EVALUATION AUDIENCE: BANDURA

Bandura’s media effects theory argues that audiences may imitate behaviours seen in the media, particularly when such behaviours are rewarded or go unpunished. He also suggests that media can exert influence indirectly, through social networks. While rooted in experimental research, Bandura’s model remains useful when considering how LFTVDs represent power, identity and aggression in their opening episodes.

In Stranger Things Ep1, the representation of violence and power may carry influence. Scenes of school bullying are portrayed with no immediate consequence, potentially normalising aggressive peer behaviour. Eleven’s escape from the laboratory, accompanied by sudden violence, is shown from her perspective, potentially encouraging sympathy with her actions. In addition, the narrative centres on male authority figures (Hopper, Dr. Brenner, the school principal) while female characters, such as Joyce and Karen, are largely defined by maternal roles. This could reinforce patriarchal ideas about who holds power. However, the emotional vulnerability shown by male characters, such as Mike and Hopper, complicates traditional masculinity. Bandura’s model usefully draws attention to how these portrayals could influence audience beliefs and behaviours, particularly around violence and gender. Yet it struggles to account for the ways such behaviours are framed with nuance, critique, or irony.

In Deutschland 83, the risks of imitative behaviour are more political than physical. Martin’s coercion by H.V.A. and his forced relocation are framed as morally troubling. The authority figures in Ep1 manipulate him, sedate him, and lie to his family, behaviours the audience is clearly positioned to reject. As with Stranger Things, power lies with older men, and female characters are largely sidelined or sexualised, such as the West German general’s wife or Martin’s girlfriend. Arguably then, the show reflects a patriarchal structure. However, Lenora's character actively challenges this power structure, perhaps presenting a critique of the link between capitalism and patriarchy. Moreover, Martin’s discomfort and visible loss of autonomy encourage viewers to question, rather than imitate, the authority being depicted. As such, while Bandura’s theory is helpful in flagging potential influence, the framing of these behaviours as exploitative undermines the idea that audiences will directly adopt them.

Bandura’s theory is valuable in highlighting the potential risks of media influence and supports the case for regulation, especially when representing violence or inequality. However, its usefulness in analysing LFTV drama is limited by several factors. First, it assumes direct and measurable behavioural change, yet both Stranger Things and Deutschland 83 present behaviours, especially violence and coercion, within critical or emotionally complex contexts. Bandura does not account for audience interpretation, genre conventions, or irony. Nor does he consider media language: camera angles, editing, and music in both episodes strongly shape the viewer’s response to violence and authority. For example, the eerie lighting and ominous sound design in Stranger Things position Brenner as a villain, discouraging alignment. Furthermore, his model assumes a passive audience, but many viewers engage critically or socially, often discussing and challenging representations online. The model also fails to address how genre shapes audience expectations: Stranger Things uses horror and sci-fi tropes, while Deutschland 83 draws on the spy thriller, genres often associated with stylised or exaggerated content.

In conclusion, while Bandura’s theory provides a starting point for considering how LFTV dramas might influence audience attitudes or behaviour, it oversimplifies the complexity of media engagement. Its assumptions about passive audiences and unmediated influence make it less relevant in a media landscape defined by active interpretation, intertextuality, and complex representations.