ПУБЛІКАЦІЯ ЗА: http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-7a5663d3-d33d-474c-82b3-1a851d5fd2e3?q=8f0a85b6-245b-4ab6-94c0-7709273adc5f$1&qt=IN_PAGE
Zhytaryuk Marian, Lviv ,
Ukraine
Translation from Ukrainian –
Chernykh Alevtina, Kyiv, Teplyy Ivan, L’viv, Ukraine
COGNITIVE THEORIES AND THE
CONCEPT OF JOURNALISM
The article describes the
spectrum of cognition in the context of modern Journalism and problems of Media
practices in terms of theories of consistency.
Keywords: cognition, journalism, theory of structural balance,
theory of cognitive dissonance, theory of communicative acts, congruity theory.
Journalism as a
social and cultural phenomenon is interested in and requires a rich experience
of the representatives of Social Psychology – cognitive theorists that
professionally (theoretically and experimentally) study the “balance”. Certain
features in search and observance of informational, cognitive, psychological,
creative, professional equilibrium can be accounted for by an interdisciplinary
character of the term because it is no secret that the concept of “balance” is a
key issue in literary criticism, philosophy, psychology, mass communication,
journalism etc. In the same context we would like to analyze the theory of cognitive consistency, inalienable from
thinking individuals and institutions (ranging from the authors, media and
audience to organizations, parties or ministries).
An attempt to
comprehend the balance in journalism according to the theories of cognitive
sustainability is determined, firstly, by elemental and functional – an object-
subject - proximity to journalism (Theory of structural balance by F. Heider
[16], that of communicative acts by T. Newcomb [15 ], cognitive dissonance by L.
Festinger [2, 17]), theory of congruity by C. Osgood and P. Tannenbaum [4; 5];
and, secondly, by the ability to overcome the interdisciplinary vacuum (between
cognitive psychology and journalism).
The main idea of cognitive theories is production of concepts, thoughts, knowledge whose main source is mentality (signs,
symbols, values, understanding). Cognition
is a learning process, one of the three theoretical areas of social psychology
that is based on knowledge of psychology. Structurally, this process contains a
wide spectral-conceptual variation, incorporated, however, by common
theoretical sources and conceptual mechanism.
The essence of
the cognitive approach can be
summarized as “the desire to explain social
behavior (our emphasis – M. Zh.) with the help of the description mainly of
processes of cognition, particular to
human” [8, p.90] that will, in the process, receive approximately this recreation:
“Think, know, estimate, realize,
understand, decide – and act (or – do not act)”. Cognition is peculiar to
man, and the latter, being a member of society, is involved by this society or
consciously imposed on this society, as the sociocultural, nationally-mental
and psychological phenomenon, and carries out different actions that, on
condition of direct or mediated influence on others, lead to socialization or,
vice versa, dissociate.
The connection
between “decided” and “did” and social behavior is obvious: man forms an idea
about something as accurate system of concepts with the help of certain
interpretations; which helps a person to be a producer of various regulators of
social behavior such as ideas, intentions, tasks, expectations, beliefs,
hypotheses, methods of implementation and so on. The id est behavior is often modified by present and / or
well-organized systems of signs, symbols, images, notions, knowledge...
Traditionally,
in this context, problems like these have been studied by philosophy, logic,
psychology, to a lesser extent – history, political science, nation study,
literature (especially in the reading-book part). Journalism is at the
intersection of Science Rivers. On the one hand, it seems to be saturated with
their water and fueled by their energy, on the other – journalism by itself
becomes an unquenchable source. The problems, mentioned above, in any case are interdependent
with journalism.
Historically, journalism has a complex genesis and has passed more
than one civilizational stage. First – as the fruit of oratorical art (ancient
publicism), then – clerical messages and polemics (religious and worldview publicism),
and with Guttenberg’s invention – absorbed alive the concept (ideas and texts
of authors), and a dead one, recreated in the printing mechanism, which made it
a mass one. In the 20th century, numerous intellectual revolutions that
improved and even absolutized mechanization have been held, so that sometimes a
method of delivery, form, appearance (“muscles”) prevail above the content (“brains”).
The documentary film, radio, television, satellite communications, internet,
“digitization”, social networks – all this not only helped journalism to become
more efficient, ubiquitous, global and also approached (in many cases subordinated)
it to other sciences and its types of activities (mathematics, physics,
chemistry, biology, engineering sciences, political science, Public Relations, Image
science, Conflict science, mass communication, advertising etc.).
Journalism of the
early 21st c., irreproachable from outside, differs in essence and is
completely reflected on by the realities of the informative era, so that
through functional transformation, certain objective
pre-conditions of self-destruction arise. Among the symptomatic signs of
devaluation of professional standards the most expressive and most notable ones,
according to a destructive force, are tendentious, purposeful global changes of
conceptual tasks (to control and construct – depending on the model of
journalism: whether informative or analytical), on secondary tasks (to
entertain and advertise). Sometimes it is combined as an incomprehensible
hybrid. Here, for example, even in post-revolutionary time, covered by the war against
an external aggressor, moral, professional and ethical principles remain to be
a formality for mediators, as practically all the Mass Media present the meeting
of the oligarch Dmitriy Firtash on the European arena as a main event of the day
[3]. Following such facts of garbling of the reality with the aim of
transformation of mass consciousness, is Ukrainian journalism far better, more
honest than the so-called Russian Mass Medias (informative troops)? Where is
here the professionalism, impartiality, balance? Journalism grows into an irresponsible
mediator, principles and functions of journalism (as a self-sufficient Poly-socio-cultural
system) seem to be objectively, but in point of fact – in an organized way and
roughly – are displaced and substituted by pseudo-modern spectacular new
dominants – quasi principles and quasi functions, erected to the primitive: to
please, to glorify, to praise, to entertain, to advertise. All the more
distinctly we observe the “abandonment” from the role of the public tribune,
representative and initiator of the public dialogue, on behalf of the speaker
who praises alien theses, performer of orders, trifling and useless servant...
Even the “Courier
of UNESCO” openly declares a repudiation, in the near perspective, from a paper
version on behalf of electronic, national TV channels of different countries
turning into twenty-four-hour melodramas and dance grounds, “Reality shows”, “Comedy”
or political shows without (or with a tiny part of) an interesting, fresh idea,
sober estimation, qualified analysis based on the cause-effect relations. It appears
that the serial mania, show mania, traditional and hidden advertising allegedly
contribute to the increase of ratings, circulation, revenues. On the background
of the Mass Media stagnation in Ukraine, especially at regional level, these
processes, ontologically levelling in relation to a profession, vocation,
degrading for a society, are clear signs of self-destruction
with the neutral definitions: “Transformation,
optimization of Mass Media”.
Various
externally attributive improvements, such as: redistribution of the audience
(the increase of viewers and reduction of readers), emergence of new channels
and radio stations, newspapers and magazines, Websites, growth of the periodicity
and increase in the efficiency are insufficient
compensators of losses for the majority of national public information
products, national models of journalism. Even Germany, relatively safe in this
sense, where, during the last decade, the number of readers is stably high and
not re-formatted by digital media products, is also, it turns out, faced with
serious intellectual problems, as discussed in the book “Generation stupid”, by
Stefan Bonner and Anne Weiss [11].
A serious threat
to the future of journalism is the setting of norms of its new “role” with a
focus on a market function. The journalism, transformed into “journalism as
commodity”, stands to lose positional, ideological, professional, moral
principles, seeking out modern explanations such as tolerance, but it remains
fundamental only in the achievement of incomes super profits.
Different mental components of cognition – knowledge,
thoughts, intentions (whether of editors, or media owners or the audience) have
become the key factors, confirmed by being based on conservation, development
or degradation of Ukrainian media theory doctrines of Gestalt psychology (after
the good expression by Jaroshevsky and Anciferova, “psychology of
consciousness” [18, p.209]) and K. Lewin’s “Field theory” [12].
As is well-
known, the main directions of cognition are perception,
attraction, forming and changing of
attitudes. Gestalt psychologists focus not on the real human being and his
interaction with the surrounding world, but on his consciousness, whereas human activities are diminished by the
activity of consciousness. R. Abelson, a theorist of cognitivism, aptly summed
up: everyone primarily is a Thinker,
and then – an Actor [1, p.113]. The Id est actions of a person are usually
realized, not spontaneous, reflex and are the quintessence of the procedural type of behavior. The journalist
also constructs a certain process and follows it: at first collects the facts,
eyewitness accounts, comments, studies documents, comprehends them and only then
writes them down.
On the level of
the human psyche and action there is an obvious connection between social
psychology and journalism (in the context of comprehension of the last one as
functional, perspective socio-cultural, to say, psycho-sociocultural model). However there are moments that really bring
closer, combine psychology and journalism, for example, the concept of the image, once discussed among psychologists. Modern
cognition theorists have denied earlier views of Gestalt psychologists that the concept of image is an integral
unit, the mosaic of the feelings. As a result of scientific debates, the phenomenological method was implemented:
an observer describes his perception integrally, forming the image. This method
is described in detail in the program J. Bruner “New Look” [9, p.136], relevant
and valuable for both literary and journalism critics. J. Bruner has developed
the idea of categorization. Anther
idea – isomorphism (by Köhler, structural similarity of material and
psychological processes) – is borrowed from Gestalt psychology, examined by
cognition theorists mainly in terms of various aspects of interpersonal
relations, but not as socially organized
space. For mass communication and journalism, however, more important, i.e.
more promising from the point of view of scientific research, is a study and
comprehension of social space.
The law of Köhler (law of centration) has become a push to the construction of numerous models of accordance and balance,
important in human mutual relations in terms of the subjectivity of
psychological comfort. Its essence consists in that, adequately to particular situations,
there can be new structures of perception – “re-centering”, in subjective
practice explained as an inside.
Reliance on the life experience is an important step in the genesis of
scientific psychology. In addition, a fundamental principle of cognitivism
which was based on the program of Gestalt psychologists, has become a
combination of experimental practice and direct experience.
The “Field theory” by K. Lewin – a new
stage, the theoretical source of cognition theorists, which supplements the
previous idea, based primarily on perceptions. Principles of research of
personality problems, suggested in a field theory, are broader than “image”, there “motive” becomes important. Thus, K. Lewin focuses not so much on
the gnoseological, but on motivational aspects of subject-objective relations. Principal
in the “theory of the field” is the idea of environment
and valence1. The idea of interaction of individual and milieus
(environments) allows to overcome especially cognitive formations by real
behavior.
The predecessors
of cognitivism understood “field” as perceptive
structure that was directly perceived by consciousness, Lewin, however – as the behavioral variable [18, p.258].
Duality of interpretations, firstly, insufficient to deny or reject the theory
of fields, secondly, fundamentally important in social psychology, social
information, mass communication, as it balances the different types of
structures – from cognitive to human relationships – makes the changes
possible between them, provides a transition to another. The idea of valence justifies
the “locomotion” of an individual in a vital environment: positive valence is
an aspiration of an individual for a certain part of the power field, and
negative is the motion to an opposite side [8, p.95][1].
The influence of
Lewin on development of social psychology is unique in that sense, that, on the
one hand, from now on cognition theorists normalize the analysis of humanistic
aspects of behavior, and on the other, – works by his students (L. Festinger
and F. Heider) present the basis of cognitivism as a separate trend.
The concept of “cognitive organization” or “cognitive structure” is the main
conceptual component of the mechanism of cognitive theories. In the interpretation
of R. Zajonc, “cognitive organization” is “any form of the interaction between
cognitive elements (despite their determination) that has motivational,
affective, constituent, behavioral or cognitive effects” [6, p.321]. By the
way, as to the definitions of “elements” of the structure, there is no common
platform, and scientific debate has been simmering over the decades. To provide
an example, L. Festinger believes that these elements are “any knowledge, ideas, persuasions about surroundings,
about itself, about somebody's behavior” [2, p.200], and J. Brehm calls them “points
of information” [8, p.97]. Inside the cognitive structures three main processes are distinguished, viz.
a) differentiation, b) integration, c) matching of the items.
They can be
interpreted, firstly, in terms of
psychology (role of the individual in separation and identification of
different data and events), secondly, in
terms of psychology of creativity in journalism (role, methods and ways of
popularizing “Ideas, topics, goals, objectives,
motives and images...”), and, thirdly, in
terms of the theory of mass communication (roles of the communicant and
communication itself).
The concepts of
“stimulus” and “response” complement the conceptual mechanism of cognitive
theories. A “stimulus” is the
dynamic, activated object as element of general situation, and a “response” is a process of constructing a
cognitive structure with taking into account of the stimulus. Instead, the most
important variable of human behavior is, according to C. Osgood,“meaning” [4, p.32], which J. Bruner
calls “the consequence of categorization”
[9, p.138].
Explanation of “meaning”
without “linking” it to psychology, such as concept of understanding of the
importance, necessity, engine stimulus, etc., would – we believe – be
incomplete. Science, however, owes cognition theorists a “meaningful” polemic-stimulated
emergence of the “frame of reference”,
irreplaceable in logic, during the analysis of “methodological and theoretical
problems of knowledge for description of certain general context which is taken
into account by a researcher or which is inherent to some theoretical
orientation” [8, p.95-96]. “Frame of
reference” is one of the most universal, often irreplaceable methodological
keys of the social sciences, humanities, including journalism, which, if not
the main one, is, then, an extremely important principle of constant comparison-scaling (large, greater; small,
smaller). It is this principle that makes it possible to give a detailed
examination of certain objects and to contextually
compare behavior.
Among the two groups of cognitive theories, viz. a) theory of cognitive consistency (the
most prominent representatives: F. Heider, T. Newcomb, L. Festinger, C. Osgood,
P. Tannenbaum, R. Abelson, M. Rosenberg), b) theories of S. Asch, D. Krech and R. Crutchfield – in terms of
suitability to the theories of mass communication and journalism the works of
representatives of the first group should be considered more, because the
second group of cognition theorists does not accept the ideas of consistency.
The work “Theory
of Cognitive consistency” [1] is an illustration of the phenomenon, when at a
certain period of time there approximate theories of different authors with no
direct scientific contacts. In the late 1950s, theories of cognitive
consistency occur under different names: balance,
congruence, symmetry, dissonance, the common thing for them being a
maximization of internal and intergroup accordance, as the disparity generates
psychological discomfort that assists the reconstruction of cognitive
structures with the aim of recovery (establishment) of accordance. Ebbinghaus,
however, generalized: these theories have the “long past, but short history”,
the followers of theories of consistency saw the connection with a medieval
notion of “logical man”, and with later philosophical concepts of “rational
man”, “economic man” [8, p.99].
The general aim of cognition theorists – an attempt
to compare logical and illogical, rational and irrational in human behavior –
can be considered as one
of the major tasks of not only psychology but also journalism. Without
taking into account the already mentioned problems, the truth can be
interpreted as a lie, importance – as irrationality,
illogicality – as logic, advantages – as defects... In practice,
ignoring the balance, consonance or knowledge in favor of the “necessary” turns
into tendentiousness, propaganda, manipulation, normalization of the authoritarian,
totalitarian type of journalism or total rejection of journalistic standards.
With the
awareness of the complicated forms of social life, search for new and rational
forms of behavior induced to rethink many problems and phenomena. It is
believed that direct sources of theories
of consistency are, firstly, the
ideas of K. Lewin about the causes of conflict (types of conflicts:
“approach – approach”, “avoidance – avoidance”, “approach – avoidance”, then
they have been experimentally confirmed by Miller), and secondly, the collective work under the direction of
T. Adorno “Authoritarian personality”[7]. Directed against the Führer cult,
the book contained a chapter “Cognitive structure of personality”, where the notion
of “tolerance of ambiguity”, which
appeared as the prototype of the idea of “tolerance
of disparity” (the theory of cognitive dissonance) is comprehended.
In terms of
practical journalism, issues and ideas raised in the works of cognition theorists
are important, though almost not comprehended.
Speculation
(unjustified use) of concepts of “tolerance”, “Freedom of speech”, “balance”,
first of all generate a caricature of media (professional and social), and
secondly, contribute to the effectiveness of specific communication
technologies that are incompatible with the media, and close to media plus propaganda and manipulation,
implemented with the help of theories “subcutaneous” model, spirals etc.
From the point
of view of the new challenges, which journalism
of the future is facing, still having a chance not to lose journalistic potential (described in
particular, in the books by Yo. Los’ “Journalism
and trends of the world” and “Perspectives
of ideological journalism” [13; 14], in our monograph “The socio-cultural model of journalism...” [10]), it is necessary
to take a fresh approach not only to definitions, but also to the understanding of the social and global
phenomena. Therefore, not so much following dictionary explanations, but basing
things on the common sense and comprehension of the well-known tendencies and
phenomena, designing new ones, we consider that freedom of speech is, first of all, a responsibility for a word: balanced, intelligent, honest,
competent, but not a right to be irresponsible,
fraudulent and destructive words-producers of corresponding ideas and actions. Tolerance is, in fact, a culture of
dialogue, but not a connivance to the impudence of the monologue, it is a prohibition
to lie, defamation, glorification; a utilization of the verbal-text waste, but
not silent or mute nodding of the head.
LITERATURE
1.
ABELSON, R.
Psychological Implication. In ABELSON, R. et al. (eds.). Theories of Cognitive Consistency. Chicago, 1968.
2.
ABELSON, R. Theories of Cognitive Consistency.
Chicago, 1968.
3.
FESTINGER, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanstone, 1957.
5. OSGOOD, C.E., SUCI, G., TANNENBAUM, P. Tne Measurement
of Meaning. In Semantic
Differential Technique. Chicago, 1968.
6.
OSGOOD,
C.E., TANNENBAUM, P. The Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude
Change. In Psychological
Review,
V.62, 1955.
7.
ZAYONC,
R.B. Cognitive Theory
in Social Psychology. In LINDZEY,
G., ARONSON, E. (eds.). The Handbook of
Social Psychology. V.1. Reading, 1968.
8.
АДОРНО, Т. Авторитарная личность. М., 1997.
9.
АНДРЕЕВА, Г.М., БОГОМОЛОВА, Н.Н., ПЕТРОВСКАЯ,
Л.А. Зарубежная социальная психология ХХ
столетия: Теоретические подходы. Москва: Аспект Пресс, 2002.
10.
БРУНЕР, Дж. О перцептивной готовности. В
Хрестоматия по ощущению и восприятию. Москва, 1975.
11.
ЖИТАРЮК, М.Г. Соціокультурна модель журналістики: традиції і новаторство. Львів:
Простір-М, 2008, 416 с.
12.
КРИМОВА, О. Тупий і ще
тупіший. У
Експрес, 2008, 28 лют. (№27).
13.
ЛЕВИН, К. Теория поля в социальных науках. Санкт-Петербург, 2000.
14.
ЛОСЬ, Й. Публіцистика й тенденції розвитку світу.
Львів: ПАІС,
2008, 376 с.
15.
ЛОСЬ, Й.Д. Перспективи світоглядної публіцистики.
Львів: ЛНУ ім. І.Франка,
2014, 296
с.
16.
НЬЮКОМ, Т.
Социально-психологическая теория
интеграции индивидуального и социального подходов. В Современная зарубежная социальная
психология.
Москва,
1984.
17.
СОКОЛОВА, И.В. Социальная информатика и социология:
проблемы и перспективы взаимосвязи. Москва: Союз,
1999.
18.
ФЕСТИНГЕР, Л. Теория когнитивного диссонанса. Санкт-Петербург, 1999.
19.
ЯРОШЕВСКИЙ, М.Г., АНЦЫФЕРОВА, Л.И. Развитие и современное состояние зарубежной
психологии. Москва,
1974.
Details about the author:
Zhytaryuk Marian G., PhD in social communications professor, Professor
of the Department of Foreign Press and Information Ivan Franko National
University of L’viv // http://journ.lnu.edu.ua/kaf_zp/k-zp-vykl-zhytaruk.htm
e-mail: mgzhyt@i.ua
[1] Valence – “value,
the significance of an object, event or action for the subject, their
motivation force”. Quote by: БРОНЕВИЦЬКИЙ, Г.А., БРОНЕВИЦЬКИЙ, Г.Г., ТОМІЛІН, А.Н. Психолого-педагогічний словник офіцера-вихователя корабельного підрозділу, 2005. Доступне в інтернеті: // http://medbib.in.ua/psihologo-pedagogicheskiy-slovar-ofitsera.html
