven to the media for many reasons.
i.e. Why did we turn the TV on? Why did I Turn on my phone?

Motivations for consumption may impact media influences

Media use meets needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness

Feeling effective at what you are doing

having a choice, being able to be yourself

feeling connected to others (sense of belonging)

Competence: you feel good at the game
Autonomy: play how you want, choices in the game
Relatedness: gaming community

Autonomy: picking your own music you like
Relatedness: community/fanbase, relating to artist or their lyrics

Competence: unrealistic standards that make you feel worse/incompetent
Autonomy: addiction to social media, can you actually stop?
Relatedness: being a sheep to trends

Medium = extension of individual
‘Light bulb’ - tech that's an extension of individual

Message = change to human society
- What it does (impact of the tech) changes how the world works

The tech, content, and the impact of the tech are intertwined

Media doesn't tell us what to think, but it influences what to think about by highlighting certain issues

Media effects are ongoing and mutually reinforcing through audience choices and media exposure

Persuasion occurs through two routes: central (deep, thoughtful processing) and peripheral (superficial cues).

People select media content to regulate their emotional states

Media effects are rooted in evolutionary adaptations related to survival and reproduction

Adulthood

childhood

during teenager years

TV

Little storyline
bright colours, striking features/shapes, loud noises

cartoons, educational content most popular

More complex and less educational content

more comedy and genderstereotyped content

they realize that it is learning

speed and variety
realisticeality content
social media

Until 2.5-3.5 y/o, infants less likely to learn from screen than from live interaction

Symbolic representation: symbol is something that stands for something other than itself

We understand pixels on a screen in the shape or form of something from the real world represents that thing in the real world (we see bee on TV, understand that its a bee even if there is no "real" bee there). Babies are unable to do this

window

Initially, understanding based on perceptual reality (What looks real? What has more real world features -- looks like human = is human).

by 8-9, children use content to judge realism (focus on what is POSSIBLE). Is flying, laserbeams, godzilla real?

Perceptual processing

Perceptually salient features (how things look, sound)

taller one (looks larger)

the one who looks nice despite doing an unnice action

6-8+

searching for identity and self

Choose what to post, say; choose how to portray yourself

True

belief that others are paying attention to you

the belief that you and your experiences are unique

risky media content (horror movies)

risky media use (sexting)

sexual content

develop and understand sexuality

Violent impulses can be purged through consuming violent media (seeing someone else be violent allows us to purge our own violent urges)

Observational learning; we mimic behaviour we see

violence stimuli activate aggrssive thoughts --> can "prime" other related thoughts

it activates violent idea

personal "screenplays" of how interactions are expected to be

observation and experience

Consuming certain types of media lead to physiological arousal in our body; mind interprets that arousal

Repeated exposure to media violence would lead to lessened reaction to violence

input variables determine an individuals likelihood to act

Person
Situations

if you are highly aggressive or not; genetics; upbringing; experience

being in a war vs being in a rugby match vs being in a lecture hall; have you been exposed to violent media or not?

By influencing the internal state

Decide whether to be aggressive or not

Outcome helps determine how you act (aggressively) next time

designs that involve analyzing content of media

examining relationship between 2 variables

Pros:
- cheap
- easy
Cons:
- no causation

Same participants tested repeatedly over time

Pros:
- cause and effect (one comes before the other)
Cons:
- Attrition/takes time

Participants randomly assigned to different groups; IV or control (IV manipulated; DV measured)

Pros:
high control
replicable
Cons:
time and money consuming
ethics

naturally occuring circumstances "randomly" create differences between individualsroups

summary of studies already done on a topic

pros:
- more informational than single study
cons:
- needs already conducted studies
- can have no consensus

2-10%

Anything done with intent of harming someone/something else

Aggression, gender stereotypes increased
Reading, creative thinking increased
Change not seen in other towns, only town that did not initially had no TV

Men more likely to engage with physical aggression
Men more likely to identify with violent content/media
Men more likely to be reinforced for violent action
Men more likely to like violent media

Some cultures more controlling on aggression, others more lenient
Some cultures allow more media usage, others less
Some cultures punish children to differing degrees
Different content allowed on media
Upbringing different; some people raised in more violent households

violent games not appropriate for young children

younger vs older children think different games are stimulationgealistic

using different games cannot tell you if it is a age difference for aggression or a difference in media

Highly aggressive

hostile attribution bias

feeling angry or frustrated

See yourself as similar to person/character (doing violent thing)

wanting to be like person/character

collaberative games --> working together, sharing, cooperation

Prosocial behaviour more common after cooperative video game play (Even more so for violent games)

Psychological needs satisfaction → violent collaborative play linked more to feelings of competence, relatedness, enjoyment, positive emotions

Whether playing a violent multiplayer online game cooperatively increases children’s prosocial behaviors compared to playing sol

Game content (violent vs. neutral) and game mode (single vs. co-player)

They completed measures of psychological needs satisfaction and performed prosocial tasks (donation and helping intentions)

Children in co-play conditions showed more prosocial behaviors than those in single-player; violent co-play led to even more helping than neutral co-play

Satisfaction of psychological needs—namely competence, relatedness, and positive emotions.

Cooperative violent games can promote positive social behaviors, suggesting social and emotional experiences are key in social development through gaming

Whether violent video games increase aggression in adolescent boys, especially when players wishfully identify with violent characters

They are more likely to consume violent media, engage in aggression, and are underrepresented in prior research (which mostly used college students).

- Type of game: violent vs. nonviolent
- Game realism: realistic vs. fantasy
- Player factors: wishful identification, immersion, trait aggressiveness, sensation seeking, habitual game exposure

Aggression, measured by the intensity of noise blasts participants set for an ostensible partner in a reaction-time task (Levels 0–10, with 8–10 said to cause hearing damage).

A Violence × Wishful Identification interaction
- In violent games, higher wishful identification predicted greater aggression (noise blasts often above the “hearing damage” threshold).
- In nonviolent games, wishful identification did not predict aggression

No. But they increased wishful identification, which in turn predicted aggression

- Supports social learning theory: adolescents imitate admired, powerful models.
- Shows that wishful identification is a key mechanism linking violent games to aggression.
- Realism and immersion amplify identification, making violent characters more influential

- Adolescents who admire violent game characters are at higher risk of aggressive behavior.

consuming high amounts of (screen) media leads to poor cognition and academic coorelation

Time displacement: media displaces other media use, sleep, social activities (displace things that are useful for our learning)
Mental effort: media use is passive --> passive thinking becomes the norm
Attention and impulsivity: idea media use shortens attention spans, increase impulsive behaviours

Educational objectives

distinct from media used formally within school to teach

TRUE

vocab, spelling/literary skills, prosocial,and cognitive skills

moderate discrepancy
repition
interaction/particpiation cues

children attend to and learn fro media that differs modeately from what they know and understand

familiarity/identification/parasocial relationships with characters lead to more successful leaarning

Attending to both narrative and educational content of educational media will compete for resources (memory)

If there is distance, we lose educational content because narrative content is more interesting

How easy or hard it is to understand/follow along
Previews: allows easier recall

More words you know, easier for you to understand
Prior knowledge
How interested you are

TRUE

Success in learning can vary based on interactivity, rewards, narrative content, gameplay

Jump twice, count 2, jump twice, count 4, etc
- learn to count in 2s/evens

problem solving (strategy games)
persistence
creativity

How preschoolers’ viewer characteristics (prior knowledge, interest, verbal ability, short-term memory) influence comprehension of narrative and educational content in educational TV

Fisch’s capacity model

78 preschoolers (ages 3–5.5 years) watched an episode of The Cat in The Hat

- Supports the capacity model: narrative dominates, and educational learning depends on narrative comprehension.
- Viewer characteristics (prior knowledge, verbal ability, memory) shape comprehension.
- Interest, surprisingly, did not play the predicted role.

interactivity/engagemet: personalized tutors/teachers; talking about ideas

dialogic readings: conversations while reading

Privacy (who owns the conversations)
Intellectual property (who owns what is imported into AI)
Environmental impact
Equity

not 100% accurate
Biased
reduces learning enjoyment

How does access to generative AI (GPT‑4) affect student learning in math, and does the design of the AI tutor (with vs. without guardrails) change outcomes?

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with ~1,000 Turkish high school students across three conditions: Control, GPT Base (standard ChatGPT-like), and GPT Tutor (guardrails - no answers - + teacher-designed hints).

- Teacher-led review.
- Assisted practice (AI intervention applied here).
- Unassisted exam (no AI allowed).

Performance on practice problems (with AI) and exam problems (without AI).

- GPT Base → +48% improvement vs. control.
- GPT Tutor → +127% improvement vs. control.

- GPT Base → –17% compared to control (students did worse).
- GPT Tutor → No significant difference from control (negative effect mitigated)

Students used GPT Base as a “crutch”—copying answers instead of practicing skills—leading to weaker independent performance

- Generative AI can boost short-term performance but undermine long-term learning if unrestricted.
- Guardrails (hints, scaffolding, teacher input) preserve learning.
- AI must prioritize actual learning, not just short term productivity