LIMITATIONS OF COMMUNICATION: MECHANISMS OF IMAGE MAINTENANCE IN FORM OF SELECTIVE PERCEPTION, SELECTIVE MEMORY AND SELECTIVE DISTORTION

Transcription

1 LIMITATIONS OF COMMUNICATION: MECHANISMS OF IMAGE MAINTENANCE IN FORM OF SELECTIVE PERCEPTION, SELECTIVE MEMORY AND SELECTIVE DISTORTION HANS SEBALD* Students of human behavior have become aware of the remarkable growth in the application of the image concept over the last years. Studies in social psychology and in communication research have indicated that social behavior is influenced by the type of image which people hold. However, knowledge about the functioning of the images in specific situations is still limited. This paper focuses upon the selective aspects of perception, of memory, and of distortion in relation to the maintenance of images about other persons. The basic hypothesis of this study is that our limited perceptual ability makes for the necessity to categorize. It may be assumed that man is normally able to notice four to five features at the same time, but rarely m0re.l For the sake of memory aid, we invent or accept formulae and codes. In other words, we are setting up stereotypes-to use a stronger term than categories. Only through such abstractions and such symbolic code is it possible to organize our thinking and behavior.2 This implies a limited cognitive process: in order to know anything we must somehow give up the aspiration of knowing everything about a particular phenomenon. There is always a nascent surplus of information in any situation, but we have to be selective. We pay attention to certain stimuli and, at the same time, consign whole ranges of them to the background and ignore them. H. S. Sullivan found a fitting term for this process of ignoring certain phenomena when he called it selective inattenti~n. ~ This seledive perception is usually highly influenced by the * Deparhnent of Sociology and Anthropology; The Ohio State University. Jerome S. Bruner, Social Psychology and Perception, in Eleanor E. Maccoby, et al. (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Holt and Company, 1958), pp Alfred R. Lindesmith and Anselm L. Strauss, Social Psychology (New York: Holt and Company, 1956), p. 87f. Harry S. Sullivan, The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry (New York: Norton, 1953), p

2 Limitations of Communication 143 social environment often to the degree that we may speak of it as trapped perception. This means that a person has learned such a rigid symbolic code that he is incapable of decoding or recoding it. Certain subjective <realities and images which he has learned will persist with him and will resist change. Often, rather than change, the tendency develops to be highly selective, to screen out dissonant features, and to even distort factual data so that the established image may remain undisturbed. These notions were applied to an empirical problem. The setting was the national presidential campaign of The main purpose of the study was to investigate whether support can be given to the hypothesis which postulates that images, once they are anchored in the perceptual system of the individual, have a tendency to remain rigid and unaffected even in the instances of being under atta~k.~ The subjects were asked to respond to a series of questions concerning their attitudes or changes of attitudes toward the two presidential candidates before and after their several TV debates in the fall of The questionnaires were administered to students, males and females, of three classes of sociology 401 and sociology 507 at The Ohio State University on election day; this means after the candidates TV debates and before any election results were known. The choice of time was based on the assumption that the significance of the day would intensify the students selective recollection and stereotyping of the candidates. Class time was set aside for the completion of the questionnaires. The total return of completed questionnaires was 152. SELEXTIVE PERCEPTION Of the 152 respondents, four showed no definite party preference in relation to before and after the TV debates. The TV debates had not convinced them either way. Five other subjects For excellent theoretical treatment of the problem see a series of papers in R. R. Blake and G. V. Ramsey, (eds.), Perception: An Approach to Personality ( New York: Ronald, 1951 ). For examples of empirical inquiry into the problem see W. S. Watson and G. W. Hartmann, Rigidity of a Basic Attitudinal Frame, Journal of Abnormul and Social Psychology, XXXIV ( 1939), ; and A. L. Edwards, Political Frames of References as a Factor Influencing Recognition, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXVI ( 1941),

3 144 The Journal of Communication TABLE 1 Changes in Intensity of Party Preference of 143 Ohio State University Students as to Pre- and Post-TV Debates Preference Intensity of Party Preference Subjects Party Preference Slightly Much Very Much Total Stronger Stronger Stronger Democratic* Before TV Debates After TV Debates Republican* * Before TV Debates After TV Debates * Chi square for the Democratic preferentialists = 10.80, df = 2, p <.01. ** Chi square for the Republican preferentialists = 13.66, df = 2, p <.01. indicated that watching the TV debates had changed their preference from one to the other candidate. These five subjects represent 3.3% of all the respondents. Three of them changed from Republican to Democratic preference, and two changed vice versa. The remaining 143 respondents indicated that they had held the same party preference before and after the TV debates. These 143 subjects constitute the group upon which the rest of the analysis is based. The group was made up of 60 Democratic preferences and 83 Republican preferences. The two groups were subdivided into three categories each, according to self-classification of intensity of party preference. An analysis was carried out inquiring into the changes in intensity of preference in the same party preference groups within the period from before to after the TV debates. The finding points out that the subjects tend to select primarily cues which reinforce the image which they had held before the TV debates. Table 1 illustrates this tendency. It may be seen that after the TV debates of the presidential candidates the intensity of the preferences within the party groups grew significantly. While before the campaign debates only nine members of the Democratic group classified themselves as very much stronger in preferences over the Republican candidates, twenty-four classified themselves in this category after the debates. A similar behavior was noticeable in the Republican group; the very much stronger category received an almost equally great influx. Such behavior may be understood in terms of the mechanism of

4 Limitations of Communication 145 TABLE 2 Selective Recollection by Subjects of Republican and Democratic Preference Made by the 1960 Presidential Candidates - Subjects of Repub- Subjects of Demo- The Subjects Responses lican Preference cratic Preference Attitude Ascription Number of Number of Responses % Responses % (1) Agreement Nixon (2) Disagreement Kennedy (3) Disagreement Nixon (4) Agreement Kennedy Total Number of Responses 1, Note: Chi square = , df = 3, p <.001 selective perception. The finding supports the initial hypothesis; namely, that established images are reinforced rather than weakened or rejected. SELECTIVE MEMORY A. Responses to Structured Questions. A series of factual statements which had been made by the two candidates, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Nixon, during their TV debates, were presented to the subjects. The statements authorships were, however, not identified. The subjects were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each statement and, then, to indicate which of the two candidates had stated it. The hypothesis associated with this inquiry expected a significant positive relationship between favorable memory selectivity and statements of the candidate of the preferred party; and, conversely, a significant relationship between unfavorable memory selectivity and the statements of the opposing party s candidate. Table 2 shows the results of the inquiry. The possible responses to each statement were: ( 1) Agree, Nixon; (2) Disagree, Kennedy; (3) Disagree, Nixon; (4) Agree, Kennedy. According to the hypothesis, responses 1 and 2 are typical of the Republicans; and the responses 3 and 4 typical of the Democrats. In addition, it was expected that the preference intensity categories-slightly stronger; much stronger; very much strongerwould show a gradient picture of this relationship to favorable and unfavorable selectivity. In other words, it was expected that the group which had a very much stronger preference over the other

5 146 The Iournal of Communication Attitude TABLE 3 Distribution of Selective Recollections by Republican Party Preference Intensity Categories Respondents Ascription (1) Agreement Nixon (2) Disagreement Kennedy (3) Disagreement Nixon (4) Agreement Kennedy Total Responses Slightly Stronger Responses Nu. % loo Note: Chi square = 15.83, df = 6, p <.02. Preference Intensity Categories Much Stronger Responses Nu. % Very Much Stronger Responses NU. % party would show a greater amount of favorable recollections about their candidate s statements than the group with slightly stronger preference. The hypothesis which is implied here suggests a direct relationship between intensity of party preference and favorableness of memory selectivity. The findings are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Investigation of the tables indicate that there exists a tendency in the direction of the hypothesis. Further research is needed before any valid generalizations can be made. B. Responses to Unstructured Questions. Further data on selective recollection was obtained by responses to unstructured questions. The subjects were asked whether they can recall a specific statement or remark made by the candidates during the TV d s TABLE 4 Distribution of Selectiue Recollections by Democratic Party Preference Intensity Categories Preference Intensity Categories Respondents Slightly Much Very Much Stronger Stronger Stronger Attitude Ascription Responses Responses Responses Nu. % Nu. % NU. % ( 1) Agreement Nixon (2) Disagreement Kennedy (3) Disagreement Nixon (4) Agreement Kennedy Total Responses Note: Chi square = 10.73, df = 6, p <.lo.

6 Limitations of Communication 147 TABLE 5 Republican Subjects Favorable and Unfavorable Recolkctwns of Statements Made by the 1960 Presidential Candidates Nature of Recollections Recollections Referring to Nixon Kennedy Nu. % Nu. % Favorable: 1. Statements on US. prestige Statements on U.S. foreign policy Statements on U.S. internal development Statements of criticism about opponent candidate Total of favorable recollections Unfavorable : 1. Statements on U.S. prestige Statements on U.S. internal development Statements on U.S. foreign policy Total of unfavorable recollections Total Recollections Note: Chi square (computed on total of favorable and unfavorable recollections) = 85.05, df = 1, p <.01. bates. They were asked to state their recollections concerning both candidates. In this way, a variety of qualitatively different answers was obtained. It was possible to classify these responses in a few main categories. The hypothesis expected that the subjects recall primarily favorable remarks made by the preferred party s candidate and, conversely, recall primarily unfavorable remarks made by the opposing party s candidate. Of course, it is understood here that favorable and unfavorable refer strictly to the subject s subjective reality. The findings in Tables 5 and 6 support this hypothesis. The subjects displayed a definite tendency to recall acceptable comments made by the candidate of the preferred party, while they tended to recall unfavorable comments made by the opposing candidate. SELECTIVE DISTORTION A list of 14 items, consisting of statements which had been made by the two candidates during their TV debates, was submitted to the subjects. The list included seven statements for each candidate. However, the authorship of the individuul statements was

7 148 The Journal of Communication TABLE 6 Democratic Subjects Favorable and Unfavorable Recollections of Statements Made by the 1960 Presidential Candidates Nature of Recollections Favorable: 1. Statements on U.S. prestige 2. Statements on US. foreign policy 3. Statements on US. internal developments 4. Statements on personal background (own) Total of favorable recollections Unfavorable: 1. Statements on U.S. foreign policy 2. Statements on US. internal development 3. Statements on U.S. prestige 4. Criticism about opponent candidate Recollections Referring to Nixon Kennedy Nu. % Nu. % Total of unfavorable recollections Total Recollections lo Note: Chi square (computed on total of favorable and unfavorable recollections) = 47.98, df = 1, p <.01. not disclosed. The subjects were asked to indicate two responses to each item: First, whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement; and, second, which of the candidates had made the statements. The hypothesis involved was that the respondents will tend to ascribe statements with which they agree to the candidate of their own party preferences and that they will tend to ascribe statements with which they disagree to the candidate of the opposing party -regardless of the factual authorship of the statement. This tendency is selective distortion. The underlying assumption was that individuals try to maintain certain pre-conceived images of TABLE 7 The Subjects Identification of Authorship of Unidentified Agreeable Statements Which Were Made by Their Opposing Party s Candidate (Based upon the responses of the 143 subjects) Ascriptions of Agreeable Statements Number Per cent Ascribed to Own Candidate Ascribed to Opposing Candidate Total

8 Limitations of Communication 149 TABLE 8 The Subjects Identification of Authorship of Unidentified Disagreeable Statements Which Were Made by Preferred Party s Candidate (Based upon the responses of the 143 subjects) Ascriptions of Agreeable Statements Number Per cent Ascribed to Own Candidate Ascribed to Opposing Candidate Total other persons, especially when they are advocated by their reference group, and that agreeable or disagreeable attributes or behavior are selectively ascribed to them; i.e., positive attributes are ascribed to the favorable image and negative attributes are ascribed to the unfavorable image. The finding in Table 8 shows that out of 299 disagreements with their own candidate s statements, the subjects ascribed 206 of them to the opposing candidate. This may be understood as a distortion of the actual authorship by 72% of the respondents in order to fit their stereotypes. The finding in Table 7 is less emphatic in support of the hypothesis. The majority of the respondents admitted that the agreeable statements had been made by the candidate of the opposing party. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that 35% of the 385 agreeable statements, actually made by the opposing candidate, were being ascribed to the own candidate. SUMMARY The study was primarily done in order to test the hypothesis which says that largely only those meanings are being perceived and recalled which reinforce prior images. In addition, a tendency was investigated which suggests that selective distortion takes place in order to screen out dissonant features-features which are apt to disturb pre-conceived images. In general, the empirical data supported the hypothesis. The findings suggested that image-maintaining mechanisms function in a way as to preserve (1) a favorable image of the candidate of the preferred party; and (2) an unfavorable image of the candidate of the opposing party. In short, instances of this nature demonstrate that the effectiveness of mass communication is subject to serious limitations due to the existence of definite prior images.