Page 68 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-05.qxd 8/16/2005 6:30 PM Page 55

Five Traditions in Search of the Audience 55

so, it must be added, however, that at the same time the notions about the
character of these effects have changed quite substantially – by and large, from
short-term, direct and specific effects to long-term, indirect and diffuse effects
(Mahle, 1986; Rosengren, 1988). At the same time, the notion of the individual
presumably affected by the mass media has varied, from that of a passive recipient
of powerful messages to that of a much more active and selective user of media
content (Klapper, 1960; Levy and Windahl, 1985).
In addition to such variations over time, there has also been variation between
different types of research in the area – experimental research probably being
more inclined than survey research to seek and find direct, strong and immediate
effects on passive recipients. Experimental effects research has recently experi-
enced something of a revival, drawing on a combination of the strong demands
inherent in the experimental design and developed versions of classic psycho-
logical, social psychological and sociological theories and models (Bradac, 1989;
Bryant and Zillmann, 1986; Schenk, 1987). Moreover, the rise of sub-specialties in
effects research, addressing issues ranging from the agenda-setting function of
the media (McCombs and Shaw, 1972; McCombs and Weaver, 1985) to the
impact of media on knowledge gaps between groups and categories in society
(Tichenor et al., 1970; Gaziano, 1983), has served to differentiate the general area
of effects studies considerably (cf. Rosengren, 1988).
Effects research, then, has recently been differentiated and revitalized. A partly
parallel development has occurred in the other broad, social science-oriented
audience research tradition, the ‘uses and gratifications’ (U&G) tradition.

Uses and Gratifications Research

‘What do the media do to the individual?’ – ‘What does the individual do with
the media?’ According to the widespread adage, the two questions give us in a
nutshell the difference between two broad research traditions which for a long
time dominated research on the media/individual nexus. The former question,
of course, refers to effects research; the latter, to U&G research. While originally
there was much truth in the adage, recent developments have complicated as
well as differentiated the picture of two distinct traditions of research.
Effects research as we know it today has some of its roots in American film
research of the 1920s (Lowery and DeFleur, 1988). The beginnings of U&G
research can be located about two decades later, in the early 1940s. As part of the
ambitious mass-communication research programme initiated by Paul F.
Lazarsfeld, Herta Herzog undertook the task of finding out what gratifications
radio listeners might derive from daytime serials, quiz programmes, etc.
(Herzog, 1942, 1944). Since then, U&G research may be said to have developed
in four phases, moving from prima-facie descriptions, to typological efforts
building on systematic operationalizations of central variables, to efforts at
explanation, to systematic theory building (Palmgreen et al., 1985). In its attempts
to build and test formal theories, U&G research has drawn on recent develop-
ments in social psychology, primarily the so-called expectancy-value approach