Steven H. Chaffee

Interpersonal Approaches to Communication Research

are thought of as &dquo;self-made,&dquo; while the poor are held to be &dquo;lazy.&dquo; Skinner (1971) points out that his theory of operant conditioning through reinforcement is resisted partly because of the popular tendency to assign both the &dquo;blame&dquo; and the &dquo;credit&dquo; for human conduct to the person’s internal psyche. Perhaps, then, it is understandable that even our &dquo;social&dquo; science employs mainly intrapersonal concepts, such as attitudes, motives, and personality traits, to account for behavior.

Political Knowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992

Effects of various mass media on political learning during the 1992 presidential campaign are examined via analyses of two voter surveys conducted in different states. Three indicators of political knowledge are compared: differences on issues between parties (Republican vs. Democratic), differences on issues among candidates (Bush vs. Clinton vs. Perot), and personal knowledge about the candidates (Bush, Clinton, and Perot). Campaign media, including both news coverage and special events (conventions, debates), added significantly to the prediction of both kinds of knowledge about the candidates, even after controlling for major demographic variables and for habitual uses of news media. Of the new forms of media campaigning that became prominent in 1992, at least the interview / talk show format apparently added to voter learning about candidates. Television sources of various types tended to contribute more to learning about the candidates, whereas the newspaper was the medium more associated with knowledge of policy differences between the two major parties.

Mass Communication and Political Socialization

See, e.g. Herbert Hyman, Political Socialization (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959); Richard E. Dawson and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1969). *Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967) ; Hyman, o p . cit.; Dawson and Prewitt, o p . cit. 3 M. Kent Jennings and Richard Niemi, “Patterns of Political Learning,” Harvard Educational Revlew, 38:443-67 (Summer 1968); Jennings and Niemi, “The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to Child,” American Political Science Review, 62:169-84 (March 1966); Kenneth P. Langton and Jennings, “Political Socialization and the High School Civics Curriculum,” American Politicd Science Review, 62 :652-67 (September 1968) ; Langton and Jennings, “Acquisition of Political Values in the Schools,” American Politfcal Science Review, 63:51-65 (March 1969); Langton, Pollrfcal Soclalfzation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969). and peers, there has been little evidence for mass communication as a causal element in a child’s development of political cognitions and behaviors.‘ Debate usually centers around the relative effects of the schools vs. the family; the media are considered sources of reinforcement of processes initiated by the more primary agents; peer political influences are assumed to be important but have not been studied directly.= Attempts by Jennings and his colleagues to demonstrate the impact of parents and schools on political socialization have yielded little, however.s They have found only minor evi-

Parental Influences On Adolescent Media Use

The developing child in modern society is typically introduced to the mass media in the home, and it is at home that he is most likely to use several varieties of print and broadcast media. By the time he reaches adolescence, it is plausible to assume that his patterns of media use have been shaped by social influences in the home, particularly his parents. Many parents express concern about mass media influences on their youngsters and appear to be quite willing to modify their own behavior if it will encourage desirable patterns of media use by their adolescents.

Presidential debates—are they helpful to voters?

An analysis of the results of a wide variety of studies of the impact of the televised debates between Carter and Ford, along with results of other political studies, including some of the 1960 presidential debates, suggests strongly that such debates between candidates for the presidency have substantial benefits for voters.

Sensitization in Panel Design: A Coorientational Experiment:

This study of “sensitization” in panels and before-after designs finds evidence that contamination occurs. It also yields support for some of its predictions based upon the coorientation model.

Individual vs. Social Predictors of Information Seeking

,A person’s use of mass communications does not occur in isolation from the rest of his social life. Rather, his communicatory activities of all sorts, mass and interpersonal, are interwoven in an outgoing system of reciprocal influences. One might even say that one principal “effect” of communication is further communication. Some conceptual models, such as Schramm’s encoder-interpreter-decoder system, Westley and MacLean’s A-BC-X scheme and Carter’s paradigm of dective relations, clearly place mass

Influences of Editors, Readers, and Personal Opinions on Reporters

Although White’s classical “gate keeper” study described a wire editor (Mr. Gates), he noted that reporters “form the first ‘gate’ in the process of cornmunication.”l The tradition of studying wire editors has been maintained,2 but there also have been a few studies of the gatekeeping functions of reporters? Still, considering the numbers of reporters (vs. editors) at work, and the primary news selection role of reporters (who provide most of what

Family Communication Patterns and Source-Message Orientation:

The interaction is significant: Source expertness raises opinion change for the concept-oriented and inhibits it for those low in concept-orientation. The union of present-state and historical variables is supported.

Young Voters' Reactions To Early Watergate Issues

T he early phase of the Watergate scandals followed close on t heels of a critical year in the history of the young voter in the United States. The 1972 presidential election was the first in which the 18 to 20 year olds could vote, a social experiment that has yet to be adequately evaluated. (See Beck and Jennings, 1969, for an anticipatory preinnovation assessment.) Although it is difficult to trace all the roots of the 18-year-old vote movement, it was part of a broad current of reformist political activism by American youth in the Vietnam War years-an effort that seemingly wound down to a dismal end in the landslide defeat of anti-war candidate George McGovern by President Richard Nixon.