The Use of Media in Media Psychology
Abstract
Media psychologists have theoretical interests in both people and media, yet research investments considerably favor subjects over stimuli. An analysis of 306 studies, taken from the journal Media Psychology over the last 10 years, and from the most cited media experiments in other journals, shows that studies invested in tens of thousands of human subjects but the studies used small samples of media material that were often narrow and unrepresentative. The vast majority of experiments (65%) used single examples of media messages per condition yet they discussed large categories of real world media experiences. Analysis of specific selections showed that media represented in research are less variant, nuanced, and idiosyncratic than media found in the real world. Two categories of solutions are discussed. First, new statistical solutions promote more attention to media repetitions analyzed as random factors. Second, we review the advantages of uncommon research designs that emphasize stimulus investments, including single subject designs that collect intra-individual data and that construct unique models using the entirety, rather than samples, of messages that people experience.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One explanation for the mixed evidence on communication modalities is the large possibility space of how political speeches may appear in videos and the small number of stimuli in media effects research.
“One explanation for the current mixed evidence on the role of communication modalities in mediating people’s ability to discern fabricated content is the large possibility space of how political speeches may appear in videos and the small number of stimuli in media effects research38.”
From Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The stimuli set is much larger than most stimuli sets for the psychology of media effects research and deepfake detection.
“These results are based on an experiment with a stimuli set that is much larger than most stimuli sets for the psychology of media effects research38 and deepfake detection33,35,36”
From Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 184
- Authors
- Reeves, B., Yeykelis, L., & Cummings, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reeves, Byron
- Venue
- Media Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-09-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-71
- ISSN
- 1521-3269 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-785X
- OpenAlex
- W2174114974
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 129.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Media Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Keywords
- random factors, single-case experimental design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review