The effects of daily newspapers on their readers—Exemplary presentation of a study and its results

Investigated in a long term study the effects of daily newspapers. A field experiment was carried out in which newspapers with different political standpoints were allocated to the 760 subjects (male students). The effect criteria measured were both specific and general political attitudes, images of politicians, and judgmental tendencies. The analysis of media effect extended to both differential and general effects. Clear attitude changes consistent with the opinions presented in the newspapers could be established in attitude spheres where the arguments presented were of a more controversial nature. Analogous effects could only partially be observed as regards the image of well known politicians. If features of the subjects' judgmental process are taken as effect criteria (use of dimensions), no newspaper related effects can be observed. In spite of considerable devaluation of one newspaper by the subjects, there were no boomerang effects. This ties in with the fact that practically no differential attitude changes (e.g. relating to dogmatism or political interest) could be established. Taking into account the historical background to our study, we conclude that the effect of the daily newspapers examined here was more or less confined to attitudes towards more salient issues. Finally, we have outlined general hypotheses which can be the starting point for the analysis of long term cumulative media effects.     

Trauma and Relationship Satisfaction in Treatment Seeking Couples: A Dyadic Investigation of Differentiation as a Mediator

Contemporary Family Therapy - The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between interpersonal trauma history and relationship satisfaction, and the mediating effect of...     

Global Diversification in Medicine Regulation: Insights from Regenerative Stem Cell Medicine

ABSTRACT

Medicine regulation worldwide has undergone a process of regulatory diversification. The evidence-based medicine (EBM) paradigm, centered on multi-phase randomized controlled trials, is increasingly contested and replaced by new models of clinical validation. To explain these changes, STS research has cited just a few factors, e.g. growing pressure form health consumers; the role of pharmaceutical companies to lobby for fast, affordable drug development; the influence of neoliberal ideas and libertarian advocacy of deregulation; and the agency of national governments to enable domestic innovation opportunities in the context of global competition and inequalities. Those factors individually cannot account for the increasing variation in medicine regulation at both national and global levels. Instead it is helpful to integrate elements of existing explanations into a framework with four pairs of conflicting regulatory choices, which play a central role in the formation of medicine regulation. We use this framework to compare regulatory changes in the USA, European Union, China, India, Argentina, and Japan. Across these jurisdictions, the case studies illustrate four dynamics of diversification. Key regulatory concepts such as evidence, risk, safety, efficacy, responsibility and accountability acquire different meanings, reshaping medicine innovation in far-reaching and often contradictory ways. The boundaries between medical research and healthcare provision, commerce and humanitarian service, as well as state control and medical self-regulation are re-defined.