Abstract::

Despite tremendous progress in communication research and theory, the history of the communication field has been marked by theoretical fragmentation, identity crises, and disciplinary isolation. Human Communication Research (HCR) has provided a forum for research that strengthens the discipline's legacy of theory construction as well as discussions about theory development. An important contribution was a 1988 symposium, where leading scholars examined the "false dichotomy" between mass and interpersonal communication research. Although the philosophical discussion has continued, innovation in communication technologies have challenged the traditional definitions of mass and interpersonal communication by blurring many of the practical distinctions. This article assesses HCR's contribution to synthesis scholarship and compares it to similar efforts in other national journals. It also examines how new communication technologies are intensifying the need for scholars to construct theory that transcends outmoded levels of analysis. This important theoretical discussion is viewed as central to the future of the field during its next 25 years.

Article:

Despite tremendous progress in communication research and theory in recent decades, the history of the communication field has been marked by tendencies toward theoretical fragmentation and identity crises. Special issues of the Journal of Communication published a decade apart, titled "Ferment in the Field" (Gerbner, 1983) and "The Future of the Field" I (Levy & Gurevitch, 1993a) and II (Levy & Gurevitch, 1993b), are testament to the turmoil. Perhaps as a result of this "ferment," communication has also endured a persistent disciplinary isolation in which scholars in the more established social sciences rarely incorporate communication research into their work (Berger, 1991). Critics and scholars have identified numerous fault lines within the communication field (e.g., humanistic vs. social scientific, quantitative vs. qualitative, critical vs. empirical). A key bifurcation has been between the mass communication and interpersonal communication areas of scholarship.

As the flagship journal of the International Communication Association, Human Communication Research (HCR) has provided an outlet for social science research and discussions about theory development that strengthen the field's legacy of theory construction. One of the more important contributions was a series of articles included in a 1988 special issue of HCR, in which leading scholars in the field examined and critiqued the "false dichotomy" between mass and interpersonal communication research. The division between mass and interpersonal scholars and research was criticized as an unfortunate historical legacy that is artificial, unnecessary, and detrimental to the advancement of communication research as a whole (Reardon & Rogers,1988; Wiemann, Hawkins, & Pingree, 1988). Few solutions were proposed other than encouraging researchers to avoid narrow perspectives by exposing themselves to ideas and research in each other's areas. In the meantime, as Rogers and colleagues have foreseen (Reardon & Rogers,1988; Rogers & Chaffee, 1983), new communication technologies are further challenging the mass versus interpersonal distinction.

Anniversaries are appropriate times to take stock of where one has been and to assess where one is going. This is true for academic journals as well-especially in the communication field, which has struggled with its identity and direction in its relatively short history. This article takes the opportunity presented by this special 25th anniversary issue of HCR to reexamine the state of the false dichotomy between mass and interpersonal communication since HCR began to the present. This is especially appropriate because it was the 1988 special issue of HCR that provided space for leading scholars to call for greater integration of mass and interpersonal communication scholarship.

This article assesses HCR's contributions to greater theoretical integration and cross-fertilization across areas of study, as called for in its own pages. Specifically, I examine three issues: (a) What are HCR's contributions to bridging the interpersonal and mass communication areas? (b) how do those contributions compare to efforts in a selection of other national communication research journals? and (c) how have developments in new communication technologies spurred the need to reassess the division and to advance theory?

This article revisits an important theoretical discussion central to the future of the field with the hope of stimulating more discussion about how communication scholars can work toward synthetical theories of communication that incorporate a range of channels, transcend specific technologies, and bridge levels of analysis. The hope is that this review can help point the way toward the role that research published in HCR could play in advancing communication research during its next 25 years.

ORIGINS AND ISSUES

Calls for theoretical links between mass and interpersonal communication research traditions are not new. In the past few decades, leading communication scholars have detailed the origins of, and problems associated with, traditional levels of analysis. In addition, several volumes have attempted to put into practice the belief that much was to be gained by identifying and exploring the contributions of both mass and interpersonal research to communication theory development. The origins and issues are worth revisiting to frame the discussion.

The origins of the distinction between interpersonal and mass communication as empirical endeavors help to explain the current state of the division between the two areas. As has been detailed elsewhere (Berger & Chaffee,1988; Reardon & Rogers,1988; Wiemann et al.,1988), mass communication studies emerged as sociologists and political scientists in the early and middle decades of this century focused on the potential of the new communication technologies such as film, radio, and television to influence mass audiences. Interpersonal communication, on the other hand, emerged primarily from the work in the 1920s and 1930s by psychologists and social psychologists interested in understanding one-toone interactions. In addition, although mass communication research had potentially powerful public policy implications, interpersonal research had few. This idea reinforced the tendency for scholars with political or economic interests to gravitate toward mass communication, further shaping the diverging orientations of the two areas (Berger & Chaffee, 1988). University politics contributed as well, which resulted in mass communication researchers placed (with some friction) within existing journalism programs, whereas interpersonal scholars found a (sometimes uneasy) home with rhetoricians in speech communication departments (Berger & Chaffee, 1988).

Some of the early landmark work did recognize the interrelationship between mass and interpersonal communication, such as Katz and Lazarsfeld's (1955) "two-step flow" theory of influence. However, few followed that lead. The emerging divisions endured into the 1970s and 1980s as most mass and interpersonal communication scholars pursued research agendas in isolation from each other. Analyses of academic journal publication and citation patterns provided evidence that the communication discipline remained conceptually split into the late 1980s (Rice, Borgman, & Reeves, 1988; So, 1988). The studies found little crossover between mass communication and interpersonal communication scholarship. In essence, these analyses indicated, ironically, that scholars within the communication field were not communicating across the divide. Rogers (1999 [this issue]) provides evidence indicating that the division has continued through the 1990s as well, based on the lack of cross-citations between mass and interpersonal scholars, the organization of communication scholarly associations, and patterns of doctoral degrees awarded.

In the 1980s, a small cadre of scholars began to argue that the division, although understandable from a historical perspective, nevertheless was undermining the communication discipline's struggle for respect from other disciplines. In the landmark "Ferment in the Field" special issue of Journal of Communication, Rogers and Chaffee's (1983) dialogue discussed how progress toward creating a coherent foundation for university communication programs had been hampered by the lack of connection between interpersonal and mass communication-oriented departments, professional organizations, and scholars. In this dialogue, Rogers argued that the emergence of computer-based, interactive communication systems made the division even less tenable. New technologies promised to help move mass communication scholars away from outdated linear models and toward newer interactive models of communication.

At about the same time, some interpersonal scholars were arguing that communication conveyed via some mediated channel was not the exclusive realm of mass communication. Cathcart and Gumpert (1983) argued that mediated interpersonal communication should be considered a form of communication related to, but distinct from, mass communication or interpersonal communication. They noted that the use of mediated channels likely altered the dynamic of the face-to-face interpersonal communication process in subtle yet important ways that deserved study. The apparent need to argue that mediated interpersonal interaction was distinct from mass communication reflected the lack of attention among mass communication scholars toward mediated communication that was not directed toward mass audiences and the lack of attention among interpersonal communication scholars toward interpersonal interactions that were not face-to-face. Cathcart and Gumpert's argument has helped remind communication scholars of the role of channel in communication processes that had figured prominently in early models of communication (Berlo, 1960; Lasswell, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1949). More recently, the widespread attention paid to the emergence of the Internet in the popular press has also begun to attune communication scholars to the importance of studying mediated interpersonal communication (e.g., Parks & Floyd, 1996).

A handful of scholars turned talk into action by producing two volumes of research that demonstrated the possibilities of synthesis scholarship. Berger (an interpersonal communication scholar) and Chaffee (a mass communication scholar) (1987) coedited the Handbook of Communication Science with the explicit goal of bringing interpersonal and mass communication scholars together to examine theoretical issues. The volume offered literature reviews that examined, then crossed, the traditional levels of analysis long used to organize the field (e.g., interpersonal, small group, organizational, and mass communication). One set of chapters focused on communication functions (e.g., power, socialization, conflict, persuasion); another set of chapters examined different communication contexts (e.g., families, health care, organizations, cross-cultural). These chapters provided models for ways to think about communication that transcend traditional levels. In a similar vein, Hawkins, Wiemann, and Pingree (1988) coedited Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, which was dedicated to reducing the fragmentation among areas of communication research. Editors teamed interpersonal and mass communication scholars to write chapters on various aspects of communication to demonstrate the benefits of bridging the two areas.

Several other programs of synthesis scholarship are worth note. A. M. Rubin, R. B. Rubin, and colleagues have also produced research in the uses and gratifications tradition with a focus on parasocial relationships (e.g., Perse & R. B. Rubin, 1989; Perse & A. M. Rubin, 1990; A. M. Rubin, 1985, 1994, 1998; R. B. Rubin & McHugh, 1987). Of particular note is an essay describing a research agenda for bridging mass and interpersonal communication (A. M. Rubin & R. B. Rubin, 1985). Also, Gumpert and Cathcart (1979, 1982, 1986) edited three editions of Inter/Media: Interpersonal Communications in a Media World, which examined the nexus of interpersonal and mass mediated communication. Gumpert and Fish (1990) also edited a volume of essays examining mass mediated and interpersonal mediated communication as resources for social support.

Consequences of Division and Arguments for Synthesis

Although some have argued in favor of continued fragmentation of communication research areas to avoid jack-of-all-trade dilution of theory knowledge and research expertise (Barnett & Danowski, 1992), others have argued persuasively that the theoretical fragmentation threatens the quality and relevance of communication theory (Avery & McCain, 1982). Wiemann et al. (1988) said that the divide had contributed to the ferment in the field as the yet relatively young discipline of communication has continued to struggle to find its identity and to secure standing and respect among more established disciplines such as sociology and psychology. As Reardon and Rogers (1988) stated, "What communication scholars have considered an obvious and natural division of our field is, we argue, a disunifying distortion with far-reaching implications" (p. 285). A field divided by artificial levels of analysis leads to scholars with little awareness of relevant work in other areas and results in missed opportunities for inspiration and integration of fresh perspectives (Pingree, Wiemann, & Hawkins, 1988).

Note, however, that Berger and Chaffee (1987,1988), in particular, recognized the value of specialization for producing quality research and thus did not call for a complete merging of the two areas. They viewed the traditional levels of analysis not as rival schools of thought but as complementary approaches that can strengthen one another in the pursuit of understanding communication. Yet, they added, too great a divergence undermines progress toward more complete and powerful explanations for communication phenomena. "Theoretical development of our field has been hindered by the tendency of scholars to 'choose up sides,' specializing in just one level and rejecting others without fully considering what they have to offer" (Berger & Chaffee, 1987, p. 145). And, perhaps anticipating the dramatic emergence in the early 1990s of the Internet, Reardon and Rogers (1988) noted that a full understanding of new forms of mediated communication would be impossible under traditional levels of analysis because various elements of the Internet's interactive channels often functionally meld elements of mass and interpersonal communication.

Although these points note the drawbacks to the continuing division, it is also important to consider the potential benefits from linkages, crossfertilization, integration, and/or synthesis. An integration around a concept common to both subdisciplines can reveal assumptions about how each field defines, operationalizes, and studies that concept (Pingree et al., 1988). As Beniger (1992) asked, "Why could it not be routine to find interpersonal, organizational, and mass communication treated in a single study, for example, or to conduct comparative analyses of widely diverse media as well as contexts?" (p. 24). Recasting the arguments noted above to focus on the potential gains, one can argue that seeking integrated communication theory development can increase our understanding of the communication process-whether that communication is mediated or face to face, whether that communication is one way or two way, or whether two or 2 million people are involved. This could constitute significant progress toward helping the field coalesce into a more visible and influential force at a time when new communication technologies are thrusting communication issues to the forefront of the industrialized world's social, economic, and political agendas.

IDENTIFYING SYNTHESIS SCHOLARSHIP

As was noted in the introductory paragraphs, a 1988 symposium in the pages of HCR presented many of the arguments supporting integration of mass and interpersonal communication research. The next section assesses HCR's contributions to greater theoretical integration and crossfertilization across areas of study, as called for in its own pages. The goal of the analysis is to provide an overview of the frequency and nature of scholarship in HCR's 25 years that included an effort at theory synthesis across the mass and interpersonal levels of analysis-what I call synthesis scholarship.

For the purpose of this analysis, synthesis scholarship was conceptualized as scholarship in which the author(s) addressed communication phenomena in a way that sought to incorporate, bridge, or transcend interpersonal and mass mediated perspectives. Based on this definition, relevant articles included those that (a) explicitly addressed mass-interpersonal synthesis as a theoretical or disciplinary structural issue, (b) examined interpersonal communication and mass media in the same context, (c) examined phenomena or processes in both mass and interpersonal channels, or (d) applied traditionally interpersonal theories to mass communication processes or traditionally mass communication theories to interpersonal processes. To identify relevant articles, every issue of HCR was examined firsthand. Titles and abstracts of articles were reviewed, and if either suggested an effort at synthesis, the article was examined to see if it represented synthesis scholarship.

Contributions to Synthesis Scholarship:

Human Communication Research

Using the synthesis scholarship schema, a survey of research published in HCR indicated that a small percentage of articles attempt synthesis. Of the 636 articles identified in HCR (from Vol. 1, no. 1 in Fall 1974 to Vol. 25, no. 1 in September 1998), less than 4% (n = 22) appeared to fit the synthesis scholarship model. Setting aside the five articles published in the Winter 1988 issue that presented the symposium on bridging the mass-interpersonal divide, the number of synthesis articles is less than 3% of HCR's published research articles. Using the Winter 1988 issue as a landmark, 10 of the synthesis articles appeared in the 60 issues published before that issue, and 7 appeared in the 40 subsequent issues, indicating that the frequency has remained steady.

A review of HCR's synthesis scholarship indicates several themes: (a) articles discussing mass-interpersonal synthesis issues, (b) the concurrent and mutual influences of mass and interpersonal channels as contextual factors, (c) applying the same conceptual framework to interpersonal and mass communication, and (d) interpersonal-like "parasocial" relationships between viewers and mass media personalities. Each theme will be summarized in turn.

Synthesis as an issue. As noted earlier, the Winter 1988 issue of HCR presented the five-article symposium describing, analyzing, and critiquing the mass-interpersonal divide described above (Berger & Chaffee, 1988; Reardon & Rogers, 1988; Rice et al., 1988; So, 1988; Wiemann et al., 1988). Similarly, Barnett and Danowski (1992) supplemented and updated earlier bibliographic studies of the communication field (Rice et al., 1988; So, 1988) by conducting a network analysis of membership in various divisions to identify subgroups in the International Communication Association.

Mass and interpersonal as contexts. Research within this theme focused on the ways that interpersonal communication and mass communication provide a context for each other. Lull (1980, 1982) linked mass and interpersonal communication by proposing that mass communication researchers think of the mass media (e.g., television) not just as a disseminator of messages but as a social resource that individuals use in their everyday lives. Although rarely viewed as a factor in interpersonal relationships, television and other mass media "are handy expedients which can be exploited by individuals, coalitions, and family units to serve their personal needs, create practical relationships, and engage the social world" (Lull, 1980, p. 198). Lull (1982) also argued for using the communication rules perspective, developed in interpersonal communication research, as a tool for investigating the relationship between mass media and society.

Similarly, several studies addressed the relationship of mass media (primarily television) experiences and interpersonal interactions among family members. Roloff and Greenberg (1980) linked the influence of television content to that of parents and peers as models for conflict behavior. Their results supported the idea that peers, and then parents, were more powerful influences than television programming on adolescents' modeling of various modes of conflict resolution in their interpersonal relationships. In an effort to better understand factors affecting the relationship between television and viewers, two projects (Desmond, Singer, Singer, Calam, & Colimore, 1985; Messaris & Sarett, 1981) examined the ways in which family interactions shape children's comprehension and uses of television programming. Rimal and Flora (1998) also examined family interactions but with a focus on health communication campaigns. Their study of parents, children, and mass media as sources of influence indicated that although mass mediated messages can be an effective influence on healthier dietary behaviors, children can also be important sources of influence on parents.

Common framework to mass/interpersonal. Some studies applied the "uses and gratifications" approach, developed in mass media research, to examine the role of interpersonal communication motivations. A. M. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) developed a scale for measuring interpersonal communication motives, which they noted paralleled motivations identified in uses and gratifications studies of television for seeking mass-mediated content. Lin (1993) revisited the "active audience" assumption in light of the proliferation of channel options provided by cable television, including identifying interpersonal communication needs sought through engagement of mass media programs.

In a similar vein, Husson, Stephen, Harrison, and Fehr (1988) adopted an interpersonal communication perspective in trying to understand individuals' perceptions of political candidates. They used an instrument developed to measure perceptions of interpersonal communication styles to assess perceptions of televised political candidates and examined the relationship of those perceptions to voting preferences. The same team (Harrison, Stephen, Husson, & Fehr,1992) extended that project to examine gender differences in forming interpersonal perceptions of political candidates and the impact of those perceptions on voting decision making.

Hawkins, Pingree, Fitzpatrick, Thompson, and Bauman (1991) focused on the ways in which individuals applied their schemata about communication in marriage to both mediated couples (clips from movies) and nonmediated couples. Perse, Pavin, and Burggraf's (1990) study of perceptions of marriage was prompted by Berger and Chaffee's (1988) suggestion that researchers study cognition to integrate mass and interpersonal communication. They found that individuals' existing perceptions of marriage influenced their evaluations of marriage satisfaction for couples portrayed on television. Perse and Courtright (1993) examined both mass and interpersonal channels and both mediated and nonmediated interpersonal media in terms of the normative image of each, based on widely held perceptions of the typical uses for a particular channel.

Parasocial interaction. Research emerged in the late 1970s in HCR and other journals that revisited an idea first presented in the early days of television: Viewers can develop something similar to a personal relationship with individuals whom they see on television. Horton and Wohl's (1956) speculations about what they called parasocial interaction provided a basis for A. M. Rubin, R. B. Rubin, Perse, and others to build on. Embedded in the uses and gratifications tradition of mass media research, this approach focuses on the motivations and desired outcomes that prompt individuals to experience mass-mediated programming. Parasocial interactions include behaviors such as seeking guidance from a media persona, seeing media personalities as friends, imagining being a part of a favorite program's social world, and desiring to meet media performers (A. M. Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985).

Several studies addressing parasocial interaction appeared in HCR. A. M. Rubin (1979) explored the motivations that viewers (young and old) brought to their television viewing, including uses related to interpersonal interactions and parasocial interactions. A. M. Rubin et al. (1985) hypothesized that an individual's level of interpersonal loneliness would predict development of parasocial relationships with local television news personalities. Results indicated that, although loneliness was not linked to parasocial relationship development, using local television news to acquire information was related to development of parasocial interactions. A. M. Rubin and Perse (1988) studied motivations for soap opera viewing, including parasocial interaction with soap opera characters as well as the potential for postviewing interaction with others. They argued that the results suggested that parasocial interaction could be a functional alternative to interpersonal interaction.

This summary of HCR's contributions to bridging the massinterpersonal divide suggests that the published work has contributed in several ways. The research has helped focus attention on the interrelationship between interpersonal communication and mass communication. It identifies interpersonal interactions that shape behaviors surrounding use of the mass media. The research also highlights how mass media content can contribute to interpersonal communication processes and perceptions in viewers' immediate social environment. Finally, the scholarship demonstrates how interpersonal processes (e.g., interpersonal perception and relationships) can help explain viewers' experiences with and perceptions of the mass media content.

How does HCR compare with other national journals in publishing synthesis scholarship? The next section will summarize research in three major communication journals.

Contributions to Synthesis Scholarship: Other National Research Journals

Three major national communication journals that publish social science research were selected to put HCR's contributions into perspective. Issues of Communication Monographs (CM) from 1976 to 1998 were surveyed for articles bridging mass and interpersonal communication areas, as were issues of the Journal of Communication (JOC) from 1974 to 1998 and issues of Communication Research (CR) from 1974 to 1998. Because CM and JOC have much longer publishing histories than HCR, only issues from the same time frame as HCR's publishing history were examined. CR has been published approximately as long as HCR, so the survey for this journal began at Volume 1.

Using the same standard for synthesis scholarship used for the review of HCR, article titles and abstracts in the PsycInfo database were reviewed for explicit or implicit references in a specific article to mass and interpersonal theories, concepts, models, processes, and channels. Although this method may have missed scholarship that bridged levels of analysis but did not note that in the abstract, this review is intended only as a general survey of synthesis research in top communication journals.

From this analysis, it is apparent that CM has not been a frequent outlet for synthesis scholarship. From 1976 to the present, only one example was identified, which examined the mass media as a context for interpersonal interactions. JOC published a marginally greater number of synthesis articles. Throughout the past 25 years,11 articles were published in JOC that could be identified as synthesis articles. These articles coalesced around three themes. A couple of articles examined mass and interpersonal communication as mutual contextual factors by studying interpersonal interaction as an influence on television viewing. Seven studies applied the same conceptual framework to both interpersonal and mass communication (information dissemination, diffusion, communicative goals, new technologies). Two studies drew on parasocial relationship concepts in examining interpersonal motivations of those calling radio talk shows and those seeking out video games.

By quantitative standards, CR has been a prominent forum for synthesis scholarship. The survey identified 45 synthesis articles in the 25 years CR has been in existence. Synthesis scholarship has found a place in CR consistently, beginning in 1974 and appearing regularly, with an average of about 1.7 articles per year. CR's synthesizing research centered on the same themes apparent in HCR's synthesis articles. Regarding massinterpersonal synthesis as a theoretical issue, at least three articles offered alternatives to traditional levels of analysis for organizing the field. In addition, the editors devoted the April 1991 special issue to "micro-macro issues in communication research," which included a bold proposal to replace traditional levels of analysis with domains (Nass & Reeves,1991). More than a dozen articles examined mass and interpersonal communication as mutual contextual factors-primarily studies detailing the relationship of interpersonal interaction to mass media uses and effects and vice versa. More than a dozen also sought to apply a specific concept or framework to both mass and interpersonal communication, including political influence, uses and gratifications, information gathering and evaluation, coping with stress, and health campaign processes. CR also published more than a dozen studies of parasocial interaction and related issues.

NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES: SYNTHETICAL CHANNELS, SYNTHETICAL SCHOLARSHIP

Although the philosophical discussion regarding bridging of mass and interpersonal communication theory and research has continued sporadically, innovations in communication technologies have begun to make moot some of the practical distinctions between mass and interpersonal communication. New ways of communicating are emerging that fit awkwardly into the traditional definitions of either mass or interpersonal communication (Ball-Rokeach & Reardon, 1988; Morris & Ogan, 1996). As a result, some of the distinctions between the two areas of study are becoming outdated and blurred in the fast-changing world of new communication technologies (Lea & Spears, 1995). Reardon and Rogers (1988) argued that new communication technologies demand an epistemological change in communication research and should force changes in models and methods that better recognize and assess communication as an interactional process: "This technological change may facilitate a longneeded paradigm shift in communication science" (p. 297).

Traditionally, mass communication has been considered a one-way message delivery to a large, undifferentiated audience. Examples of the standard mass communication model include broadcast television and radio, print newspapers, movies, books, and recorded music. Interpersonal communication has been considered a two-way message exchange between a very small number of participants (usually two) who have knowledge of each other. Of course, the classic example of interpersonal communication is pervasive in everyday face-to-face interactions. However, in light of developments in communication technologies, using criteria such as one-way versus two-way and large undifferentiated audiences versus small numbers of familiar interactants to distinguish mass communication and interpersonal communication are becoming a less useful distinction. The functional convergence of mass and interpersonal channels, perhaps best represented by the Internet, is both a challenge and an opportunity for scholars to pursue convergence of the two areas of study.

There are an increasing number of instances in which mass communication systems support message delivery to specialized audiences and even to individuals, all of whom have the ability to interact with the sender. For example, interactive movies have been produced (e.g., May, 1996). Web-based feedback modes are also available for viewers to offer opinions about the films that they view (Berlind, 1995). Interactive cable (Markoff, 1997) has been in trial operations for years, and more developments are proposed. Meanwhile, customizable on-line newspapers and magazines proliferate on the World Wide Web, and newsgroups have long been a means for individuals to reach huge readerships while interacting with individuals (Morris & Ogan, 1996). A recent phenomenon is the on-line forum, in which a celebrity or newsmaker answers e-mail questions from anyone on-line for a set time period that can last for the length of the program or for several days. Some of the Web-based outlets for traditional mass media such as broadcasting stations and newspapers offer forums for viewers and readers to share ideas about an issue (such as PBS's "Online Newshour" and The New York Times "On The Web"), as well as the capability to send e-mail to a newsworthy person.

Digital television (DTV), just now available to consumers in the form of high-definition television (HDTV), is the next step closer to full integration of television and computers (Brinkley,1996). Although early forms of DTV now on the market offer higher resolution images and higher quality sound, many experts are predicting that the true benefits will be achieved when DTV provides full interactivity as an interpersonal channel along with a high degree of consumer control over the timing, format, and content of specialized, customized broadcasting content (Negroponte,1995). Some speculate that full convergence of the television and computers will mean that watching television will be more and more similar to surfing the Web and that changing channels will be more like moving from Web site to Web site (Dertouzos, 1997; Fidler, 1996; Oldham, 1999). The availability of interactivity means that the equipment used to view television signals could also be used for interpersonal communication through such technology as e-mail, Webphone, voice mail, videophone, or videomail. Whereas traditional mass mediated channels are increasingly capable of interactivity, interpersonal channels have the capability for one-way message delivery to large, undifferentiated audiences unknown to the sender. Perhaps the clearest examples of using interpersonal channels for mass messages are computer-generated telephone calls and mass distribution of e-mail messages. The latter, usually advertisements or solicitations, is known as "spamming." Webcasting or push technology on the Internet, which delivers content via e-mail or other forms to individual subscribers, remains a promising option for those in the information industry (Richtel,1998). In addition, news organizations such as CNN are already using "streaming" video and audio software technologies, providing individual users of the World Wide Web with live video and audio and video clips on demand.

Interpersonal communication scholars have been slow to recognize the importance of new mediated interpersonal channels for their research. An indication of the inattention can be found in a volume intended to represent the state-of-the-art in interpersonal communication, the Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (Knapp & Miller, 1994). The authors noted the growing importance of communication technologies as one of four well-established social trends likely to have a distinct impact on future research (Knapp, Miller, & Fudge,1994). They argued that although interpersonal communication researchers commonly assume that interactants are face to face, interactions mediated by telephones, computers, and other technologies are indeed interpersonal communication. However, the topic of technologically mediated interpersonal communication is not addressed anywhere else in the volume. Also, an edited volume designed to identify understudied topics in relational communication (Wood & Duck, 1995) included a chapter on long-distance relationships (Rohlfing, 1995) and building social relationships over computer networks (Lea & Spears,1995). This lack of attention to mediated interpersonal channels is particularly disconcerting when one notes that early forms of mediated interpersonal technology have been in use for thousands of years in the case of letters and for more than a century in the case of the telephone (Fischer, 1992; Marvin, 1988).

One area of progress in bridging research on interpersonal communication and communication technologies is in the literature on social uses of interpersonal communication technologies. Early research on computer-mediated communication in organizational settings tended to center on how a technology's characteristics can be used for efficiency (Daft & Lengel,1984; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Trevino, Lengel, & Daft,1987). More recently, however, a handful of scholars have published studies in HCR on computer-mediated communication as a social tool (Kayany, Wotring, & Forrest,1996; Walther,1994; Walther & Burgoon, 1992) and elsewhere (Parks & Floyd, 1996; Walther 1996). Increasingly, this research is beginning to synthesize interpersonal communication theory and studies of communication technologies. This type of research could be a valuable source of concepts and ideas for bridging mass and interpersonal communication as well as for scholars who are investigating interactive, mediated, and multimedia interpersonal and mass communication. For example, research on Internet friendships (e.g., Parks & Floyd, 1996) has documented the prevalence of relationships established over computer networks, while the popular press regularly presents stories of Internet relationships. These developments challenge the assumptions apparent in most of the interpersonal communication literature, which contend that physical proximity, face-to-face interactions, nonverbal communication, and talk are essential to relating (Lea & Spears,1995). Reassessing these assumptions could inform theory development regarding relationships established and conducted primarily or exclusively via mediated channels.

Mass communication scholars have also been slow to recognize the new forms of mass communication. Morris and Ogan (1996) complained that mass communication scholars have ignored the Internet as they continue to focus on traditional mass media outlets such as broadcasting or print media such as newspapers. They argued that considering the Internet as a mass medium worthy of scholarly attention is overdue. This research would provide an opportunity to rethink some of the assumptions about basic terms and concepts such as "mass" and "medium."

CONCLUSION

Berger and Chaffee (1988) noted that the communication field was seemingly unified in the 1950s and 1960s as researchers from various areas focused on persuasion as the central problem of the day. Berger and Chaffee suggested that the study of cognition in the 1980s could be a similar catalyst for research efforts that bring together interpersonal and mass communication scholars. This review suggests that engaging communication issues of the emerging information age could also contribute to bridging the various islands of communication specialties and subspecialties. The emergence of digital communication as a pervasive social force in the late 20th century may rival Gutenberg's press in its long-term consequences for society (Eisenstein,1983). Digital forms of communication have continued to broaden the array of communication channels while increasing the flexibility of creative applications and capability to reach and interact with mass audiences and distant individuals. These communication channels are available to tens of millions of online communicators, and if one believes the prognosticators, that number could reach the hundreds of millions in the near future.

One of the pressing issues of the 21st century will be to understand what these developments will mean for society. Bookstore shelves and magazine racks are increasingly filled with case studies, personal accounts, and speculative analyses by self-proclaimed experts about the future of communication technologies and the information age. Although this literature can contribute, communication scholars are uniquely positioned to provide useful and influential insights regarding the implications of communication technologies for communication processes as well as for the social issues that they raise. However, given the powerful communicative capabilities offered by the technologies and the creative and often surprising ways in which people have used them for a wide range of social purposes, holding to the narrow perspectives of the traditional levels of analysis can only result in incomplete explanations and predictions. Considering the ways in which new communication channels prompt a reconsideration of basic assumptions about the communication process in various arenas (e.g., Lea & Spears,1995; Morris & Ogan, 1996) could also contribute to theoretical synthesis.

Throughout the debate over the value of synthesis research, little discussion has engaged how far we could and should go in bridging mass and interpersonal scholarship. None of the scholars cited here have called for a complete obliteration of the mass-interpersonal distinction. For many historical, political, organizational, and pragmatic reasons-many of which contributed to the original split-a complete merging is unlikely. What seems apparent, however, is a need to recognize the artificiality of the distinction, to look for the potential contributions of each area to the other, and to seek a variety of ways to draw on the strengths of each in building theory. The longer term goal should be to work toward theories of communication that transcend specific channels (mediated or nonmediated) and that bridge traditional levels of analysis.

New communication technologies, which by their nature and use blur the mass-interpersonal distinction, are becoming pervasive and crucial to social, economic, and political processes. These developments are at once a spur to action and an opportunity to advance communication theory in substantial ways. Many models exist for synthesis scholarship that begin to transcend the mass-interpersonal distinction, as has been noted in this review. As the world attempts to come to grips with the changes new technologies bring, the communication field is ideally situated to help contribute in substantial ways to answering key questions surrounding this information and communication revolution. Progress in developing these lines of research and seeking new linkages could be a key to integrating the field, strengthening the shared theoretical resources, and helping communication scholars contribute more to society while we gain legitimacy and recognition.

References:

Avery, R. K., & McCain, T. A. (1982). Interpersonal and mediated encounters: A reorientation to the communication process. In G. Gumpert &R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (2nd ed., pp. 25-35). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ball-Rokeach, S., & Reardon, K. (1988). Monologue, dialogue, and telelog: Comparing an emergent form of communication with traditional forms. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 135-161). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barnett, G. A., & Danowski, J. A. (1992). The structure of communication: A network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 19, 264-285.

Beniger, J. R. (1992, Summer). Communication-Embrace the subject, not the field. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 18-25.

Berger, C. R. (1991). Communication theory and other curios. Communication Monographs, 58,101-113.

Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (1988). On bridging the communication gap. Human Communication Research, 15, 311-318.

Berlind, D. (1995, July 17). Viewer feedback? That's show biz on the Web. PC Week, 12, 62.

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Brinkley, J. (1996, December 2). The age of digital television is finally upon us. The New York Times. Retrieved December 2, 1996 from the World Wide Web: http: / /www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1202hdtv.html

Cathcart, R., & Gumpert, G. (1983). Mediated interpersonal communication: Toward a new typology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 267-277.

Daft, R L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.

Dertouzos, M. L. (1997). What will be: How the new world of information will change our lives. New York: HarperCollins.

Desmond, R. J., Singer, J. L., Singer, D. G., Calam, R., & Colimore, K. (1985). Family mediation patterns and television viewing: Young children's use and grasp of the medium. Human Communication Research, 11, 461-480.

Eisenstein, E. (1983). The printing revolution in early modern Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fidler, R. (1996). Mediamorphosis: Understanding new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fischer, C. S. (1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gerbner, G. (Ed.). (1983, Summer). Ferment in the field [Special issue]. Journal of Communication, 33(3).

Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.). (1979). Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.). (1982). Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.). (1986). Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gumpert, G., & Fish, S. (Eds.). (1990). Talking to strangers: Mediated therapeutic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Harrison, T. M., Stephen, T., Husson, W., & Fehr, B. J. (1991). Image versus issues in the 1984 presidential election: Differences between men and women. Human Communication Research, 18, 209-227.

Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., Fitzpatrick, M. A., Thompson, M., & Bauman, I. (1991). Implications of concurrent measures of viewer behavior. Human Communication Research, 17, 485-504.

Hawkins, R P., Wiemann, J. M., & Pingree, S. (Eds.). (1988). Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

Husson, W., Stephen, T., Harrison, T. M., & Fehr, B. J. (1988). An interpersonal communication perspective on images of political candidates. Human Communication Research, 14, 397-421.

Katz, E., Br Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York: Free Press.

Kayany, J., Wotring, C. E., & Forrest, E. J. (1996). Relational control and interactive media choice in technologically mediated communication situations. Human Communication Research, 22, 399-421.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39,1123-1134.

Knapp, M. L., & Miller, G. R (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knapp, M. L., Miller, G. R., & Fudge, K. (1994). Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37-51). New York: Harper.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levy, M., & Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). (1993a, Summer). The future of the field I [Special issue]. Journal of Communication, 43(3).

Levy, M., & Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). (1993b, Autumn). The future of the field II [Special issue]. journal of Communication, 43(4).

Lin, C. A. (1993). Modeling the gratification-seeking process of television viewing. Human Communication Research, 20, 224-244.

Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197-209.

Lull, J. (1982). A rules approach to the study of television and society. Human Communication Research, 9, 3-16.

Markoff, J. (1997, September 11). Microsoft faces challenge on Internet-cable TV link. New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://www. 3nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/091197television.html

Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.

May, S. A. (1996, April). Is it time to take interactive movies seriously? Computer Gaming World, 14, 178-179.

Messaris, P., & Sarett, C. (1981). On the consequences of television-related parent-child interaction. Human Communication Research, 7, 226-244.

Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996, Winter). The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 39-50.

Nass, C. I., & Reeves, B. (1991). Combining, distinguishing, and generating theories in communication: A domains of analysis framework. Communication Research, 18, 240-261.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage.

Oldham, P. (1999, January 4). Ready to interact with TV? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 4, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/ BUSINESS/CUTTING/lat-webtvOl04.htm

Parks, M., & Floyd, K. (1996, Winter). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80-97.

Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19, 485-503.

Perse, E. M., Pavin, C., & Burggraf, C. S. (1990). Implicit theories of marriage and evaluations of marriage on television. Human Communication Research, 16, 387408. Perse, E. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication Research, 16, 59-77.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 37-53.

Pingree, S., Wiemann, J. M., & Hawkins, R. P. (1988). Editor's introduction: Toward conceptual synthesis. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 7-17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reardon, K. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media communication: A false dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15, 284-303.

Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, B. (1988). Citation networks of communication journals, 1977-1985: Cliques and positions, citations made and citations received. Human Communication Research, 15, 256-283.

Richtel, M. (1998, May 20). After falling out of favor, "push" reinvents itself. The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes. com/library/tech/98/05/cyber/articles/20push.html

Rimal, R. N., & Flora, J. A. (1998). Bi-directional familial influences in dietary behavior: Test of a model of campaign influences. Human Communication Research, 24, 610-637. Rogers, E. M. (1999). Anatomy of the two subdisciplines of communication study. Human Communication Research, 25, 618-631.

Rogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1983, Summer). Communication as an academic discipline: A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 18-30.

Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore? An exploration of the understudied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. T. Wood & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roloff, M. E., & Greenberg, B. S. (1980). TV, peer, and parent models for pro-and antisocial conflict behaviors. Human Communication Research, 6, 340-351.

Rubin, A. M. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication Research, 5, 109-120.

Rubin, A. M. (1985). Uses of daytime soap operas by college students. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 241-258.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Parasocial interaction scale. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 273-277). New York: Guilford.

Rubin, A. M. (1998). Personal involvement with the media. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st Century (pp. 257-263). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1988). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14, 246-268.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602-628.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155-180.

Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53.

Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 279-292.

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

So, C. Y. (1988). Citation patterns of core communication journals: An assessment of the developmental status of communication. Human Communication Research, 15, 236-255.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 11, 1492-1512.

Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations. Human Communication Research, 14, 553-574.

Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 40, 473-501.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.

Wiemann, J. M., Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1988). Fragmentation in the field-and the movement toward integration in communication science. Human Communication Research, 15, 304-310.

Wood, J. T., & Duck, S. W. (Eds.). (1995). Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Author Affiliation:

PATRICK B. O'SULLIVAN Illinois State University

Author Affiliation: