大众传播效果研究的历史考察
摘要
本研究是关于大众传播效果研究的历史考察。本文定义的“大众传播效果研究”是大众传播研究中一个具有独特取向的领域,其特征是:着重考察受众,试图确认各种影响,力图将这些影响追溯到大众媒介的某个相面,并采取实证科学的方法和语言,以检验理论的假设。效果研究目前在国际传播学界居于“核心”地位,体现出“主流范式”应有的繁荣;但同时它也面临着来自内部的危机和外部的挑战,这使得对效果研究历史的考察深具现实的迫切性。
有关大众传播效果研究历史的“强—弱—强”模式从效果呈现的强度上对之进行了疏理,并具有广泛的影响力,但这一线索的弱点是表面化,且不完全符合效果研究的历史事实。在比较的基础上,本研究选择对“受众”的理解和认识作为大众传播效果研究历史书写的线索,这不仅因为这一视角可以解释效果之强弱,而且从本质上讲,效果研究处理的正是社会中的“人”与作为社会建制的大众媒介之间的互动关系。
按照这样的思路,本文在阅读一手文献的基础上,将效果研究大体按照五个阶段来叙述:第一个阶段从芝加哥学派关于传播和大众媒介的思想讲起,叙说如何从其“传播为人类关系之本质”的思想过渡到了第一个大众传播效果研究——佩恩基金会研究,这一研究开始将受众作为孤立的个体看待,考察媒介对其认知、态度、行为等各方面的影响;第二个阶段的效果研究聚焦受众的态度与行为,考察劝服信息试图改变受众的目的是否实现,并认识到受众所具有的个人差异,以及因“预存立场”形成的选择性接触、理解与记忆;第三个阶段是哥伦比亚学派的学者们引入了人际关系和社会结构的因素,考察受众所受的人际影响和结构性制约如何与媒介效果发生互动;第四个阶段强调受众所具有的主动选择信息、使用信息、处理信息和讨论信息等积极行为对大众传播效果的影响;第五个阶段着重考察受众的认知效果,这一阶段就认知的序列、图景和差异产生了一系列重要理论(假设),成为当前效果研究的热点所在,但对这些理论的反复检验和发展遮蔽了对于受众认识视角的进一步推进。需要指出的是,这五个阶段不存在彼此替代的关系,每一阶段积累的对于受众的理解和认识实际上都融入了后来的效果研究之中。
大众传播在“宏大理论”层面上受着带有批判色彩的结构功能主义思想的指导,并遵循着建构“中层理论”的研究模式。大众传播效果研究虽然不对效果进行直接的价值判断,但效果研究者应当秉持对于民主观念的基本承诺,这也是效果研究的基本价值取向和制约情境。
最后,本文还对效果研究的未来发展、中国效果研究的开展、及建立对于受众/人的理解认识基础之上的更为宽广的效果思潮史等问题提出了自己的思考与建议。
This study is focused on the intellectual history of the research of effects of mass communication. "Research of effects of mass communication", as defined in this paper, is a unique approach in the field of communication studies. It holds major common characteristics including primary focus on audiences, specification of influence, attribution of the source of influence or effect to a particular aspect, and a tendency to formulate propositions about effects in ways accessible to empirical testing. It is now called "dominant paradigm" in the field of mass communication, while it is criticized by critical studies and cultural studies.There is a received history about media effects research, which is known as the model of "powerful-limited-powerful" effects. This well-known model is easy to understand, while it does not reflect the actual development of effects research in deed. In this study, we will supply a "new" intellectual history with the "new" aspect about how the researchers understand and perceive "audiences" during their studies.On the basis of first-hand literatures, we divide the history of mass communication effects research into five stages: the first stage refers to the first mass communication effects research—Pane Fund Studies, which treat the "audience" as "isolated" and examine how movies influence knowledge, attitude and behavior of young people; communication studies in the second stage are focused on the media effects on the audiences' attitude and behavior, which mean to examine whether the persuasive goal from the communicator will be achieved, then researchers find important variables including personal differences, and selective exposure, perception and retention as results of "predisposition"; in the third stage, scholars from Columbia School introduce the variables of personal influence and social structure into media effects research and look for their interaction with media effects; the "audience activity" such as "information selection", "information utilization", "information processing" and "discussing" are the key variables in the fourth stage; and in the last and recent stage, researchers focus on cognitive effects of mass communication. They propose a series of theories or hypotheses on issues significance (e.g. agenda-setting), image of the world outside (e.g. cultivation; framing) and knowledge gap, which are the most cited theories in recent effects studies. We do not mean that the ideas on "audiences" in every stage replace its former. On the contrary, all ideas on "audiences" will be integrated into the recent effects research of mass communication.Effects of mass communication approach sees "structural functionalism" as its "grand theory" and follows Merton's suggestion about building "middle-range theories". It makes commitment to democracy as foundational value behind empirical studies.Finally, we discuss the issues of the future of media effects research, effects research in China and the study on the intellectual history of media effects thoughts, which means not limited in the field of empirical media effects research.
有关大众传播效果研究历史的“强—弱—强”模式从效果呈现的强度上对之进行了疏理,并具有广泛的影响力,但这一线索的弱点是表面化,且不完全符合效果研究的历史事实。在比较的基础上,本研究选择对“受众”的理解和认识作为大众传播效果研究历史书写的线索,这不仅因为这一视角可以解释效果之强弱,而且从本质上讲,效果研究处理的正是社会中的“人”与作为社会建制的大众媒介之间的互动关系。
按照这样的思路,本文在阅读一手文献的基础上,将效果研究大体按照五个阶段来叙述:第一个阶段从芝加哥学派关于传播和大众媒介的思想讲起,叙说如何从其“传播为人类关系之本质”的思想过渡到了第一个大众传播效果研究——佩恩基金会研究,这一研究开始将受众作为孤立的个体看待,考察媒介对其认知、态度、行为等各方面的影响;第二个阶段的效果研究聚焦受众的态度与行为,考察劝服信息试图改变受众的目的是否实现,并认识到受众所具有的个人差异,以及因“预存立场”形成的选择性接触、理解与记忆;第三个阶段是哥伦比亚学派的学者们引入了人际关系和社会结构的因素,考察受众所受的人际影响和结构性制约如何与媒介效果发生互动;第四个阶段强调受众所具有的主动选择信息、使用信息、处理信息和讨论信息等积极行为对大众传播效果的影响;第五个阶段着重考察受众的认知效果,这一阶段就认知的序列、图景和差异产生了一系列重要理论(假设),成为当前效果研究的热点所在,但对这些理论的反复检验和发展遮蔽了对于受众认识视角的进一步推进。需要指出的是,这五个阶段不存在彼此替代的关系,每一阶段积累的对于受众的理解和认识实际上都融入了后来的效果研究之中。
大众传播在“宏大理论”层面上受着带有批判色彩的结构功能主义思想的指导,并遵循着建构“中层理论”的研究模式。大众传播效果研究虽然不对效果进行直接的价值判断,但效果研究者应当秉持对于民主观念的基本承诺,这也是效果研究的基本价值取向和制约情境。
最后,本文还对效果研究的未来发展、中国效果研究的开展、及建立对于受众/人的理解认识基础之上的更为宽广的效果思潮史等问题提出了自己的思考与建议。
This study is focused on the intellectual history of the research of effects of mass communication. "Research of effects of mass communication", as defined in this paper, is a unique approach in the field of communication studies. It holds major common characteristics including primary focus on audiences, specification of influence, attribution of the source of influence or effect to a particular aspect, and a tendency to formulate propositions about effects in ways accessible to empirical testing. It is now called "dominant paradigm" in the field of mass communication, while it is criticized by critical studies and cultural studies.There is a received history about media effects research, which is known as the model of "powerful-limited-powerful" effects. This well-known model is easy to understand, while it does not reflect the actual development of effects research in deed. In this study, we will supply a "new" intellectual history with the "new" aspect about how the researchers understand and perceive "audiences" during their studies.On the basis of first-hand literatures, we divide the history of mass communication effects research into five stages: the first stage refers to the first mass communication effects research—Pane Fund Studies, which treat the "audience" as "isolated" and examine how movies influence knowledge, attitude and behavior of young people; communication studies in the second stage are focused on the media effects on the audiences' attitude and behavior, which mean to examine whether the persuasive goal from the communicator will be achieved, then researchers find important variables including personal differences, and selective exposure, perception and retention as results of "predisposition"; in the third stage, scholars from Columbia School introduce the variables of personal influence and social structure into media effects research and look for their interaction with media effects; the "audience activity" such as "information selection", "information utilization", "information processing" and "discussing" are the key variables in the fourth stage; and in the last and recent stage, researchers focus on cognitive effects of mass communication. They propose a series of theories or hypotheses on issues significance (e.g. agenda-setting), image of the world outside (e.g. cultivation; framing) and knowledge gap, which are the most cited theories in recent effects studies. We do not mean that the ideas on "audiences" in every stage replace its former. On the contrary, all ideas on "audiences" will be integrated into the recent effects research of mass communication.Effects of mass communication approach sees "structural functionalism" as its "grand theory" and follows Merton's suggestion about building "middle-range theories". It makes commitment to democracy as foundational value behind empirical studies.Finally, we discuss the issues of the future of media effects research, effects research in China and the study on the intellectual history of media effects thoughts, which means not limited in the field of empirical media effects research.
引文
[1] Ball-Rokeach, S. J. A theory of media power and a theory of media use: Different stories, questions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication & Society, 1998, 1(1/2), 5-40.
[2] Ball-Rokeach, S. J. & DeFleur, M. L. A dependency model of mass media effects. Communication Research, 1976, 3, 3-21.
[3] Bauer, R. A. Comments on "the state of communication research". Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 11-15.
[4] Bauer, R. A. The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 319-328.
[5] Bauer, R. A., & Bauer, A. H. America, mass society and mass media. Journal of Social Issues, 1960, 16(3), 3-66.
[6] Berelson, B. Communication and public opinion. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Communications in modern society. Urbana, ILL: University of Illinois Press, 1948.
[7] Berelson, B. What "missing the newspaper" means. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communication research 1948-1949, pp. 111-129. New York: Harper, 1949.
[8] Berelson, B. The state of communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 1-6.
[9] Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
[10] Berelson, B. & Janowitz, M. (Eds.). Reader in public opinion and communication. New York: The Free Press, 1966.
[11] Biocca, F. A. Opposing conceptions of the audience: The active and passive hemispheres of mass communication theory. Communication Yearbook, 11, 1987, 51-80.
[12] Blumer, H. "Conclusion," from Movies and Conduct. In J. D. Peters & P. Simonson (Eds.), Mass communication and American social thought: Key texts, 1919-1968. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
[13] Blumler, J. British television: The outlines of a research strategy. British Journal of Sociology, 1964, 15,223-233.
[14] Blumler, J. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 1979, 6, 9-36.
[15] Brooker, W. & Jermyn, D. (Eds.). The audience studies reader. Taylor & Francis, 2002.
[16] Bryant, J., & Yang, M. H. A blueprint for excellence for the Asian Communication Research. http://www.asiancommunicationresearch.com/1st/7.html, 2004-10-8.
[17] Bryant, J. & Miron, D. Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 2004, 54, 662-704.
[18] Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Perspectives on media effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986.
[19] Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum, 1994.
[20] Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
[21 ]Bryson, L. (Ed.). The communication of ideas. New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
[22]Bryson, L., Free, L. A., Gorer, G, Lasswell, H. D., Lazarsfeld, P R, Lynd, R. S., Marshall, J., Siepmann, C. A., Slesinger, D., and Waples, D. Needed research in communication. In J. D. Peters & P. Simonson (Eds.), Mass communication and American social thought: Key texts, 1919-1968. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
[23] Butsch, B. The making of American audience: From stage to television, 1750-1990. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[24] Cantril, H. The invasion from Mars. New York: Harper & Row, 1940; 1966.
[25] Cantril, H., & Allport, G. The psychology and radio. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935.
[26] Carey, J. W. The mass media and critical theory: An American view. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6, pp. 18-33. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.
[27] Carey, J. W. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
[28] Carey, J. W. The Chicago School and mass communication research. In E. E. Dennis & E. Wartella (Eds.), American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[29] Carey, J., & Kreiling, A. Popular culture and uses and gratifications: Notes toward accommodation. In J. Blumer & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research, pp. 225-248. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1974.
[30] Carter, R. F. Some effects of the debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1962.
[31] Carveth, R., & Alexander, A. Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1985, 29, 259-273.
[32]Chaffee, S. H. Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent, or complementary? In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/Media: Interpersonal communication in a media world, pp. 55-77. New York: Oxford University Press,1982.
[33] Chaffee, S. H. George Gallup and Ralph Nafziger: Pioneers of Audience Research. Mass Communication & Society, 2000, Spring/Summer, 3, Issue 2/3, 317-327.
[34] Chaffee, S. H. & Hochheimer, J. L. The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the 'limited effects' model. In E. M. Rogers & F. Balle (Eds.), The media revolution in America and Western Europe, pp. 267—296. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1985.
[35] Chaffee, S. H. & Metzger, M. J. The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society, 2001, November, 4, Issue 4, 365-379.
[36] Converse, J. M. Survey research in the United States: Roots and emergence 1890-1960. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
[37] Cooley, C. H. Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909.
[38] Corner, J. "Influence": The contested core of media research. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (3rd Ed), pp. 376-397. London: Edward Arnold, 2000.
[39] Davison, W. P. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1983,47(1), 1-15.
[40] Davison, W. P. A story of the POQ's fifty-year odyssey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1987, 51, S4-S11.
[41] DeFleur, M. L. Where have all the milestones gone? The decline of significant research on the process and effects of mass communication. Mass Communication and Society, 1998, 1(1/2), 85-98.
[42] Defleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. Theories of mass communication (4th ed). New York: Longman, 1982.
[43] Delia, J. G. Communication research: A history. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science. New York, CA: Sage Publications, 1987.
[44] Dennis, E. E., & Wartella, E. (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[45] Dewey, J. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt, 1927.
[46] Dewey, J. The ethics of democracy. In The early works of John Dewey, 1882-98, Vol. 1, pp. 227-49. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1969.
[47]Doob, A. W., & MacDonald, G. E. Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 170-179.
[48] Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Allen, M. Surveying the effects of media effects: A meta-analytic summary of the media effects research in Human Communication Research. Human Communication Research, 1999,25,478-497.
[49] Ettema, J. S., & Kline, F. G. Deficits, differences, and ceilings: Contingent conditions for understanding the knowledge gap hypothesis. Communication Research, 1977, 4, 179-202.
[50] Gallup, G. H. A scientific method for determining reader-interest. Journalism Quarterly, 1930, 7, pp. 1-13.
[51] Gary, B. Communication research, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the mobilization for war on words, 1938-1944. Journal of Communication, 1996, 46, 124-147.
[52] Gary, B. The nervous liberals: Propaganda anxieties from World War I to the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
[53] Gauntlett, D. Ten things wrong with the "effects model". In R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath & O. Linne (Eds), Approaches to audiences: A reader, pp. 120-130. London: Edward Arnold, 1998.
[54] Gerbner, G. Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass communication & Society, 1998, 1(3/4), 175-194.
[55] Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 1976, 26,173-199.
[56] Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., and Signorielli N. Cultural Indicators: Violence Profile No. 9. Journal of Communication, 1978, 28, 176-206.
[57] Gerbner, G, Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. The mainstreaming of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 1980, 30,10-29.
[58 ]Gitlin, T. Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society, 1978, 6,205-253.
[59] Gitlin, T. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
[60] Glander, T. Origins of mass communication research during the American Cold War: Educational effects and contemporary implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
[61] Hall, S. Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D, Hobson, A. Low, & P. Wills (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies (1972-1979). Hutchingson, London, 1980.
[62] Halloran, J. D. The effects of television. London: Panther, 1970.
[63] Harrison, K. Does interpersonal attraction to thin media personalities promote eating disorders? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 1997, 41, 478-500.
[64] Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. Television influence on the construction of social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilei, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. (Vol. 2, pp. 224-227). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982.
[65] Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. Activity in the effects of television on children. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.
[66] Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. Searching for cognitive processes in the cultivation effect: Adult and adolescent samples in the United States and Australia. Human Communication Research, 1987,13, 553-577.
[67] Herzog, H. What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1942-1943, pp. 3-33. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944.
[68] Hyman, H. H. & Sheatsley, P. B. Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947, 11(3), 412-23.
[69] Jeffres, L. W. Mass media effects (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1997.
[70] Jowett, G. S., Jarvie, I. C, & Fuller, K. H. Children and the movies: Media influence and the Payne Fund controversy. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[71] Kamhawi, R. & Weaver, D. Mass Communication Research Trends From 1980 to 1999. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2003, 80, 7-27.
[72] Katz, E. The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957,21, 61-78.
[73] Katz, E. Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Public Communication, 1959, 2, 1-6.
[74] Katz, E. Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1987,51,25-45.
[75] Katz, E. Diffusion research at Columbia. In E. E. Dennis, & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[76] Katz, E. Lazarsfeld's map of media effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2001, 13, 270-279.
[77] Katz, E. "Media effects", in N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds. in chief). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam & New York:Elsevier, 2001.
[78] Katz, E. Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: Notes on 'the spiral of silence'. In D. McQuail (Ed.). McQuail's reader in mass communication theory. London: Sage, 2002.
[79] Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1973-74, 37, 509-523.
[80] Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research, pp. 19-32. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1974.
[81] Katz, E & Foulkes, D. On the use of the mass media as "escape": Clarification of a concept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1962,26,377-388.
[82] Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 1973, 38,164-181.
[83] Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. F. Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York: The Free Press, 1955.
[84] Key, V. O. Public opinion and American democracy. New York: Knopf, 1961. [85] Klapper, J. T. The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press, 1960.
[86] Klapper, J. T. Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1963,27, 515-527.
[87] Klapper, J. T. Mass Communication: Effects. In D. L. Sills (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol. 3, 81-90. The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, 1968.
[88] Kraus, S. (Ed.). The great debates. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1962.
[89]Lang, GE.,& Lang, K. The influential structure of political communications: A study in unwitting bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1955, XIX, 168-184.
[90] Lang, K. The European roots. In E. E. Dennis & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[91] Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. The unique perspective of television and its effects: A pilot study. American Sociological Review, 1952, 21, 627-631.
[92] Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. The mass media and voting. In E. J. Burdick & A. J. Brodbeck (Eds.). American voting behavior. New York: Free Press, 1959.
[93] Lasswell, H. D. The theory of political propaganda. American Political Science Review, 1927,21,627-631.
[94] Lasswell, H. The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas, pp. 32-51. New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
[95] Lazarsfeld, P. F. Administrative and critical communications research. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 1941, 9, No. 1, Reprinted 1972, pp. 155-167.
[96] Lazarsfeld, P. F. The effects of radio on public opinion. In D. Waples (Ed.). Print, Radio, and Film in a Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
[97] Lazarsfeld, P. F. Communication research and the social psychologist. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in social psychology, pp. 218-273. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1948.
[98] Lazarsfeld, P. F. Qualitative analysis. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1972.
[99] Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. Studies in radio and film propaganda. Transaction of the New York Academy of Science, 1943, 6, 58-79.
[100] Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas, pp. 95-118. New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
[101] Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign, second edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944; 1948.
[102] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Field, H. The people look at radio. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1946.
[103] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Kendall, P. Radio listening in America: The people look at radio—again. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1948.
[104] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (Eds.). Radio research 1941. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1941.
[105] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (Eds.). Radio research 1942-1943. New York:
Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944.
[106] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (Eds.). Communications research 1948-1949. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.
[107] Lerner, D. The passing of traditional society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1958.
[108] Levy, M. R. Conceptualizing and measuring aspects of audience "activity". Journalism Quarterly, 1983, 60, 109-115.
[109] Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 1984,11, 51-78.
[110] Liebes, T. Herzog's "On borrowed experience": its place in the debate over the active audience. In E. Katz, J. D. Peters, T. Liebes & A. Orloff (Eds.), Canonic texts in media research, pp. 38-53. Cambridge: Policy, 2003.
[111] Lippmann, W. Trotter and Freud. New Public, 1916, November 18, pp. 16,18.
[112] Livingstone, S. Interpreting a television narrative: How different viewers see a story. Journal of Communication, 1990, 40, 72-85.
[113] Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. Milestones in mass communication research. New York: Longman, 1983.
[114] McChesney, R. W. Telecommunications, mass media, and democracy: The battle for control of U. S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
[115] McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, 36(2), 176-187.
[116] McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. Structuring the unseen environment. Journal of Communication, 1976,26,18-22.
[117] McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, .1993, 43, 58-67.
[118] McDougall, W. The group mind. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920.
[119] McGuire, W. J. The Yale communication and attitude-change program in the 1950s. In E. E. Dennis & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[120] McLeod, J. M. Trends in audience research in the United States. Paper presented at International Conference on Chinese Audiences across Time and Space on 1-2 April 2000 at City University of Hong Kong.
[121] McLeod, J. M. & Reeves, B. On the nature of mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abies (Eds.). Television and social behavior: Beyond violence and children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
[122] McLeod, J. M., Kosichi, G. M., & Pan, Z. On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society, pp. 185-211. London: Edward Arnold, 1991.
[123] McLeod, J. M., Sotirovic, M., & Holbert, R. L. Values as sociotropic judgments influencing communication patterns. Communication Research, 1998, 25, 453-480.
[124]McQuail, D. Mass communication theory: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1994.
[125] McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G. & Brown, J. R. The television audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication, pp. 135-165. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972.
[126] Merton, R. K. Patterns of influence. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communications research 1948-1949, pp. 180-219. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.
[127] Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Curtis, A. Mass persuasion: The social psychology of a war-bond drive. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.
[128]Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. The Focused Interview. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1956.
[129] Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In S. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.). Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.
[130] Nafziger, R. O. A reader-interest survey of Madison, Wisconsin. Journalism Quarterly, 1930,7,128-141.
[131] Noelle-Neumann, E. Return to the concept of powerful mass media Studies in Broadcasting, 1973,9,67-112.
[132] Noelle-Neumann, E. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 1974, 24, 43-51.
[133] Oliver, M. B. Individual differences in media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
[134] Pan, Z. & McLeod, J. M. Multilevel analysis in mass communication research. Communication Research, 1991, 18, 140-173.
[135] Park, R. E. The crowd and the public and other essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904; 1972.
[136] Park, R. E. The immigrant press and its control. New York: Harper, 1922.
[137] Parsons, T. Social system. New York: Free Press, 1951.
[138] Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 2000, 3(1), 57-85.
[139] Perloff, R. M. Third-person effect research, 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1993, 1, 167-184.
[140] Perse, E. M. Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
[141] Peters, J. D. Democracy and American Mass Communication Theory: Dewey, Lippmann, Lazarsfeld. Communication, 1989, Vol. 11, pp. 199-220.
[142] Peters, J. D. & Simonson, P. (Eds.). Mass communication and American social thought: Key texts, 1919-1968. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
[143] Potter, W. J. Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcast & Electronic Media, 1986, 30, 159-174.
[144] Potter, W. J. Three strategies for elaborating the cultivation hypothesis. Journalism Quarterly, 1988, 65, 930-939.
[145] Potter, W. J. The relationships between first- and second-order measures of cultivation. Human Communication Research, 1991, 18, 92-113.
[146] Potter, W. J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. The three paradigms of mass media research in mainstream communication journals. Communication Theory, 1993, 3(3), 17-35.
[147] Rogers, E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962.
[148] Rogers, E. Communication and development: The passing of the dominant paradigm. Communication Research, 1976, 3(2), 213-40.
[149] Rogers, E. Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
[150] Rogers, E. M. & Chaffee, S. H. Communication as an academic discipline: A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 1983, 33(3), 18-30.
[151] Rogers, E. M. & Chaffee, S. H. The past and the future of communication study: Convergence or divergence? Journal of Communication, 1993, 43, 125-131.
[152] Rowland, W. D. The politics of TV violence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.
[153] Rubin, A. M. Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 1983, 34, 67 - 77.
[154] Rubin, A. M. The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, pp. 525-548. Mahwah, N. J.: L. Elbaum Associates, 2002.
[155] Rubin, A. M. & Windal, S. The uses and dependency model of mass communication. Critical Stuidies in Mass Communication, 1986, 3, 184-199.
[156] Scheufele, D. A. Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 1999,49, 103-122.
[157] Scheufele, D. A. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 2000, 3(2-3), 297-316.
[158] Schramm, W. (Ed.). Mass communications. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
[159] Schramm, W. (Ed.). The science of human communication. New York: Basic Books, Inc, 1963.
[160] Schramm, W. Mass media and national development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964.
[161] Schramm, W. The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D. F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (rev. ed., pp. 3-53). Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971.
[162] Schramm, W. The unique perspective of communication: A retrospective view. Journal of Communication, 1983, 33(3), 6-17.
[163] Schramm, W., & Carter, R. F. Effectiveness of a political telethon. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 121-126.
[164] Schramm, W., & Roberts, D. F. (Eds.). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1954; 1971.
[165] Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1967, 31 (2), 194-213.
[166] Severin, W. J. & Tankard, J. W. Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. New York: Longman, 1997.
[167] Seldes, G. Lords of the press. New York: Julian Messner, 1938.
[168] Sherry, J. L. Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overiew and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 2004, 6, 83-109.
[169] Shrum, L. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 1993, 20, 436-471.
[170] Simonson, P. & Weimann, G. Critical research at Columbia: Lazarsfeld's and Merton's "Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action." In E. Katz, J. D. Peters, T. Liebes, & A. Orloff (Eds.), Canonic texts in media research, pp. 12-38. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2003.
[171] Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. Knowledge as understanding: The information processing approach to political learning. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research, pp. 357-394. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
[172] Sparks, G. G. Media effects research: A basic review.北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
[173] Sproule, J. M. Progressive Propaganda Critics and the Magic Bullet Myth. Critical Studies in Mass communication, 1989, 6(3), 225-246.
[174] Suchman, E. An invitation to music. In R F. Lazarsfeld & E N. Stanton (Eds.) Radio research, 1941. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1942.
[175] Tapper, J. The ecology of cultivation: A conceptual model for cultivation research. Communication Theory, 1995, 5, 36-57.
[176] Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970, 34, 159-170.
[177] Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 693-798.
[178] Wahl-Jorgensen, K. How not to found a field: New evidence on the origins of mass communication research. Journal of Communication, 2004, 54, 547-564.
[179] Wartella, E. The history reconsidered. In E. E. Dennis, & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered histoly. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[180] Windahl, S. Uses and gratifications at the crossroads. Mass Communication Review Yearbook, 1981, 2, 174-185.
[181] Wright, C. R. Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 605-620.
[182] Wuthnow, R. Communities of discourse: Ideology and social structure in the reformation, the Enlightenment, and European socialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
[1] 艾英戈、金德.至关重要的新闻——电视与美国民意[M],刘海龙译.北京:新华出版社,2004.
[2] 巴兰、戴维斯.大众传播理论:基础、争鸣与未来[M],曹书乐译.北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[3] 彼得斯.交流的无奈[M],何道宽译.北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[4] 卜卫.大众传播对儿童的社会化和观念现代化的影响[J].新闻研究资料,1991,总第55期.
[5] 蔡文辉.社会学理论[M].台湾:三民书局,1986.
[6] 常昌富等.大众传播学:影响研究范式[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[7] 陈崇山、孙五三.媒介、人、现代化[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[8] 陈怀林.经济利益驱动下的中国传媒制度变革——以报业为例[C].何舟、陈怀林.中国传媒新论.香港:太平洋世纪出版社有限公司,1998.
[9] 陈力丹.最近几年我国新闻传播学的学科发展[C].陈力丹.陈力丹自选集.上海:复旦大学出版社,2004,219—232.
[10] 德弗勒、鲍尔—洛基奇.大众传播学诸论[M],杜力平译.北京:新华出版社,1990.
[11] 丁未.社会结构与媒介效果——“知沟”现象研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2003.
[12] 杜威.民主主义与教育[M],王承绪译.北京:人民教育出版社,1990.
[13] 福柯.知识考古学[M],谢强、马月译.北京:三联出版社,2003.
[14] 郭中实.涵化理论:电视世界真的影响深远吗?[J].新闻与传播研究,1997,2,58-64.
[15] 黄旦.磨洗旧迹认前朝——评传学史上的第一次大讨论[J].新闻大学,1995,3,22-25.
[16] 黄旦.媒介是谁:对大众媒介社会定位的探讨——兼论大众传播研究的社会学框架[J].新闻与传播研究,1997,2,65-72.
[17] 黄旦.美国早期的传播思想及其流变[c].中国传播学会.2004中国传播学论坛论文集.云南丽江,2004年8月.
[18] 黄瑚、李俊.“议题融合论”:传播理论的一个新假设[J].新闻大学,2001,2,29-32.
[19] 霍克海姆.传统理论与批判理论[c].上海社会科学院哲学研究所外国哲学研究室.法兰克福学派论著选辑(上).北京:商务印书馆,1998.
[20] 克兰.无形学院——知识在科学共同体的扩散[M],刘珺珺等译.北京:华夏出版社,1988.
[21] 库恩.科学革命的结构[M],金吾伦等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[22] 库隆.芝加哥学派[M],郑文彬译.北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[23] 拉斯韦尔.世界大战中的宣传技巧[M],张洁等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[24] 李本乾.中国大众传媒议程设置功能研究[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,2002.
[25] 李金铨.大众传播理论[M].台湾:三民书局,1996.
[26] 李普曼.公众舆论[M],阎克文、江红译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[27] 林南.中国研究如何为社会学理论做贡献[C].周晓虹.中国社会与中国研究.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2004.
[28] 刘海龙.社会变迁与议程设置理论——专访议程设置奠基人之一唐纳德·肖[J].国际新闻界,2004,4,18-24.
[29] 刘晓红.行为主义和传播研究[EB/OL].http://www.pep.eom.cn/200406/ca442104.html,2005-01-12.
[30] 罗杰斯.传播学史[M],殷晓蓉译.上海:上海译文出版社,2002.
[31] 罗杰斯、迪林.议程设置的研究:现在它在何处,将走向何方?[c],关世杰译.常昌富等.大众传播学:影响研究范式.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[32] 洛厄里、德弗勒.传播研究里程碑[M],王嵩音译.台湾:远流出版公司,1993.
[33] 洛厄里、德弗勒.大众传播效果研究的里程碑[M],刘海龙译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[34] 麦考姆斯、贝尔.大众传播的议程设置功能[J],郭镇之译.新闻大学,1999,夏、秋季号.
[35] 麦奎尔、温德尔.大众传播模式论[M],祝建华、武伟译.上海:上海译文出版社,1997.
[36] 曼彻斯特.光荣与梦想:1932—1972年美国实录[M],广州外国语学院美英问题研究室翻译组译.北京:商务印书馆,1978.
[37] 米德.心灵、自我与社会[M],赵月瑟译.上海:上海译文出版社,1992.
[38] 闵大洪、陈崇山.浙江省城乡受众接触新闻媒介行为与现代观念的相关研究[J].新闻研究资料,1991,总第55期.
[39] 默顿.论理论社会学[M],何凡兴等译.北京:华夏出版社,1990.
[40] 莫里森.寻找方法:焦点小组和大众传播研究的发展[M],柯惠新等译.北京:新华出版社,2004.
[2] Ball-Rokeach, S. J. & DeFleur, M. L. A dependency model of mass media effects. Communication Research, 1976, 3, 3-21.
[3] Bauer, R. A. Comments on "the state of communication research". Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 11-15.
[4] Bauer, R. A. The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 319-328.
[5] Bauer, R. A., & Bauer, A. H. America, mass society and mass media. Journal of Social Issues, 1960, 16(3), 3-66.
[6] Berelson, B. Communication and public opinion. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Communications in modern society. Urbana, ILL: University of Illinois Press, 1948.
[7] Berelson, B. What "missing the newspaper" means. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communication research 1948-1949, pp. 111-129. New York: Harper, 1949.
[8] Berelson, B. The state of communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 1-6.
[9] Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
[10] Berelson, B. & Janowitz, M. (Eds.). Reader in public opinion and communication. New York: The Free Press, 1966.
[11] Biocca, F. A. Opposing conceptions of the audience: The active and passive hemispheres of mass communication theory. Communication Yearbook, 11, 1987, 51-80.
[12] Blumer, H. "Conclusion," from Movies and Conduct. In J. D. Peters & P. Simonson (Eds.), Mass communication and American social thought: Key texts, 1919-1968. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
[13] Blumler, J. British television: The outlines of a research strategy. British Journal of Sociology, 1964, 15,223-233.
[14] Blumler, J. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 1979, 6, 9-36.
[15] Brooker, W. & Jermyn, D. (Eds.). The audience studies reader. Taylor & Francis, 2002.
[16] Bryant, J., & Yang, M. H. A blueprint for excellence for the Asian Communication Research. http://www.asiancommunicationresearch.com/1st/7.html, 2004-10-8.
[17] Bryant, J. & Miron, D. Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 2004, 54, 662-704.
[18] Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Perspectives on media effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986.
[19] Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum, 1994.
[20] Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
[21 ]Bryson, L. (Ed.). The communication of ideas. New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
[22]Bryson, L., Free, L. A., Gorer, G, Lasswell, H. D., Lazarsfeld, P R, Lynd, R. S., Marshall, J., Siepmann, C. A., Slesinger, D., and Waples, D. Needed research in communication. In J. D. Peters & P. Simonson (Eds.), Mass communication and American social thought: Key texts, 1919-1968. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
[23] Butsch, B. The making of American audience: From stage to television, 1750-1990. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[24] Cantril, H. The invasion from Mars. New York: Harper & Row, 1940; 1966.
[25] Cantril, H., & Allport, G. The psychology and radio. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935.
[26] Carey, J. W. The mass media and critical theory: An American view. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6, pp. 18-33. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.
[27] Carey, J. W. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
[28] Carey, J. W. The Chicago School and mass communication research. In E. E. Dennis & E. Wartella (Eds.), American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[29] Carey, J., & Kreiling, A. Popular culture and uses and gratifications: Notes toward accommodation. In J. Blumer & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research, pp. 225-248. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1974.
[30] Carter, R. F. Some effects of the debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1962.
[31] Carveth, R., & Alexander, A. Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1985, 29, 259-273.
[32]Chaffee, S. H. Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent, or complementary? In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/Media: Interpersonal communication in a media world, pp. 55-77. New York: Oxford University Press,1982.
[33] Chaffee, S. H. George Gallup and Ralph Nafziger: Pioneers of Audience Research. Mass Communication & Society, 2000, Spring/Summer, 3, Issue 2/3, 317-327.
[34] Chaffee, S. H. & Hochheimer, J. L. The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the 'limited effects' model. In E. M. Rogers & F. Balle (Eds.), The media revolution in America and Western Europe, pp. 267—296. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1985.
[35] Chaffee, S. H. & Metzger, M. J. The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society, 2001, November, 4, Issue 4, 365-379.
[36] Converse, J. M. Survey research in the United States: Roots and emergence 1890-1960. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
[37] Cooley, C. H. Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909.
[38] Corner, J. "Influence": The contested core of media research. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (3rd Ed), pp. 376-397. London: Edward Arnold, 2000.
[39] Davison, W. P. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1983,47(1), 1-15.
[40] Davison, W. P. A story of the POQ's fifty-year odyssey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1987, 51, S4-S11.
[41] DeFleur, M. L. Where have all the milestones gone? The decline of significant research on the process and effects of mass communication. Mass Communication and Society, 1998, 1(1/2), 85-98.
[42] Defleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. Theories of mass communication (4th ed). New York: Longman, 1982.
[43] Delia, J. G. Communication research: A history. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science. New York, CA: Sage Publications, 1987.
[44] Dennis, E. E., & Wartella, E. (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[45] Dewey, J. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt, 1927.
[46] Dewey, J. The ethics of democracy. In The early works of John Dewey, 1882-98, Vol. 1, pp. 227-49. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1969.
[47]Doob, A. W., & MacDonald, G. E. Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 170-179.
[48] Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Allen, M. Surveying the effects of media effects: A meta-analytic summary of the media effects research in Human Communication Research. Human Communication Research, 1999,25,478-497.
[49] Ettema, J. S., & Kline, F. G. Deficits, differences, and ceilings: Contingent conditions for understanding the knowledge gap hypothesis. Communication Research, 1977, 4, 179-202.
[50] Gallup, G. H. A scientific method for determining reader-interest. Journalism Quarterly, 1930, 7, pp. 1-13.
[51] Gary, B. Communication research, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the mobilization for war on words, 1938-1944. Journal of Communication, 1996, 46, 124-147.
[52] Gary, B. The nervous liberals: Propaganda anxieties from World War I to the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
[53] Gauntlett, D. Ten things wrong with the "effects model". In R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath & O. Linne (Eds), Approaches to audiences: A reader, pp. 120-130. London: Edward Arnold, 1998.
[54] Gerbner, G. Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass communication & Society, 1998, 1(3/4), 175-194.
[55] Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 1976, 26,173-199.
[56] Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., and Signorielli N. Cultural Indicators: Violence Profile No. 9. Journal of Communication, 1978, 28, 176-206.
[57] Gerbner, G, Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. The mainstreaming of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 1980, 30,10-29.
[58 ]Gitlin, T. Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society, 1978, 6,205-253.
[59] Gitlin, T. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
[60] Glander, T. Origins of mass communication research during the American Cold War: Educational effects and contemporary implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
[61] Hall, S. Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D, Hobson, A. Low, & P. Wills (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies (1972-1979). Hutchingson, London, 1980.
[62] Halloran, J. D. The effects of television. London: Panther, 1970.
[63] Harrison, K. Does interpersonal attraction to thin media personalities promote eating disorders? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 1997, 41, 478-500.
[64] Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. Television influence on the construction of social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilei, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. (Vol. 2, pp. 224-227). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982.
[65] Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. Activity in the effects of television on children. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.
[66] Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. Searching for cognitive processes in the cultivation effect: Adult and adolescent samples in the United States and Australia. Human Communication Research, 1987,13, 553-577.
[67] Herzog, H. What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1942-1943, pp. 3-33. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944.
[68] Hyman, H. H. & Sheatsley, P. B. Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947, 11(3), 412-23.
[69] Jeffres, L. W. Mass media effects (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1997.
[70] Jowett, G. S., Jarvie, I. C, & Fuller, K. H. Children and the movies: Media influence and the Payne Fund controversy. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[71] Kamhawi, R. & Weaver, D. Mass Communication Research Trends From 1980 to 1999. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2003, 80, 7-27.
[72] Katz, E. The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957,21, 61-78.
[73] Katz, E. Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Public Communication, 1959, 2, 1-6.
[74] Katz, E. Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1987,51,25-45.
[75] Katz, E. Diffusion research at Columbia. In E. E. Dennis, & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[76] Katz, E. Lazarsfeld's map of media effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2001, 13, 270-279.
[77] Katz, E. "Media effects", in N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds. in chief). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam & New York:Elsevier, 2001.
[78] Katz, E. Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: Notes on 'the spiral of silence'. In D. McQuail (Ed.). McQuail's reader in mass communication theory. London: Sage, 2002.
[79] Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1973-74, 37, 509-523.
[80] Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research, pp. 19-32. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1974.
[81] Katz, E & Foulkes, D. On the use of the mass media as "escape": Clarification of a concept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1962,26,377-388.
[82] Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 1973, 38,164-181.
[83] Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. F. Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York: The Free Press, 1955.
[84] Key, V. O. Public opinion and American democracy. New York: Knopf, 1961. [85] Klapper, J. T. The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press, 1960.
[86] Klapper, J. T. Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1963,27, 515-527.
[87] Klapper, J. T. Mass Communication: Effects. In D. L. Sills (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol. 3, 81-90. The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, 1968.
[88] Kraus, S. (Ed.). The great debates. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1962.
[89]Lang, GE.,& Lang, K. The influential structure of political communications: A study in unwitting bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1955, XIX, 168-184.
[90] Lang, K. The European roots. In E. E. Dennis & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[91] Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. The unique perspective of television and its effects: A pilot study. American Sociological Review, 1952, 21, 627-631.
[92] Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. The mass media and voting. In E. J. Burdick & A. J. Brodbeck (Eds.). American voting behavior. New York: Free Press, 1959.
[93] Lasswell, H. D. The theory of political propaganda. American Political Science Review, 1927,21,627-631.
[94] Lasswell, H. The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas, pp. 32-51. New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
[95] Lazarsfeld, P. F. Administrative and critical communications research. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 1941, 9, No. 1, Reprinted 1972, pp. 155-167.
[96] Lazarsfeld, P. F. The effects of radio on public opinion. In D. Waples (Ed.). Print, Radio, and Film in a Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
[97] Lazarsfeld, P. F. Communication research and the social psychologist. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in social psychology, pp. 218-273. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1948.
[98] Lazarsfeld, P. F. Qualitative analysis. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1972.
[99] Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. Studies in radio and film propaganda. Transaction of the New York Academy of Science, 1943, 6, 58-79.
[100] Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas, pp. 95-118. New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
[101] Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign, second edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944; 1948.
[102] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Field, H. The people look at radio. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1946.
[103] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Kendall, P. Radio listening in America: The people look at radio—again. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1948.
[104] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (Eds.). Radio research 1941. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1941.
[105] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (Eds.). Radio research 1942-1943. New York:
Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944.
[106] Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Stanton, F. (Eds.). Communications research 1948-1949. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.
[107] Lerner, D. The passing of traditional society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1958.
[108] Levy, M. R. Conceptualizing and measuring aspects of audience "activity". Journalism Quarterly, 1983, 60, 109-115.
[109] Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 1984,11, 51-78.
[110] Liebes, T. Herzog's "On borrowed experience": its place in the debate over the active audience. In E. Katz, J. D. Peters, T. Liebes & A. Orloff (Eds.), Canonic texts in media research, pp. 38-53. Cambridge: Policy, 2003.
[111] Lippmann, W. Trotter and Freud. New Public, 1916, November 18, pp. 16,18.
[112] Livingstone, S. Interpreting a television narrative: How different viewers see a story. Journal of Communication, 1990, 40, 72-85.
[113] Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. Milestones in mass communication research. New York: Longman, 1983.
[114] McChesney, R. W. Telecommunications, mass media, and democracy: The battle for control of U. S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
[115] McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, 36(2), 176-187.
[116] McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. Structuring the unseen environment. Journal of Communication, 1976,26,18-22.
[117] McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, .1993, 43, 58-67.
[118] McDougall, W. The group mind. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920.
[119] McGuire, W. J. The Yale communication and attitude-change program in the 1950s. In E. E. Dennis & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[120] McLeod, J. M. Trends in audience research in the United States. Paper presented at International Conference on Chinese Audiences across Time and Space on 1-2 April 2000 at City University of Hong Kong.
[121] McLeod, J. M. & Reeves, B. On the nature of mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abies (Eds.). Television and social behavior: Beyond violence and children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
[122] McLeod, J. M., Kosichi, G. M., & Pan, Z. On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society, pp. 185-211. London: Edward Arnold, 1991.
[123] McLeod, J. M., Sotirovic, M., & Holbert, R. L. Values as sociotropic judgments influencing communication patterns. Communication Research, 1998, 25, 453-480.
[124]McQuail, D. Mass communication theory: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1994.
[125] McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G. & Brown, J. R. The television audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication, pp. 135-165. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972.
[126] Merton, R. K. Patterns of influence. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communications research 1948-1949, pp. 180-219. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.
[127] Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Curtis, A. Mass persuasion: The social psychology of a war-bond drive. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.
[128]Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. The Focused Interview. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1956.
[129] Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In S. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.). Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.
[130] Nafziger, R. O. A reader-interest survey of Madison, Wisconsin. Journalism Quarterly, 1930,7,128-141.
[131] Noelle-Neumann, E. Return to the concept of powerful mass media Studies in Broadcasting, 1973,9,67-112.
[132] Noelle-Neumann, E. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 1974, 24, 43-51.
[133] Oliver, M. B. Individual differences in media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
[134] Pan, Z. & McLeod, J. M. Multilevel analysis in mass communication research. Communication Research, 1991, 18, 140-173.
[135] Park, R. E. The crowd and the public and other essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904; 1972.
[136] Park, R. E. The immigrant press and its control. New York: Harper, 1922.
[137] Parsons, T. Social system. New York: Free Press, 1951.
[138] Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 2000, 3(1), 57-85.
[139] Perloff, R. M. Third-person effect research, 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1993, 1, 167-184.
[140] Perse, E. M. Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
[141] Peters, J. D. Democracy and American Mass Communication Theory: Dewey, Lippmann, Lazarsfeld. Communication, 1989, Vol. 11, pp. 199-220.
[142] Peters, J. D. & Simonson, P. (Eds.). Mass communication and American social thought: Key texts, 1919-1968. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
[143] Potter, W. J. Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcast & Electronic Media, 1986, 30, 159-174.
[144] Potter, W. J. Three strategies for elaborating the cultivation hypothesis. Journalism Quarterly, 1988, 65, 930-939.
[145] Potter, W. J. The relationships between first- and second-order measures of cultivation. Human Communication Research, 1991, 18, 92-113.
[146] Potter, W. J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. The three paradigms of mass media research in mainstream communication journals. Communication Theory, 1993, 3(3), 17-35.
[147] Rogers, E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962.
[148] Rogers, E. Communication and development: The passing of the dominant paradigm. Communication Research, 1976, 3(2), 213-40.
[149] Rogers, E. Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
[150] Rogers, E. M. & Chaffee, S. H. Communication as an academic discipline: A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 1983, 33(3), 18-30.
[151] Rogers, E. M. & Chaffee, S. H. The past and the future of communication study: Convergence or divergence? Journal of Communication, 1993, 43, 125-131.
[152] Rowland, W. D. The politics of TV violence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.
[153] Rubin, A. M. Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 1983, 34, 67 - 77.
[154] Rubin, A. M. The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, pp. 525-548. Mahwah, N. J.: L. Elbaum Associates, 2002.
[155] Rubin, A. M. & Windal, S. The uses and dependency model of mass communication. Critical Stuidies in Mass Communication, 1986, 3, 184-199.
[156] Scheufele, D. A. Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 1999,49, 103-122.
[157] Scheufele, D. A. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 2000, 3(2-3), 297-316.
[158] Schramm, W. (Ed.). Mass communications. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
[159] Schramm, W. (Ed.). The science of human communication. New York: Basic Books, Inc, 1963.
[160] Schramm, W. Mass media and national development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964.
[161] Schramm, W. The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D. F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (rev. ed., pp. 3-53). Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971.
[162] Schramm, W. The unique perspective of communication: A retrospective view. Journal of Communication, 1983, 33(3), 6-17.
[163] Schramm, W., & Carter, R. F. Effectiveness of a political telethon. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 121-126.
[164] Schramm, W., & Roberts, D. F. (Eds.). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1954; 1971.
[165] Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1967, 31 (2), 194-213.
[166] Severin, W. J. & Tankard, J. W. Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. New York: Longman, 1997.
[167] Seldes, G. Lords of the press. New York: Julian Messner, 1938.
[168] Sherry, J. L. Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overiew and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 2004, 6, 83-109.
[169] Shrum, L. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 1993, 20, 436-471.
[170] Simonson, P. & Weimann, G. Critical research at Columbia: Lazarsfeld's and Merton's "Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action." In E. Katz, J. D. Peters, T. Liebes, & A. Orloff (Eds.), Canonic texts in media research, pp. 12-38. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2003.
[171] Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. Knowledge as understanding: The information processing approach to political learning. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research, pp. 357-394. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
[172] Sparks, G. G. Media effects research: A basic review.北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
[173] Sproule, J. M. Progressive Propaganda Critics and the Magic Bullet Myth. Critical Studies in Mass communication, 1989, 6(3), 225-246.
[174] Suchman, E. An invitation to music. In R F. Lazarsfeld & E N. Stanton (Eds.) Radio research, 1941. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1942.
[175] Tapper, J. The ecology of cultivation: A conceptual model for cultivation research. Communication Theory, 1995, 5, 36-57.
[176] Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970, 34, 159-170.
[177] Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 693-798.
[178] Wahl-Jorgensen, K. How not to found a field: New evidence on the origins of mass communication research. Journal of Communication, 2004, 54, 547-564.
[179] Wartella, E. The history reconsidered. In E. E. Dennis, & E. Wartella (Eds.). American communication research: The remembered histoly. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[180] Windahl, S. Uses and gratifications at the crossroads. Mass Communication Review Yearbook, 1981, 2, 174-185.
[181] Wright, C. R. Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 605-620.
[182] Wuthnow, R. Communities of discourse: Ideology and social structure in the reformation, the Enlightenment, and European socialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
[1] 艾英戈、金德.至关重要的新闻——电视与美国民意[M],刘海龙译.北京:新华出版社,2004.
[2] 巴兰、戴维斯.大众传播理论:基础、争鸣与未来[M],曹书乐译.北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[3] 彼得斯.交流的无奈[M],何道宽译.北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[4] 卜卫.大众传播对儿童的社会化和观念现代化的影响[J].新闻研究资料,1991,总第55期.
[5] 蔡文辉.社会学理论[M].台湾:三民书局,1986.
[6] 常昌富等.大众传播学:影响研究范式[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[7] 陈崇山、孙五三.媒介、人、现代化[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[8] 陈怀林.经济利益驱动下的中国传媒制度变革——以报业为例[C].何舟、陈怀林.中国传媒新论.香港:太平洋世纪出版社有限公司,1998.
[9] 陈力丹.最近几年我国新闻传播学的学科发展[C].陈力丹.陈力丹自选集.上海:复旦大学出版社,2004,219—232.
[10] 德弗勒、鲍尔—洛基奇.大众传播学诸论[M],杜力平译.北京:新华出版社,1990.
[11] 丁未.社会结构与媒介效果——“知沟”现象研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2003.
[12] 杜威.民主主义与教育[M],王承绪译.北京:人民教育出版社,1990.
[13] 福柯.知识考古学[M],谢强、马月译.北京:三联出版社,2003.
[14] 郭中实.涵化理论:电视世界真的影响深远吗?[J].新闻与传播研究,1997,2,58-64.
[15] 黄旦.磨洗旧迹认前朝——评传学史上的第一次大讨论[J].新闻大学,1995,3,22-25.
[16] 黄旦.媒介是谁:对大众媒介社会定位的探讨——兼论大众传播研究的社会学框架[J].新闻与传播研究,1997,2,65-72.
[17] 黄旦.美国早期的传播思想及其流变[c].中国传播学会.2004中国传播学论坛论文集.云南丽江,2004年8月.
[18] 黄瑚、李俊.“议题融合论”:传播理论的一个新假设[J].新闻大学,2001,2,29-32.
[19] 霍克海姆.传统理论与批判理论[c].上海社会科学院哲学研究所外国哲学研究室.法兰克福学派论著选辑(上).北京:商务印书馆,1998.
[20] 克兰.无形学院——知识在科学共同体的扩散[M],刘珺珺等译.北京:华夏出版社,1988.
[21] 库恩.科学革命的结构[M],金吾伦等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[22] 库隆.芝加哥学派[M],郑文彬译.北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[23] 拉斯韦尔.世界大战中的宣传技巧[M],张洁等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[24] 李本乾.中国大众传媒议程设置功能研究[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,2002.
[25] 李金铨.大众传播理论[M].台湾:三民书局,1996.
[26] 李普曼.公众舆论[M],阎克文、江红译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[27] 林南.中国研究如何为社会学理论做贡献[C].周晓虹.中国社会与中国研究.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2004.
[28] 刘海龙.社会变迁与议程设置理论——专访议程设置奠基人之一唐纳德·肖[J].国际新闻界,2004,4,18-24.
[29] 刘晓红.行为主义和传播研究[EB/OL].http://www.pep.eom.cn/200406/ca442104.html,2005-01-12.
[30] 罗杰斯.传播学史[M],殷晓蓉译.上海:上海译文出版社,2002.
[31] 罗杰斯、迪林.议程设置的研究:现在它在何处,将走向何方?[c],关世杰译.常昌富等.大众传播学:影响研究范式.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[32] 洛厄里、德弗勒.传播研究里程碑[M],王嵩音译.台湾:远流出版公司,1993.
[33] 洛厄里、德弗勒.大众传播效果研究的里程碑[M],刘海龙译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[34] 麦考姆斯、贝尔.大众传播的议程设置功能[J],郭镇之译.新闻大学,1999,夏、秋季号.
[35] 麦奎尔、温德尔.大众传播模式论[M],祝建华、武伟译.上海:上海译文出版社,1997.
[36] 曼彻斯特.光荣与梦想:1932—1972年美国实录[M],广州外国语学院美英问题研究室翻译组译.北京:商务印书馆,1978.
[37] 米德.心灵、自我与社会[M],赵月瑟译.上海:上海译文出版社,1992.
[38] 闵大洪、陈崇山.浙江省城乡受众接触新闻媒介行为与现代观念的相关研究[J].新闻研究资料,1991,总第55期.
[39] 默顿.论理论社会学[M],何凡兴等译.北京:华夏出版社,1990.
[40] 莫里森.寻找方法:焦点小组和大众传播研究的发展[M],柯惠新等译.北京:新华出版社,2004.