Individual Differences in Media Effects

By B. Oliver. 2002

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Gender Studies, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa7461b6d6ccd48492ea163f4d5ca4515ef39e27

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Gender Studies

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Preoccupancy: A Three-Wave Panel Study (2008, background): “Research from the selective exposure approach has demonstrated that people select media content that matches their cognitions, whereas they avoid material that does not conform to their cognitions (for reviews, see Oliver, 2002; Zillmann & Bryant, 1985).”
Why People Watch Reality TV (2004, background): “According to Reiss (2000a), one of the purposes of culture is to provide opportunities for people to experience repeatedly the 16 end goals and joys.”
Looking Good Versus Feeling Good: An Investigation of Media Frames of Health Advice and Their Effects on Women’s Body-related Self-perceptions (2010, background): “According to Putterman and Linden (2004), women who reported being on a diet to improve their appearance were more likely to use drastic dieting strategies, to score higher on measures of body dissatisfaction, and to experience lapses in restraint.”
The Boomerang Effect A Synthesis of Findings and a Preliminary Theoretical Framework (2009, background): “What if viewers receive the exact same message but perceive different meanings in it? According to theories and research on selective perception, interpretations depend on individual differences (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989; Mullin, Imrich, & Linz, 1996; Oliver, 2002).”
The Role of Motivation and Media Involvement in Explaining Internet Dependency (2008, background): “As Oliver (2002) stated, researchers should pay more attention to individual differences in media effects research; neglecting this might lead to an underestimate or biased assessment of media effects.”
Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Notions of Women as Sex Objects: Assessing Causality and Underlying Processes (2009, background): “…and motives, whereas they avoid material that does not conform to their dispositions, attitudes, and motives Journal of Communication 59 (2009) 407–433 c© 2009 International Communication Association 409 Women as Sex Objects J. Peter & P. M. Valkenburg (e.g., Oliver, 2002; Zillmann & Bryant, 1985).”
Social Interaction and Co-Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection (2009, background): “…has linked this background characteristic to motives for choosing media content (e.g., Conway & Rubin, 1991; Krcmar & Greene, 1999; Perse, 1996), and selection of media content that stimulates arousal (e.g., Oliver, 2002) such as violence and pornography (e.g., Krcmar & Greene, 1999; Perse, 1996).”
Young Adults' Wishful Identification With Television Characters: The Role of Perceived Similarity and Character Attributes (2005, background): “Furthermore, even within a culture there are individual differences in how people respond to media messages (Oliver, 2002).”
Social Comparison as the Thief of Joy: Emotional Consequences of Viewing Strangers’ Instagram Posts (2018, background): “individual processes these messages (Fikkers et al., 2016; Oliver, 2002; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013; van Oosten et al., 2015).”
Media Effects: Theory and Research. (2016, background): “As for dispositions, research indicates that trait aggressiveness moderates media violence effects on cognitive (e.g. misinterpretation of ambiguous non-violent acts) and emotional processing (e.g. a decreased empathy with characters; Bushman 1995, Krcmar 2009).”