FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2890883277> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2890883277 endingPage "162" @default.
• W2890883277 startingPage "142" @default.
• W2890883277 abstract "The field of communications today is still a relatively young discipline that is seen by some as a scientific parvenu whose right of existence is called into question. For many, Ferdinand Tonnies’ statement at the annual meeting of the German Association of Sociology in 1929 still applies when he responded to the proposal to establish a press science (“Zeitungswissenschaft”) alongside sociology. His answer: Why would one need it? The universities also do not have a chicken and duck science besides in biology either. Today, the field searches its identity via the social importance of the phenomena it is dealing with: social communication and particularly mediated communication (Donsbach, 2006). In its self-understanding as an “integrative science,” i.e. a field that integrates methods, theories and findings from many other disciplines, it indeed shares most of its inter-disciplinary connections with psychology. The significant role of psychology for the development of communications has mainly two reasons. First, fundamental progress in our explanatory knowledge of the communication processes could only happen because we adapted concepts, theories, and methods of psychology. For instance, psychological phenomena are found in all phases of the communication process: in the production of media content the predispositions of journalists, their subjective attitudes, group-dynamic processes, and the collective formation of opinions are playing an important role. During the reception process, psychological approaches come into play in the exposure to and the processing of information (e.g., in the concepts of attention, of selective exposure, the elaboration-likelihood model, or schema theory). Finally, psychological concepts are of utmost importance in media effects research. It starts with early persuasion research (particularly Hovland’s “scientific rhetoric”) and does not end with excitation theories, mood management, psychological predispositions for and effects of violence in the media, or the priming approach. However, contrary to the past, the influx of personnel from psychology has no longer the same importance as in the early days of communicationresearch. Today, communication researchers are predominantly socialized in their own field and the majority of authors who have published in our academic journals are teaching at communication departments. However, although today there is a strong self-recruitment of the field, basic psychological knowledge still plays an important role and is often taught in the curricula of the communication field itself. A second aid besides the supply of theory and evidence on the level of explanatory knowledge could be referred to as “epistemological mentoring of communications by psychology.” Particularly in Germany, communications was traditionally influenced by historical and cultural approaches, inter alia by the continuation of pre-war traditions (e.g. Emil Dovifat). The epistemological turnaround took place in the mid-1960s. The adaptation of American research and of psychological methodology were particularly influential. Both implied the use of systematic, quantitative methods, the striving for intersubjectivity, and the awareness that one needs different methods, but not a different philosophy of science in order to analyze human beings and social issues instead of phenomena of nature. In most parts of the discipline the awareness prevailed that the underlying social legitimization of the scientific system consists in distinguishing true from untrue statements, thus to develop and apply clear criteria for separation. Only this distinguishes science from other social systems that make assertion about reality-like literature or politics and is therefore its basis of legitimacy. For many, psychology (at least its dominant paradigm) was a beacon on which to orientate. Today communications is epistemologically more or less divided, as is the case in psychology. A survey of the members of the International Communication Association (ICA) shows some positive tendencies in that respect: the younger the members, the more they feel constrained by the quantitative-social scientific tradition. But the survey also revealed just how deep the rift is between the regions of the world in terms of their understanding of science (Donsbach, 2006). Today, there is a reasonable division of labor between the two fields. Communications has not been primarily interested in the way people process information, but rather in the input and output to this processing, whereas input can be understood as media content and output as specific uses or effects of the media. The black box between these two remains largely unopened by communication scholars. In contrast, psychology is less interested in real settings and contents of the world of communication, and for the most part not in the mass media either, but its interests lie in the basic processes of human processing of information. However, more precise hypotheses in communications as well as more relevant examples in psychology can be generated through the cooperation of both disciplines. When speaking about the relationship between both disciplines, one inevitably arrives at the theory of cognitive dissonance. No other theory, as will be shown, played a bigger role in the development of media effects research andno other theory is entrenched so deeply in the common knowledge of communication scientists and practitioners." @default.
• W2890883277 created "2018-09-27" @default.
• W2890883277 creator A5046830874 @default.
• W2890883277 date "2009-06-11" @default.
• W2890883277 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2890883277 title "Cognitive Dissonance Theory—A Roller Coaster Career: How Communication Research Adapted the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" @default.
• W2890883277 doi "https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938652-15" @default.
• W2890883277 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2890883277 type Work @default.
• W2890883277 sameAs 2890883277 @default.
• W2890883277 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2890883277 countsByYear W28908832772016 @default.
• W2890883277 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2890883277 hasAuthorship W2890883277A5046830874 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C202510885 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C3716254 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C52146309 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C77513098 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C8795937 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C111472728 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C119857082 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C138885662 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C144024400 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C15744967 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C202444582 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C202510885 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C33923547 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C36289849 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C3716254 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C41008148 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C46312422 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C52146309 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C77513098 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C77805123 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C8795937 @default.
• W2890883277 hasConceptScore W2890883277C9652623 @default.
• W2890883277 hasLocation W28908832771 @default.
• W2890883277 hasOpenAccess W2890883277 @default.
• W2890883277 hasPrimaryLocation W28908832771 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W1966114254 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W1981125628 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2077781553 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2101349293 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2103353141 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2104990833 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2150660017 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2166155258 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2192530478 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W230927011 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2317817217 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2475163257 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2496687873 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2603804027 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2962754212 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W3022936278 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W74839962 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2582873579 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W2757282255 @default.
• W2890883277 hasRelatedWork W3124183362 @default.
• W2890883277 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2890883277 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2890883277 magId "2890883277" @default.
• W2890883277 workType "article" @default.