Beneath family role portrayals: An additional measure of communication influence using time series analyses of turn at talk on a popular television program

Honeycutt, James M.; Wellman, Lynn B; Larson, Mary Strom

doi:10.1080/08838159709364389

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recurrent evidence that television is an important source of information about family and gender roles, and that it may shape young females' expectations of these roles (Honeycutt, Wellman, & Larson, 1997;Larson, 1996;Perse, Pavitt, & Burggraf, 1990;Signorielli, 1990Signorielli, , 1991Signorielli & Lears, 1992), prompted this investigation into television viewing and its relation to young Dutch females' images of their own future motherhood. We investigated three aspects of television viewing-the total amount of viewing, the viewing of sitcoms and soaps, and the motives for viewing.…”

Section: Young Females' Images Of Motherhood In Relation To Televisio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Young Females' Images of Motherhood in Relation to Television Viewing

Ex¹

2002

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Young Females' Images Of Motherhood In Relation To Televisio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Young Females' Images of Motherhood in Relation to Television Viewing

Ex¹

2002

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Jarboe, 1999) and used in the study of group memory (Pavitt, 2003a, 2003b). The substantive claims of the SM have aided in the development of theory and research both in the study of groups (Bonito, 2007; Pavitt & Johnson, 1999) and families (Honeycutt, 1997). Unfortunately, the SM has neither been critiqued, nor have its implications been widely understood (but cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Communication Processes on Group Outcomes: Antithesis and Thesis

Hewes

2009

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of communication processes on group outcomes is discussed from two perspectives, one in which influence does not exist and one in which influence is central. Formal models for both perspectives are presented as a means of bracketing discussion of the role of communication processes in group outcomes. The implications of these models for future theorizing are discussed. The first of these two models is an extension of Hewes's socioegocentric model (1986, 1996). The second class of formal model, duallevel connectionist models, integrates mental and communication processes to explain moment-by-moment communication behavior. This class of models is contrasted with important models of group influence that use atemporal aggregations of messages to predict group outcomes. Implications of dual-level connections models for the role of ''emergence'' in group theorizing, the limitations of Markovian models of group communication research, and the decomposability of psychological and communication processes are elaborated.

show abstract