ABSTRACT
The use of physiological measures in the study of mass communication is not particularly new. Early research done in the 1960s and 1970s attempted to demonstrate that media have measurable effects on physiology (Cantor, Zillmann, & Einsiedel, 1978; Donnerstein & Barrett, 1978; Donnerstein & Hallam, 1978; Zillmann, 1971). Perhaps surprisingly, at least at the time, the findings of those studies did not demonstrate particularly robust or large effects, which led to the virtual disappearance of physiological measures from the communication discipline. This early work took place at a time when most mass communication researchers were looking for “effects” of the media. Physiological measures were being used primarily to demonstrate that the media had measurable effects on bodily functions, which in turn impacted how the messages were responded to. The physiological impact was part of the “effect” that was being searched for-a demonstrable change in physiology was expected in response to the media message. Sometimes, the sought-after change in physiology was thought to be an indicator of a change in state (e.g. arousal), but often simple change in physiology was the ultimate goal. The absence of reliable change in physiological systems in response to media, coupled with the economic and technical difficulties associated with collecting physiological data, virtually banished physiological measures from the toolbox of communication researchers for the next decade.
