Mass Communication Theory: Psychology, Sociology, and Politics, Summaries of Mass Communication

Download Mass Communication Theory: Psychology, Sociology, and Politics and more Summaries Mass Communication in PDF only on Docsity! HUMAN ··COMMUN'ICATION THEORY Original Essays Frank E. X. Dance / EDITOR HOLT, RINEHART AND WINSTON, INC. NEW YORK • CHICAGO • SAN FRANCISCO • TORONTO • LONDON CONTENTS Preface The Anthropology of Communication DELL HYMES, University of Pennsylvania Mass Media and Human Communication Theory GEORGE GERBNER, The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania " Neurophysiological Contributions to the Subject of Human Communication MARY A. B. BRAZIER, Brain Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles vu 1 40 61 Communication aud Organization Theory 70 LEE THAYER, University of Missouri at Kansas City Human Communication Theory aud the Philosophy of Language: Some Remarks 116 JOHN R. SEARLE, University 01 Calilomid, Berkeley Contributions of Psychiatry to the Study of Communication 130 JOOST A. M. MEERLOO, M. D., Ph. D. Psycholinguistics and Communication Theory . 160 JERRY A. FODOR, Massachusetts Institute 01 Technology JAMES J. JENKINS, University of Minnesota SOL SAPORTA, University of Washington The Contribution of Psychology to Human Communication Theory 202 JACK M. McLEOD, University 01 Wisconsin, Madison The Search for a Social Theory of Communication in American Sociology 236 HUGH DALZIEL DUNCAN, Southern Illinois University Contributions of the Speech Profession to the Study of Human Communication 264 ROBERT T. OLIVER, Pennsylvania State University ix 42 George· Gerbner lengthened) to such an extent that different generations living side by side may now be'-"humani£ed" in different ways- and live- in essentially different (but overlapping) cultural epochs. The shared communicative context of messages and images through which a culture reveals the varieties, limitations, and potentials of the hu~ man condition is no longer woven out of a homespun yarn of private every­ day experience. Even the meaning of "everyday experience'" has changed. Much of ou,r experience is in a new type of cultural environment. We listen to the morning n~scast or music program while we sip our breakfast coffee and drive to work. The commuter reads his newspaper oblivious of the "real" world 'around him. Much of our behavior is in response to things we do not directly "experience." What happens in Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, Havana, 'Vashington, Berlin, New Delhi, or London; what happens in art, science, technology, medicine, education, public administration-all these and many other constantly changing relationships affeet us quickly and profoundly. Faraway storytellers mass produce new tales every hour and tell them to millions of children, fathers, and grandfathers at the same time. Never have so many pe9ple in so many.placesshare.d so much of a common system of messages and images and have the assumptions about life, society, and the world imbedded in them while having so little to do with their making. The fabric of popular culture that relates elements of existence to each other and srructures the commOn -consciousness of what is, what is important, and what is right, is now largely a manufactured product. The new situation is a radical transformation in the ways members of our species become human. Social structure and industrial organization have a more central and direct bearing upon the common consciousness than ever before. With the ability of industrial societies to produce the material requirements· of subsistence and welfare, the strains and stresses of a social system come to be transferred to the mass-cultural sphere. The struggles for power and privilege, participation in the conduct of human affairs, more equitable distribution of resources, all other forms 'Of social justice, and, indeed, for survival in a nuclear age, are increasingly shifting from older arenas and methods of struggle to the newer spheres of control, contest, and attention in mass-produced communications. To Sum up: The ways we reflect On things, act On things, and interact with one another are rooted in our ability to compose images, produce messages, and use complex symbol systems. A change in that ability trans­ . forms the nature of human affairs. We are in "the midst of such a transfor­ mation. It stems from the mass production of symbols and messages-a new industrial revolution in the field of culture. New media of communica­ tion provide new ways of selecting, composing, and sharing perspectives. New institutions of communication create new publics across boundaries of time, space, and status. New patterns of information animate'societies and Mass Media and Human Communication Theory 43 machines. Along with other dramatic changes, we have altered the symbolic environment that gives meaning and direction to man's activity. These developments present new problems and demand fresh insights. But the new also sheds light on the old. An assessment of basic communica­ tive processes and cultural traditions is part of the response to the trans­ formations of our time. The search for a new grasp on the affairs of man crosses es.tablished disciplines, strains the organization of knowledge, and leads to the emergence of new fields and new schools. A part of this search is the quest for a theory that might help us to study, understand, judge, and control the conduct of events in which mass media and mass communications play an increasingly significant role. There is no such theory now. Most attempts to construct theories have taken parochial or tangential approaches of established disciplines or the . partial view of jounlalistic scholarship.' After exploring definitions of terms and concepts, I shall note some of these contributions. The work of political scientists and others concerned with the public policy functions of mass media will receive a greater share o{attention thau will those of sociologists, social psychologists, psycholo­ gists, and others to whom this volume devotes separate chapters. Finally, I shall attempt to summarize some of my own notions and questions (de­ rived, of course,. from the work of many others, and spelled out in greater detail in other publications) pointing, hopefully, toward a theory of mass media and mass communications. II Communication can be defined as "social interaction through messages. Messages are formally coded, symbolic, or representational events of some shared significance in a ,<;ulture, produced for the purpose of evoking sig­ nificance [Gerbner, 15l.~The distinction between the "communication ap­ proach" and other approaches to the stu<;ly of behavior and culture rests on the extent to which (I) messages are germane to the process studied, and (2) concern with the production, content~ transmission, perception, and use of messages is central to the approach. A "communication approach" (or theory) can be distinguished from others in that it makes the nature and role of messages in life and society its central organizing concern] a'Since this essay was written, Theories of Mass Communicdtion by'""MHvin' L.' De Fleur (New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1966) has given further impetus to theoreti· cal analysis, viewing the study of mass communication "emerging as a new academic discipline in its own right" (p. xiii). Other significant new publications whose thrust is consistent with the present effort but whose relevant contributions could not be noted in this essay are Perspectives in Mass Communication, by Alex S. Edelstein (Copen· hagen, Denmark: Einar Harcks Forlag, 1966), and Politics and Communication, by Richard R. F~gen (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966). 44 George Gerbner Media of communication are the means or vehicles capable of assum~ ing forms that have characteristics of messages or that transmit messages. A Dictionary of the Social Sciences defines mass media as "all the imper­ sonal means of communication by which visual and/or auditory messages are transmitted directly to audiences. Included among the mass media are television, ra~io, motion pictures, newspapers, magazines, books, and bill­ boards." [27, p. 413]. Two features of the definition receive further elabora­ tion. One is the technical means of transmission, and the other is the nature of the audience. Joseph T. Klapper considers the technical means sufficient. He writes': "The term connotes all mass media of communication in which a mechanism of impersonal reproduction intervenes behveen speaker and audience. By this criterion radio, screen, books and other media of imper­ sonal communication would be classified as mass media" [35, p. 3]. This definition appears to exclude only such communications as drama, personal conversation, and public address. The nature of the audience is emphasized in a definition offered by Gerhard D. Wiebe, who writes: "The two essential characteristics of mass media are: (i) their product is easily a"ailable~in a physical sense-to most of the public, including a sizable number of people in all major subgroups; and (ii) their cos~ is so small to the individual that they are generally avail­ able to these same people in a financial sense" [81, pp. 164-5]. This cri­ terion emphasizes the size of the audience and appears to exclude not only personal communications but also the more expensive or less readily avail­ able communication products such as hard-cover book and educational film. A further qualification is introduced by M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif, who assert not only that a large audience is necessary for the proper usage of the term but that mass media must "reach millions of people simultane­ ously or within very brief periods of time" [73; p. 562]. Another conception of mass is emphasized by Wirth, who writes that the mass media of com­ munication transcend "the peculiar interests and preoccupations of the spe­ cial and segmental organized groups and direct their appeal to the mass'· [88, p. 10]. This conception stresses not only the size and heterogeneity of the audience but also the contention that members of the audience respond to the communication as separate individuals. Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to delineate essential char­ acteristics of mass communication comes from Wright [89, pp. 12-15]. In addition to modern technology, he writes) mass communication involves . distinctive operating conditions, primary among which are the nature (1) of the audience, (2) of the communication experience, and (3) of the com­ municator. First, "mass communication is directecl toward a relatively large, heterogeneous and anonymous audience." Secondly, "mass communications may be characterized as public, rapid, and transient." And third, the com­ municator in mass media usually works through a com~lex. corporate or- Mass Media and Human Communication Theory 47 which is devoted to a discussion of the role that an aU-Russian newspaper might play in the revolutionary. politics of the Bolsheviks; Milton's Areopagitica and Mill's On Liberty (1885) which consider the systematic effects of permitting freedom of expression in communication; Dicey's The Development of Law and Opinion in England in the Nineteenth Century (1905) which considers the effects of the ideological context on public actions; Marx's German Ideology (1832), and Sorel's Reflections on Violence and Pareto's The Mind and Society which distinguish the social function from the truth value of beliefs. While all of these are books On communication, only some of the most recent ones (e.g. Lenin's What is to be Done) focus on mass communication as such. The growth of mass media to the point where they dominate the communica­ tion system of society is a phenomenon of recent times. Every society has some communication system for man is a communication animal, but only in the last century have we had the emergence of an extraordinary phenomenon­ societies organized around mass media systems. The growth of mass media has had many profound effects on the quality of life. With the growth of the mass media there have also arisen exaggerated beliefs in the efficacy of the propaganda. A number of factors are responsible for the myth of the all-powerful propagandist. In the period after World War I the extreme right in Germany, unwilling to admit that their nation had been defeated in battle, proposed the myth that German victory haq. been snatched away from the soldiers by civilian acceptance of allied propaganda. This belief in a "Schwindel" led to much writing about the supposed magical powers of propaganda. In the United States advertising and public relations men were disseminating the same illusions since overestimation of propaganda was often useful in ·sel1- ing their own services. Popular writers who have believed their claims have written books about the vast powers of "The Hidden Persuaders" .... One cannot doubt that if the mass media were non-existent or differently structured our politics would be different. The point we are trying to make is that the effects of the mass media must be conceived much more broadly than simply as persuasion of people to accept the views presented in the media. The mass media have many more subtle and complex effects both through what they say and through their existence as institutions .... Political scientists have paid more attention to the non-persuasive effects of communication than have some other social scientists. Perhaps this has been because they were interested in the ideologies being communicated and their use in power politics, even where persuasion was minimal. For exam,ple;, Harold Lasswell has long argued the importance of securing exact quantitative data on the distribution in the world of ideological symbols. In the 1930's he initiated the use of content analysis as a device to compare political propaganda in different times and places. This research was continued at the Library of Congress during the Second World War and at the Hoover Institute during the post-war years. The RADIR studies at the latter Institution canvassed the 48 George Gerbner political. ~ymboIs 'll;sed in editorials in major newspapers in five countries over a 60-year period. They demonstrated such trends as a decline in attention to ideas of p_roperty and a rise in concern for welfare [60, 59, 40]. In his recent book on The Future of Political Science, Lasswell de­ scribed some of the reasons for and circumstances of pioneering political studies in mass communications [43, pp. 161-162]: It is generaJly recogniied--fhaf the scientific stiiay of ·C'6mmunication has made giant strides in recent decades. An important date in the growth of the field was the early 1930's, when the Humanities Division of the Rockefeller Founda­ tion and the Social Science Research Council interested themselves in the state of knowledge regarding propaganda and communication. An observer of the academic world of the time might have taken it for granted that the initiative for accelerated research would originate with specialists in linguistics. After all, students of language were primarily responsible for investi­ gating the most distinctive social patterns devised by man in aid of mutual comprehension. But the observer would have been mistaken. The most success­ ful step was taken 'by political scientists. They-'provided a unified map of the field that' brought specialists of many kinds to sudden awareness of a common frame of reference. The step was taken because political scientists were increas­ ingly aware of the strategic significance for arenas of power of the control of communication. 'Looking> at the many practitioners' "and technicians of the arts of communication at local, national, and international levels, political scientists were startled by the -lack-of communication among them. The committee appointed by the Social Science Research Council to report on the situation was composed, for the most part, of political scientists who had previop,sly concerned themselves with the use of guided communication by political parties, pressure"'groups, or by official agencies in war and peace;" The integrative, community-wide perspective of political scientists had already begun to ~ake an impression on schools of journalism by seeking to transform the curriculum from overabsorption in ephemeral technicalities. The conferences and bibliographic aids prepared by the council's committee were helpful in bringing together the fragments of knowledge and the diversi­ ties of technique among political scientists, historians, journalists, advertising men, public-relations experts, social psychologists, sociologists, and many other specialists [39, 41J. Acting as team members or as independent research workers, political scientists conducted descriptive or analytic studies and devised or adapted many data-" gathering and data-processing procedures. Among technical innovations can be mentioned various modes of analyzing content and of interviewing message­ senders and receivers. A summary of "Recent Trends in Political Theory and Political Phi· losopby" by Karl W. Deutsch and Leroy N. Rieselbach [10, pp. 150-153] Mass ,Media and Human Communication Theory 49 stressed the contributions of cybernetics as well as of content analysis. The authors posed the "great issue that concerned theorists from Aristotle to Montesquieu-to what extent is human nature uniform in politics, and to what extent is it shaped by the spirit of times and of countries or peoples ... ?" A major approach toward finding answers to these questions is through the study of communication [they suggested]. The theory of communications and control-sometimes also caned cybernetics, that is, the theory of steering or of government-arose in the late 1940's and the 1950's in science and technology, but some of its intellectual implications were spelled out in the work of Claude Shannon, Norbert Wiener, John Von Neumann, W. Ross Ashby, George A. Miller, Colin Cherry, Herbert Simon, Allen- Newell, and others. Some inferences have been drawn from this body of thought to the theory of government and politics. This general theoretic con.figuration of communication channels in a society; of language and culture as habits of complementary communication; of the media of mass communication, their content and their control; the memories held by individuals and groups; the visible and invisible filtering mechanisms influencing the selective perception, transmission, and recan.of information.in large populations or small social groups or within the minds of individuals. Communication theory further permits us to conceive of such elusive notions as consciousness and the political will as observable processes. It defines the latter as the process by which postdecision information is -so selected and censored- as to subordinate it to the outcome of the predecision messages which "hardened" into the decision. Independent evidence for this process of subordinating post- " decision or postcommitment messages has -been presented recently within an: other ~heoretical framework by Leon Festinger and his associates. From the viewpoint of communication theory, the content of message flows and of memories is crucial. It is the content of the ,memories recalled.1or _pur­ poses of recognition of items in current messages from the outside world-it is this content which often determines which messages will be recognized and transmitted with special speed and attention, and which other messages wi11 be neglected or rejected. The consonance or dissonance of messages~ of memories and of several projected courses of action is thus decisive for behavior. The dissociation of items from old memories and their recombination to new pat­ terns is seen from this viewpoint as an essential step in theprocesses of initiative, of innovation, and of essential human freedom. Communication channels do have an influence upon the composition of message flows and memories, and hence on the content of their ensembles, but the content of messages in tum may' change the'>operating preferences and priorities--'-that'"is, the' 'values-.:.oJ the system .... The study of the content of messages has been getting a strong impetus from the development of electronic computing methods of content analysis, lending powerful technological support to the long-standing interest in content analysis pioneered earHer in the Stanford studies by Harold Lasswell and his associates and now being reissued in revised editions [40, 59, 60}. A new series of Stanf"ord 52 George Gerbner a basic change in the uratio of the senses" dealing with the external world, and thus a new "nitiomility";" hence "the medium is the message." Contributions of Richard Altick [IJ, ran Watt [80J, and Richard Hog­ gart [28J sketched parts of the social and literary background against which the massive cultural transformation of our time may be examined. The -role of mass media in national development, social change,- and international communications has received increasing attention in the work of Daniel Lerner [45J, Lucian Pye [63J, Leonard Doob [12J, Wilbur Schramm [69J, ·W. Phillips Davison '[8],' and their collaborators. The most prolific writer, researcher, summarizer, and popularizer in the field, Wilbur Schramm, left his mark on nearly every aspect of mass media theory and research [66, 67, 68J. Anthologies edited by Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning White [65J, Eric Larrabee and Rolf Meyersohn [37J, Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White [11 J, Norman Jacobs [32J, Bernard Bere1son and Morris Janowitz [5J, and Charles S. Steinberg [79J contain selections (and bibliographies) reflecting much of the significant theoretical and research contributions of recent decades. More specialized summaries of research on Gontent analysis have been written by Bernard Bere1son [3J, Budd and Thorp [7J, Pool [61 J, and North et a1. [57J. Joseph T. Klapper summarized research on the effects of mass com­ munication [36J. Bere1son's critique of "The State of Communication Re­ search" [4J evoked dissent in the same publication by Schramm, Riesman, and Bauer, comment by Elihu Katz [34J, and new surveys of the field by David Manning White [82, 83J. A "Quantitative Group" presented a sym­ posium on the research of a decade published in the Journalism Quar­ terly [64J. The growing body of research and the almost inexhaustible fund of theorizing have not yet produced historically inspired, empirically based, institutionally oriented, comparative and critical theories adequate to the study o(the cultural role and public policy significance of the mass media. The following notes attempt to raise some issu~s and advance questions pertinent to such a theory. v A central concern of the study of communications is the production, or­ ganization, composition, 'Structure,' distribution, and functions of ~m'essage systems in society. Concern with these patterns and processes involves basic questions of popular culture and public policy, especially in societies where rnass­ produced message systems provide widely distributed common currencies of social interaction. The questions are necessarily those of social science. Mass Media and Human Communication Theory 53 Practitioners in the arts and industries of communications; policy-makers in business or government; critics, participants and observers of popular culture-no matter how perceptive and well-informed in their own spheres of interest--clo not have systematic, objective, and reliable information about the overall operation of the cultural processes in which they-and all of us-live and work. The cultivation of dominant image 'patterns is the major function of the dominant communication agencies of any society. There is significant change in that process when there is a change in the clientele, position, or outlook of the dominant' agencies of communications in culture. Such change, when it occurs, <;:hanges the relative meaning of existing images and behavior patterns even before it changes the patterns themselves. The history and dynamics of continuities as well as of change in the reciprocal relationships between social structures, media-message systems, and image structures are the ~'effects" of communications in culture. Mass communication is the extension of institutionalized public ac­ culturation beyond the limits of face-to-face and any other personally medi­ ated interaction. This becomes possible_only when technological me~ns are available and social organizations emerge for the mass production and dis­ tribution of messages. The key to the historic significance of mass communication does not rest on the usual concept of "masses." There were "masses"(largegroups of people) reached by other forms of public· communication long before the advent of modern mass communication. But new means and institu­ tions -of production. and distribution, the mass media, provided new ways of reaching people. These news ways were not only technologically, but eventually also conceptually and ideologically different from the old. They were associated with and coming at a time of general transformation in the productive base of society. Their cumulative impact burst upon the Western world in the age of revolutions which was to shake the old foun­ dations of world order and to introduce into the language most common words dealing with society, communications, and industry. Tht;': continu­ ing transformation brought about not only concentrations of people but also a conception of "masses" related more to the movement of messages than of people. This is a conception of "mass" publics as groups so large, heterogeneous, and dispersed, that only mass production and mass distribu­ tion systems are capable of reaching them with the same messages within a short span of time, and thus of"creatillg--a.nn, maintaining'"some-"commu~ nity of meaning and perspective amof.1g them. The key to the historic significance of mass media is, therefore, the association of "mass" with a process of production arid distribution. Mass communication is the technologically and institutionally based mass pro­ duction and distribution of the most broadly shared continnous flow of 54 George Gerbner ,public messages in industrial societies. l11e rise of mass media to popular cultural dominance in the twentieth century represents a major continuing transformation in human affairs, extending the impact of the industrial revolution into the cultural field. The media of mass communications-print, film, radio, television­ present institutional perspectives, i.e., their own ways of selecting, com~ posing, recording, and sharing symbols and images. They are products of technology, corporate (or other collectivy) qrganiza tion, mass production, and mass markets. They are the cultural arms of the industrial order from -which they spring. Mass media perspectives reflect a structure of social relations and a. stage of industrial development. American mass media, for example, estab· lished as adjuncts of an already high degree of productive development, became generally consumer and market oriented. In countries where mass media were established at less advanced stages, as agents of planned indus· trialization, these media are more oriented toward production and de~ velopment. Mass media policies reflect. not .ooly .. stages .of industrial development and the general structure of social relations but also particular types of institutional and industrial organization and control [16, 17, 18]. Corporate or collective organization, private or public control, and the priorities given to artistic, political, and economic policy considerations govern their over;'­ all operations, affect their relationships to other institutions, and shape their public functions [19,20,21,22]. Popular self-government is possible when people, acting as citizens, col­ lectively create policy alternatives rather than only respond to them. This can come about when knowledge of events and ways of looking at events are public, that is, shared witho fullknowledge.{)f their being shared. Pri­ vate systems of "knowings and viewings" have to be transformed into pub. lic sysiems of "knowings and viewings" in order to form publics whose per· spectives will bear upon social policy in ways that can create policy alternatives. The process by which private knowledge is transformed into public knowledge is literally the process of publication. Publication as a general social process is the creation of shared ways . of selecting and viewing events and aspects of life. In its most advanced form, it is -maSS production and distribution of message systems transfonn­ ing private perspectives into broad public perspectives. This transformation 'brings publics into existence. Once created;othese publics are maintained .through continued publication. They are supplied with selections of in· formation and entertain~ent, fact and fiction, news and fantasy or "escape" materials, which are considered important or interesting or entertaining and profitable (or all of these) in terms of the perspectives to be cultivated. Publication is thus the basis of self·government among large groups Mass MedIa and Human Communication Theory 57 II. Dexter, L. A., and D. M. White, eds., People, Society, and Mass Com· munications. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 12. Doob 7 L., Communication in Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. 13. Edelman, M., The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1964. 14. Ellul, J., Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. Translated from the French by Konrad 'Kellen and Jean Lerner. With an introduction by Konrad Kellen. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1965. 15. Gerbner, G., Content Analysis and Critical Research in Mass Communica­ tion. AV Communication Review 6 (Spring 1958), pp. 85-108. Reprinted in People, Society, and Mass. Communications, ed. L. A. Dexter and D. M. White. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 16. ---, The Social Anatomy of "the Romance-Confession Cover Girl, Journalism Quarterly 35 (Summer 1958), pp. 299-306. 17. ---, The Social Role of the Confession Magazine. Social Problems 6 (Summer 1958), pp. 29-40. 18. ---, Mental Illness on Television: A Study of Censorship. Journal of Broadcasting 3 (Fall 1959), pp. 292-303. 19. ---, Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental Illness in the Mass Media: A Study of Trends, 1900-1959. Mental Hygiene 45 (January 1961), pp. 89-93 . . 20. ---, Press Perspectives in World Communications: A Pilot Study. Journalism Quarterly 38 (Summer 1961), pp. 313-322. . 21. ---, ":Mass Communications and Popular Conceptions of Education; A Cross·Cultural Study," Cooperative Research Project No. 876, U. S. Ollice of Education, 562 pp., 1964. 22. ---, Ideological Perspectives and Political Tendencies in News Report­ ing, Journalism Quarterly 41 (Autumn 1964), pp. 495-509. 23. ---, "An Institutional Approach to Mass Communications Research." Communication: Theory and Research, ed. Lee Thayer. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1967. 24. ---, Images Across Cultures: Teachers and Mass Media Fiction and Drama. The School Review, 74 (Summer 1966) pp. 212-230. 25. ---, "Mass Media and the Crisis in Education." A Symposium on Technology and Education~ Syracuse University, School of Education, 1966. 26. Gieber, W., "News is What Newspaper Men Make it." People, Society, and Mass Communications, eds. Lewis A. Dexter and David M. White. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, pp. 173-182. 27. Gould, J. and W. L. Kolb, eds., A Dictionary of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 28. Hoggart, R., The Uses of Literacy. Fairlawn, N. J.: Essential Books, 1957. 29. Inke1es, A., Public Opinion in Soviet Russia: A Study in Mass Persuasion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 ~51. 30. Innes, H., Empire and Communication. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950. 31. ---, The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1951. 58 George Gerbner 32. Jacobs, N., ed., Culture for the Millions? Mass Media in Morkrn Society. Princeton,N. J.: D. Van N ostrana;T959. 33. Katz, E., Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1955. 34. ---, Mass Communications Research and the Study of Popular Culture, Studies in Public Communication, 2 (1959), pp. 1-6. 35. Klapper, J. T., The Effects of Mass Media. New York: Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1949. 36. ---, The .• Effects.of..Mass.Gommunicatwn.New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. 37. Larrabee, E., and R. Meversohn, Mass Leisure. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1958. . 38. Lasswell, H. D., The Theory of Political Propaganda, The American Po· litical Science Review 21 (1927), pp. 627-630. Reprinted in Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, eds. Bernard Bere1son and Morris Janowitz. 39. ---, R. D. Casey, and B. L. Smith, Pressure Groups and Propaganda; An Annotated Bibliography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1935. 40. ---, D. Lemer,and Lde" SolaPool, The Comparative· Study of Sym· bois. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1952. 41. ---, Communication as an Emerging Discipli-ne. Audio~Visual Com­ munication Review 6 (1958), pp. 245-254. 42. ---, "The Structilre and Function of Communication in Society," Mass Communications, ed. Wilbur Schramm. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1960. 43. ---, The Future of Political Science. New York: Atherton Press, 1964. 44. LazarsfeId, P. F., and R. K. Nlerton, "Mass Communication, Popular Taste and Organized Social Action." Mass Communications, ed. Wilbur Schramm. Urbana, 111.: The University of Illinois Press, 1960, pp. 492-512. Also in Mass Culture, ed. Bernard Rosenberg anel David·M. White. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957, pp. 457-473. 45. Lerner, D., The Passing of Traditional Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1958. "', 46. Levin, H. J., Broadcast Regulation and Joint Ownership of Media. New York: New York University Press, 1960. 47. Lowenthal, L., Historical Perspectives of Popular Culture, The American Journal of Sociology, 55 (1950), pp. 324-325. Also pp. 46-57 in Mass Culture, eds. Bernard Rosenberg and David,M. White. 48. ---, and Marjorie Fiske, ''The Debate Over Art and Popular Culture in Eighteenth Century -England," Common,EmntieTB -in _,the -Social Sciences, ed. Mirra Komarovsky. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957. Con­ densed as Reaction "to Mass Media Growth in 18th Century England, Journalism Quarterly 33 (Fall 1956), pp. 442-455. Also in Literature, Popular Culture, and Society, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1961. 49. ---, "An Historical Preface to the Popular Culture Debate,'" Culture for the Millions: Mass Media in Modern Society, ed. Jacobs. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1961. Mass Media and Human Communication Theory 59 50. McLuhan. M., The Mechanical Bride. New York: The Vanguard Press, ,1951. 51. ---, The Gutenberg Galaxy: TIie Making of Typographic Man. To­ ronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. 52. ---, Understanding Media. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1964. 53. Merton, R. K., "Patterns of Influence," Communications Research 1948- 1949. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1949, pp. 180-219. 54. ---, "Manifest ancrLatent Functions." Social Theory and Social Struc­ ture (rev. ed.), New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957, Chap. 10. 55. 'MillS,C.'N., White-Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. 56. ---, The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. 57. North, R. C., O. R. Holsti; M. G. Zaninovich, and D. A. Zinnes, Content Analysis: A Handbook With Applications for the Study of International Crisis. Evanston, Il1.: Northwestern University Press, 1963. 58. ---, O. R. Holsti, and R. A. Brody, "Perception and Action in the Study of International Relations: The 1914 Crisis." The International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research: Empirical Studies in International Relations, ed. J. D. Sanger. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1965. 59 •. Fool, l. de Sola, Symbols of Internationalism . . Stanford,. Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1951. 60. ---, The Prestige Papers. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1952. ,61. -.-, -. '-, ed., Trends in Content Analysis .. Urbana: -University .. of Illinois Press, 1959. 62. ---, "Mass Communication and Political Science." Communications Research and School-Community Relations, ed. L. W. 'Kindred. Philadel­ phia, Pa.: Temple University College of Education, 1965, pp. 133-150. 63. Pye, L. W., ed., Communications and Political Development. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1963. 64. ""Quantitative Group' l.ooks Back Over'-Decade"of Research Published in The Journalism Quarterly," 42 (Autumn 1965), pp. 591-622. 65. Rosenberg, B., and D. M. White, eds., Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957. 66. Schramm, W., ed., The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1954. 67. ---, ed., I\1ass Communications. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1960 (2d ed.) 68. ---, ed., The Science of Human Communication. New York: Basic _---.Rooks~ 96 3. _ ~ ___ _ 69. ---, Mass Media and National Development. Stanford, Calif.: Stan~' ford University PIess, 1964. 70. Seldes, Gilbert, The Great Audience. New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1950. 71. ---, The Public Arts. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1956. 720 ---, The Seven Lively Arts. New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., Inc., 1962. 73. Sherif, M., and C. W. Sherif, An Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, rev. ed., 1956.