Mass Communication and Social Change

Diffusion studies of the "adoption of innovation" can potentially provide a basis for a quantitative, empirically-based theory of social change. However, before significant advances can be made in this direction, rigorous attention must be directed toward clarifying the meaning of the principal concepts of diffusion studies and toward increasing consistency in the use of standardized terms from one writer to another. Also, theoretical concepts from diffusion research need to be linked to more general sociological theory, insofar as this is available. The present paper suggests possible ways in which these tasks can be undertaken. It makes use of mass communication data on the diffusion of the major media through the American society to illustrate the advantages of the conceptual framework which it proposes. E xcellent histories of each of our principal mass media have been available for some time. These have extensively documented the dates, contributions of individuals, invention of technical devices and other details which have played significant parts in the development of each major form of mass communication. Almost uniformly, these histories have been prepared by writers specialized in the study of some particular medium (journalists, students of the cinema, educators in broa'dcasting, etc.).' Sociologists and other social scientists have paid relatively little attention to the patterns of growth of the media in terms of their broader implications for the study of social change. Although themselves often intimately involved in the process by which new cultural traits become accepted into society, the mass media may be viewed in their own right as cultural innovations. In recent years, substantial advances have been made in understanding the processes by which new items of culture spread through a social system achieving widespread adoption by the members of its population. Such "diffusion studies" of the "adoption of innovation" promise to provide the foundation for the eventual development of an analytical, quantitative and empiricallybased theory of social change.2 It is the intent of the present paper to clarify a number of concepts which will enter such a theory, to suggest points where they can be linked to broader sociological theory, and then to present data which illustrate the potential utility of the conceptual framework. The illustrative sets of data are the diffusion curves which four major mass media of communication have followed during their respective periods of acceptance by American households. These curves are related to a background of classical studies of the adoption of innovation, and are compared with each other in terms of similarities and differences from one medium to another. The major social, political and economic events which appear to have influenced these quantitative growth patterns are brought out for each medium. While most studies of mass communication attempt to unravel ways in which the media influence society, the present analysis tries to bring out ways in which society has influenced the media. * The present article is an outgrowth of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada, 1964. The writer is indebted to Elaine C. El-Assal for her many contributions to both works. 1 See, for example, Frank Luther Mott, Avnerican Joutrnalism (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1941); Henry L. Smith and Edwin Emery, The Press in Anmerica (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1954); Lewis Jacobs, The Rise of the American Film (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1939); Benjamin Hampton, A History of the Mozies (New York: Corvici, Friede, 1931); Llewellyn White, The Arnerican Radio (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947); Meyer Weinberg, TV in Ameerica (New York: Ballantine Books, 1962). 2 A number of such studies have been summarized in Everett M. Rogers, Diffuision of Innovations (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.147 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:04:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MASS COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE 315 TOWARD A CLARIFICATION OF BASIC' TERMS AND A C0ONVERGENCE WITH MORE GENERAL THEORY The terminology of the growing body of literature reporting on the diffusion of items through populations is characterized by a considerable lack of uniformity in the use of terms.3 For this reason, more rigorous efforts need to be directed toward standardization of the meaning of concepts, and toward consistency in their use from one writer to another. Such standardization needs to be based upon definitional principles which also underlie more general sociological theory so that an emerging empirical theory of social change which rests in part upon contributions from the diffusion studies can eventually converge with broader conceptual schemes. Two obvious requirements along these lines are (1) that the variables to be included in an empirical theory of social change must be measurable, and (2) that theoretical concepts related to the diffusion process must be defined in such a way that their social action or behavioral referents are clear. Elementary as they may seem, the two requirements noted above have not been adequately met in the past, and this has been a source of substantial confusion. For example, in the sociological literature, even the word "innovation" itself is used in a bewildering variety of ways. It sometimes means newlyinvented items of technology, such as hybrid seed corn.4 It also means the act of working out some new deviant form of behavior which will aid the individual in achieving a culturally approved goal (by illegitimate means).,5 For other writers, the term refers to a cultural modification, such as the development within a group of a new code of approved conduct.6 For still others, it has meant the psychological and overt actions associated with the acquisition of some new procedure, belief, device, etc., including the reaching of a decision to adopt and also the overt act of adopting.7 Other terms (invention, diffusion, etc.) used widely in research related to the study of innovation have shown equal degrees of confusion in definition and meaning. The present discussion is not intended as a suggestion that such heterogeneous classes of events are unimportant objects of study. But when such a variety of referents are all denoted by the same symbol, thought and communication are severely hampered. A standardized terminology has become an indispensable and urgent prerequisite for the further development of a systematic approach to social change via the quantitative study of diffusion and related phenomena. A second urgent prerequisite is the linking of theoretical concepts from diffusion studies and the study of innovation to concepts from more general sociological theory. One of the reasons why this has not been done extensively in the past is undoubtedly explainable by the fact that sociologists have not yet developed very much in the way of validated general theory about which widespread consensus exists. The work of Talcott Parsons, among contemporary American sociologists, makes a claim to being directed toward this goal. There is no complete agreement as to how well this goal is being reached by his particular efforts, but there is at least one aspect of Parsons' "theories of systems" that seems to provide linkage points for potential convergence with an empirical and analytical theory of social change.8 3 For a summary of early diffusion studies in sociology see Melvin L. DeFleur and Otto N. Larsen, The Flow of Izformation (New York: Harper & Bros., 1958). 4 Bryce Ryan and Neal C. Gross, "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities," Rural Sociology, 8 (March 1943), pp. 15-24. 5 Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Strutctutre (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1959), pp. 141-149. 6 An excellent example of this usage is contained in Richard Colvard, "Risk Capital Philanthropy: The Idealogical Defense of Innovation," in George K. Zollschan and Walter Hirsch (eds.), Explorations in Social Change (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1964), pp. 728-748. The "risk capital" concept constitutes a new norm or code for philanthropic foundations. 7 The use of adjectives, verbs and nouns, e.g., "innovation," "to innovate," and "innovators" as derivatives of "innovation" implies this usage. See Herbert Menzel, "Innovation, Integration and Marginality: A Survey of Physicians," American Sociological Review, 25 (October 1960), pp. 704713. See also Rogers, op. cit., pp. 193-195. 8 By the term "analytical" is meant "based upon the study of elementary units." If traits are considered as elementary units of culture, then a study of the adoption of or diffusion of a particular trait, This content downloaded from 157.55.39.147 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:04:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms