Honoring the scholarship, mentorship, and legacy of a Media Psychology founder

Alabama is a very different world from where I grew up in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Understandably, I was skeptical when I moved to Tuscaloosa in 1991 to join the faculty in the College of Communication at the University of Alabama. My dream job would have been in a Department of Psychology. But here I was going to join the faculty in the Department of Speech Communication as a visiting assistant professor. Little did I know what lay ahead. Nor did I realize what an amazing journey it would be. Drs. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann were to become my mentors (whether they wanted to or not!). The two of them played an incredible role in my professional development and I am forever in their debt. The year 2020 had already been awful and it became worse on October 14 when I learned that Jennings passed away. When the new editors of Media Psychology reached out to me to write a short memorial about Jennings’ contributions to the subdiscipline of media psychology, it was with a heavy heart that I accepted.

The accolades for Jennings could fill this issue of Media Psychology. Jennings’ research on entertainment, children’s television, selective exposure, pornography, and sports – to name but a few areas he studied – was ground-breaking. He wrote or edited the leading scholarly books and textbooks on media effects. Jennings and Dolf were the long-time editors of the Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates book series Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, which published volumes critical to the development of the discipline. Jennings mentored many of the leading scholars in our discipline. And of course, his accomplishment that is nearest to my heart is he was the co-founding editor of this journal.

I was not a part of the initial discussions for the journal, but as I understand it, Larry Erlbaum (of Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates – yes, there really was a Larry Erlbaum) approached Jennings and Dolf with the idea of starting some type of media effects journal. Dolf and Jennings broached the idea with me about joining that effort, but I responded that they were crazy because I was an assistant professor at the time! After receiving tenure, I went back to them and said that starting a journal sounded like an interesting adventure. By that time, Dolf was thinking about retirement so Jennings contacted Larry Erlbaum, and Larry flew out to talk about the journal.

From the beginning, the journal seemed blessed. Larry told us to come up with our dream editorial board. We were both skeptical, but we did. I remember when we met to go over our lists and both laughing at choices from the other’s list – not because the choices were somehow bad or silly, but we knew there was no way all of these people would agree to be on the editorial board. But we reached out. And we were amazed when all but two people from our dream list agreed to be on the editorial board. This was truly an amazing editorial board with members from around the globe and in numerous different home disciplines (Bryant & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1999). I remember talking on the phone with some of the future editorial board members and listening to their excitement about the new journal. Maybe Larry was right, and it was time for a journal dedicated to media psychology.

When we sat down to articulate our vision for the journal, we quickly agreed that we wanted to instruct reviewers that the reviews should be helpful. We both embraced the idea that as the editors of this new journal, we were operating as mentors – mentors of an emerging interdisciplinary endeavor, but more importantly, mentoring junior faculty. When we rejected a manuscript, we didn’t simply write a form letter. Rather, we encouraged the authors. We noted what we would want to see in a paper that would get published in the journal. Often, these letters would be 3 or 4 pages in length laying out what we would want to see in their next submission to the journal. We wanted to encourage scholarship and mentor young scholars to become better. I think probably the most gratifying moment as an editor was when a young scholar approached me at a conference to talk about a paper we had rejected. I couldn’t believe it when the individual said that our rejection letter had help his career more than any of the acceptance letters he had received. I know that Jennings and I both received comments like this. I know from editing other journals, editing is often a thankless job. But that was not the case with Media Psychology. As Jennings noted in an interview he gave some years ago (Fischer, 2006), there was something magical about the journal. We received many more compliments than complaints. I think this was partly due to this philosophy of mentoring that Jennings wanted to be a hallmark of the journal. But it is also due to the amazing community of media psychologists that helped us through our journey (Bryant & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005).

Another one of Jennings’ ideas involved the theoretical notes that appeared at the end of each issue of the journal while we edited the journal. We wanted to emphasize that media psychology was about theory development – not simple demonstrations of yet another negative effect of the media. In hindsight, I really think this was one of the keys to the journal’s early success. While we reached out to people suggesting they submit a theoretical note, all of these manuscripts went out for peer review and there were a few papers that we recruited that never appeared in the journal. These were some of the most cited and influential papers published in the early stages of the journal. But I think more importantly, I believe these notes, appearing at the end of the journal as they did, helped establish that media psychology is, fundamentally, about theory development.

Additionally, we decided early on that we would publish articles that would push the boundaries. I remember an early conversation in which we decided that we would rather publish a less than perfect study that started a new line of inquiry than publish a more perfect study demonstrating, yet again, a well-established finding. We were both excited about the study of media psychology and we wanted to share that excitement with colleagues across the disciplines involved with media psychology. What excited both of us was innovation. What truly amazed us was there was an entire world of scholars who were just as excited and thrilled to have an avenue to share their amazing innovations.

Jennings loved to remind me that we each specialized in our tasks. As Jennings liked to put it, I was the shameless promoter of the journal (Fischer, 2006). I went to countless business meetings and receptions at communication and psychology conferences in those early years to hand about flyers about the journal. I would go through conference proceedings and seek out potential authors at the conferences or later e-mail them if I missed them in person. There were times when I dreaded all this promotion, but then I would remember that Jennings’ specialized task was copy editing and working with the publishers to get each issue of the journal out the door. Obviously, Jennings had a great relationship with Larry Erlbaum and the entire Erlbaum team, including Linda Bathgate, who was vital to our success. But the one thing I never could comprehend about Jennings is how much he seemed to enjoy copy editing. Everyone should be happy that Jennings did the copy editing because I am an awful copy editor. Jennings was a godsend because he could copy edit so quickly and accurately, and seemingly enjoyed it!

After the reviews came in for a manuscript, Jennings and I sat down and discussed how we thought the manuscript should be handled. We did this for every manuscript submitted to the journal. As many graduate students can attest, Jennings and I often disagreed – and sometimes rather heatedly – during dissertation and comprehensive exam defenses. But it was amazing to me that across the manuscripts submitted to the journal during our editorial term, there was only one time where we could not resolve our differences (and ultimately, I will admit that Jennings was correct on that manuscript). We always listened to each other and focused on ways to improve the manuscript and the journal.

The speed by which Media Psychology rose in the ISI rankings of communication journals was truly dizzying. I think this was a consequence of amazing synergies that surrounded the start of the journal. Certainly, it was the right time for the journal. The help that we received from the international community of media psychologists was incredible. As we said in our editorial farewell to the journal, it really did take a village to launch the journal. But while he would never admit it, Jennings brought a magic to the endeavor that set the journal apart. That magic will be missed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.