Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 65–82 | Cite as

Foundations of Communication Theory

  • William Stephenson
Article

Abstract

There is a communication “explosion” in modern life but no acceptable theory for its understanding. This, in part, is because of the current emphasis on objective approaches. It is proposed here instead that communication can be studied best from a subjective standpoint, where the concern is with the bodies of verbal (or other) statements people make, or may make about any matter. One distinguishes, however, statements of fact (the concern of information theory) from statements of opinion. The latter are subjective and basically self-referent: a theory of communication is proposed for these. In this a person’s ‘position’ or ‘overview’ is modeled as a Q sort, and the communication domain by Q metatheory. The theory has the widest possible applicability, wherever subjectivity is at issue.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALMOND, G. A. & VERBA, S. 1963. The civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AYAR, A. (Ed.) 1955. Studies in communication. London: Seeker and Warburg.Google Scholar
  3. BASCHWITZ, K. 1951. Du und die Masse. Studien zu einer exakten Massenpsychologie. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. BROUWER, M. 1967. Prolegomena to a theory of mass communication. In L. Thayer (Ed.) 1967, Communication: Concepts and perspectives. Washington D. C: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
  5. BROWN, S. R. 1968. Bibliography on Q-technique and its methodology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Mono. Suppl. 4-V26.Google Scholar
  6. CHERRY, C. 1957. On human communication. New York: Wiley Press.Google Scholar
  7. DANCE, F. X. (Ed.) 1967. Human communication theory: Original essays. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
  8. FISHMAN, J. A. 1966. A systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. In A. G. Smith (Ed.), Communication and culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. FOX, W. T. R. (Ed.) 1959. Theoretical aspects of international relations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  10. FRIEDSON, E. 1955. Communication research and the concept of the mass. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Reprinted from the American Sociological Review, 1953).Google Scholar
  11. Gerbner, G. 1966. On defining communication: Still another view. The Journal of Communication, 16, 99–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. HEMPEL, C. G. 1952. Symposium: Problems of concept and theory formation in the social sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  13. JACOBSON, E. 1964. The self and the object world. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  14. KATZ, D., & LAZARSFELD, P. F. 1952. Personal influence. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. KELMAN, H. C. 1965. International behavior: A social-psychological analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. KLAPPER, J. T. 1967. Discussion in L. Thayer (Ed.), Communication: Concepts and perspectives. Washington, D. C: Spartan Books. Pp. 238–39.Google Scholar
  17. LASSWELL, H. D. 1935. World politics and personal insecurity. New York: Whittlesey.Google Scholar
  18. LASSWELL, H. D. 1965. The climate of international action. In H. C. Kelman (Ed.) International behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. LEIGHTON, A. H. & OPLER, M. E. 1955. Psychiatry and applied anthropology in psychological warfare against Japan. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  20. LIPPMANN, W. 1955. Essays in the public philosophy. New York: Macmillan and Company.Google Scholar
  21. MILLER, G. R. 1966. On defining communication: Another stab. The Journal of Communication, 16, 88–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. PLATH, D. W. 1964. The after hours: Modern Japan and the search for enjoyment. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. POOL, I. de SOLA & PRASAD, K. 1958–59. Indian student images of foreign people. Public Opinion Quarterly, 22, 292–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. RICKS, D. 1960. “I” and “me”: A study in self consistency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. ROSENBERG, M. J. 1965. Images in relation to the policy process: American public opinion on cold-war issues. In H. C. Kelman (Ed.), International behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  26. SCHRAMM, W. 1964. Mass media and national development. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. SINGER, J. D. 1961. The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. In K. Knorr and S. Verba (Eds.) The international system. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. STEPHENSON, W. 1936. The foundations of psychometry: Four factor systems. Psychometrika, 1, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. STEPHENSON, W. 1953 The study of behavior: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. STEPHENSON, W. 1964. Application of Q method to the measurement of public opinion. The Psychological Record, 14, 265–73.Google Scholar
  31. STEPHENSON, W. 1965 Perseectives in psychology: XXIII. Definition of opinion, attitude and belief. The Psychological Record, 15, 281–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. STEPHENSON, W. 1967. The play theory of mass communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. STEPHENSON, W. 1968. Evaluation of public relations programs. Rivista Inter-nazionale di Scienze Economiche (to appear in 1968), Milana, Italy.Google Scholar
  34. STEPHENSON, W. 1968. Application of Q to the assessment of public opinion. Unpublished manuscript, copies available from the author.Google Scholar
  35. SUNOO, D. 1967. A Q-methodological study of consumer behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
  36. THAYER, L. (Ed.) 1967. Communication: Theory and research. Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas, (a)Google Scholar
  37. THAYER, L. (Ed.) 1967. Communication: Concepts and perspectives. London: Macmillan and Company, (b)Google Scholar
  38. THOMPSON, G. C. 1966. Public opinion and Lord Beaconsfield. In B. Berelson and M. Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. THURSTONE, L. L. & CHAVE, E. J. 1929. The measurement of attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. TROLDAHL, V. C. & VAN DAM. R. 1966. Face-to-face communication about major topics in the news. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, No. 4, 626–37.Google Scholar
  41. WHORF, B. L. 1956. Language, thought and reality. New York: Wiley Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Stephenson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of JournalismUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations