The hypodermic needle theory viewed audiences of mass media as passive receivers who were directly influenced by media messages in a powerful way. It suggested media could uniformly inject ideas into large groups and trigger a desired response without resistance. This strong effects view was influenced by the rise of radio/TV, advertising/propaganda, Payne Fund studies on film/children, and Hitler's media control. It saw audiences as unable to avoid media impacts and thinking only what they were told due to a lack of other information sources.

1. Hypodermic Syringe Theory:
The "hypodermic needle theory" implied mass media had a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its
audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behaviour
change.
Several factors contributed to this "strong effects" theory of communication, including:
- the fast rise and popularization of radio and television
- the emergence of the persuasion industries, such as advertising and propaganda
- the Payne Fund studies of the 1930s, which focused on the impact of motion pictures on children, and
- Hitler's monopolization of the mass media during WWII to unify the German public behind the Nazi party
The theory suggests that the mass media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly
by ‘shooting’ or ‘injecting’ them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response. Both
images used to express this theory (a bullet and a needle) suggest a powerful and direct flow of information
from the sender to the receiver. The bullet theory graphically suggests that the message is a bullet, fired
from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head". With similarly emotive imagery the hypodermic needle
model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience which is immediately
influenced by the message. They express the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating
an idea because the receiver or audience is powerless to resist the impact of the message. There is no
escape from the effect of the message in these models. The population is seen as a sitting duck. People are
seen as passive and are seen as having a lot media material "shot" at them. People end up thinking what
they are told because there is no other source of information.

2. Reception Theory;
• Audience reception theory has come to be widely used as a way of characterizing the wave
of audience research which occurred within communications and cultural studies during the 1980s
and 1990s. On the whole, this work has adopted a "culturist" perspective, has tended to use
qualitative (and often ethnographic) methods of research and has tended to be concerned, one way
or another, with exploring the active choices, uses and interpretations made of media materials, by
their consumers
2 step flow:
• This theory asserts that information from the media moves in two distinct stages. First, individuals
(opinion leaders) who pay close attention to the mass media and its messages receive the
information. Opinion leaders pass on their own interpretations in addition to the actual media
content. The term ‘personal influence’ was coined to refer to the process intervening between the
media’s direct message and the audience’s ultimate reaction to that message. Opinion leaders are
quite influential in getting people to change their attitudes and behaviours and are quite similar to
those they influence. The two-step flow theory has improved our understanding of how the mass
media influence decision making. The theory refined the ability to predict the influence of media
messages on audience behaviour, and it helped explain why certain media campaigns may have
failed to alter audience attitudes an behaviour. The two-step flow theory gave way to the multi-step
flow theory of mass communication or diffusion of innovation theory.

3. Uses & Gratification Theory;
• One influential tradition in media research is referred to as 'uses and gratifications' (occasionally 'needs and
gratifications'). This approach focuses on why people use particular media rather than on content. In contrast to
the concern of the 'media effects' tradition with 'what media do to people' (which assumes a homogeneous mass
audience and a 'hypodermic' view of media), U & G can be seen as part of a broader trend amongst media
researchers which is more concerned with 'what people do with media', allowing for a variety of responses and
interpretations. However, some commentators have argued that gratifications could also be seen as effects: e.g.
thrillers are likely to generate very similar responses amongst most viewers. And who could say that they never
watch more TV than they had intended to? Watching TV helps to shape audience needs and expectations.
• U & G arose originally in the 1940s and underwent a revival in the 1970s and 1980s. The approach springs from
a functionalist paradigm in the social sciences. It presents the use of media in terms of the gratification of social or
psychological needs of the individual (Blumler & Katz 1974). The mass media compete with other sources of
gratification, but gratifications can be obtained from a medium's content (e.g. watching a specific programme),
from familiarity with a genre within the medium (e.g. watching soap operas), from general exposure to the
medium (e.g. watching TV), and from the social context in which it is used (e.g. watching TV with the family). U &
G theorists argue that people's needs influence how they use and respond to a medium. Zillmann (cited by
McQuail 1987: 236) has shown the influence of mood on media choice: boredom encourages the choice of
exciting content and stress encourages a choice of relaxing content. The same TV programme may gratify different
needs for different individuals. Different needs are associated with individual personalities, stages of maturation,
backgrounds and social roles. Developmental factors seem to be related to some motives for purposeful viewing:
e.g. Judith van Evra argues that young children may be particularly likely to watch TV in search of information and
hence more susceptible to influence (Evra 1990: 177, 179).

4. Representation theory;
• Representation refers to the construction in any medium (especially the mass media) of aspects of ‘reality’ such as people, places, objects, events,
cultural identities and other abstract concepts. Such representations may be in speech or writing as well as still or moving pictures.
• The term refers to the processes involved as well as to its products. For instance, in relation to the key markers of identity - Class, Age, Gender and
Ethnicity (the 'cage' of identity) - representation involves not only how identities are represented (or rather constructed) within the text but also how
they are constructed in the processes of production and reception by people whose identities are also differentially marked in relation to such
demographic factors. Consider, for instance, the issue of “the gaze” How do men look at images of women, women at men, men at men and women
at women?
• A key in the study of representation concern is with the way in which representations are made to seem ‘natural’. Systems of representation are the
means by which the concerns of ideologies are framed; such systems ‘position’ their subjects.
• Semiotics and content analysis (quantitative) are the main methods of formal analysis of representation.
• Semiotics foregrounds the process of representation.
• Reality is always represented - what we treat as 'direct' experience is 'mediated' by perceptual codes. Representation always involves 'the
construction of reality'.
• All texts, however 'realistic' they may seem to be, are constructed representations rather than simply transparent 'reflections', recordings,
transcriptions or reproductions of a pre-existing reality.
• Representations which become familiar through constant re-use come to feel 'natural' and unmediated.
• Representations require interpretation - we make modality judgements about them.
• Representation is unavoidably selective, foregrounding some things and backgrounding others.
• Realists focus on the 'correspondence' of representations to 'objective' reality (in terms of 'truth', 'accuracy' and 'distortion'), whereas constructivists
focus on whose realities are being represented and whose are being denied.
• Both structuralist and poststructuralist theories lead to 'reality' and 'truth' being regarded as the products of particular systems of representation -
every representation is motivated and historically contingent.
•