±

UNDERSTANDING AND
1
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
± CHAPTER
EVALUATING MASS
±
±
±
±
±
±

COMMUNICATION THEORY

Social networking site Facebook debuted on the Internet in 2003. Within five
years it grew to 100 million users, and in October 2012, the company proudly
announced it had 1 billion members visiting monthly, networking in over 70 lan-
guages (Delo, 2012). Upon reaching that milestone, Facebook released a video
likening its brand to bridges, airplanes, and the universe. Critics easily saw the
connection to bridges and planes. Like social networking, they bring people
together. But the universe? A billion folks is a lot, but it’s hardly the universe.
Maybe the point was that Facebook’s “citizens” represent a universe unto them-
selves. But it must be a strange universe indeed, with all those kids posting what
they had for lunch, gossiping, and posting party pictures … if in fact that was
who populated the world of Facebook. It’s not. Forty-six percent of Facebookers
are over 45 years old, and this, its fastest-growing age segment, is larger
than the 0- to 34-year-olds (42 percent) everyone assumes are its heaviest users
(Skelton, 2012).
So maybe the typical Facebooker isn’t what we usually think of when we con-
sider who uses the site. So, what else do we want to know about these 1 billion
users? How many friends does a typical Facebooker have? About 130 (Skelton,
2012). But now this raises another question. What exactly is a friend? If you can
have 130 of them, are they really friends? Of course they are, argue psychologists
Ashwini Nadkarni and Stefan Hofmann, who argue that Facebook fosters a sense
of belonging and lets people express themselves as they’d like, two obvious functions
served by real friends (2012). But in a billion-person universe there have to be a lot
of different kinds of people looking for different things from their online friendships.
Of course there are. Psychologists Laura Buffardi and Keith Campbell (2008) claim
that narcissists and people with low self-esteem spend more time on Facebook than
do others. But according to another psychologist, Samuel D. Gosling and his

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
4 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

research team, maybe personality differences have little to do with why people use
Facebook, as they discovered that rather than using the site to compensate for
aspects of their offline personalities, users simply carry those everyday characteris-
tics over to their online selves (Gosling et al., 2011).
Clearly Facebook is a useful medium to lots of people. Many log onto the site
several times every day and constantly post updates. Most users don’t give much
thought to what they are doing and why. If asked, most say they are simply pass-
ing time, being entertained or engaging in casual communication with friends and
family. But could Facebook be more important than they realize? What about
your own use of Facebook? Is it making an important difference in your life or is
it just another way to pass time? How do you view the company that provides
you with Facebook? Do you know how it earns a profit from the services it pro-
vides? If you regularly upload lots of personal information, you are trusting that
the company will not misuse this information and will provide you with the level
of privacy that you want. But should you be so trusting? Facebook is a private
company and it aggressively seeks to earn profits by selling information and giving
advertisers access to its users. Should you care more about what Facebook does
with the information you provide?
Your answers to these questions are naturally based on your ideas or assump-
tions about Facebook, its users, and your own experiences. You can take into
account what your friends say about Facebook and what you happen to read in
the media. You might wonder if what you think is happening for you and your
friends is the same for all those “old people” Facebook says are there. Psycholo-
gists Nadkarni, Hofmann, Buffardi, Campbell, and Gosling had their ideas and
assumptions, too but they moved beyond their immediate personal experience to
conduct research. They collected data and systematically assessed the usefulness of
their ideas. They engaged in social science. Working together with others in a
research community they are seeking to develop a formal, systematic set of ideas
about Facebook and its role in the social world. They are helping to develop a
mass communication theory.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter you should be able to

• Explain differences in the operation of the physical and social sciences.

• Describe the relationship between the scientific method and causality.
• Define theory.
• Differentiate the four broad categories of mass communication theory—
postpositive, cultural, critical, and normative theory—by their ontology,
epistemology, and axiology.
• Establish criteria for judging theory.
• Differentiate the four trends in media theory—the mass society and mass
culture, limited-effects, critical cultural, and meaning-making trends.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 5

OVERVIEW
In this chapter, we will discuss just what separates an idea, a belief, or an assump-
tion from a theory. We will examine mass communication theories and media the-
ories created by social scientists and humanists. We’ll look at some of the
difficulties faced by those who attempt to systematically study and understand
human behavior. We’ll consider the particular problems encountered when the con-
cern involves human behavior and the media. We’ll see, too, that the definition of
social science can be quite elusive. We’ll define theory and offer several classifica-
tions of communication theory, media theory, and mass communication theory.
We’ll trace the way that theories of mass communication have been created and
we will examine the purposes served by these theories. Most important, we will
try to convince you that the difficulties that seem to surround the development
and study of mass communication theory aren’t really difficulties at all; rather,
they are challenges that make the study of mass communication theory interesting
and exciting. As physicist John D. Barrow wrote, “A world that [is] simple enough
to be fully known would be too simple to contain conscious observers who might
know it” (1998, p. 3).

DEFINING AND REDEFINING MASS COMMUNICATION

In recent decades, the number and variety of mass communication and media theo-
ries have steadily increased. Media theory has emerged as a more or less indepen-
dent body of thought in both the social sciences and the humanities. This book is
intended as a guide to this diverse and sometimes contradictory thinking. You will
find ideas developed by scholars in every area of the social sciences, from history
and anthropology to sociology and psychology. Ideas have also been drawn from
the humanities, especially from philosophy and literary analysis. The resulting fer-
ment of ideas is both challenging and heuristic. These theories provide the raw
materials for constructing even more useful and powerful theoretical perspectives.
If you are looking for a concise, definitive definition of theory, you won’t find
it in this book. We have avoided narrow definitions of theory in favor of an inclu-
sive approach that finds value in most systematic, scholarly efforts to make sense of
media and their role in society. We have included recent theories that some con-
grand theory temporary researchers consider unscientific. Some of the theories we review are
Theory designed to grand; they try to explain entire media systems and their role in society. Others
describe and explain are narrowly focused and provide insight into specific uses or effects of media.
all aspects of a given Our selection of theories for inclusion in this book is based partly on their enduring
phenomenon historical importance and partly on their potential to contribute to future scholar-
ship. This process is necessarily subjective and is based on our own understanding
mass
of media and mass communication. Our consideration of contemporary perspec-
communication
tives is focused on those that illustrate enduring or innovative conceptualizations.
When a source, typ-
But before we embark on that consideration, we need to offer definitions of some
ically an organiza-
tion, employs a
important concepts.
technology as a When an organization employs a technology as a medium to communicate
medium to commu- with a large audience, mass communication is said to have occurred. The profes-
nicate with a large sionals at the New York Times (an organization) use printing presses and the news-
audience paper (technology and medium) to reach their readers (a large audience). The

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
6 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

writers, producers, filmmakers, and other professionals at the Cartoon Network

use various audio and video technologies, satellites, cable television, and home
receivers to communicate with their audience. Warner Brothers places ads in maga-
zines to tell readers what movies it is releasing and it distributes those movies to
local theaters where they are viewed by audiences.
But as you no doubt know—and as you’ll be reminded constantly throughout
this text—the mass communication environment is changing quite radically. When
you receive a piece of direct-mail advertising addressed to you by name, and in
which your name is used throughout, you are an audience of one—not the large
audience envisioned in traditional notions of mass communication. When you sit
at your computer and post a comment to a news story that is read by thousands
of other readers, you are obviously communicating with a large audience, but you
are not an organization in the sense of a newspaper, cable television network, or
movie studio. The availability of lightweight, portable, inexpensive video
equipment—quite possibly your smartphone—combined with the development of
easy-to-use Internet video sites like YouTube, makes it possible for an “everyday”
person like you to be a television writer and producer, reaching audiences number-
ing in the tens of millions.
Although most theories we will study in this text were developed before our
modern communications revolution, many are still quite useful. But we must
remember that much has changed and is changing in how people use technologies
mediated to communicate. One useful way to do this is to think of mediated communication
communication as existing on a continuum that stretches from interpersonal communication at one
Communication end to traditional forms of mass communication at the other. Where different
between a few or media fall along this continuum depends on the amount of control and involve-
many people that ment people have in the communication process. The telephone, for example (the
employ a technology phone as traditionally understood—not the one you might own that has Internet
as a medium
access, GPS, and some 500 other “killer apps”), sits at one end. It is obviously a
interpersonal communication technology, but one that is most typical of interpersonal communi-
communication cation: At most, a very few people can be involved in communicating at any given
Communication time, and they have a great deal of involvement with and control over that commu-
between two or a nication. The conversation is theirs, and they determine its content. A big-budget
few people, typically Hollywood movie or a network telecast of the Super Bowl sits at the opposite
face-to-face pole. Viewers have limited control over the communication that occurs. Certainly,
people can apply idiosyncratic interpretations to the content before them, and they
can choose to direct however much attention they wish to the screen. They can
choose to actively seek meaning from media content, or they can choose to pas-
sively decode it. But their control and involvement cannot directly alter the content
of the messages being transmitted. Message content is centrally controlled by media
organizations.
As you’ll see when we examine the more contemporary mass communication
theories, new communication technologies are rapidly filling in the middle of the
continuum between the telephone and television. Suddenly, media consumers have
the power to alter message content if they are willing to invest the time and have
the necessary skill and resources. Audiences are choosing to be active in ways that
are hard to anticipate, and the consequences of their activity may not be under-
stood for decades to come. The rise of social networking and YouTube

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 7

demonstrates an ever-growing willingness to use media to share content and per-

spectives on content. The ongoing popularity of downloading music and the Apple
iPod show a willingness to invest the time, acquire the skills, and purchase the tech-
nology necessary to take greater control over music. These forms of audience activ-
ity have enabled media companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook to become
dominant forces in a media world previously dominated by the likes of Disney,
News Corporation, and Time Warner. New media companies are competing to
provide innovative and useful technologies that deliver more attractive services.
These technologies and services will give us new ways to create and control media
content that is important to us. As this happens, there will be profound conse-
quences for our personal lives, the media industries, and the larger social world. As
journalist and new media theorist Jeff Jarvis explains, “Back in the day, a decade …
ago, we discovered media—news, information, or service—through brands: We
went and bought the newspaper or magazine or turned on a channel on its sched-
ule. That behavior and expectation was brought to the Internet: Brands built sites
and expected us to come to them. Now there are other spheres of discovery—new
spheres that are shifting in importance, effectiveness, and share. I believe they will
overlap more and more to provide better—that is, more relevant, timely, and
authoritative—means of discovery. These evolving spheres also change the relation-
ships of creators and customers and the fundamental economics of media” (2010).

SCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Ours is a society that generally respects and believes its scientists. Science is one of
the fundamental reasons why we enjoy our admirable standard of living and have
a growing understanding of the world around us. But not all scientists or the sci-
ence that they practice are understood or revered equally. British astronomer and
philosopher John D. Barrow opened his 1998 book, Impossibility: The Limits of
Science and the Science of Limits, with this observation on the value of science
and its practitioners:
Bookshelves are stuffed with volumes that expound the successes of the mind and the
silicon chip. We expect science to tell us what can be done and what is to be done.
Governments look to scientists to improve the quality of life and safeguard us from
earlier “improvements.” Futurologists see no limit to human inquiry, while social scien-
tists see no end to the raft of problems it spawns. (p. 1)

The physical scientists and engineers are the dreamers, the fixers, the guar-
dians. They are the future—they have sent us photos of stars aborning, detailed
the inner workings of the atom, and invented the microwave oven, the World
Wide Web, and cell phones that take and send video. Social scientists are the nay-
sayers, the Grinches of the world. They tell us that television corrupts our morals,
political campaigns render us too cynical to participate meaningfully in our democ-
racy, and parents rely too heavily on television to babysit their kids. Or, as colum-
nist David Brooks reminds us, “A survey of the social science of the past century
shows it to be, by and large, an insanely pessimistic field” (2002, p. 22). We tend
to readily accept most of the good findings of Barrow’s scientists. The universe is
continually expanding? Of course. The existence of quarks? Naturally. At the
same time, we tend to be more suspicious of the findings of the social scientists.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
8 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

Playing with Barbies destroys little girls’ self-esteem? I don’t think so! Videogames
teach violence? That’s so Twentieth Century! Texting kills spelling and grammar?
OMG! U r wrng. LOL!
There is another important difference that we often see between physical and
social science. Physical science has allowed us to gain increasing control over the
physical world. This control has had direct and very useful consequences for our
daily lives. Powerful technologies have been invented that very effectively shelter us
from our environment and enable us to do things that would have been seen as mag-
ical just a few decades ago. But what has social science done for us lately? Is the
social world a better place as a result of social science? Do we understand ourselves
and others better? Are there stunning achievements that compare to splitting the
atom or landing on the moon? Compared to the physical science, the social sciences
seem much less useful and their theories less practical and more controversial.
Why does our society seem to have greater difficulty accepting the theories and
social scientists findings of social scientists, those who apply logic and observation—that is,
Scientists who science—to the understanding of the social world, rather than the physical world?
examine relation- Why do we have trust in the people who wield telescopes and microscopes to
ships among phe- probe the breadth of the universe and the depth of human cells but skepticism
nomena in the
about the tools used by social observers to probe the breadth of the social world
human or social
or the depth of human experience? You can read more about the levels of respect
world
afforded to scientists of different stripes in the box entitled “All Scientific Inquiry Is
Value-Laden.”
One important basis for our society’s reluctance to accept the theories of the
causality social scientists is the logic of causality. We readily understand this logic. You’ve
When a given factor no doubt had it explained to you during a high school physics or chemistry class,
influences another, so we’ll use a simple example from those classes: boiling water. If we (or our repre-
even by way of an sentatives, the scientists) can manipulate an independent variable (heat) and pro-
intervening variable duce the same effect (boiling at 100 degrees centigrade) under the same conditions
causal relationship (sea level) every time, then a causal relationship has been established. Heating
When the alterations water at sea level to 100 degrees will cause water to boil. No matter how many
in a particular vari- times you heat beakers of water at sea level, they will all boil at 100 degrees.
able under specific Lower the heat; the water does not boil. Heat it at the top of Mount Everest; it
conditions always boils at lower temperatures. Go back to sea level (or alter the atmospheric pressure
produce the same in a laboratory test); it boils at 100 degrees. This is repeated observation under
effect in another controlled conditions. We even have a name for this, the scientific method, and
variable
there are many definitions for it. Here is a small sample:
scientific method 1. “A means whereby insight into an undiscovered truth is sought by (1) identify-
A search for truth
ing the problem that defines the goal of the quest, (2) gathering data with
through accurate
the hope of resolving the problem, (3) positing a hypothesis both as a logical
observation and
interpretation of fact
means of locating the data and as an aid to resolving the problem, and
(4) empirically testing the hypothesis by processing and interpreting the
hypothesis data to see whether the interpretation of them will resolve the question
A testable prediction that initiated the research” (Leedy, 1997, pp. 94-95).
about some event 2. “A set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that
present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among vari-
ables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena” (Kerlinger,
1986, p. 9).

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 9

THINKING ABOUT THEORY All Scientific Inquiry Is Value-Laden

Science writer Shawn Lawrence Otto would argue evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of
that the elevated respect afforded to the physical gravity, than the idea that things are made up of
and social sciences, to the positivists and postposi- atoms, or Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is the finest
tivists, is not as high as this text’s discussion might scientific theory ever devised.” Yet the legislature of
lead you to believe. “At its core, science is a reliable his state challenged the teaching of evolution in
method for creating knowledge, and thus power,” he Kentucky public schools (Blackford, 2012). Across
wrote, “Because science pushes the boundaries of America, 46 percent of college graduates do not
knowledge, it pushes us to constantly refine our accept the theory of evolution; even 25 percent with
ethics and morality, and that is always political. But graduate degrees deny its validity. Climate scientists
beyond that, science constantly disrupts hierarchical do not fare much better. Despite overwhelming evi-
power structures and vested interests in a long drive dence that the earth is warming, that human activity
to give knowledge, and thus power, to the individual, contributes to that change, and that the oceans are
and that process is also political … Every time a sci- rising, the Virginia legislature banned the term “sea-
entist makes a factual assertion—Earth goes around level rise” from a state-commissioned study of the
the sun, there is such a thing as evolution, humans problem because it was a “left-wing term.” It replaced
are causing climate change—it either supports or it with “recurrent flooding” (both in Pollitt, 2012).
challenges somebody’s vested interests” (2011). Why the resistance to even traditional physical
Yes, as you read, physical scientists may be the sciences? Mr. Otto answers, “The very essence of
dreamers, the fixers, the guardians, but their work the scientific process is to question long-held
is increasingly likely to be just as unsatisfying to assumptions about the nature of the universe, to
some as that of the social scientists. dream up experiments that test those questions,
Public reaction to the theory of evolution and the and, based on the observations, to incrementally
science behind climate change offer two obvious build knowledge that is independent of our beliefs
examples. Vincent Cassone, chair of the University and assumptions” (2011). Still, this doesn’t explain
of Kentucky’s biology department, defends evolution why social scientists seem to suffer greater criticism
as the central organizing principle of all the natural than their physical science colleagues? Why do you
sciences, “The theory of evolution is the fundamental think this is the case?
backbone of all biological research. There is more

3. “A method … by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but

by some external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no
effect….The method must be such that the ultimate conclusion of every man
[sic] shall be the same. Such is the method of science. Its fundamental hypothe-
sis … is this: There are real things whose characters are entirely independent of
our opinions about them” (Peirce, 1955, p. 18).
Throughout the last century and into this one, some social researchers have
tried to apply the scientific method to the study of human behavior and society.
As you’ll soon see, an Austrian immigrant to the United States, Paul Lazarsfeld,
was an important advocate of applying social research methods to the study of
mass media. But although the essential logic of the scientific method is quite simple,
its application in the social (rather than physical) world is necessarily more compli-
cated. Philosopher Karl Popper, whose 1934 The Logic of Scientific Discovery
is regarded as the foundation of the scientific method, explained, “Long-term

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
10 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

prophecies can be derived from scientific conditional predictions only if they apply
to systems which can be described as well-isolated, stationary, and recurrent.
These systems are very rare in nature; and modern society is not one of them” (in
Stevens, 2012).
Take, for example, the much-discussed issue of press coverage of political cam-
paigns and its impact on voter turnout. We know that more media attention is paid
to elections than ever before. Today, television permits continual eyewitness cover-
age of candidate activity. Mobile vans trail candidates and beam stories off satel-
lites so that local television stations can air their own coverage. The Internet and
Web offer instant access to candidates, their ideas, and those of their opponents.
Twitter and YouTube let us continually track their every move. Yet, despite
advances in media technology and innovations in campaign coverage, voter partici-
pation in the United States remains low. Not since 1968 has turnout in a presiden-
tial election exceeded 60 percent. Even in the 2008 race between Barack Obama
and John McCain, considered “the most technologically innovative, entrepreneur-
ially driven campaign in American political history,” only 56.8 percent of regis-
tered voters cast ballots (Dickinson, 2009; U.S. Election Project, 2009). Should we
assume that media campaign coverage suppresses potential voter turnout? This is
an assertion that some mass communication observers might be quick to make.
But would they be right? How could or should we verify whether this assertion is
valid?
As we shall see, the pioneers of mass communication research faced this situa-
tion during the 1930s. There were precious few scientific studies of, but many bold
assertions about, the bad effects of mass media. A small number of social scientists
empirical began to argue that these claims should not be accepted before making empirical
Capable of being observations that could either support them or permit them to be rejected. While
verified or disproved these early researchers often shared the widely held view that media were powerful,
by observation they believed that the scientific method might be used to harness this power to
avoid negative effects like juvenile delinquency. They hoped to produce positive
effects such as promoting Americans’ trust in their own democratic political system
while subverting the appeal of totalitarian propaganda. In this way, scientific
research would allow media to be a force for good in shaping the social world. If
their dreams had been fulfilled we would be living in a very different sort of social
world. Social scientists would be engineering the construction of social institutions
in much the same way that physical scientists engineer the construction of skyscra-
pers or Mars Rovers. But that didn’t happen. Why?
Social researchers faced many problems in applying the scientific method to the
study of social world. When seeking to observe the effects of political news, how
can there be repeated observations? No two audiences, never mind any two indivi-
duals, who see news stories are the same. No two elections are the same. News
stories vary greatly in terms of content and structure. Even if a scientist conducted
the same experiment on the same people repeatedly (showing them, for example,
the same excerpts of coverage and then asking them if and how they might vote),
these people would now be different each additional time because they would
have learned from previous exposure and had a new set of experiences. Most
would complain about having to watch the same story over and over. They might

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 11

say whatever they think the researcher wants to hear in order to get out of the
experiment.
How can there be control over conditions that might influence observed
effects? Who can control what people watch, read, or listen to, or to whom they
talk, not to mention what they have learned about voting and civic responsibility
in their school, family, and church? One solution is to put them in a laboratory
and limit what they watch and learn. But people don’t grow up in laboratories or
watch television with the types of strangers they meet in a laboratory experiment.
They don’t consume media messages hooked to galvanic skin response devices or
scanned by machines that track their eye movements. And unlike atoms under
study, people can and sometimes do change their behaviors as a result of the social
scientists’ findings, which further confounds claims of causality. And there is
another problem. Powerful media effects rarely happen as a result of exposure to
a few messages in a short amount of time. Effects take place slowly, over long per-
iods of time. At any moment, nothing may seem to be happening.
This implementation of the scientific method is difficult for those studying the
social world for four reasons:
1. Most of the significant and interesting forms of human behavior are quite
difficult to measure. We can easily measure the temperature at which water
boils. With ingenious and complex technology, we can even measure the weight
of an atom or the speed at which the universe is expanding. But how do we mea-
sure something like civic duty? Should we count the incidence of voting? Maybe
a person’s decision not to vote is her personal expression of that duty. Try some-
thing a little easier, like measuring aggression in a television violence study. Can
aggression be measured by counting how many times a child hits a rubber doll?
Is gossiping about a neighbor an aggressive act? How do we measure an attitude
(a predisposition to do something rather than an observable action)? What is
three pounds of tendency to hold conservative political views or 16.7 millimeters
of patriotism?
2. Human behavior is exceedingly complex. Human behavior does not easily
lend itself to causal description. It is easy to identify a single factor that causes
water to boil. But it has proved impossible to isolate single factors that serve as the
exclusive cause of important actions of human behavior. Human behavior may sim-
ply be too complex to allow scientists to ever fully untangle the different factors that
combine to cause observable actions. We can easily control the heat and atmo-
spheric pressure in our boiling experiment. We can control the elements in a chemis-
try experiment with relative ease. But if we want to develop a theory of the influence
of mediated communication on political campaigns, how do we control which forms
of media people choose to use? How do we control the amount of attention they pay
to specific types of news? How do we measure how well or poorly they comprehend
what they consume? How do we take into account factors that influenced people
long before we started our research? For example, how do we measure the type and
amount of political socialization fostered by parents, schools, or peers? All these
things (not to mention countless others) will influence the relationship between peo-
ple’s use of media and their behavior in an election. How can we be sure what

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
12 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

caused what? Voting might have declined even more precipitously without media
coverage. Remember, the very same factors that lead one person to vote might lead
another to stay home.
3. Humans have goals and are self-reflexive. We do not always behave in
response to something that has happened; very often we act in response to some-
thing we hope or expect will happen. Moreover, we constantly revise our goals
and make highly subjective determinations about their potential for success or fail-
ure. Water boils after the application of heat. It doesn’t think about boiling. It
doesn’t begin to experience boiling and then decide that it doesn’t like the experi-
ence. We think about our actions and inactions; we reflect on our values, beliefs,
and attitudes. Water doesn’t develop attitudes against boiling that lead it to misper-
ceive the amount of heat it is experiencing. It stops boiling when the heat is
removed. It doesn’t think about stopping or have trouble making up its mind. It
doesn’t have friends who tell it that boiling is fun and should be continued even
when there is insufficient heat. But people do think about their actions, and they
frequently make these actions contingent on their expectations that something will
happen. “Humans are not like billiard balls propelled solely by forces external to
them,” explained cognitive psychologist Albert Bandura. “Billiard balls cannot
change the shape of the table, the size of the pockets, or intervene in the paths
they take, or even decide whether to play the game at all. In contrast, humans not
only think, but, individually and collectively, shape the form those external forces
take and even determine whether or not they come into play. Murray Gell-Mann,
the physicist Nobelist, underscored the influential role of the personal determinants
when he remarked, ‘Imagine how hard physics would be if particles could think’”
(2008, pp. 95–96).
4. The simple notion of causality is sometimes troubling when it is applied
to ourselves. We have no trouble accepting that heat causes water to boil at
100 degrees centigrade at sea level; we relish such causal statements in the physi-
cal world. We want to know how things work, what makes things happen. As
much as we might like to be thrilled by horror movies or science fiction films in
which physical laws are continually violated, we trust the operation of these laws
in our daily lives. But we often resent causal statements when they are applied to
ourselves. We can’t see the expanding universe or the breakup of the water mole-
cule at the boiling point, so we are willing to accept the next best thing, the word
of an objective expert, that is, a scientist. But we can see ourselves watching cable
news and not voting and going to a movie and choosing a brand-name pair of
slacks and learning about people from lands we’ve never visited. Why do we
need experts telling us about ourselves or explaining to us why we do things?
We’re not so easily influenced by media, we say. But ironically, most of us are
convinced that other people are much more likely to be influenced by media (the
third-person effect third-person effect). So although we don’t need to be protected from media influ-
The idea that “media ence, others might; they’re not as smart as we are (Grier and Brumbaugh, 2007).
affect others, but not We are our own men and women—independent, freethinking individuals. We
me” weren’t affected by those McDonald’s ads; we simply bought that Big Mac, fries,
and a large Coke because, darn it, we deserved a break today. And after all, we
did need to eat something and the McDonald’s did happen to be right on the
way back to the dorm.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 13

DEFINING THEORY
theory Scientists, physical or social (however narrowly or broadly defined), deal in theory.
Any organized set of “Theories are stories about how and why events occur…. Scientific theories begin
concepts, explana- with the assumption that the universe, including the social universe created by act-
tions, and principles ing human beings, reveals certain basic and fundamental properties and processes
of some aspect of
that explain the ebb and flow of events in specific processes” (Turner, 1998, p. 1).
human experience
Theory has numerous other definitions. John Bowers and John Courtright offered a
traditional scientific definition: “Theories … are sets of statements asserting rela-
tionships among classes of variables” (1984, p. 13). So did Charles Berger: “A the-
ory consists of a set of interrelated propositions that stipulate relationships among
theoretical constructs and an account of the mechanism or mechanisms that
explain the relationships stipulated in the propositions” (2005, p. 417). Kenneth
Bailey’s conception of theory accepts a wider array of ways to understand the
social world: “Explanations and predictions of social phenomena … relating the
subject of interest … to some other phenomena” (1982, p. 39).
Our definition, though, will be drawn from a synthesis of two even more gen-
erous views of theory. Assuming that there are a number of different ways
to understand how communication functions in our complex world, Stephen
Littlejohn and Karen Foss defined theory as “any organized set of concepts, expla-
nations, and principles of some aspect of human experience” (2011, p. 19). Emory
Griffin also takes this broader view, writing that a theory is an idea “that explains
an event or behavior. It brings clarity to an otherwise jumbled situation; it draws
order out of chaos…. [It] synthesizes the data, focuses our attention on what’s cru-
cial, and helps us ignore that which makes little difference” (1994, p. 34). These
latter two writers are acknowledging an important reality of communication and
mass communication theories: There are a lot of them, the questions they produce
are testable to varying degrees, they tend to be situationally based, and they some-
times seem contradictory and chaotic. As communication theorist Katherine Miller
explained, “Different schools of thought will define theory in different ways
depending on the needs of the theorist and on beliefs about the social world and
the nature of knowledge” (2005, pp. 22–23). Scholars have identified four major
categories of communication theory—(1) postpositivism, (2) cultural theory, (3) critical
theory, and (4) normative theory—and although they “share a commitment to an
increased understanding of social and communicative life and a value for high-
quality scholarship” (Miller, 2005, p. 32), they differ in
ontology
The nature of reality, • Their goals
what is knowable • Their view of the nature of reality, what is knowable and worth knowing—
their ontology
epistemology
• Their view of the methods used to create and expand knowledge—their
How knowledge is
created and
epistemology
expanded • Their view of the proper role of human values in research and theory
building—their axiology
axiology
The proper role of These differences not only define the different types of theory, but they also
values in research help make it obvious why a broader and more flexible definition of social science
and theory building in mass communication theory is useful.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
14 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

POSTPOSITIVIST THEORY
When researchers first wanted to systematically study the role of mass media in
social world, they turned to the physical sciences for their model. Those in the
physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, and so on) believed in positivism,
the idea that knowledge could be gained only through empirical, observable, mea-
surable phenomena examined through the scientific method. But as we saw earlier
in this chapter, the social world is very different from the physical world. Causality
needs to be understood and applied differently. After a century of trial and error,
postpositivist social scientists committed to the scientific method developed postpositivist theory.
theory This type of theory is based on empirical observation guided by the scientific
Theory based on method, but it recognizes that humans and human behavior are not as constant as
empirical observa- elements of the physical world.
tion guided by the The goals of postpositivist theory are the same as those set by physical scien-
scientific method tists for their theories: explanation, prediction, and control. For example, research-
ers who want to explain the operation of political advertising, predict which
commercials will be most effective, and control the voting behavior of targeted citi-
zens would, of necessity, rely on postpositivist theory. Its ontology accepts that the
world, even the social world, exists apart from our perceptions of it; human behav-
ior is sufficiently predictable to be studied systematically. (Postpositivists do, how-
ever, recognize that the social world does have more variation than the physical
world; for example, the names we give to things define them and our reaction to
them—hence the post of postpositivism.) Its epistemology argues that knowledge is
advanced through the systematic, logical search for regularities and causal relation-
intersubjective ships employing the scientific method. Advances come when there is intersubjective
agreement agreement among scientists studying a given phenomenon. That is, postpositivists
When members of a find confidence “in the community of social researchers,” not “in any individual
research community social scientist” (Schutt, 2009, p. 89). It is this cautious reliance on the scientific
independently arrive method that defines postpositivism’s axiology— the objectivity inherent in the
at similar conclu- application of the scientific method keeps researchers’ and theorists’ values out of
sions about a given
the search for knowledge (as much as is possible). They fear that values could bias
social phenomenon
the choice and application of methods so that researchers would be more likely to
get the results that they want (results that are consistent with their values). Postpo-
sitivist communication theory, then, is theory developed through a system of
inquiry that resembles as much as possible the rules and practices of what we tradi-
tionally understand as science.

CULTURAL THEORY
But many communication theorists do not want to explain, predict, and control
social behavior. Their goal is to understand how and why that behavior occurs in
cultural theory
the social world. This cultural theory seeks to understand contemporary cultures
Theory seeking to
understand contem- by analyzing the structure and content of their communication. Cultural theory
porary cultures by finds its origin in hermeneutic theory—the study of understanding, especially
analyzing the struc- through the systematic interpretation of actions or texts. Hermeneutics originally
ture and content of began as the study or interpretation of the Bible and other sacred works. As it
their communication evolved over the last two centuries, it maintained its commitment to the

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 15

hermeneutic theory examination of “objectifications of the mind” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 236),
The study of under- or what Miller calls “social creations” (2005, p. 52). Just as the Bible was the
standing, especially “objectification” of early Christian culture, and those who wanted to understand
by interpreting action that culture would study that text, most modern applications of hermeneutics are
and text
likewise focused on understanding the culture of the users of a specific text.
social There are different forms of cultural theory. For example, social hermeneutics
hermeneutics has as its goal the understanding of how those in an observed social situation inter-
Theory seeking to pret their own place in that situation. Ethnographer Michael Moerman explained
understand how how social hermeneutic theory makes sense of alien or unknown cultures. Social
those in an observed hermeneutic theory tries to understand how events “in the alien world make sense
social situation to the aliens, how their way of life coheres and has meaning and value for the peo-
interpret their own
ple who live it” (1992, p. 23). Another branch of cultural theory looks for hidden
lot in that situation
or deep meaning in people’s interpretation of different symbol systems—for exam-
ple, in media texts. As you might have guessed from these descriptions, cultural
theory is sometimes referred to as interpretive theory. It seeks to interpret the
meaning of texts for the agents that produce them and the audiences that consume
text them. Another important idea embedded in these descriptions is that any text, any
Any product of social product of social interaction—a movie, the president’s State of the Union Address,
interaction that a series of Twitter tweets, a conversation between a soap opera hero and heroine—
serves as a source of can be a source of understanding. Understanding can in turn guide actions.
understanding or The ontology of cultural theory says that there is no truly “real,” measurable
meaning
social reality. Instead, “people construct an image of reality based on their own
preferences and prejudices and their interactions with others, and this is as true of
scientists as it is of everyone else in the social world” (Schutt, 2009, p. 92). As
such, cultural theory’s epistemology, how knowledge is advanced, relies on the sub-
jective interaction between the observer (the researcher or theorist) and his or her
community. Put another way, knowledge is local; that is, it is specific to the inter-
action of the knower and the known. Naturally, then, the axiology of cultural the-
ory embraces, rather than limits, the influence of researcher and theorist values.
Personal and professional values, according to Katherine Miller, are a “lens
through which social phenomena are observed” (2005, p. 58). A researcher inter-
ested in understanding teens’ interpretations of social networking websites like
Facebook, or one who is curious about meaning-making that occurs in the
exchange of information among teen fans of an online simulation game, would
rely on cultural theory.

CRITICAL THEORY
There are still other scholars who do not want explanation, prediction, and control
of the social world. Nor do they seek understanding of the social world as the ulti-
mate goal for their work. They start from the assumption that some aspects of the
critical theory
social world are deeply flawed and in need of transformation. Their aim is to gain
Theory seeking
transformation of a knowledge of that social world so they can change it. This goal is inherently—and
dominant social intentionally—political because it challenges existing ways of organizing the social
order in order to world and the people and institutions that exercise power in it. Critical theory is
achieve desired openly political (therefore its axiology is aggressively value-laden). It assumes that
values by reorganizing society, we can give priority to the most important human values.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
16 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

Critical theorists study inequality and oppression. Their theories do more than
observe, describe, or interpret; they criticize. Critical theories view “media as sites of
(and weapons in) struggles over social, economic, symbolic, and political power (as
well as struggles over control of, and access to, the media themselves)” (Meyrowitz,
2008, p. 642). Critical theory’s epistemology argues that knowledge is advanced only
when it serves to free people and communities from the influence of those more
powerful than themselves. Critical theorists call this emancipatory knowledge. Its
ontology, however, is a bit more complex.
According to critical theory, what is real, what is knowable, in the social world
structure is the product of the interaction between structure (the social world’s rules, norms,
In critical theory, the and beliefs) and agency (how humans behave and interact in that world). Reality,
social world’s rules, then, to critical theorists, is constantly being shaped and reshaped by the dialectic
norms, and beliefs (the ongoing struggle or debate) between the two. When elites control the struggle,
agency they define reality (in other words, their control of the structure defines people’s
In critical theory, realities). When people are emancipated, they define reality through their behaviors
how humans behave and interactions (agency). Researchers and theorists interested in the decline (and
and interact within restoration) of the power of the labor movement in industrialized nations or those
the structure interested in limiting the contribution of children’s advertising to the nation’s grow-
dialectic
ing consumerism would rely on critical theory. Some critical theorists are quite
In critical theory, the troubled by what they view as the uncontrolled exercise of capitalist corporate
ongoing struggle power around the world. They see media as an essential tool employed by corpo-
between agency and rate elites to constrain how people view their social world and to limit their agency
structure in it. They worry about the spread of what they see as a global culture of celebrity
and consumerism that is fostered by capitalist dominated media.

NORMATIVE THEORY
Social theorists see postpositivist and cultural theory as representational. That is,
they are articulations—word pictures—of some other realities (for postpositivists,
those representations are generalizable across similar realities, and for interpretive
theorists, these representations are local and specific). Critical theory is nonrepre-
sentational. Its goal is to change existing realities.
There is another type of theory, however. It may be applied to any type of
social institution but our focus will be on media institutions. Its aim is neither the
representation nor the reformation of reality. Instead, its goal is to set an ideal
standard against which the operation of a given media system can be judged. A
normative media normative media theory explains how a media system should operate in order to
theory conform to or realize a set of ideal social values. As such, its ontology argues that
Theory explaining what is known is situational (or, like interpretive theory, local). In other words,
how a media system what is real or knowable about a media system is real or knowable only for the
should be structured specific social system in which that media system exists. Its epistemology, how
and operate in order knowledge is developed and advanced, is based in comparative analysis—we can
to conform to or
only judge (and therefore understand) the worth of a given media system in com-
realize a set of ideal
parison to the ideal espoused by the particular social system in which it operates.
social values
Finally, normative theory’s axiology is, by definition, value-laden. Study of a
media system or parts of a media system is undertaken in the explicit belief that
there is an ideal mode of operation based in the values of the larger social system.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 17

Theorists interested in the press’s role in a democracy would most likely employ nor-
mative theory, as would those examining the operation of the media in an Islamic
republic or an authoritarian state. Problems arise if media systems based on one nor-
mative theory are evaluated according to the norms or ideals of another normative
theory. Chapter 3 is devoted in its entirety to normative theory. You can more
deeply investigate the role of values in the four broad categories of theory we’ve dis-
cussed when reading the box entitled “True Values: A Deeper Look at Axiology.”

THINKING ABOUT THEORY True Values: A Deeper Look at Axiology

As we’ve seen, different communication theorists deal putting them in brackets, and then do their work. At
differently with the role of values in the construction of the other end of the continuum are those who openly
their ideas. Inasmuch as they model their research on celebrate their values and consciously inject them into
that of those who study the physical world, postposi- their work. In truth, most interpretive researchers and
tivists would ideally like to eliminate values from their theorists fall somewhere in the middle. If you were
inquiry. But they know they can’t, so objectivity really thinking about theory, though, you would have
becomes their regulatory ideal; that is, they rely on asked, “But if an interpretive theorist openly celebrates
the scientific method to reduce the impact of values his or her values and injects them into the research or
on their work as much as possible. They also distin- theory development, hasn’t she moved into critical
guish between two types of values in their work. Post- theory?” And you would be correct, because it is
positivists cherish epistemic values—they value high hard to conceive of someone willing to inject personal
standards in the conduct of research and develop- values into social research and theory who did not
ment of theory. But they also confront nonepistemic want, at the very least, to advance those values. And
values—the place of emotion, morals, and ethics in in advancing those values, the status quo would be
research and theory development. There is little altered—hence, critical theory.
debate about the former among postpositivists— Critical and normative theorists, in their open
who wouldn’t want high standards of performance? embrace of values, face fewer questions about objec-
But what about emotions, morals, and ethics? Why, tivity than do other theorists. But they, like all social
for example, would researchers want to study media researchers and theorists, must employ high epistemic
violence? Certainly they believe a relationship exists values. Critical theorists advocate change; normative
between media consumption and human behavior theorists advocate media striving to meet a social sys-
on some level. But what if an individual theorist tem’s stated ideals of operation. These open articula-
strongly believes in the eradication of all violence on tions of nonepistemic values, however, do not excuse
children’s television because of her own son’s pro- sloppy data gathering or improper data analysis.
blems with bullies at school? How hard should she What should be clear is that all involved in the seri-
work to ignore her personal feelings in her research ous study of human life must maintain the highest
and interpretation of her findings? Should she examine standards of inquiry within the conventions of their
some other aspect of mass communication to ensure research and theory development communities.
greater objectivity? But why should anybody have to Given that, which axiology do you find most compati-
study something that he or she has no feeling about? ble with your way of thinking about human behavior?
Interpretive theorists, even though they more read- Should you someday become a mass communication
ily accept the role of values in their work than do post- researcher or theorist, which set of values do you think
positivists, also wrestle with the proper application of would prove most valuable in guiding your efforts?
those values. Accepting the impossibility of separating
values from research and theory development, inter- epistemic values High standards in the conduct of research
pretive theorists identify two ends of a continuum. and theory development
Those who wish to minimize the impact of their per- nonepistemic values The place of emotion, morals, and
sonal values on their work bracket their values; that ethics in research and theory development
is, they recognize them, set them aside by figuratively bracket In interpretive theory, setting values aside

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
18 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

EVALUATING THEORY
French philosopher Andre Gide wrote, “No theory is good unless it permits, not rest,
but the greatest work. No theory is good except on condition that one uses it to go
on beyond” (quoted in Andrews, Biggs, and Seidel, 1996, p. 66). In other words,
good theory pushes, advances, improves the social world. There are some specific
ways, however, to judge the value of the many theories we will study in this book.
When evaluating postpositivist theory, we need to ask these questions:
1. How well does it explain the event, behavior, or relationship of interest?
2. How well does it predict future events, behaviors, or relationships?
3. How testable is it? In other words, is it specific enough in its assertions that it
can be systematically supported or rejected based on empirical observation?
4. How parsimonious is it? In other words, is it the simplest explanation possible
of the phenomenon in question? Some call this elegance. Keep in mind that
communication theories generally tend to lack parsimony. In fact, one of the
reasons many social scientists avoid the study of communication is that com-
munication phenomena are hard to explain parsimoniously.
5. How practical or useful is it? If the goals of postpositivist theory are explana-
tion, prediction, and control, how much assistance toward these ends is pro-
vided by the theory?
When evaluating cultural theory, we need to ask these questions:
1. How much new or fresh insight into the event, behavior, or relationship of
interest does it offer? In other words, how much does it advance our
understanding?
2. How well does it clarify the values inherent in the interpretation, not only
those embedded in the phenomenon of interest, but those of the researcher or
theorist?
3. How much support does it generate among members of the scholarly commu-
nity also investigating the phenomenon of interest?
4. How much aesthetic appeal does it have? In other words, does it enthuse or
inspire its adherents?
When evaluating critical theory, we need to ask the same questions we do of cul-
tural theory, but we must add a fifth:
1. How useful is the critique of the status quo? In other words, does it provide
enough understanding of elite power so that power can be effectively challenged?
Does the theory enable individuals to oppose elite definitions of the social world?
When evaluating normative theory, we need to ask the following questions:
1. How stable and definitive are the ideal standards of operation against which
the media system (or its parts) under study will be measured?
2. What, and how powerful, are the economic, social, cultural, and political real-
ities surrounding the actual operation of a system (or its parts) that must be
considered in evaluating that performance?
3. How much support does it generate among members of the scholarly commu-
nity also investigating a specific media system (or its parts)?

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 19

FLEXIBLE SOCIAL SCIENCE

Now that you’ve been introduced to the four broad categories of social scientific
theory, you might have guessed another reason that those who study the social
world often don’t get the respect accorded their physical science colleagues. Sociol-
ogist Kenneth Bailey wrote, “To this day you will find within social science both
those who think of themselves as scientists in the strictest sense of the word and
those with a more subjective approach to the study of society, who see themselves
more as humanists than as scientists” (1982, p. 5). In other words, and as you’ve
just seen, not all who call themselves social scientists adhere to the same standards
for conducting research or accepting evidence. But complicating matters even more
is the fact that social science researchers and theorists often blend (or mix and
match) categories as they do their work (Bennett and Holbert, 2008). To some
observers, especially committed postpositivists, this seems unsystematic. It also gen-
erates disagreement among social scientists, not about the issue under examination,
say the influence of video violence on children’s behavior, but about the appropri-
ateness of the methods used, the value of the evidence obtained, or the influence of
values on the work (i.e., debates over ontology, epistemology, and axiology).

MASS COMMUNICATION THEORY

One way to approach the study of media theory is to consider how theories have
developed over the past two centuries. Not surprisingly, theories have evolved in
part as a reaction to changes in mass media technology and the rise of new mass
media organizations that exploited this technology. Proponents for the four types
of theories developed different but sometimes related theories. Specific issues or
concerns such as the effects of violent content or elite control of media have moti-
vated the development and evolution of theories. Whenever new forms of media
have been developed they have been praised by some and condemned by others.
Debates over the usefulness of new forms of media have spawned numerous
theories.

FOUR TRENDS IN MEDIA THEORY

For some time those who study the shifting history of mass communication theory
have pointed to large-scale paradigm shifts, as once-popular notions in one era
gave way to very different views in the next. Critics have challenged this way of
looking at media theory, arguing that these overarching perspectives were not as
well integrated or as dominant as they might appear to have been in retrospect
(e.g., Neuman and Guggenheim, 2011). These shifts were rarely as clear-cut as
often assumed, and the retelling of the interaction between proponents of different
types of theory tended to dwell on conflict between their advocates rather than on
the potential for collaboration or corroboration. Here, instead of distinct eras of
mass communication theory, we identify trends in theory development. To some
extent these trends are similar to eras in that they trace the development of rela-
tively stable perspectives on mass communication, and over time there has been a

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
20 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

shift from one trend to another. At given points in time, however, trends overlap
and to some extent influence each other.

THE MASS SOCIETY AND MASS CULTURE TREND IN MEDIA THEORY

Our description of the eras of mass communication theory begins with a review of
some of the earliest thinking about media. These ideas were initially developed in
the latter half of the nineteenth century, at a time when rapid development of
large factories in urban areas was drawing more and more people from rural areas
to cities. At the same time, ever more powerful printing presses allowed the crea-
tion of newspapers that could be sold at declining prices to rapidly growing popu-
lations of readers. Although some theorists were optimistic about the future that
would be created by industrialization, urban expansion, and the rise of print
media, many were extremely pessimistic (Brantlinger, 1983). They blamed industri-
alization for disrupting peaceful, rural communities and forcing people to live in
urban areas, merely to serve as a convenient workforce in large factories, mines,
or bureaucracies. These theorists were fearful of cities because of their crime, cul-
tural diversity, and unstable political systems. For these social thinkers, mass
media symbolized everything that was wrong with nineteenth-century urban life.
They singled out media for virulent criticism and accused them of pandering to
lower-class tastes, fomenting political unrest, and subverting important cultural
elites norms. Most theorists were educated elites who feared what they couldn’t under-
People occupying stand. The old social order was crumbling, and so were its culture and politics.
elevated or privi- Were media responsible for this, or did they simply accelerate or aggravate these
leged positions in a changes?
social system
The dominant perspective on media and society that emerged during this
mass society period has come to be referred to as mass society theory. It is an inherently contra-
theory dictory theory that is often rooted in nostalgia for a “golden age” that never
Perspective on existed, and it anticipates a nightmare future in which social order is broken
Western, industrial down, ruthless elites seize power, and individual freedom is lost. Some version of
society that attri- mass society theory seems to recur in every generation as we try to reassess where
butes an influential we are and where we are going as individuals and as a nation wedded to technol-
but often negative ogy as the means of improving the quality of our lives. Each new version of mass
role to media
society theory has its criticisms of contemporary media. It is useful to recognize
that this trend in media theory is still found today even though many earlier forms
penny press
of mass society theory have been discarded.
Newspapers that
sold for one penny
Mass society theory can be regarded as a collection of conflicting notions
and earned profits developed to make sense of what is happening whenever there is large-scale and/or
through newsstand disruptive social change. Mass society notions can come from both ends of the
sales and advertising political spectrum. Some are developed by people who want to maintain the exist-
ing political order, and others are created by revolutionaries who wanted to impose
yellow journalism
radical changes. But these ideological foes often share at least one assumption—
Newspaper reporting
catering to working
mass media are troublesome if not downright dangerous. In general, mass society
and other lower social ideas hold strong appeal for any social elite whose power is threatened by change.
class audiences Media industries, such as the penny press in the 1830s, yellow journalism in the
using simple, often 1890s, movies in the 1920s, radio in the 1930s, and TV in the 1950s were easy tar-
sensational content gets for elites’ criticisms. They catered to readers in middle and lower social classes

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 21

using simple, often sensational content. Content mostly entertained rather than
informed or educated people. These industries were easily attacked as symptomatic
of a sick society—a society needing to either return to traditional, fundamental
values or be forced to adopt a set of totally new values fostered by media. Many
intense political conflicts strongly affected thinking about the mass media, and
these conflicts shaped the development of various forms of mass society theory.
An essential argument of mass society theory is that media subvert and disrupt
the existing social order. But media are also seen as a potential solution to the
chaos they engender. They can serve as a powerful tool that can be used to either
restore the old order or institute a new one. But who should be trusted to use this
tool? Should established authorities be trusted to control media—to produce or
censor media content? Should media be freely operated by private entrepreneurs
whose primary goal is to make money? Should radical, revolutionary groups be
given control over media so they can pursue their dreams of creating an ideal social
order? At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury, fierce debate erupted over these questions. This conflict often pitted tradi-
tional elites, whose power was based on an agrarian society, against urban elites,
whose power was increasingly based on industrialization and urbanization.
Today, the fallacies of both the critics and advocates of older forms of media
technology are readily apparent. Early mass society notions greatly exaggerated
the ability of media to quickly undermine social order, just as media advocates
exaggerated their ability to create an ideal social order. These ideas failed to con-
sider that media’s power ultimately resides in the freely chosen uses that audiences
make of it. Most mass society thinkers were unduly paternalistic and elitist in their
views of average people and the ability of media to have powerful effects on them.
Those who feared media exaggerated their power to manipulate the masses and the
likelihood they would bring inevitable social and cultural ruin. Technology advo-
cates were also misguided and failed to acknowledge the many unnecessary, dam-
aging consequences that resulted from applying technology without adequately
anticipating its impact.

THE LIMITED-EFFECTS TREND IN MEDIA THEORY

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, mass society notions began to be empirically inves-
tigated by Paul Lazarsfeld, who would eventually overturn some of its basic assump-
tions. Trained in psychological measurement, Lazarsfeld fled the Nazis in Austria and
came to the United States on a Ford Foundation fellowship (Lazarsfeld, 1969). For
the emerging field of mass communication research, he proved to be a seminal thinker
and researcher. Like many of his academic colleagues, Lazarsfeld was interested in
exploring the potential of newly developed social science methods, such as surveys
and field experiments, to understand and solve social problems. He combined aca-
demic training with a high level of entrepreneurial skill. Within a few years after
arriving in the United States, he had established a very active and successful social
research center, the Bureau for Applied Social Research at Columbia University.
Lazarsfeld provides a classic example of a transitional figure in theory
development—someone well grounded in past theory but also innovative enough
to consider other concepts and methods for evaluating new ideas. Though quite

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
22 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

familiar with and very sympathetic to mass society notions (Lazarsfeld, 1941),
Lazarsfeld was committed to the use of empirical social research methods in order
to establish the validity of theory. He was a strong advocate of postpositivism as a
basis for developing theory. He argued that it wasn’t enough to merely speculate
about the influence of media on society. Instead, he advocated the conduct of care-
fully designed, elaborate surveys and even field experiments in which he would be
able to observe media influence and measure its magnitude. It was not enough to
assume that political propaganda is powerful—hard evidence was needed to prove
the existence of its effects (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1944). Lazarsfeld’s
most famous research efforts, the “American Voter Studies,” actually began as an
attempt to document the media’s power during election campaigns, yet they even-
tually raised more questions about the influence of media than they answered.
By the mid-1950s, Lazarsfeld’s work and that of other empirical media
researchers had generated an enormous amount of data (by precomputer stan-
dards). Interpretation of these data led Lazarsfeld and his colleagues to conclude
that media were not nearly as powerful as had been feared or hoped. Instead,
these researchers found that people had numerous ways of resisting media influ-
ence, and their attitudes were shaped by many competing factors, such as family,
friends, and religious community. Rather than serving as a disruptive social force,
media more often seemed to reinforce existing social trends and strengthen rather
than threaten the status quo. They found little evidence to support the worst fears
of mass society theorists. Though Lazarsfeld and others never labeled this theory,
limited-effects it came to be referred to as limited-effects theory.
theory Throughout the 1950s, limited-effects notions about media continued to gain
View of media as acceptance within academia. These ideas dominated the new field of mass commu-
having little ability to nication research as it was developing in the 1950s and 1960s. Several important
directly influence clashes occurred between their adherents and those who supported mass society
people. The domi- ideas (Bauer and Bauer, 1960). This is hardly surprising, since the rise of Commu-
nant effect of media
nism across Eastern Europe seemed to provide ample evidence that media could be
is to reinforce exist-
used as powerful tools to meld increasingly large masses of individuals into an ever
ing social trends and
strengthen the status
more powerful totalitarian state. How could the United States expect to win the
quo Cold War unless it could somehow find a way to use mass media to confront and
overcome the Soviets?
In 1960, several classic studies of media effects (Campbell et al., 1960;
Deutschmann and Danielson, 1960; Klapper, 1960) provided apparently definitive
support for the limited-effects view. Limited-effects notions about mass communi-
cation theory had been supported by a decade of postpositivist research. By con-
trast, advocates of mass society notions came under increasing attack as
Red Scare “unscientific” or “irrational” because they questioned “hard scientific findings.”
Period in U.S. his- Mass society notions were further discredited within academia because they
tory, late 1950s to
became associated with the anti-Communist Red Scare promoted by Senator
early 1960s, in
Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. McCarthy and his allies focused considerable
which basic free-
doms were threat-
attention on purging alleged Communists from the media. They justified these
ened by searches for purges using mass society arguments—average people needed to be protected from
“Reds,” or commu- media manipulation. Limited-effects theorists produced research showing that aver-
nists, in media and age people were well protected from media influence by opinion leaders who fil-
government tered out Communist propaganda before it reached their followers.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 23

By the mid-1960s, the debate between mass society and limited-effects advo-
cates appeared to be over—at least within the postpositivist research community.
The body of empirical research findings continued to grow, and almost all were
consistent with the latter view. Little or no empirical research supported mass soci-
ety thinking. Most postpositivist researchers stopped looking for powerful media
effects and concentrated instead on documenting minimal, limited effects. Some of
the original media researchers had become convinced that media research would
never produce any important new findings and returned to work in political science
or sociology. In a controversial essay, Bernard Berelson (1959), who worked
closely with Paul Lazarsfeld, declared the field of communication research to be
dead. There simply was nothing left to study when it came to the mass media.
Ironically, Berelson’s essay was published just before the field of media
research underwent explosive growth. As postpositivist researchers in sociology
and psychology abandoned media research, they were quickly replaced by the
increasing numbers of faculty members working in rapidly growing programs dedi-
cated to the study of media and communication. As these programs grew so did the
volume of postpositivist research on media. Initially this research largely replicated
work done by sociologists and psychologists, but by the 1970s media researchers
began to make important new contributions to our understanding of media.

THE CRITICAL CULTURAL TREND IN MEDIA THEORY

While postpositivist media research flourished in the 1970s and 1980s it came
under increasing criticism from European researchers. In Europe both left-wing and
right-wing scholars had concerns about the power of media that were deeply
rooted in World War II experiences with propaganda. Europeans were also skepti-
cal about the power of postpositivist, quantitative social research methods to verify
and develop social theory (they saw this approach to research as reductionist—
reducing complex communication processes and social phenomena to little
more than narrow propositions generated from small-scale investigations). This
reductionism reductionism was widely viewed as a distinctly American fetish. Some European
Reducing complex academics were resentful of the influence enjoyed by Americans after World War
communication pro- II. They argued that American empiricism was both simplistic and intellectually
cesses and social sterile. Although some European academics welcomed and championed American
phenomena to little notions about media effects, others strongly resisted them and argued for maintain-
more than narrow
ing approaches considered less constrained or more traditionally European.
propositions gener-
One group of European social theorists who vehemently resisted postwar U.S.
ated from small-
scale investigations
influence was the neo-Marxists (Hall, 1982). Consistent with Communist theory
first formulated by Karl Marx, these left-wing social theorists argued that media
neo-Marxists enable dominant social elites to consolidate and maintain their economic power.
Advocates of the Neo-Marxist theory is a form of critical theory. Media provide the elite with a con-
social theory assert- venient, subtle, yet highly effective means of promoting worldviews favorable to
ing that media their interests. Mass media can be understood, they contended, as a public arena
enable dominant in which cultural battles are fought and a dominant, or hegemonic, culture is
social elites to
forged and promoted. Elites dominate these struggles because they start with
maintain their power
important advantages. Opposition is marginalized, and the status quo is presented
as the only logical, rational way of structuring society. Values favored by elites are

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
24 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

subtlety woven into and promoted by the narratives of popular programs—even

children’s cartoons. Within neo-Marxist theory, efforts to examine media institu-
tions and interpret media content came to have high priority. Such theories differ
from older forms of Marxism because they assume that culture can be influenced
British cultural
by people who don’t hold economic power.
studies
During the 1960s, some neo-Marxists in Britain developed a school of social
Perspective focusing
theory widely referred to as British cultural studies. It focused heavily on mass
on mass media and
their role in cultural
media and their role in promoting a hegemonic worldview and a dominant culture
groups and in pro- among various subgroups in the society. British cultural studies drew on both criti-
moting a public cal theory and cultural theory to create critical cultural theory. Researchers studied
forum in which defi- how members of those subgroups used media and assessed how this use might
nitions of the social serve group interests (cultural theory) or might lead people to develop ideas that
world are negotiated supported dominant elites (critical theory). This research eventually produced an
important breakthrough. As they conducted audience research, social scientists
critical cultural
theory
at Birmingham University discovered that people often resisted the hegemonic
An integration of
ideas and propagated new, alternative interpretations of the social world (Mosco
critical theory and and Herman, 1981). Although British cultural studies began with deterministic
cultural theory first assumptions about the influence of media (i.e., the media have powerful, direct
attempted by British effects), their work came to focus on audience reception studies that revived impor-
cultural studies tant questions about the potential power of media in certain types of situations and
scholars the ability of active audience members to resist media influence—questions that
1960s postpositivist media scholars ignored because they were skeptical about the
deterministic
assumptions
power of media and assumed that audiences were passive.
Assumptions that
During the 1970s, questions about the possibility of powerful media effects
media have power- were again raised in U.S. universities. Initially, these questions were advanced by
ful, direct effects scholars in the humanities who were ignorant of the limited-effects perspective,
skeptical about postpositivism, and well trained in cultural theory. Their arguments
cultural criticism were routinely ignored and marginalized by social scientists because they were
Collection of per-
unsupported by “scientific evidence.” Some of these scholars were attracted to
spectives concerned
European-style critical cultural theory (Newcomb, 1974). Others attempted to cre-
with the cultural
disputes and the
ate an “authentic” American school of cultural studies—though they drew heavily
ways communica- on Canadian scholars like Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan (Carey, 1977).
tion perpetuates This cultural criticism, although initially greeted with considerable skepticism by
domination of one “mainstream” effects researchers, gradually established itself as a credible and valu-
group over another able alternative to limited-effects notions.

THE MEANING-MAKING TREND IN MEDIA THEORY

During the 1970s and 1980s, there was increasing competition between postpositi-
vist and critical cultural scholars in both the United States and Europe. During
much of this period, postpositivist researchers were at a disadvantage because lim-
ited effects theories failed to address how media might be playing a role in the
social movements that were obviously transforming society—the civil rights, anti-
war and feminist social movements. Additionally, they could not address the possi-
ble consequences of the cumulative effect of exposure to popular media content
(such as televised violence) or to advertising. Gradually, limited-effects notions
were altered, partially because of pressures from critical cultural studies, but also

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 25

because of the emergence of new communication technologies that forced a

rethinking of traditional assumptions about how people use (and are used by)
media. We are again living in an era when we are challenged by the rise of power-
ful new media that clearly are altering how most of us live our lives and relate to
others. Postpositivists have developed new research strategies and methods (as
explained in later chapters) that provide them with better measures of media influ-
ence and that have already identified a number of contexts in which media
can have powerful effects (e.g., Gurevitch, Coleman, and Blumler, 2010; Holbert,
Garrett, and Gleason, 2010; Scheufele, 2000).
At the same time that postpositivist researchers moved toward a focus on use
of media rather than media effects, critical cultural scholars advanced a similar but
slightly different focus. Their research traced the way that cultural groups rather
than individuals use media to serve group purposes. They studied how groups
used various forms of media content from music to news. They found that group
members often band together to criticize and resist ideas being promoted by
media, for example in this “public sphere” union members might criticize hostile
news coverage of strikes and feminists could criticize advertising that presented
women in problematic ways (Castells, 2008).
At the heart of the meaning-making trend in theory is a focus on a more or less
active audience that uses media content to create meaningful experiences. Theorists
recognize that important media effects often occur over longer time periods and
these effects can be intended by users. People as individuals or as groups can make
media serve certain purposes, such as using media to learn information, manage
moods, promote group identity, or seek excitement. When audiences use media in
these ways, they are intentionally working to induce meaningful experiences. The
various meaning-making perspectives assert that when people use media to make
meaning—when they are able to intentionally induce desired experiences—there
often are significant results, some intended and others unintended. So when young
adults download billions of songs from the net in order to alter or sustain a mood,
there will be consequences. Some of these consequences are intended, but some-
times the results are unanticipated and unwanted.
Have you ever sought thrills from a horror movie and then been troubled
afterward by disturbing visual images? Factors that intrude into and disrupt
meaning-making can have unpredictable consequences. The trend in meaning-
making theory implies that future research will focus on people’s successes or fail-
ures in their efforts to make meaning using media, and on intended and unintended
consequences. These consequences should be considered both from the point of
view of individuals and from the point of view of groups or society.

REVITALIZED EFFECTS RESEARCH

The popularity of critical cultural studies, new postpositivist research methods, and
the rise of meaning-making theory have intensified and renewed research on many
different types of media effects. Postpositivist and critical cultural scholars are
addressing a variety of important research questions involving these effects. Here
are just a few that we will consider in later chapters. What are the short-term and
long-term consequences of routine exposure to violent images and sexual behavior

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
26 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

in videogames? Are these effects similar to those found for televised violence or are
there important differences? How much do television commercials for fast food
and blockbuster movie tie-ins for junk food contribute to our country’s epidemic
of obesity? Does media coverage of important issues such as war, elections, or the
economy contribute to or diminish public understanding and democratic discourse?
Is there a relationship between some kids’ new media use and poor school perfor-
mance? Do sexy television shows contribute to rising rates of teen pregnancy?
Does political corruption grow and political participation decline when local news-
papers are forced to cut staff or close altogether? How much responsibility must
teen and fashion magazines take for young girls’ dissatisfaction with their body
image? Did online music piracy kill the record industry, or did listeners tire of
record companies’ overreliance on formulaic music and overpriced CDs? How
much freedom of the press is too much—and who gets to decide?
Even though these and a thousand similar questions serve to stimulate increased
research and the development of better theories, they are also generating renewed con-
troversy about the role of media. Critics use research findings to unfairly attack media
while defenders find ways to explain away problematic findings. We must better
understand why it has been so hard to come to a clear understanding of media influ-
ence and why it has been so easy to promote fallacious ideas about media.

SUMMARY
As we move ever more deeply into the ever- and often goal-oriented. Social science and
evolving communication revolution, we need an human behavior make a problematic fit. The sit-
understanding of media theory to guide our uation is even further complicated because social
actions and decisions. It should recognize that science itself is somewhat variable—it has many
all social theory is a human construction and forms and can serve very different purposes.
that it is dynamic, always changing as society, Nonetheless, any systematic inquiry into
technology, and people change. This dynamism media relies on theory—an organized set of con-
can be readily seen in the transformation of our cepts, explanations, and principles of some
understanding of the process of mass communi- aspect of human experience. The explanatory
cation itself. New communication technologies power of media theory, however, is constantly
have changed traditional notions of the mass challenged by the presence of many media, their
audience, the mass communicator, and the many facets and characteristics, their constant
relationships between the two. To understand change, an always-developing audience, and the
this change, we rely on social science and its ever-evolving nature of the groups and societies
theories. that use them. Still, social theorists have identi-
Social science is sometimes controversial fied four general categories of communication
because it suggests causal relationships between theory. Two are representational, postpositivist
things in the social world and people’s attitudes, theory (theory based on empirical observation
values, and behaviors. In the physical sciences, guided by the scientific method) and cultural the-
causal relationships are often easily visible and ory (the study of understanding, especially by
measurable. In the study of human behavior, interpreting actions and texts). A third, critical
however, they rarely are. Human behavior is theory, seeks emancipation and change in a dom-
quite difficult to quantify, often very complex, inant social order. A fourth, normative theory,

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
 Chapter 1 Understanding and Evaluating Mass Communication Theory 27

states how media systems can be ideally struc- on the use of media by social groups and on
tured to achieve valued objectives. mass media’s role as a public forum in which
While these types of theory have a commit- understanding of the social world is negotiated,
ment to an increased understanding of the social made important contributions to this trend.
world, they differ in their goals, their ontology Today there is a new trend in mass communi-
(the nature of reality, what is knowable), their cation theory, the emergence of meaning-making
epistemology (how knowledge is created and perspectives. These perspectives acknowledge that
expanded), and their axiology (the proper role mass communication can indeed be powerful, or
of values in research and theory building). Post- somewhat powerful, or not powerful at all,
positivist theory is traditionally social scientific; because active audience members can (and often
cultural theory is based on interpretation of texts do) use media content to create meaningful experi-
(the product of any social interaction can serve as ences for themselves. Framing theory, asserting
a text); and critical theory, in seeking to overturn that people use expectations of the social world
the status quo, studies the struggle—the to make sense of that world, and the media liter-
dialectic—between a society’s structure (its acy movement, calling for improvement in peo-
rules, norms, and beliefs) and its agency (how ple’s ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and
people interact in the face of that structure). communicate media messages, are two examples
Finally, the fourth type of mass communication of recent meaning-making theory.
theory, normative theory, is neither representa- As you learn about contemporary theories
tional nor seeking change. It is designed to and research, we encourage you to use these the-
judge the operation of a given media system ories to develop your own views on media theory
against a specific social system’s norms or ideals and research and to defend your views against
so that these values can be achieved. alternate arguments. The theories in this book
Our contemporary understanding of mass will remain abstract ideas until you incorporate
communication theory is the product of four them into your own views about media and their
trends in theory development. The mass society importance in your life and the lives of others.
trend is characterized by fears of media’s influ- Ultimately, you are responsible for making
ence on “average” people and optimistic views media work for you and for guarding against
of their ability to bring about social good. The negative consequences.
second trend in mass communication theory In the first decades of the twenty-first cen-
started when early postpositivist media research tury, we are entering a period in history not
produced findings that led to the formulation of unlike that at the close of the nineteenth—an
limited-effects notions. Postpositivist research era in which an array of innovative media tech-
discredited naive mass society theories as nologies is being shaped into powerful new
“unscientific.” They were replaced with limited- media institutions. Have we learned enough
effects theories that argued that because people from the past to face this challenging and uncer-
could resist media’s power and were influenced tain future? Will we merely watch as media entre-
by competing factors such as friends and family, preneurs shape new media institutions to fill gaps
mass communication most often served to rein- created by the collapse of existing institutions?
force existing social trends and strengthen rather Or will we be part of an effort to shape new
than threaten the status quo. institutions that better serve our own needs and
The third trend was led by critical and cul- the long-term needs of the communities in which
tural scholars. It was driven initially by critical we live? We invite you to address these questions
theorists in Europe who held to neo-Marxist as you read this book, and we will pose them
assumptions. British cultural studies, focusing again as a final challenge.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
28 Section 1 Foundations: Introduction to Mass Communication Theory and Its Roots

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Can you think of any social science “find- presence or absence of possible effects? Can
ings” on media that you reject? What are you offer any possible negative effects to
they? On what grounds do you base your balance any positive effects that might have
skepticism? Can you separate your personal occurred from any of your media use?
experience with the issue from your judg- 3. How skilled are you at making meaning
ment of the social scientific evidence? from media content? How media literate do
2. How do you interact with and use new and you think you are? Do you often make
legacy media? Can you identify “effects” that meaning from content that is markedly dif-
have occurred because of that use? Do you ferent from that of your friends or do you
typically media multitask, that is, consume share their experience and interpretations of
two or more media at the same time? If so, media? If so, why do you suppose this
how do you think this influences the happens?

Key Terms
grand theory third-person effect critical theory penny press
mass communication theory structure yellow journalism
mediated ontology agency limited-effects theory
communication epistemology dialectic Red Scare
interpersonal axiology normative media reductionism
communication theory
postpositivist theory neo-Marxists
social scientists epistemic values
intersubjective British cultural studies
causality agreement nonepistemic values critical cultural theory
causal relationship cultural theory bracket deterministic
scientific method hermeneutic theory elites assumptions
hypothesis social hermeneutics mass society theory cultural criticism
empirical text

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.