In mass media research there has been a repeated call for (1) abandoning simple two-variable stimulus-response models of television effects, and (2) efforts to integrate research from different fields. This article offers such a perspective, bringing together research on relationship-relevant television content, viewing effects and interpersonal relationships. A total of 51 couples participated in a study to determine if television viewing is related to discussions of the relationship-relevant issues between spouses. As hypothesized, the contingent condition of marital definitions held by spouses predicted the amount of discussion between marital partners about family and relational issues. Such a condition presupposes that the way individuals define their relationships affects how they process the information on interpersonal relationships portrayed on television. Specifically, those who are emotionally distant from their spouses were more likely to discuss relational and family issues as a consequence of television viewing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BERGER, C. R.
(1977) “Interpersonal communication theory and research: an overview,” pp. 217-228 in B. D. Ruben (ed.) Communication Yearbook 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
2.
BEST, P. (1980) “Relational control in marital types.” Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
3.
BEUF, A.
(1974) “Doctor, lawyer, household drudge.”J. of Communication24: 142-145.
4.
BUERKEL-ROTHFUSS, N. L.
, and S. MAYES (1981) “Soap opera viewing: the cultivation effect.”J. of Communication31: 108-115.
5.
CHAFFEE, S. H.
(1982) “Television and social relations: introductory comments,” pp. 259-263 in D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.) Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties. (Vol. 2: Technical reviews). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
6.
CHAFFEE, S. H.
, J. M. McLEOD, and D. B. WACKMAN (1973) “Family communication patterns and adolescent political participation,” in J. Dennis (ed.) Socialization to Politics: A Reader. New York: John Wiley.
7.
FINE, M. G.
(1981) “Soap opera conversations: the talk that binds.”J. of Communication31: 97-107.
8.
FISKE, S. T.
and S. E. TAYLOR (1984) Social Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
(1984) “A typological approach to marital interaction: recent theory and research,” pp. 1-47 in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic.
10.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
(1983) “Predicting coiuples' communication from couples' self reports,” pp. 49-82 in R. Bostrom (ed.) Communication Yearbook 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
(1977) “A typological approach to comunication in relationships,” pp. 263-278 in B. D. Ruben (ed.) Communication Yearbook 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
12.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
and P. G. BEST, (1979) “Dyadic adjustment in traditional, independent, and separate relationships: a validation study.”Communication Monographs46: 167-178.
13.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
, P. G. BEST and J. INDVIK (1982) “The instrumental and expressive domains of marital communication.”Human Communication Research8: 195-213.
14.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
, P. G. BEST, J. INDVIKS. F. FALLIS, and L. VANCE (1982) “Multifunctional coding of conflict resolution strategies in marital dyads.”Family Relations31: 61-70.
15.
FITZPATRICK, M. A.
, P. G. BEST, J. INDVIKS. F. FALLIS, L. VANCEL. VANCE and H. WITTEMAN (forthcoming) “Interpersonal Communication in the casual interaction of married couples.”Language and Social Psychology.
16.
GERBNER, G., and N. SIGNORIELLI (1979) “Women and minorities on television.” Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (unpublished)
17.
GLENNON, L. M.
, and R. BUTSCH (1982) “The family as portrayed on television 1946-1978,” pp. 264-271 in D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.) Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties (Vol. 2: Technical reviews). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
18.
GOTTMAN, J. M.
(1979) Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. New York: Academic.
19.
GREENBERG, B. S.
(1982) “Television and role socialization: an overview,” pp. 179-190 in D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.) Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties (Vol. 2: Technical reviews). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
20.
GREENBERG
, B. S., R. ABELMAN, and K. NEUENDORF (1981) “Sex on the soap operas: afternoon delights.”J. of Communication31: 83-89.
21.
GREENBERG
, B. S., N. BUERKEL-ROTHFUSS, K. NEUENDORF, and C. ATKIN (1980) “Three seasons of television family role interactions,” pp. 161-172 in B. S. Greenberg (ed.), Life on television. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22.
HASTIE, R.
(1981) “Schematic principles in human memory,” pp. 39-88 in E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman and M. P. Zanna (eds.) Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
HAU-MAZER, H. (1980) “Television's victimized children.” Master's thesis, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
24.
HAWKINS, R. P.
, and S. PINGREE (1982) “Television's influence on social reality,” pp. 224-247 in D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.) Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties (Vol. 2: Technical Reviews). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
25.
JACOBSEN, G. F.
(1983) The multiple crises of marital separation and divorce. New York: Grune & Stratton.
26.
JANIS, I. L.
(1980) “The influence of television on personal decision-making,” pp. 161-190 in S. B. Withey and R. P. Abeles (eds.) Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
McCOMBS, M. E.
and D. C. SHAW (1972) “The agenda setting function of mass media.”Public Opinion Q. 36: 176-187.
28.
McGHEE, P.
(1975) “Television as a source of sex role stereotypes” Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver.
29.
McLEOD, J. M.
, and S. H. CHAFFEE (1979) “Guiding perspective of a loose collaboration.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism, Houston.
30.
McLEOD, J. M.
, M. A. FITZPATRICK, C. J. GLYNN, and S. F. FALLIS (1982) “Television and social relations: family influences and consequences for interpersonal behavior” pp. 272-286 in D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.) Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties (Vol. 2: Technical reviews). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
31.
McNEILL, J. C.
(1975) “Feminism, feminity, and the television series: A content analysis.”J. of Broadcasting19: 259-271.
32.
MILLER, G. R.
(1970) “Theory and research in interpersonal communication.”Human Communication Research14: 164-168.
33.
OVERALL, J. E.
, and C. J. KLETT (1972) Applied multivariate analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34.
PEARL, D.
, L. BOUTHILET, and J. LAZAR (1982) “Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties.” Vol. 2: Technical Reviews. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
35.
PHELPS, E. (1976) “Comparison of programs with and without close male-female relationships.” Paper based on analysis of Cultural Indicators Project, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (unpublished)
36.
PINGREE, S., S. STARRET, and R. HAWKINS (1979) “Soap opera, viewers and social reality.” Women's Studies Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (unpublished)
37.
REEVES, B.
and E. WARTELLA (1982) “For some children under some conditions: a history of research on children and media.” Paper presented to the Mass Communication Division, International Communication Association, Boston.
38.
ROBERTS, E. J.
(1982) “Television and sexual learning in childhood,” in D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.) Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties (Vol. 2: Technical reviews). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
39.
ROLOFF, M. E.
(1981) “Interpersonal and mass communication: an interdisciplinary link.” pp. 428-444 in G. C. Wilhoit and H. de Bock (eds.) Mass Communication Review Yearbook (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
ROTHSCHILD, N. (1979) “Group as a mediating factor in the cultivation process among young children.” Master's thesis, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania.
41.
TAYLOR, S. E.
and J. CROCKER (1981) “Schematic bases of social information processing,” pp. 89-134 in E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman and M. P. Zanna (eds.) Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
42.
VOLGY, T.
and J. SCHWARZ (1980) “Television entertainment programming and sociopolitical attitudes.”Journalism Q. 57: 150-155.
43.
WILLIAMSON, R. N. (1983) “The theoretical and empirical integration of two approaches to investigating marital interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
