Suchergebnisse

The articles appearing in this special issue illustrate both the opportunities and the difficulties involved in cross-level communication theory and research.1 They highlight many of the key concepts and questions that surface in discussions of levels of analysis, and extend our thinking about several topical domains within the field by exploring cross-level relationships. The articles also present a variety of arguments, criticisms, and often conflicting suggestions. In short, these essays faithfully reflect the complexities and confusions that attend efforts to close what has been termed "the micro-macro gap" (Eulau, 1986, chap. 3). In this epilogue, we offer our own reflections on some of the issues raised and positions taken in the articles. Because the notion of crossing levels in research implicates both our methods of inquiry and the structure of our theories in various ways, our outline is twofold. First, we discuss some basic conceptual and methodological considerations for cross-level research. Next we turn to matters of theory construction, discussing more generally the ways in which communication researchers can achieve better cross-level theory and research. Along the way, we hope to illustrate some key points of convergence among the articles.

The relationship between TV use and reading achievemet is reappraised, using data from a 3-year panel study. Strong and significant bivariate correlations replicate the findings of previous studies and support the contention that television use is negatively associated with reading achievement. As increasingly sophisticated analytic techniques are applied to the data, however, the relationships are seen to become progressively weaker, more ambiguous, and less compelling. When the LISREL model is used to tease apart the effects of true change from unreliability in the measures and to account for the stability of the variables over time, three patterns become apparent. First, all three variables of interest in this 3-year panel study−reading skills, TV viewing time, and reading time−are highly intercorrelated at the outset. Second, each of the three variables remains highly stable over the entire period of the study; relatively little variance in our sample measures appears to reflect true change. Finally, what change there is in reading time or in reading skills does not seem to be related consistently to time spent viewing television. Nor does time spent reading nonschool materials seem to predict increases in reading skills to any great extent. It is suggested that the entire question of the influence of out-of-school media use on reading achievement requires a far more sophisticated approach than has been typically applied in the past.

An exploration of the intersection of libel law & communication theory that occurs when libel juries assess the effect of defamatory communication on others. The third-person hypothesis suggests that people often assume that others will be more affected by potentially persuasive communications than they are themselves. An experiment exposed 132 Stanford U students to defamatory newspaper articles; as expected, Ss estimated others to be more affected by defamatory messages than they were themselves, especially as the "others" became progressively more distant from the Ss. The effect was accentuated by negatively biased sources: readers discounted the message while assuming others would be more influenced. It is suggested that courtroom assessments of the effects of defamatory communications on others may be influenced by such third-person perceptions. 1 Table, 2 Figures, 12 References. Modified AA

In reflecting on third-person effect research published since 1983, several facts became clear: (1) the third-person effect -- the tendency to overestimate the impact of media messages on other people -- is a more complex phenomenon than initially supposed since it is not a manifestation of a single psychological tendency, but a complex reaction that varies by type of communication, characteristics of the individual, & social context; & (2) the effect is of greater theoretical significance than initially suspected, since communication need not directly affect opinions to exert influence on the public opinion process. Moreover, study of the third-person effect is just as likely to contribute to more general theories of communication as other approaches. 8 References. M. Maguire