Revisiting the Hypodermic Needle Theory in the Digital Age
We’re in a time like no other. A time where information is more widespread than ever, computers are more accessible and faster than ever before, and smartphones are an indispensable part of life. Social media has evolved from casually catching up with friends to a 64.1 billion dollar industry. But what has this change meant for communication and mass media? Well, we can start by looking back towards one of the first influential theories of communication.
If you’re hearing “Magic Bullet/Hypodermic Needle Theory” and thinking, what is he talking about? Don’t sweat it, you’re not alone. The Hypodermic Needle Theory is a way of viewing how mass communication and media influences us, the public, as an audience. The theory insinuates that messages hold quite a bit of power and that audiences are inherently influenced by them. If you want a better understanding of what I’m talking about, I love the way it’s explained here:
The issue with the Hypodermic Needle theory is the idea that people are helpless and passive when confronted with media. Everyone reacts to messaging differently, and if the theory were true, we would all find ourselves with the same fixed mindset and perception of the world around us. Instead, I think today more than ever we seek to challenge the ideas media presents us, thanks to the rise of selective exposure. Rather than being passive, we are quite active in response to media, especially when that media challenges our viewpoint on an issue or topic.
Personally, I don’t believe I’m as vulnerable to media as the theory implicates. However, it would be naïve to think everyone feels or operates the same way I do. In one way or another, we are all susceptible to media and its influence, but without a doubt, media is not received passively or with the same reaction by everyone. This invalidates the theory, but instead of just talking about it, let’s look at some examples:
2020 Election
Many people cite, “The People’s Choice” study from Paul Lazarsfeld and Herta Herzog in the 1940s as the first strong example to disprove the Hypodermic Needle Theory, and I think we can see another in this past election. Pew Research Center found a strong polarization between political parties and their trust in media with Democrats trusting more than 22 sources, while Republicans distrusted more than 20. Trust or Distrust, their research clearly illustrates a variety of reactions to media and certain messaging. This further imposes that there is certainly not uniformity among thought in reaction to media, rather the opposite.
Selective Exposure
Another example of the complexity of modern media is the rise of selective exposure thanks to the saturation of media and messaging that has led to our ability to pick and choose the messages which influence us. Rather than being so dependent upon a singularity media and linear form of messaging, the rise of digital and social media has led to us being able to pick and choose the messages that fit and further reinforce our world view. Everything from attitudes, beliefs, and education influence what messaging we accept and what we refute. With hundreds of different digital news sources and more growing on social media each day, there is certainly no shortage of media outlets in 2021.
Violence
One heavily researched area of media effects is between media violence and real-life violence. The idea of copycat violence would uphold the idea of a passive audience being “injected” with an indoctrinated message — the hypodermic needle theory. However, societal violence is far too complex to be boiled down to a single theory or point of origin, despite how often the media is scapegoated for such. Looking back much of the research done on the topic has led to little to no validity in the link between violient-media and real-life aggression.
