| Home | Audio Magazine | Stereo Review magazine | Good Sound | Troubleshooting |
|
The tremendous significance of communication in human affairs is briefly and arrestingly characterized by a non-psychologist, Kenneth Burke, when at the end of a penetrating discussion of these problems (9) he says ". . . there is no place for purely human boasts of grandeur, or for forgetting that men build their cultures by huddling together, nervously loquacious, at the edge of an abyss." It is the purpose of the present paper to present a broad conceptual frame work within which the how and why of human loquacity (and related processes) may be considered. The increasing amount of published research on human communicative behavior has made the lack of theoretical integration noticeable. In recent volumes (8, 19, 36) this deficiency has been noted or implied, especially by Hovland (17) and Bryson (8).' From Franklin Fearing, "Toward a Psychological Theory of Human Communication," Journal of Personality, 1953, 22, 71-88. Reproduced with permission of the publisher. I This is not to say that there have been no attempts to formulate communications theory. In addition to the important formulations of Lasswell (25), Mead (29), and Burke (9, 10), the recent papers by Hovland (18), Pronko (34) and Smith (38, 39) contain theoretical discussions. In the present discussion communicative behavior is placed in the context of the current formulations 2 regarding cognitive-perceptual processes conceived as dynamically related to the need-value systems of individuals. Broadly stated, these conceptualizations assert that these systems, which are central in the personality structure of the individual, interacting with the environment, result in instabilities and dis-equilibriums which are coordinated with an increase intension in the individual, and that cognitive-perceptual processes structure the environment in a specific manner so as to reduce tension. Communicative behavior is a specific form of molar behavior which occurs in a situation or field possessing specified properties, the parts of which are in interdependent relationships with each other. A theory of such behavior is concerned with forces, psychological, social, and physical, which determine the course of this behavior and its outcomes in relation to the culture in which it occurs. Such a theory should formulate hypothetical constructs and present a terminology with appropriate definitions in the following four interrelated areas: (a) the forces which determine the effects of communication, that is, constructs regarding individuals designated interpreters; (14 the forces which determine the production of communications, that is, constructs about communicators; (c) the nature of communications content considered as a stimulus field; (d) the characteristics of the situation or field in which communication occurs. All the practical and theoretical problems of communications research lie in these four areas. It is essential to the formulations in the present paper that the behavior events in these areas be regarded as dynamically interrelated. An important implication of this assumption is that any change occurring in any sub-region will have effects in all other regions. DEFINITIONS OF BASIC TERMS 2 For example, Bruner and Postman (6, 33), Frenkel-Brunswik (15), and many others. Certain terms referring to regions of the communications field are used through out the present discussion. Their definitions follow. COMMUNICATOR. A communicator is a person (or persons) who produces or controls the production of a body of sign-symbol material with the intent (this term is discussed later) of cognitively structuring the field (or fields) of specific interpreters who are assumed by the communicator to have specific needs and demands. They may or may not be physically present, but are always part of the psychological field of the communicator. The communicator reacts or is capable of reacting to the body of produced material in the same manner in which he anticipates the interpreters will react. There is a special category of communicators who do not originally produce the sign-symbol material, but who, within certain limits, are able to control or manipulate its subsequent presentation. These we shall call pseudo-communicators. INTERPRETER. An interpreter is one who perceives (cognitively structures) a specific body of sign-symbol material produced by specific communicators as a stimulus field in terms of his existing patterns of needs, expectancies, and demands. In perceiving this stimulus field the interpreter implicitly or explicitly identifies its arti-factual character and structures its source. The definitions of this structurization vary from a vague "they say" to a definitive identification of the communicator. In any event, part of the stimulus field for the interpreter is the personal agency in its production. The objective truth of these assumptions by the interpreters is not involved." COMMUNICATIONS CONTENT. Communications content is an organized stimulus field consisting primarily of signs and symbols produced by a communicator and perceived through single or multisensory channels. It must be susceptible to similar structurizations by both communicator and interpreter. Structurization of the stimulus field may be either simple or complex and in the spatial or temporal dimensions or both. Temporal structurization is usually more highly differentiated, and also permits greater perceptual freedom on the part of interpreters. Plays, novels, scientific papers are structurally complex as contrasted with a road sign or a single, attention-attracting signal, e.g., Hey there! Communications content may be distinguished from the context in which it appears. The "timing" of an official announcement, the setting of a scene in a play, the psycho logical properties of a particular communications medium, or the status and personality of a speaker are examples of context. These contextual aspects of the stimulus are sometimes referred to as independent extraneous factors designed by such terms as "suggestion" or "prestige." Asch (3) has recently discussed this and pointed out that content of a statement may not be separated from its con text, and that content is psychologically changed by context. Considered as a stimulus field to which interpreters respond, however, content and context are a unified whole or gestalt. 3 Much current communications research is concerned with interpreter responses to communications content either during exposure (called response analysis, (351) or subsequent to exposure (called deers analysis, 114, 19, 231). The last, of course, is subject to intervening experiences of the interpreter and, strictly speaking, is not part of the communicative situation. Especially significant from the point of view of the conceptualizations proposed are the studies of how particular interpreters utilize communications content. Merton's study of the Kate Smith broadcasts (30), and the studies of daytime radio serials by Arnheim (2), Herzog (16) and Warner and Henry (43) contribute relevant data. The communicator or his surrogate is a part of the context in every communication. In responding to content the interpreter, vaguely or clearly, structures its source. In some cases the communicator's characteristics, real or imagined, play a major role in so far as the effects on the interpreter are concerned. COMMUNICATIONS SITUATION. Communication occurs in a situation possessing quasi-physical, quasi-social and quasi-psychological properties which in- duce and determine the course of behavior of communicators and interpreters. A primary characteristic of this field as perceived by either the communicator or interpreter or both is its lack of a clear and stable organization. Correlated with the perceived instability is an increase in tension on the part of the potential communicators and interpreters. This is the "need to communicate" and the "need to be communicated to." 4 The situation is cognitively restructured by the produced content, and the communication may be said to occur when the perception of such content brings communicators and interpreters into dynamic relationships. Existing tensions may be either increased or reduced depending on the perceptual-need systems of the individuals involved, and the specific character of the communications content. The central importance of sign-symbol material in bringing about these effects for man is related to his unique capacity as a symbol-producing and symbol-manipulating organism. The dynamics of the interrelated parts of the communication situation may be summarized as follows:-(a) the existence of specific tensional states related to perceived instabilities, disturbances, or needs in the psychological fields of the individuals involved; (b) the production of a structured stimulus field (communications content) consisting of signs and symbols; and (e) the achievement of a more stable organization through cognitive restructuring of the fields induced by such content. The relationships in the communication situation have a strategic character in that they involve a variety of manipulatory activities through which individuals strive to achieve an understanding of each other and their environments. This is the meaning of communication in human society. It is necessary to distinguish the interactions between individuals in the communication situation from other forms of social interaction. Recent papers by Maslow (28) and Arnheim (1 ) discuss a form of interaction between organ isms which closely resembles communication. Expression or expressive behavior refers to postural, gestural (including vocalizations), and other bodily changes which are perceived and cognized by others. Arnheim notes that the general appearance and all the overt activities of the body may be "expressive." The flushed face, the upraised fist, the sagging shoulders are stimulus patterns which may be perceived and cognized in various ways by another organism. But these interactions are not communication, although they may easily be confused with it. 4 A wide range of "needs" may be served in communication situations. The studies of Herzog (16), Warner and Henry (43) and Arnheim (2) show how particular interpreters seek specific satisfactions from communications content. Maslow differentiates instrumental behavior, or "coping" behavior, as he terms it, from expressive behavior. Coping behavior is "essentially an interaction of the character with the world, adjusting each to the other with mutual effect." Non-instrumental or expressive behavior, on the other hand, "is essentially an epiphenomenon of the nature of character structure." Coping behavior is characteristically motivated, determined by environmental and cultural variables, easily controlled, designed to cause changes in the environment, concerned with need-gratification and threat-reduction, and highly conscious.5 The act of producing content in the communications situation may be regarded as a special case of coping behavior. The borderline case between a communicative interaction would be the smile which is "expressive"-presumably of some bodily affective state-and the smile that is produced with intent to affect the behavior of an other. It may be difficult to establish criteria to differentiate between expressive behavior and communication, but the reality and importance of the distinction must be accepted. In addition to its instrumental or homeostatic role, communication is essentially creative. This is partly the result of the central role and unique potentialities of signs and symbols. The structuring processes resulting in the produced content may represent new (emergent) insights for both the producer of the con tent and the interpreters, and are essentially creative acts, perhaps the prototype of all creative activity in the arts and sciences. "Creative" as used here means that the resultant of the structuring process-the "structure"-is not merely a summation of existing elements, but a gestalt possessing properties different from those of the component elements. The structuring process is creative also in the sense that it does not necessarily depend on antecedent experience (learning) or innate factors in the individual. In this connection the comments of Chein (13) seem applicable to the communications situation when he says, "The important dynamic fact is how the person perceives the situation and what he wants in it rather than the fact that learning had previously taken place." (Italics added.) Chein believes there is an "intellectual trap" in the assumption that a psychological process must be accounted for as either learned or innate. "We believe that new insights do arise, and we see no good reason why novel features of current situations should not be perceived or why previously unnoticed features of repeatedly experienced situations may not be perceived for the first time." COMMUNICATIONS CONTENT AND THE CONCEPT "INTENT." The special, al most unique, characteristic of the communication situation is the production of a stimulus field possessing special characteristics which differentiate it from other stimuli to which organisms respond. These are: (a) it is produced by one or more individuals in the communication situation with the intent of structuring the fields of both its producers and interpreters; (b) it utilizes sign-symbol materials which have common significations for both the producer and interpreters; and (c) it implicates specific interpreters and communicators who are assumed to possess certain need patterns and perceptual capacities for which the produced content is relevant. 6 The construct intent in (a) above refers to the fact that the act of producing content is directed rather than random or aimless, and implicitly or explicitly assumes future effects. We have noted that the production of communications content appears to be a special case of coping behavior as defined by Maslow, especially as it reflects the perception of a concrete social situation, and the need-value structure of the communicator. In this sense intent is very similar to Cantril's I 121 "expectancy," which he defines as "our present reaction to the future in terms of what will happen to us if we do (or don't) do certain things now." As Cantril points out, what really concerns us "now" are possible future effects-effects which we may be able to modify. Intent is correlated with a tension system, and may be generalized as a need to communicate. The intent of the communicator in producing specific content is not only concerned with expected effects on interpreters, but assumes they possess particular need patterns and perceptual capacities. In other words, in the act of producing content, the interpreters are always in the psychological field of the communicator. The communicator's perceptions of the interpreters may determine the character of the content he produces. The degree of specificity with which these presumed effects are defined by the communicator may vary widely from one communication situation to another, but clearly or vaguely they are dynamically a part of the communication situation. It does not follow from this, however, that the communicator always produces content which is directly responsive to interpreter needs or reactions. In face-to-face communications, for example, where communicator and interpreter physically are in each other's presence, the produced content is more likely to be adjusted to the immediate responses of the interpreter. In a large proportion of human communications the communicator and interpreter are separated spatially or temporally. Here the communicator produces content on the basis of assumptions about interpreters which he may or may not be ready or able to modify in terms of interpreter response. In the limiting case, either because the communicator conceives the communication in strictly linear terms and hence is psychologically incapable of modifying content, or because of technological limitations of the medium used which make modification of content difficult or impossible, communication may break down completely. ---------------- 5 Similar distinctions have been made by others. Lewis (26), for example, distinguishes between the "declarative" and "manipulative" use of language by the child. Schneirla has recently (36) emphasized the same point of view in his discussion of the distinctions between subhuman and human "communication." He notes that social inter- change in insects resembles human communication only superficially. In human communication, according to Schneirla, the following criteria are met: (a) symbols are used intentionally with respect to anticipated consequences; (b) they have meaningful connections with objects and situations; (c) they influence both the user and the interpreter in characteristic ways; and (d) they are patterned according to the motivations and perceptions of the communicator. --------------------- In producing communications, the intent-pattern of the communicator may bear a significant relation to his role in the power-structure of the groups, sub cultures, or class in which he has membership. This has important theoretical and practical implications, since it asserts a possible relationship between all communication and the power-structures in the culture. "Control" and "power," as those terms are used here, refer to the fact that communications content is the primary agency in human society through which individuals have social relation ships with each other and with their physical environments. For example, the amount and quality of information available at any given time regarding any human problem are functions of the activities of specific communicators with specific intents. Such information may furnish the frame of reference for human action, and in this sense controls. However, since the relationship between communicator and interpreter is not a simple linear one in which certain content is produced and transmitted intact to recipients, control is not necessarily communicator centered. Rather, it is complex and interdependent, involving feed-back mechanisms of the type recently described by Norbert Wiener (44). Insofar as the communicator recognizes and adjusts to the need-structure and perceptual capacities of the interpreter, he shares control with him. CONTENT ANALYSIS. The stimulus material produced by the communicator under the organizing forces just described is defined operationally as an organization of sign-symbols which may be subject to content analysis. Content analysis refers to a specific set of procedures, the object of which is to make available quantitative and qualitative statements regarding communications content.7 One effect of this requirement is that communications content must be capable of being reproduced in permanent form. The characteristics of this stimulus must be established by procedures applied independently of particular communicators and interpreters. Such an analysis establishes a set of reference points with respect to which other aspects of the communications field-for example, the intent of communicators, including their emotional and personality dynamics, or effects on interpreters-may be validly and reliably appraised. Content analysis may be carried out in accordance with a highly rigorous design, or be relatively impressionistic-the professional critic's review of a novel is a form of content analysis-but it is essential to any systematic study of communication situations. If the analysis is to claim any degree of scientific rigor it must meet reliability and validity tests, the analysts must be trained in the use of the procedures, and the categories used must be based on objective criteria.8 ------------------------ 7 The technique and problems of content analysis are discussed in Lasswell and Leites (25), Berelson and Lazarsfeld (4), and Spiegelman, Terwilliger, and Fearing (42). Examples of the application of these techniques to particular contents are White (44), and Spiegelman, Terwilliger, and Fearing (40, 41). The use of less rigorous techniques are illustrated in Kracauer (24) and Wolfenstein and Leites (48). 8 The techniques for determining validity and reliability are discussed by Janis (20), Kaplan and Goldsen (21), and Spiegelman, Terwilliger, and Fearing (42). ------------------------------------ SIGN-SYMBOL MATERIAL. A second characteristic of communications content is its utilization of signs and symbols. The definitions proposed by Charles Morris (32), and the general theoretical orientation of George Mead (29) are used in the present discussion. Morris's definition of a symbol as a sign produced by its interpreter that acts as a substitute for some other sign with which it is synonymous is adopted here. Mead has recognized the enormous implications for society of the symbol. using processes. For him symbols are not merely sense-stimuli to which mental states-"meanings," "concepts," "ideas," etc.-have become attached. They are gestures, and are "significant" because the communicator who produces the gesture incipiently responds to it in the same way as the individual to be affected by it-in Mead's terminology, "the other." This, for Mead, is the essence of the social process. Communication "is not simply a matter of abstract ideas, but is a process of putting one's self in the place of the other person's attitude, communicating through significant symbols" (p. 327). Morris points out that although "spoken-heard" signs (language) play a central role in the life of man these are not the only types of symbolic material. An important type of nonlinguistic symbolic material is that which Morris terms "iconic." An iconic sign is any sign which is similar in some respect to that which it denotes. Both auditory and visual signs may be iconic. Morris notes that 66. . . photographs, portraits, maps, road-markers, models are iconic to a high degree; dreams, paintings, pageants, the dance, dress, play, and architecture are iconic in varying degrees" (p. 190). A form of communications content involving what Morris calls the "iconic performance of actions" is of particular importance in current communications research. Examples include ritual, film and stage performances, storytelling, comic strips, and many others. SOME DIMENSIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS In terms of the theory here presented the communicator, content, and interpreter are "in" every communications situation and are dynamically related. It would be useful to conceptualize these relationships in terms of hypothetical properties or dimensions which are dependent on specific variables in the communications situation. It should be possible to define a given communication situation by its position on a variety of such dimensions. Several problems present themselves. In the first place, it is necessary to establish the univocality of each dimension and the objective criteria to be used in fixing any position or series of positions on it. Second, there is the problem of describing, and, for experimental purposes, con trolling, the variables which underlie each continuum and determine the positions thereon. Ultimately, of course, it would be necessary to determine the kind of relationships existing between the various continua. The suggested dimensions which follow are to be regarded as highly tentative. The possibilities are not exhausted and it is possible that those proposed will not survive experimental analysis. SPECIFICITY OF INTENT. This dimension defines the definiteness with which the communicator envisages the effects of the content he produces. Intent is a manifestation of the need-tensional variables in the personality structure of the communicator; it acts as a selector and organizer of material. It has already been pointed out that the interpreter is always part of the psychological field of the communicator in the act of producing content. The specificity dimension de fines the potency of the interpreter image on content. It expresses itself in the degree to which the communication is planned. Highly specific or "planned" communications are usually interpreter centered. The communicators are (a) explicit regarding the effects to be achieved on particular interpreters, and (b) consciously manipulating content in the light of these assumptions. A propaganda campaign, for example, is directed toward particular "publics" who are assumed by the communicator to have certain wants, to be alert or apathetic, stupid or intelligent. Communications which are relatively unspecific, on the other hand, are to a greater degree communicator centered. That is, in general, the communicator is more concerned with expressing himself than with possible effects on others. In the limiting case at the unplanned end of the continuum, we do not have communicative behavior, but expressive behavior, in the sense of Maslow. At this end of the continuum we should expect to find material produced which in a larger degree reflects the personality structure and emotional dynamics of the communicator and is very slightly concerned with potential interpreters. Examples of relatively unplanned communications are face-to-face conversations, some, but not all, personal letters, rumors (except those which are "planted" for specific effects), diaries, and certain types of autobiographical material. A group of factors which are significantly correlated with high specificity of intent are those relating to the communicator's social role, especially his power role in the groups of which he is a member. Broadly speaking, all highly planned communications are power communications in the sense that specific behavioral effects are expected to follow specific content. The control of content assumes the control of these effects, and hence is closely connected with the power structures of the society. Lasswell (25) has discussed the concern of ruling elites, as he terms them, with communication as a means of preserving power. He notes that in the instance of conflicts between ruling elites there develops a struggle for the control of channels of communication. Highly planned communications of this type are frequently produced by various types of professional communicators. These include public relations specialists, advertising copywriters, professional propagandists, publicity specialists, psychological warfare specialists, and others)" These communicators have a degree of professional competence in the use of symbols, particularly those required for a particular communications medium. ----------------------- These types of communications content are typically produced in the clinical situation and are analyzed for the information they yield regarding the personality structures of the subjects. ----------------------- The assignment of a particular communication to a position on the specificity continuum may be based on data from two sources: (a) statements by or in formation about communicators; and (b) content analyses made for the purpose of inferring the character of the communicator's intent." Information regarding the first might be based on the use of clinical techniques or from a variety of secondary as well as primary sources. These will, in themselves, be communications, and their analysis will have to take into account all the factors which are involved in the communicative process. REALITY. This dimension refers to the degree to which a communications content reflects or is indentifiable with psychological or physical reality. Operationally, the degree of reality as here defined is a function of the manipulatory activities of the communicator in producing content. These include selecting, isolating, or otherwise ordering content and contextual variables. The degree of freedom which the communicator permits himself in arranging communications content determines the position of the content on the real-irreal dimension. A newsreel, "on the spot" radio broadcast, TV broadcast of an event, a map, a road sign occupy positions toward the "real" end of the continuum; that is, they are examples of content which has been subject to a minimal amount of arrangement or selection by the communicator. The perceptual responses of the interpreters to these cues may be ordered to a closely related authenticity dimension. AUTHENTICITY. This dimension refers to the degree which communications content contains cues which the interpreter accepts as congruent with "reality" as he knows it. Such cues are in the content or provided by its context, and they are perceived by the interpreter as an indication that the content has been manipulated by the communicator. The objective reality of such manipulation is not involved. The newsreel, documentary, and fictional film are perceived by most interpreters as differing with regard to authenticity. ------------------------ 10 The specific character of the intent of these specialists, their research techniques, selection of content, and strategies of presentation have been described by a professional public relations counsellor, Edward L. Bernays, in a recent article (5) which significant title The Engineering of Consent. See also Merton (30). 11 White's analysis (44) of Black Boy for the purpose of understanding t value system is an example.
-------------------------- The cues which carry the signification of authenticity for the interpreter are, at least in part, the result of cultural conditioning. The label "newsreel" is in itself such a cue-and is part of the context in the presentation of the film; the use of nonprofessional actors in a documentary and the use of natural settings are cues of authenticity. "Objective" reporting is accepted as authentic as contrasted with "interpretive" reporting, because of numerous cues signifying "objectivity" in the former. These cues may be simulated with intent. An example of the results of such simulation was the famous broadcast War of the Worlds, which had high irreality, but, we may assume, was unintentionally authentic for many interpreters. In this case the cues for authenticity were psychologically more potent than the specific indications of irreality. AMBIGUITY. This dimension is concerned with properties of communications content which make it susceptible to variant structurizations by interpreters. A content may be said to be relatively unambiguous when it is maximally resistant to such variant structurizations. In the limiting case it would be susceptible to only one structurization. This definition of ambiguity is consistent with that discussed in the recent paper by Luchins (27). Luchins suggests that an "ambiguous stimulus field is one which allows various structurizations." Luchins notes that ambiguity and structural clarity of the stimulus are not in a simple de pendent relationship. Rather, the question is the extent to which a given content permits variant interpretations. All communications contents are in some degree ambiguous. This may be termed the Principle of Necessary Ambiguity, and is basic to the understanding of all communications effects. Examples of ambiguous content are those found in the analyses of the deviant responses to the Mr. Biggott cartoons (22), and to the War of the Worlds broadcast (11). The study of Wiese and Cole (46) on children's responses to the film Tomorrow the World shows the extent to which apparently unambiguous thematic material is subject to variant meanings. The important variables are in the content (including context). These include structural simplicity or complexity, amount of detail, etc. It is probable that con tent which is structurally simple, for example, a road sign, will be less ambiguous than content which is complex, for example, a scene in a play. CONGRUENCY. This dimension refers to the degree to which the presented content is relevant to the need-value-demand systems of the interpreter. The relevant variables are those in his need-value structure and symbol-manipulating habits, conceived as acting on content of specific structure. For example, interpreters with specific and persisting goal integrations, strong value orientations and stereotypes, specific prior experience in or involvement with particular con tent, or any other form of persistent set will either reject (in the limiting case) or markedly modify presented content in the direction of greater congruity with their predispositions. Their perceptions of specific content will be deviant as compared with the perceptions of interpreters whose need-value system is less rigid, or to a greater degree is congruent with the presented content. In other situations the intensity and specificity of need for a structured field-that is, need for information, guidance, direction, or "meaning"-will determine the degree of congruence of presented content. The familiarity with the symbols used in particular content, and the degree to which they have common significations for communicators and interpreters are, of course, fundamentally important variables. The relation between the congruity and ambiguity dimensions is close but not a simple dependent one. Current discussions (15, 31, 33) of the personality variables in perception contain data relevant to the dynamics of these relation ships. The effects of predispositions or sets (also called "hypotheses") of great strength on the perception of stimulus material that is relatively ambiguous are discussed by Miller (31). He notes that personality and motivational factors will have maximum effects on the emergence of perception in situations where information is ambiguous. Bruner (7) also notes that "the less ambiguous the information, the less the effect of past experience in confirming hypotheses and the greater the use of input information." By definition, an ambiguous communications content is permissive of a large number of structurizations. Such content would presumably be congruent with a wide variety of interpreter predispositions." Each would be able to perceive what he wished to perceive. On the other hand, a highly unambiguous con tent might be either congruent or highly incongruent with particular interpreter predispositions. If congruent, the result would be acceptance with minimal modifications. If incongruent, the result might be rejection in the limiting case, or in tense conflict. The study by Wilner (47) previously referred to on the perceptual processes of highly prejudiced and relatively unprejudiced persons of a motion picture film Home of the Brave contains relevant data. Certain characters in the film are presented relatively unambiguously as regards their attitudes towards Negroes. Such unambiguous characterizations were highly incongruent with rigid attitude-value orientations of some of the subjects. The unambiguity of the characterizations makes it difficult for these subjects to misperceive ("distort") them, with the result that the subjects are thrown into conflict. Communications content of this type is, of course, structurally complex, that is, has many themes and subthemes other than those that are congruent or incongruent with particular need-value systems of interpreters. This may enable them to avoid the conflict by perceiving other aspects of the content-in the case of the film mentioned above, other traits of the character. It is possible to postulate the outcomes (effects on interpreters) of certain hypothetical limiting cases in which congruency and ambiguity vary with respect to each other. Case 1: High intensity (rigidity) of interpreter sets of "hypotheses" plus highly ambiguous content. Result: Interpreter readily projects with the result that the content is given a firmer structure or restructured in the direction of interpreter's hypotheses. ---------------------- 12 The Wiese-Cole study (46) is a case in point. Children from differing socioeconomic classes perceived quite different meanings in the anti-Nazi themes in the film Tomorrow the World. ---------------------- Case 2: High intensity of "hypotheses" plus unambiguous content. Result: Interpreter readily identifies if content is congruent with hypothesis. If con tent is not congruent conflict results in various patterns of evasion and rejection, or interpreter may "leave the field" entirely. Case 3: Low intensity of "hypotheses" plus ambiguous content. Result: Interpreter may seek more firm structurization utilizing whatever cues are available, or he may be indifferent and relatively unaffected. Case 4: Low intensity of "hypotheses" plus unambiguous content. Result: Interpreter may identify with content. In the foregoing hypothetical cases it is assumed that a specific communications field exists in which all other parameters are constant. The constructs "identification" and "projection" are employed to indicate the direction of the relationship between interpreter and content. In general, "identification" refers to the situation in which conditions are optimal for the acceptance by the interpreter of the structurizations offered by all or part of the content. "Projection" refers to the situation in which the interpreter is able wholly or partially to re structure the content in a manner consistent with his dominant hypotheses. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they may be conceived as "pulls" in which the direction of structurization in the communications situation is deter mined by the relative strengths of the need-demand system of the interpreter and the clarity of the content itself. This can be determined only by analyses based on relevant data regarding the need-demand systems (hypotheses) of interpreters and content analyses in a specific communications situation. SUMMARY A conceptual frame of reference for human communicative behavior has been proposed which places it in the context of current personality-perceptual theory. Specific dynamic relationships between communicators and interpreters are hypothesized. These are distinguished from other forms of social interaction by (a) their instrumental-creative character and (b) the production of a stimulus field possessing particular properties. Both the production and response to this field are determined by perceived instabilities in the environment as related to the need-value systems of communicators and interpreters. In responding both communicators and interpreters cognitively restructure the situation in the direction of a greater understanding of each other and their environments. Some of the dynamical processes in the communications situation are expressed geno-typically in the form of hypothetical dimensions. REFERENCES (1) ARNHF.IM, R. The gestalt theory of expression. Psychol. Rev., 1949, 56, 156-171. (2) . The world of the daytime serial. In P. F. Lazarsfeld and F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research, 1942-1943. New York: Due11, Sloan and Pearce, 1944. (3) ASCH, S. E. The doctrine of suggestion, prestige, and limitation in social psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 250-276. (4) BERELSON, B., and LAZARSFELD, P. The analysis of communications content. Mimeo graphed manuscript circulated by authors. (5) BERNAYS, E. The engineering of consent. Ann. Amer. Acad. po!. soc. Sci., 1947, 250, 113-120. (6) BRUNER, J. S. Symbolic value as an organizing factor in perception. I. soc. Psychol, 1948, 27, 203-208. (7) . Personality dynamics and the process of perceiving. In Robert R. Blake and Glenn V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: an approach to personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1951. Pp. 121-148. (8) BRYSON, LYMAN (Ed.) . The communication of ideas. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1948. (9) BURKE, KENNETH. Permanence and change. New York: New Republic, Inc., 1935. (10) . A rhetoric of motives. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. (11) CANTRIL, H. Invasion from Mars. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1940. (12) Understanding man's social behavior; preliminary notes. Princeton, N. J.: Office of Public Opinion Research, 1948. (13) CHEIN, I. Behavior theory and the behavior of attitudes: some critical comments. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 175-188. (14) FEARING, FRANKLIN. Motion pictures as a medium of instruction and communication: an experimental analysis of the effects of two films. University Calif. Pub!. Culture Soc., 1950. Vol. 2, No. 3. (15) FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, Else. Personality theory and perception. In Robert R. Blake and Glenn V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: an approach to personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1951. (16) HERZOG, HERTA. Psychological gratifications in daytime radio listening. In T. M. New comb and E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1947. (17) HOVLAND, CARL I. Social communication. Proc. Amer. Phil. Society, 1948, 92, 371-375. (18) Psychology of the communication process. In Wilbur Schramm (Ed.), Communications in modern society. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1948. (19) HOVLAND, CARL I., LUMSDAINE, A. A.. and SHEFFIELD, F. D. Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1949. [20] The problem of validating content analysis. In H. D. Lasswell, et al., Language of politics. New York: G. W. Stewart, 1949. (21) KAPLAN. A., AND GOLDSEN, J. M. The reliability of content analysis categories. In H. D. Lasswell, et al., Language of politics. New York: G. W. Stewart. 1949. Pp. 83 112. (22) KENDALL, P. L., and WOLF, K. M. The analysis of deviant cases in communications research. In P. F. Lazarsfeld and F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communications research: 1948-1949. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. (23) CLAPPER, J. T. The effects of the mass media. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, 1949. (24) KRACAUER, S IEGFRIED. From Caligari to Hider: a psychological history of the German film. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1947. (25) L ASSWELL, H. D., L EITES, N., et al. Language of politics; studies in quantitative semantics. New York: G. W. Stewart, 1949. (26) Lewis, M. M. Language in society: the linguistic revolution and social change. New York: Social Science Publishers, 1948. (27) LUCHINS, A. S. The stimulus field in social psychology. Psycho!. Rev., 1950, 57, 27-30. (28) MASLOW, A. H. The expressive component in behavior. Psycho!. Rev., 1949, 56, 261-272. (29) MEAD, GEORGE H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. (30) MERTON, ROBERT K. Mass persuasion: the social psychology of a war bond drive. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946. (31) MILLER, J AMES G. Unconscious processes in perception. In Robert R. Blake and Glenn V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: an approach to personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1951. Pp. 258-283. (32) MORRIS, CHARLES. Signs, language and behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1946. (33) POSTMAN, L., and B RUNER, J. S. Perception under stress. Psycho!. Rev., 1948, 55, 314 324. (34) PRONKO, N. H. Language and psycholinguistics: a review. Psycho!. Bull., 1946, 43, 189-239. (35) Ross, NICHOLAS. A psychological study of motion picture audience behavior. Un published doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1951. (36) S CHRAMM, WILBUR (Ed.). Communications in modern society. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1948. (37) S CHIVEIRLA, T. C. The concept of levels in the study of social phenomena. In M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953. Pp. 54-75. (38) SMITH, M. Communicative behavior. Psycho!. Rev., 1946, .53, 294-301. (39) The communicative act. J. soc. Psycho!., 1950, 31, 271-281. (40) S PIEGLEMAN, M., TERWILLIGER, C., and FEARING, F. The content of comic strips: a study of a mass medium of communication. J. Soc. Psychol!. (In press.) (41) . The content of comics: goals and means of comic strip characters. J. Soc. Psychol., 1953, 37, 189-204. (42) . The reliability of agreement in content analysis. J. Soc. Psycho!., 1953, 37, 175-188. (43) WARNER, W. L ., and HENRY, W. E. The radio day-time serial; a symbolic analysis. Genet. psycho!. Monogr., 1948, 37, 3-72. (44) WHITE, R. R. Black boy: a value analysis. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psycho!., 1947, 42, 440-462. (45) WIENER, N. The human use of human beings: cybernetics and society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1954. (46) WIESE, M., and COLE, S. A study of children's attitudes and the influence of a commercial motion picture. J. Psycho!., 1946, 21, 151-171. (47) WILNER, DANIEL. Attitude as a determinant of perception in the mass media of communication: reactions to the motion picture, Home of the Brave. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, 1950. (48) WOLFENSTEIN, M., and baits, N. Movies: a psychological study. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950. Also in Part 1:
|
|
Top of Page | Index | Home |