Effect


 * Definition**

Originally from the Middle English //efecte// or //effete//, the term “effect” has evolved little in its definitional meaning throughout the centuries (Effect, 2010). Historically, the noun form of effect has been synonymous with “result,” “consequence,” “outcome” or “success,” and today many of the formal definitions of effect generally hold similar meanings, such as, “something accomplished, caused or produced; a result, consequence” (Effect, 2010). However, the term effect has developed nuanced meanings and uses within the field of Communication and despite being such a seemingly simple concept, reveals a depth of complexities through its responsibility for several controversies within the discipline. Effect is utilized throughout the field of Communication both in general meaning and it specialized applications. This entry will focus on its specific uses within the sub-disciplines of Rhetoric, and Media Studies, as well as social sciences such as health and persuasion.


 * Effect and Rhetoric**

Rhetoric most notably uses the term effect within the context of rhetorical criticism, more specifically with reference to the evaluation of speeches or other rhetoric based on “effects criterion.” The impetus for this approach came from the 1925 seminal article //The Literary Criticism of Oratory//, in which Herbert A. Wichelns argued, “If we now turn to rhetorical criticism…we find that its point of view is patently single. It is not concerned with permanence, nor yet with beauty. It is concerned with effect” (1966 reprint, p. 35). Effects criterion, thus, became a methodology in which rhetoric was evaluated as a success or failure based on whether it had an intended effect (a change in attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors) on its target audience (Kohrs Campbell & Schultz Huxman, 2009, p. 249; Mohrmann & Leff, 1974, p. 460).

Grounded in a Neo-Aristotelian approach, this perspective has some merit with respect to placement of the rhetoric in its historical context (Wander, 1983, p. 4) and consistent and verifiable conclusions (Zarefsky, 2008, p. 632). However, the effects standard ignited debate from the 1960’s to the 1980’s regarding its usefulness in rhetorical criticism (see for example, Mohrmann & Leff, 1974; Kohrs Campbell, 1979; Murphy, 1988; Black, 1980; Mohrmann, 1980; Leff, 1980; Rathbun, 1969):
 * 1) First, measuring the effects a speech has on an audience is a difficult and inaccurate charge (Kohs Campbell & Schultz Huxman, p. 249).
 * 2) Second, by solely analyzing whether a speech changed attitudes or behaviors in an audience, ethical considerations are largely overlooked. “By such a measure, the finest rhetorical works would be speeches of Adolf Hitler who inspired an entire nation to believe in Aryan Superiority and the elimination of all Jews” (Kohrs Campbell & Schultz Huxman, p. 249).
 * 3) Finally, evaluating rhetoric based only on measurable effects or consequences is at odds with the artistic, humanistic, textual or communicative approach, of which most scholars argue are equally important considerations for analysis (Kohrs Campbell & Schultz Huxman, p. 249; Rathbun, p. 149; Murphy, pp. 5, 7, 9; Korhs Campbell, p. 11; Mohrmann & Leff, p. 461).

Although the controversy surrounding the effects of rhetoric quieted for a while, it has been renewed most recently in presidential rhetorical criticism, in which scholars are currently researching whether opinion polling is an accurate way to analyze whether presidential address has any effect on the American public (Stuckey, 2010, pp. 293-294).


 * Effect in Media Studies and Persuasion**

While rhetoric analyzes effects from a general perspective of measurable consequences, results, or impact, other fields conceptualize effects with more complexity. For example, both media studies and persuasion conceptualize effects not only as general outcomes, but by further categorizing them by type. According to McQuail (1987), effects are conceptualized as outcomes of the media’s influence on the public and “media may cause intended change, cause unintended change, cause minor change, facilitate change (intended or not), reinforce what exists (no change) or prevent change” (p. 257).

Furthermore, effects (or outcomes) may be conceptualized as short- or long-term, or in terms of individual, collective, social or cultural (McQuail, pp.257-258). Echoing a similar classification system, Perse describes dimensions of effects as:
 * micro- vs. macro level;
 * intentional vs. unintentional;
 * short- vs. long-term;
 * reinforcement vs. change; and
 * content-dependent vs. content-irrelevant (2001, pp. 18-20).

Another lens through which media scholars conceptualize effects are as cognitive, affective or behavioral (Perse, 2001, p. 2).

By classifying effects in the aforementioned ways, scholars have created a far more complex concept of what it “means” to have an effect; however, debate still exists as to whether the media versus other social or natural influences, creates effects in audiences, and, if so, to what degree (Sherry, 2004). In part, this controversy is fueled by design flaws inherent to media effects studies. For example, finding control groups who have not been exposed to media often proves challenging, and much of the most compelling evidence that media creates effects is found in laboratory settings (Perse, p.9). Furthermore, many of the dominate theories in media studies are opposing paradigms with theories of media effects, causing some muddiness in accounting for the causality of effects in the field (Hakanen, 2007). Finally, if media creates effects in the audience, must one conclude that the media was effective? According to McQuail, there is a nuanced difference between effects and effectiveness. He states, “‘Media effectiveness’ is a statement about the efficiency of media in achieving a given aim and can apply to past, present or future, but always implying intention (p. 256).” Thus, in media effects, an effect can be intentional or unintentional, but effectiveness requires intentionality.


 * Effect in Persuasion and Health**

The fields of persuasion and health campaigns, likewise, conceptualize effects as more than a general change or outcome in the message recipients. According to Perloff, effects may be shaping, reinforcing, or changing (2008, p. 34). Further, these potential effects are not necessarily indicators of effectiveness, as lasting and permanent persuasion is a process that may be slow (Perloff, p. 35). Similarly, health campaign scholars differentiate between effects and effectiveness of campaigns. Much like the rhetorical criticism approach of effects criterion, campaign evaluators do evaluate and measure the effects of a campaign, but like persuasion and media studies, evaluators examine anticipated and unanticipated effects, as well as individual level and system level effects (Valente, 2001, p. 118). Additionally, health campaign scholars, too, find controversy deciphering what an effect is or means with respect to effectiveness. “Campaign effects” and “campaign effectiveness” are often used interchangeably, although there is a general call for the differentiation between these concepts (Salmon & Murray-Johnson, 2001, p. 168). Effects and effectiveness are not mutually exclusive; however, one does not necessarily guarantee the other (Salmon & Murray-Johnson, p. 177).

There are other conceptualizations and uses of the term effect within the field of communication, as well, although these contexts will only be briefly mentioned here. Within the quantitative social sciences (e.g. interpersonal, organizational, persuasion, health, etc.), effect size is often used as a statistical measurement of effects in a study. Effect size is typically an r value associated with a correlation or accounting for variance between variables (Baxter & Babbie, 2004, p. 290; Keyton, 2006, p. 217). In other words, if an effect size was .12, this would mean that 12% of a tested population reported some type of measured effect from a campaign, media exposure, communication task, or intervention (Snyder, 2001, pp. 182, 188).

The concept of effect is both used in common language and specialized Communication applications, and the sub-disciplines often use the term in both overlapping and yet subtly different ways. However, across all Communication fields it seems that both the term and the role it plays in communicative evaluation has been contested at some point in the discipline’s development.

include component="comments" page="page:Effect" limit="10"


 * References**

Baxter, L.A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Black, E. (1980). A note on theory and practice in rhetorical criticism. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 331-336.

Effect. (2010). In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/entrance.dtl.

Hakanen, E.A. (2007). Branding the teleself: Media effects discourse and the changing self. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Keyton, J. (2006). Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Kohrs Campbell, K. (1979). The nature of criticism in rhetorical and communicative studies. Central States Speech Journal, 30(1), 4-13.

Kohrs Campbell, K., & Schultz Huxman, S. (2009). The rhetorical act: Thinking, speaking, and writing critically (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Leff, M.C. (1980). Interpretation and the art of the rhetorical critic. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 337-349.

McQuail, D. (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Mohrmann, G.P. (1980). Elegy in a critical grave-yard. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 265-274.

Mohrmann, G.P., & Leff, M.C. (1974). Lincoln at Cooper Union: A rationale for neo-classical criticism. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 459-467.

Murphy, J.M. (1988). Theory and practice in communication analysis. The National Forensic Journal, 6, 1-11.

Perloff, R.M. (2008). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perse, E.M. (2001). Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rathbun, J.W. (1969). The problem of judgment and effect in historical criticism: A proposed solution. Western Speech, 23, 146-159.

Salmon, C.T., & Murray-Johnson, L. (2001). Communication campaign effectiveness: Critical distinctions. In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkins (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (3rd ed.), (pp. 168-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sherry, J.L. (2004). Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 6, 83-109.

Snyder, L.B. (2001). How effective are mediated health campaigns? In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkins (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (3rd ed.), (pp. 181-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stuckey, M. (2010). Jimmy Carter, human rights and instrumental effects of presidential rhetoric. In S.J. Parry-Giles &

J.M. Hogan (Eds.), The handbook of rhetoric and public address (pp.293-312). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Valente. T.W. (2001). Evaluating communication campaigns. In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkins (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (3rd ed.), (pp. 105-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 1-18.

Wicheln, H.A. ([1925] 1966). The literary criticism of oratory. In D.C. Bryant (Ed.), The rhetorical idiom: Essays presented to Herbert A. Wichelns (pp. 5-42). New York: Russell & Russell.

Zarefsky, D. (2008). Knowledge claims in rhetorical criticism. Journal of Communication, 58, 629-640.