Hypodermic Needle 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 behavior 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.

•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.

•This theory suggests a powerful and direct flow of information from the sender to the receiver.

•The hypodermic needle model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience which is immediately influenced by the message. 

•It expresses 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.

•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.

•The theory assumes what we see or hear we believe and consume. The theory assumes we are brainwashed in to believing the media messages.

The Hypodermic Needle Theory: Below is a short video explaining the theory

This is war of the worlds ‘the panic broadcast’

•In the 1930s a radio broadcast of ‘War of the worlds’ was performed like a real news broadcast to heighten the effect of the story, people listening thought is was real and assumed mars had come to invade the world. (as played in the short video)

•This demonstrates a passive audience and how an audience believes what they hear in the

news and how this can quickly lead to misinterpretation. 

Cons of the theory

•Very out of date and invalid.

•Not every one watches the news/ consumes media in the same way.

•Audiences are not simply passive more up to date theories have proved this.

•Technology has changed how we consume media and the sources where it originates from.

•We are more aware of society and how institutions operate.

•We are now so used to consuming media texts that we understand conventions and know when to reject messages if we deem them insignificant