Suchergebnisse

It is argued that the 4 major new approaches, which inaugurated the modern version of communications res in the 1930's, are now withering away & that the 6 more recent minor approaches have not fulfilled early hopes. The 4 major approaches which produced many important empirical findings are: 'the pol'al approach, represented by H. D. Lasswell; the sample survey approach, represented by P. F. Lazarsfeld; the small-groups approach, represented by K. Lewin; & the exp'al approach, represented by C. A. Hovland.' In addition there are the reformist, broad historical, journalistic, mathematical, psycho-linguistic, & psychiatric approaches. In the 1st 3 of the major approaches 'the innovators have left or are leaving the field, & no new ideas of comparable scope & generating power are emerging.' Hovland & associates are providing solid empirical data but the variables are so numerous that the end is not in sight. There are, however, 7 current lines of work that may develop into major foci: (1) the combination of approaches: the Lasswell, Lazarsfeld & small group approaches in the current MIT program; (2) comparative national studies of opinions; (3) econ analyses of mass communication (COMM) systems; (4) socio-historical analyses of 'big issues;' (5) studies of COMM in popular culture; (6) studies of mass COMM activities; & (7) the practical problems to which the discipline can contribute answers. COMMENTS by Wilbur Schramm: Perhaps the legacy of the Lasswell-Lazarsfeld-Lewin-Hovl and contributions has been so great that we fail to give proper recognition to current signs of vitality in COMM's as indicated by: (a) the broad scale & continuing interest of sci'sts in COMM studies, & (2) the possibility of further developments by the surviving 'fathers' & their students. Moreover, Berelson possibly confuses men & approaches thereby assuming the latter to be dead when the particular proponent has gone or shifted interest. There is the prospect that improved approaches of the kinds mentioned in the hands of competent researchers will produce answers to the many signif remaining problems. COMMENTS by David Reisman: Though at an earlier time Berelson's views about the low state of COMM's res seemed to be unnecessarily pessimistic & possibly enducing a self-fulfilling prophecy, events since then have tended to support him. Berelson's views could hold equally well for other marginal fields such as culture-&-personality, institutional economics, & studies of character & society as in THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY. Perhaps the venturesome spirit of the bright young men of sci has been curbed by (i) an over-sensitivity to methodological pitfalls, & (ii) by 'the opening up of fields of theoretical work which offered at once quick pay-offs ... & elegant models for the meek & timid.' It seems that we are too sophisticated methodologically & theoretically to be enlightened by the sheer press of data.. There is a wide range of large scale problems that can be attacked by small-scale empirical sorties. 'Conceptual schemes, while essential & inevitable, can serve to alienate the worker from his material as well as bring him closer to it.' COMMENTS by Raymond Bauer: While it has become, perhaps, more difficult to differentiate COMM's res as such from related areas of interest, this may only mean that res has expanded, developed, & differentiated in the manner of a maturing field. Except for some of Laswell's work, 'the early period was not marked by great ideas but by diverse methodological approaches to the common area of COMM's: content analysis, survey res, small group dynamics, & systematic psychol'al experimentation.' As the advantages & limitations of each became revealed concern shifted to the substance of problems, for example, as is reflected in the study of PERSONAL INFLUENCE, & in the attempt to verify in the field the effects of COMM's observed in the Laboratory. Hence, only after the limitations of the early approaches were revealed was the complexity & substance of the problem recognized. There are some new ideas worthy of attention such as that while mass COMM's is often thought to influence att's, increasing recognition is given to the idea that attitudinal changes follow behavioral changes. Perhaps one should look for instances 'in which COMM's have capitalized on existing att's to produce behavior which, in turn, produces changes of att's.' C. M. Coughenour.

Theorists analyse how a democratic electorate is supposed to behave, public opinion research claims to know how it actually behaves. A four part course is outlined enabling both to contribute to each other by bringing democratic practice into greater harmony with requirements and assumptions of democratic theory. (1) Prerequisites of Electorate Decision - includes personality attributes, interests, participation, data on the amount of political interest, its fluctuations, and incidence among pop groups. 3 types of interest are cited: spectator (regarding the campaign as a dramatic spectacle), citizen (deciding how to vote), and partisan (securing the election of one's, candidate). Those most interested are found to be most partisan and least changeable. (2) Components of Electorate Decisions -includes possession of adequate knowledge in order to make decisions (the public is not well informed) and ways in which information is used by electorate in making decisions. (3) Process of Electorate Decision-includes processes of perception, communication and discussion using data on who talks to whom and what they say, hear and talk about. The ambiguity of the term `rationality' is cited, and research suggested that will relate the demand of rationality to the analysis of decision decision making. (4) Outcome of Electorate Decision. The voter is supposed to arrive at political decisions on the basis of considering the common good. How can a distinction between honest conclusions and forced rationalizations be made by researchers? It is concluded that public opinion studies have done mucn to illuminate what actually happens in democratic decision making by: (a) documenting theoretical assumptions with facts on actual political behavior, (b) clarifying the concepts and assumptions of democratic theory by insisting on researchable formulations, and (c) differentiating and reformulating general theoretical propositions into more exact terms. R. S. Halpern.

In a paper prepared for the Iowa Conference on Opinion and Attitude Research, the Chairman of the Committee on Communication at the University of Chicago summarizes and classifies seven ways in which "real happenings" are often more influential than "mere words" in changing people's minds.