Search results

Purpose: Media violence theorists made five methodological errors, which have muddled theory construction. As such, the validity of the claim that media violence must share blame for a rise in aggression in society is suspect.

Approach: Here, the authors explain those five errors: (1) Subclinical psychopathologies interact with media messages in detectable ways. Media violence researchers never paid attention to the composition of their participant samples. Consequently, they were never aware of the inherent vulnerabilities, or immunities, to media violence of their participants. (2) Media violence researchers used convenience samples when they should have used random samples to study media violence. The nature of the research questions they were asking required the use of random samples. But, with the use of convenience samples, those samples never matched the populations they were designed to examine. (3) Media violence researchers used expansive variable lists that probably triggered family-wise interaction effects, thus reporting interactions between independent and dependent variables that were meaningless. (4) Most media violence data are correlational. So, researchers used converged data from correlational studies to infer causation. But their convergence procedures were improperly executed, which led to incorrect interpretations. (5) Media violence researchers, from the outset of their work in the 1980s, pathologized media violence first, then set about trying to find out how it presumably harmed society. Those researchers should have considered the idea that media violence is nothing more than mere entertainment for most people.

Value: In addition to questioning the claims made by media violence researchers, these five errors serve as a cautionary tale to social media researchers. Scholars investigating the effects of social media use might consider the possibility that social media are nothing more than new modes of communication.

1. Innovative technologies, such as DS, can engage different human senses and play an important role in enhancing the store atmosphere.

2. The majority of DS networks feature content that is generic and is rarely tailored to the audience passing by the screens. As a result, digital displays are often ignored.

3. DS coupled with sensors and Artificial Intelligence allow for more relevant and personalized experiences.

4. Relevance through personalization can help retailers overcome display blindness, but challenges in terms of legal restrictions and ethical concerns exist to unlock its potential.

5. Nontouch interaction technologies, such as voice assistants, gesture controls, facial recognition, and augmented reality, present new ways of interacting with digital screens.

Innovative technologies, such as DS, can engage different human senses and play an important role in enhancing the store atmosphere.

The majority of DS networks feature content that is generic and is rarely tailored to the audience passing by the screens. As a result, digital displays are often ignored.

DS coupled with sensors and Artificial Intelligence allow for more relevant and personalized experiences.

Relevance through personalization can help retailers overcome display blindness, but challenges in terms of legal restrictions and ethical concerns exist to unlock its potential.

Nontouch interaction technologies, such as voice assistants, gesture controls, facial recognition, and augmented reality, present new ways of interacting with digital screens.