DONSBACH - Factors affecting news decisions- social validation of judgements and stabilizing existing attitudes and cognitions.

Psychology of news decisions - Factors behind journalists’ professional behavior
J Wolfgang Donsbach
Journalism 2004 Vol. 5(2): 131–157 
[1464-8849(200405)5:2;131–157;041658]
PDF


Abstract
This article is about causal explanations for the way journalists report the news. 
In its first part, the article reviews traditional and current models or theories of journalists’ news decisions, concentrating on news factors, institutional objectives, the manipulative power of public relations by news sources and the subjective beliefs of journalists. 
It comes to the conclusion that most of these approaches do not explain the underlying Processes leading to news judgements. Starting from these shortcomings and from the assumption that most of journalists’ work is about perceptions, conclusions and judgements, it then attempts to apply psychological theories to news decision-making. 
The author holds that two general needs or functions involving specific psychological processes can explain news decisions: a need for social validation of perceptions and a need to preserve one’s existing predispositions. 
Empirical data from several surveys and studies among journalists are used to demonstrate the appropriateness of this approach to journalists’ behavior.


Conclusions


I have emphasized two psychological factors affecting news decisions: the sociopsychological concept of social validation of judgements through social interaction and the cognitive-psychological concept of stabilizing existing attitudes and cognitions. 
Both are phenomena which are not singular to journalism but describe general patterns of human behavior. 
But in journalism they are, first, more present and, second, more relevant. 
They are more present because journalists, unlike most other professions, constantly have to make perceptional decisions (truth, relevance, acceptability of facts and issues). 
They are more relevant because these decisions form the input of much of the perception of reality by citizens. 
In this combination, our picture of the world outside (Lippmann) is mainly the result of journalists’ perceptions and groupdynamic processes within the profession.
Can the profession of journalism learn something from other professions?
Judges and scientists are two other professions whose core function can be described in terms of relevant perceptional decisions. 
Judges also have to make factual and evaluative assertions about reality. 
For instance, in a criminal case, they have to decide whether a certain fact is true (e.g. a homicide), which circumstances are relevant for the procedures and how the behavior of the defendant has to be evaluated and punished according to these circumstances.
In order to ensure the best possible trial, codes of procedures prescribe for judges what they have to do before making their verdict.
Science, in contrast, is about the acceptance of hypotheses and theories.
According to modern epistemology, scientific statements are limited to empirically provable assertions. There is no place for value judgements in scientific discovery. 
A dispute over the acceptability of a hypothesis is decided by empirical evidence, i.e. the result of a validly designed and systematic study.
For this purpose the scientific community has developed rules of conduct (methodology) and rules of acceptance (e.g. peer review).
In other words, both these professions work on the basis of systems of rules which are designed to bring about the best possible approximation to truth. 
The most important function of these rules, therefore, is to redress the influence of subjective predispositions (the prejudices of a judge, the pet theories of a scholar) and group dynamic processes (e.g. personal relations between judges and jurors or attorneys, insider relationships and ‘school building’ in science).
It is possible that journalism needs a stronger elaboration of such systems of rules which are primarily designed to redress the influence of predispositions and group dynamics. 
Our results so far show that both factors have a strong and related influence on news decisions. As journalists very often have similar political and ideological viewpoints, their influence on news decisions is multiplied.
The implementation of checks and balances to protect against these influences has to start in journalism education. We need more integration of the relevant knowledge from journalism research – parts of which have been presented in this article – into the journalism curricula. 
Journalists must be aware of such influences on their own behavior in order to realize these factors when these come into play on the job. 
However, changes in the education and training will not be sufficient. 
It is possible that we will have to re-open the discussion about a professionalization of journalism which was put to rest in the 1980s (McLeod and Hawley, 1964; Donsbach, 1981). 
Professions trade a high degree of the quality of their services to society – including rigid systems of quality control – with a high degree of professional autonomy and usually societal reputation. 
A process of professionalization would thus not only open discussions about the ways in which the quality of news can be secured in the face of subjectivity and group dynamics within the profession, but would also offer the possibility of fending off illegitimate influences from outside, for instance from commercial interests.