Communication Technologies and Their Effect on Cultural Homogeneity, Consensus, and the Diffusion of New Ideas

A view of communication technologies as creating artificial agents and affecting the information processing capabilities of agents is forwarded. The constructural theory is adapted to account for agents varying in their information processing capabilities, and hence to account for technology. Given this theoretical modification, the constructural model is used to examine the impact of different communication technologies and socio-cultural landscapes on the rate at which information diffuses and the time it takes for the society to reach cultural homogeneity and consensus. The findings suggest that as the available communication technologies change the role of the socio-cultural landscape in effecting social change varies. Paradoxically, this research suggests that mass-communication technologies that enable greater competition among messages and greater message complexity will enable faster information diffusion, than will those technologies that inhibit competition and message complexity. Communication Technologies — — 1 Communication Technologies and Their Effect on Cultural Homogeneity, Consensus, and the Diffusion of New Ideas A group of friends leave the theater and begin discussing the play they have just seen, West Side Story. "What a poignant portrayal of racial tension in the inner city" says one. "Well", says another, "I think it was a better rendition of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet than the original." On and on the comments go. Interpretation aside, it appears that each individual learned something different from the play. Contrast this "actuality," with the common assumption made by the government when they broadcast the emergency alert signal that through telecommunication channels such as radio and television the majority of the society will be reached with the same message — "here's what to do in an emergency." One expects different individuals to learn different information when ideas are passed by word-of-mouth. Rumors, for example, are routinely distorted. However, most people expect less distortion when the ideas are presented by mass-media (debates like that between the friends who saw West Side Story not withstanding). As communication technologies emerge, different patterns of social behavior are expected to emerge. Newspapers, for example, were expected to shape the beliefs of the masses (Lippman, 1922) and therefore could possibly create a homogeneous culture; but, today's resultant culture is hardly homogeneous. The phone was expected to facilitate within house communication and so minimize interaction with servants; but, it is instead used to keep families in contact (del Sola Poole 1977). Indeed, such technologies may alter some of the fundamental ways in which education and the ties between individuals affect social behaviors such as cultural-homogeneity, consensus, and diffusion. Clearly there is an expectation that mass-communication will lead to more rapid information exchanges and to more individuals simultaneously acquiring the same information (Williams 1961). Therefore, masscommunication technologies should increase the rate at which information is diffused, and homogeneity and consensus are achieved. However, communication technologies are not the sole determinants of social behavior, even that behavior that emerges from interaction. Rather, as is frequently noted, interaction and social behavior are affected by a host of other factors (see for example, Axelrod 1984; Blau 1967, 1977; Collins 1986; Homans, 1950; Turner, 1988). Many of these factors are structural; e.g., the size of the population. Still other factors are cultural; e.g., the complexity of the culture. These factors also affect the Communication Technologies — — 2 rate of social change. At issue, is whether communication technologies and the socio-cultural landscape interact with each other in effecting social change. This paper is a theoretical examination of this issue. The impact of various aspects of communication technologies and socio-cultural landscapes on cultural homogeneity, consensus, and diffusion are examined using simulation. This examination takes place using a modification of the constructural model (Carley 1990,1991a). Constructuralism is a dynamic processual theory of social change that provides an integrated and dynamic view of cognition, interaction, and the socio-cultural environment in which the environment through interaction affects cognition which motivates interaction which alters the environment. Previous studies have shown that constructuralism: predicts change in interaction over time better than either balance theory or exchange theory (Carley 1990); is consistent with a wide range of results on social interaction (Carley 1991a); and is consistent with research on inter-generational tension (Carley 1991b). The implications of the constructural perspective for societies affected by print and authoring has been examined in detail by Kaufer and Carley (1993). In this paper, I expand the constructural framework to include at least the rudiments for dealing with technology. Then, using the expanded theory (and the associated expanded model) I explore the implications of this theory regarding the ability of communication technologies to effect social and cultural change. This paper brings together two largely disconnected lines of research — that on social structural influences on information diffusion and that on communication technologies. In this paper, the concern is with that aspect of socio-cultural change (changes in homogeneity and consensus) that results from the diffusion process. Thirty years ago, Katz, Levin and Hamilton (1963, p. 238) argued that the "underlying assumption was always that informal communication among adopters was the key to diffusion." A great deal of research has added specificity to this claim and has found that ties between individuals are important to information flow. Yet, while many researchers acknowledge the importance of social structure to the diffusion process (Katz 1961; Rapoport 1953), there are relatively few studies of how the social structure affects information diffusion (Rogers 1983, p. 25). Notable exceptions, however, have shown that differential levels of within and between group ties, the strength of ties among individuals, and the level of integration impact information diffusion (for example see, Becker 1970; Burt 1973,1980; Coleman, Katz, and Menzel 1966; Granovetter 1973, 1974; Lin and Burt, 1975). While this literature demonstrates the role of social structure (and to a lesser extent culture) in effecting social change through information diffusion it ignores the role of communication technology. The Communication Technologies — — 3 dominant underlying model of communication that pervades this work is one-to-one faceto-face communication. In contrast, the literature on communication technologies largely ignores the role of the extant socio-cultural landscape. Instead, much of the literature focuses on technological features and usage (Ennos 1990; Rice and Case 1983; Sproull and Kiesler 1986), its psychological and social-psychological consequences (Eisenstein 1979; Freeman 1984; Goody 1968; Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire 1984; Rice 1984), or historical accounts (Innis 1956; del Sola Poole 1977; Reynolds and Wilson 1978). Admittedly, a common question asked is whether communication technologies will replace or enhance existing networks or social structures (Thorngen 1977). Further, predictions and evidence regarding changes to social structure abound; such as, print made possible the professions by enabling regular and rapid contact (Bledstein, 1976), and electronic communication increases connectedness and decreases isolation (Hiltz and Turoff 1978). The question at issue here has not been asked: “is there an interaction between structure and technology; i.e., does the type of socio-cultural landscape that facilitates rapid diffusion (and so homogeneity and consensus building) change as the type of communication technology available changes?” AUGMENTING THE THEORY: CONSTRUCTURALISM AND