Notes
* * *
1. Sensation Seeking is defined as a biologically based personality trait that reflects a willingness to take risks in order to experience physiological arousal (Stephenson, Hoyle, Palmgreen, & Slater, 2003).
2. The term “priming” as employed by political communication scholarship is distinct from how it is utilized in more classic psychological work (Roskos-Ewoldsen, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Carpentier, 2002). The priming effects described in political communication media effects scholarship play themselves out over a longer period of time than what is outlined in psychology and deal most squarely with what aspects of a particular object are utilized by an individual when evaluating the object.
References
* * *
Bailenson, J. N., Garland, P., Iyengar, S., & Yee, N. (2006). Transformed facial similarity as a political cue: A preliminary investigation. Political Psychology, 27, 373–386.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 12–29.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265–299.
Barker, D., & Knight, K. (2000). Political talk radio and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 149–170.
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.
Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54, 662–704.
Carey, J. (1981). McLuhan and Mumford: The roots of modern media analysis. Journal of Communications, 31, 162–178.
Chaffee, S. H., & Hochheimer, J. L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the “limited effects” model. In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 75–104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575–630.
Chang, C. (2009). Psychological motives versus health concerns: Predicting smoking attitudes and promoting antismoking attitudes. Health Communication, 24, 1–11.
Chesebro, J. W. (1984). The media reality: Epistemological functions of media in cultural systems. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1, 111–130.
Chesebro, J. W., & Bertelsen, D. A. (1996). Analyzing media: Communication technologies as symbolic and cognitive systems. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1991). Darwin. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Dillard, J. P. (2010). Persuasion. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 203–218). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173–199.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile No. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10–29.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3–14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing. Communication Research, 29, 705–732.
Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449–466.
Hayes, A. F. (2007). Exploring the forms of self- censorship: On the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication, 57, 785–802.
Holbert, R. L. (2004). An embodied approach to the study of media forms: Introducing a social scientific component to medium theory. Explorations in Media Ecology, 3, 101–120.
Holbert, R. L., Garrett, R. K., & Gleason, L. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60, 15–34.
Holbert, R. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2006). Fahrenheit 9-11, Need for closure and the priming of affective ambivalence: An assessment of intra-affective structures by party identification. Human Communication Research, 32, 109–129.
Karmarkar, U. R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2009). Believe me: I have no idea what I’m talking about: The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 1033–1049.
Lasswell, H. D. (1927). The theory of political propaganda. The American Political Science Review, 21, 627–631.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.
Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lowenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 240–267.
Matthes, J., Rios Morrison, K., & Schemer, C. (2010). A spiral of silence for some: Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research, 37, 774–800.
McCluskey, M., Stein, S. E., Boyle, M. P., & McLeod, D. M. (2009). Community structure and social protest: Influences of newspaper coverage. Mass Communication and Society, 12, 353–371.
McCombs, M. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
McCombs, M. E., Ghanem, S., Lennon, F. R., Blood, R. W., Chen, Y., & Ban, H. (2011). International applications of agenda setting theory’s Acapulco typology. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), The sourcebook of political communication research (pp. 383–394). New York, NY: Routledge.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
McGuire, W. J. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (2nd ed., pp. 43–65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLeod, D. M. (1995). Communicating deviance: The effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39, 4–19.
McLeod, D. M., & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 49, 3–23.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extension of man. New York, NY: Mentor. McLuhan, M. (1975). Misunderstanding the media’s laws. Technology and Culture, 16, 263.
McLuhan, M. (1978). The brain and the media: The “Western” hemisphere. Journal of Communication, 28, 54–60.
McLuhan, M., & Carson, D. (2003). The book of probes. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Mery, F., & Kawecki, T. J. (2002). Experimental evolution of learning ability in fruit flies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 99, 14274–14279.
Meyrowitz, J. (1998). Multiple media literacies. Journal of Communication, 48, 96–108.
Miller, G. R. (2002). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Original work published 1980)
Nabi, R. L., & Oliver, M. B. (2009). The SAGE handbook of med
ia processes and effects. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nan, X. (2008). The influence of liking for a public service announcement on issue attitude. Communication Research, 35, 503–528.
Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parents versus peers: Exploring the significance of peer mediation of antisocial television. Communication Research, 28, 251–274.
Neuman, W. R., & Guggenheim, L. (2011). The evolution of media effects theory: A six-stage model of cumulative research. Communication Theory, 21, 169–196.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767–1778.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24, 43–51.
Overby, L., & Barth, J. (2009). The media, the medium, and malaise: Assessing the effects of campaign media exposure with panel data. Mass Communication and Society, 12(3), 271–290.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, forms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pashupati, K., & Kendrick, A. (2010). Advertising practitioner perceptions of HDTV advertising: A diffusion of innovations perspective. The International Journal of Media Management, 10, 158–178.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Pfau, M., Holbert, R. L., Zubric, S. J., Pasha, N. H., & Lin, W. (2000). Role and influence of communication modality in the process of resistance to persuasion. Media Psychology, 2(1), 1–33.
Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23, 751–766.
Putrevu, S. (2010). An examination of consumer responses toward attribute- and goal-framed messages. Journal of Advertising, 39, 5–24.
Rai, A., Ravichandran, T., & Samaddar, S. (1998). How to anticipate the Internet’s global diffusion. Communications of the ACM, 41, 97–106.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York, NY: Free Press.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. R. (2002). Media priming: A synthesis. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 97–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 297–316.
Schroeder, L. M. (2005). Cultivation and the elaboration likelihood model: The learning and construction of availability heuristic models. Communication Studies, 56, 227–242.
Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (1999). Nature stories. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research, 22, 402–429.
Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects: Further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication Research, 22, 482–509.
Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of source confusion in cultivation effects may depend on processing strategy: A comment to Mares (1996). Human Communication Research, 24, 349–358.
Shrum, L. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436–471.
Signorielli, N. (1989). Television and conceptions about sex roles: Maintaining conventionality and the status quo. Sex Roles, 21, 337–356.
Slater, M., Rouner, D., & Long, M. (2006). Television dramas and support for controversial public policies: Effects and mechanisms. Journal of Communication, 56, 235–252.
Smith, S. W., Smith, S. L., Pieper, K. M., Yoo, J. H., Ferris, A. L., Downs, E., et al. (2006). Altruism and American television: Examining the amount of, and context surrounding, acts of helping and sharing. Journal of Communication, 56, 707–727.
Stephenson, M. T., Hoyle, R. H., Palmgreen, P., & Slater, M. D. (2003). Brief measures of sensation seeking for screening and large-scale surveys. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 72, 279–286.
Stephenson, M. T., & Palmgreen, P. (2001). Sensation seeking, perceived message sensation value, personal involvement, and processing of anti-marijuana PSAs. Communication Monographs, 68, 49–71.
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74.
Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480–499.
Szabo, E. A., & Pfau, M. (2002). Nuances in inoculation: Theory and applications. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 233–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1980). Community conflict and the press. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577–585.
Verhey, S. D. (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience, 55, 996–1003.
CHAPTER 4
Outcomes of Persuasion
Behavioral, Cognitive, and Social
Nancy Rhodes and David R. Ewoldsen
Imagine a situation in which your doctor is attempting to influence your behavior—she wants you to have a colonoscopy as routine screening procedure. She tells you that it is a time-consuming procedure that requires general anesthesia and an uncomfortable preparation the night before, but that it is the best procedure to find early forms of colon cancer. Although you had no initial opinion about the test, you find yourself thinking about how much you dislike medical “procedures” and how doctors always seem to underestimate the discomfort of such things. In spite of that, you sense that your doctor really wants you to get the test, so you tell her that you will call and schedule the test the following day. When the next day arrives, however, your car doesn’t start and you are late for work and you totally forget about making the appointment. Later that week, you are having lunch with a group of friends. When a friend mentions that her cousin was recently diagnosed with end-stage colon cancer, you remember your conversation with your doctor and you listen carefully. Your friend talks about the likelihood that an earlier colonoscopy could have caught the disease at a more treatable stage. In the course of the conversation you find out that most of your friends have already had a colonoscopy, and they urge you to get yours done. When you get back to work that afternoon, you call and schedule an appointment for your colonoscopy.
Many elements of persuasion are illustrated in this vignette. First, the persuasive argument made by your doctor got you to begin thinking about the costs and benefits of the procedure. The thoughts generated, which linked to your own experiences with medical tests were the initial outcomes of the persuasive process. These thoughts, and the statements you made in response to those thoughts, then became further inputs to your processing of the dilemma at hand. Although you initially had an intention to call to make the appointment, the challenges of daily life interceded. Finally, it was when you had a chance to talk with friends about a related case, and when you learned that there is a supportive norm within your friendship group, that you finally engaged in behavior and made the call.
It is important to consider the nature of the persuasion process when discussing the outcomes of persuasion. As previously noted, the outcom
es traditionally studied in lab experiments focusing on persuasion are attitudes, behavioral intention, and to a lesser extent, behavior. Simply put, persuasion endeavors to change attitudes, which has often been assumed would result in behavior change. Research in persuasion has a long history in the social sciences, perhaps because what appears simple on the face (that attitudes guide behavior) turns out to be far more complex and interesting when examined more deeply (Prislin & Crano, 2008; Zanna & Fazio, 1982). Allport (1935) argued that:
Attitudes determine for each individual what he [or she] will see and hear, what he [or she] will think and what he [or she] will do. To borrow a phrase from William James, they “engender meaning upon the world”; they draw lines about and segregate an otherwise chaotic environment; they are our methods for finding our way about in an ambiguous universe. (p. 806)
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 11
