Exam 2

Question 1

Social Cognitive (learning) Theory:

Answer 1

explains why media influences us by recognizing key factors in the human imagination (we can learn by observing and experience because we have an imagination)

Question 2

Social Cognitive (learning) Theory: Inhibitory effect

Answer 2

i. Inhibitory: media has a inhibitory effect 1. Occurs when we see a model engaging in behavior that leads to a negative outcome. 2. Awarded or punished

Question 3

Social Cognitive (learning) Theory: Disinhibitory effect

Answer 3

1. Occurs when we see a model engaging in behavior that leads to a positive outcome. 2. Awarded or punished

Question 4

Outcome Expectations and Expectancies

Answer 4

i. Overtime as we consume media… ii. Outcome expectation: our guess about what is likely to happen in a given situation. iii. Expectancies: the values that we attach to out expectations 1. What we guess is going to happen be good or bad? 2. Our evaluation of what is going to happen – good or bad?

Question 5

Moderating factors

Answer 5

can be simplified or intensify the effect a. We believe we are like the character, or we want to be like the character then the learning effects will be more intensified. i. Ex: Be like Mike (Michael Jordan). Drink Gatorade. ii. Celebrity endorsement

Question 6

Self-efficacy:

Answer 6

The ability engage in the behaviors you are observing.

Question 7

Aggression

Answer 7

a broad category that encompasses a lot of social media; is an effect of exposure to violent content (Wizard of Oz, Jurassic Park)

Question 8

What is said to be the most violent on TV?

Answer 8

cartoons

Question 9

effects of media violence

Answer 9

b. Effects: i. fear, ii. stereotyping, iii. does not have catharsis (it doesn’t purge our natural violent urgencies but increases)

Question 10

i. The way the violence is represented. 1. Whether violence is punished or not.

Answer 10

a. Violent effects are decreased when it shows negative consequences. b. Realistic pain cues shown decreases negative behaviors i. Tom and Jerry do not have realistic pain cues. 1. Shown to more vulnerable audiences – children 2. Has lots of violence, but not all “violence” is bad

Question 11

if carthesis was true for violent media then…

Answer 11

seeing any violence would produce negative effects, which is false.

Question 12

effects of prosocial learning content

Answer 12

a. Prosocial content: educational programs b. Effects: i. Stronger IF children are exposed to prosocial media; ii. Positive effects because they are teaching things that are socially acceptable 1. Education: ABC’s, numbers, cooking, language, math 2. Emotional: learning to share, say “please”, say “thank you”, cooperation

Question 13

moderating factors of Prosocial learning

Answer 13

i. Age of the audience ii. Adult involvement heightens the prosocial effects 1. Adult is interacting with the kids. a. Mr. Rogers 2. Adult helps the kids practice with what they see.

Question 14

Cultivation versus Effect

Answer 14

a. We watch and learn and then act b. Television cultivates our view of the world i. Coherent – assessable 1. More problematic c. Cultivation theory: effects are subtle i. Focuses on long-term effects; cumulative process ii. You have to design different ways to find the effect because you cannot just see it in a “lab”

Question 15

Criticism of Cultivation Theory

Answer 15

a. Weak, moderated effects b. Responses i. Any effect, however, small can matter a lot. 1. Because the world contains such a large population, that if they all react then it could have major consequences c. Theoretical development i. Mainstreaming 1. Tendency to homogenize viewers – to make them look similar ii. Resonance 1. If you have an experience that fits television, then the violence has a stronger effect on you. a. If you have grown up with violence then seeing it on TV could make you react strongly.

Question 16

Three important agendas (important issues)

Answer 16

i. Media agenda 1. a set of topics addressed by media sources ii. Public agenda 1. a set of topics that members of the public believes is important iii. Policy agenda 1. A set of topics that decision-makers (those deciding policies) believe that is important

Question 17

What is the relationship between public and media agenda?

Answer 17

i. A media agenda sets/causes a public agenda ii. The media agenda establishes the relative importance of the general public iii. Media may or may not be successful to tell us what to think (change our opinion) but they are successful in telling us what to think about. iv. Media agenda →public agenda

Question 18

presidential election a. Carter vs. Reagan election

Answer 18

i. Too close to call right before the election ii. Two days before the election – news of hostages in Iran iii. Reagan wins 1. Media coverage was shifted from the election coverage to the hostages 2. Media had the public thinking about who would handle the hostages more efficiently.

Question 19

strong effects model

Answer 19

The strong effects model assumes that the audience is a mass society with unthinking, powerless individuals who take in all media the same way and will react to the media the same way. It follows a hypodermic needle kind of model, where the messages are “injected” into us.

Question 20

limited effects model

Answer 20

The limited effects model looks at the audience as separate individuals as well as the idea that cognitive and social factors need to be considered when looking at how messages from the media might influence individual attitudes and behaviors. There are two main parts to the limited effects model:

1. IN GENERAL, effects of media are pretty weak.
2. IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES, the effects of media may be decreased or increased.

Question 21

How do the metaphors of “the hypodermic needle” and “magic bullet” effects illustrate a philosophy of strong media effects?

Answer 21

The strong effects model, much like the hypodermic needle or magic bullet models, create an image of media as “injecting” ideas into our minds. With these models, we have little to no resistance against the messages of media.

Question 22

What theory of the audience is suggested by strong and limited effects models?

Answer 22

The strong effects model creates a vision of the audience that is VULNERABLE to outside influence, ISOLATED from one another, and with LITTLE TO NO SOCIAL DUTY.
• vulnerability comes from our ability to be controlled. Strong effects sees us as unable to resist media power.
• isolation comes from the idea that we trust media before we trust each other. We are able to be controlled by media because we depend on it more than we depend on our fellow man.
• little to no social duty comes from the idea that media can force us to do things that can hurt society. For example, the belief was that propaganda could turn you into a Nazi sympathizer–that media could force you to shirk all sense of social duty and follow the course to genocide.

The limited effects model presents an audience that is discerning and sometimes combative against media messages.

Question 23

Explain the historical backdrop of strong effects models.

Answer 23

The strong effects model was being created basically at the same time that mass media was being pioneered. Because of this, the theorists were working with a pretty rudimentary understanding of mass media. Also, it was during the start of WWII, so there was a lot of uncertainty and fear about the power of propaganda.

Question 24

Why did researchers shift from strong to limited effects models?

Answer 24

. Because they could not replicate strong effects in an experimental setting. All research pointed to the fact that audience resist media.

2. They did not like the theory of humanity posited by the strong effects model, which painted humans as VULNERABLE, ISOLATED, and WITH LITTLE SOCIAL DUTY.

Question 25

What is the key puzzle that limited effects models try to explain?

Answer 25

How media effects are limited in general, but can be weaker or stronger in the particular.

(SCT addresses this by adding moderators, Cultivation Theory and Agenda Setting Theory both redefine the way we understand the effects, as does Spiral of Silence)

Question 26

Do the media theories that we will discuss fit the strong effects or limited effects model?

Answer 26

Limited effects model

Question 27

According to social cognitive theory, how does media influence us?

Answer 27

Social Cognitive Theory: tries to explain how it is that media influences us by recognizing a key facet of the human experience and that is.. imagination
We can learn by observing because we have an imagination.

Question 28

What is observational learning?

Answer 28

Where there are “models” in an individual’s environment and learning occurs through the observation of these models. We are learning as we watch and listen. As we watch certain ideas are reinforced

Question 29

. a) How does social cognitive theory reconcile the notions of strong and limited media effects?
b) What is a moderator?

Answer 29

a) Through the use of moderating factors (identification and self-efficacy)
b) Something that heightens or weakens an effect, like a volume knob

Question 30

What factors might moderate the learning processes described by social cognitive theory?

Answer 30

identification and self-efficacy

Question 31

Define identification and self-efficacy. Explain how they moderate learning effects.

Answer 31

Identification: moderator of that learning effect; refers to how we perceive the models we are reading about or watching
If we think we are like the character or want to be like the character then these inhibitory and disinhibitory effects will be intensified
Like Mike Advertisement- identification is at work here. If you want to be like mike, you’re more likely to adopt the behavior you are observing. Identification intensifies learning effects.
Self-efficacy: you’re perception of your ability to engage in the behaviors you are observing. Ex: Watching cooking show

Question 32

Is violent media content widely available?

Answer 32

Violent content is widely available. It is not hard to find. Using conservative estimates.. 60% of TV programs contain at least one violent act. At least 5 violent acts per hour.

Question 33

How does media violence influence aggressive behavior?

Answer 33

By watching violent content, we will be encouraged to model it. The relationship is unequivocally causal. In fact, the relationship between violent content and aggression is AS STRONG as the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
Defining Media Violence:
-Real only? or fantasy/cartoon?
-Serious only? or humorous content (Three Stooges)?
-Intentional only? or accidental also
-Actual harm? or just potential?
-Only “directed at a person”? or objects also
-Physical force only? or verbal (linguistic) aggression also?
-(For media:) on-screen only? implied (off-screen) as well?

Question 34

Give an example of a study that demonstrates the effect of media violence on aggression.

Answer 34

Bobo doll study and the study of state hostility measured when people engaged in violent, multiplayer online games.
State hostility study: conducted at a university. People played violent, online RPG games and their state hostility was measured as a proxy through which we could understand aggression. The results showed two things:
1. State hostility is increased by these violent games.
2. The more people/players were involved in the games, the more violent people became.

Question 35

What is catharsis?

Answer 35

Catharsis: An emotional release that is experienced after feeling and expressing one’s emotions about an event. Consuming violent content, you purge your aggressive emotions (get off one’s chest)

Question 36

Is catharsis an effect of consuming media violence?

Answer 36

No. We know this because only CERTAIN types of violence decrease aggression (punished violence and realistic pain cues). If any old violent content could be used as catharsis, this would not be the case.

Question 37

Does the type of violence shown matter?

Answer 37

yes

Question 38

Describe some characteristics of “good” media violence versus “bad” media violence.

Answer 38

Good violence: where people get punished for their violence, where as bad violence is where they do not get punished EX: most kinds of cartoons like Tom and Jerry
Bad violence: Bad media violence do not have realistic pain and harm cues, and behavior is often rewarded rather than punished

Question 39

Is the violence shown in cartoons “bad”?

Answer 39

Technically, yes. It is shown to a younger, vulnerable audience and does not have realistic pain cues or punishments.

Question 40

How would social cognitive theory explain the influence of these characteristics on the effects of consuming violent media?

Answer 40

If the aggression is punished, it can decrease aggression. Realistic pain and harm cues can decrease aggression.

Question 41

What are prosocial effects?

Answer 41

Prosocial Content: educational programs, DIY TV, food network, Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street- goal is to teach something
Refer to positive effects. Includes cognitive learning (learned a skill). Emotional learning (sympathy, empathy, caring, sharing)
PSE should be stronger than negative effects because they are teaching something more reinforced and accepted by society (and research actually backs this up).
It lasts longer. They teach more. Only stronger for prosocial effects if children are exposed to the content.

Question 42

Can children and adults both experience prosocial effects?

Answer 42

Anyone at any age can experience prosocial effects, but most studies have been done on kids so that will be the focus

Question 43

Do children who watch a great deal of television (in general) exhibit more prosocial behavior than children who do not watch as much TV? Why or why not?

Answer 43

Less prosocial behavior, because the majority of TV is violent, not prosocial.

Question 44

What kind of effects typically occurs for children who watch Sesame Street?

Answer 44

Cognitive skills (ABCs, math, etc.)

Question 45

What kind of effects typically occurs for children who watch Mr. Rogers Neighborhood?

Answer 45

Social skills (empathy, sharing)

Question 46

Does adult involvement matter for children who are watching television shows with prosocial messages?

Answer 46

Yes, it does matter. In fact, most prosocial benefits only occur when there is adult involvement. This is because the adult can explain what is being learned and can help children apply the lessons to their own lives. This adult involvement combats the idea of isolation proposed by the strong effects model and also increases a child’s sense of self-efficacy.

Question 47

. How does the evidence about the effects of violent and prosocial content illustrate the principles of social cognitive theory?

Answer 47

What we hear, see, and watch effects us and influences us and our actions

Question 48

How is channel (a.k.a., medium) a scope condition of cultivation theory?

Answer 48

Cultivation Theory’s scope ONLY applies to television

Question 49

Explain the nature of television at the time of the proposal of cultivation?

Answer 49

TV was coherent; tv landscape looked the same (everyone pretty much had the same channels with same concepts). It was also very easy to access and was pervasive.

Question 50

How has television changed since then? How do you think that may influence how media influence us?

Answer 50

Our television viewing is more FRAGMENTED–not everyone has the same channels and not everyone watches through the same medium. Some people use Hulu, Netflix, or use Tivo. Because of this, we have more CONTROL over our media.
Ex) TVs are pervasive in homes, easily accessible

Question 51

Explain cultivation.

Answer 51

Cultivation: effects are subtle; the effects of consuming TV are subtle
Instead of being focused on short-term effects, Cultivation Theory focuses on long term effects (cumulative effects)

Basically, the theory states that, overtime, people will start to change their view/understanding of the world to match the world presented on TV. TV forms our worldview.

Question 52

Explain the differences between cultivation and other media effects (e.g., long-term vs. short term, obvious vs. subtle, cumulative vs. ephemeral).

Answer 52

Long term vs. Short term: Cultivation Theory proposes long-term effects that change our entire way of viewing the world and our way of thinking about things. Social Cognition Theory proposes a model of short term effects, where we watch something, then enact it over a short period of time.
Obvious vs. Subtle: The effects of SCT are obvious–if a kid sees a character on TV hitting his brother then the kid might hit his own brother. It’s obvious how the TV caused that to happen. With Cultivation Theory, the effects are subtle. The effects have to do with our way of thinking and our way of understanding the world, rather than any specific action we take that can be directly attributed to watching a character on a show do it.
Cumulative vs. ephemeral: SCT effects are ephemeral. If I see someone study hard for a test on TV and make an A, I might learn to study hard to make an A, but this doesn’t fundamentally change who I am. That effect would be one-time and then done. With Cultivation Theory, the effects stay with me for a long time. If I watch TV and learn to be afraid of walking alone at night, I will probably be afraid to walk alone at night for a long time.

Question 53

Explain the research strategy for investigating cultivation theory.

Answer 53

Trying to get a picture of what the television world looks like and how it affects us requires two steps:

1. content analysis: survey TV and code it, try to describe what the content looks like in general
2. survey folks who watch TV and make comparisons between heavy and light viewers

Question 54

Describe the distinction between viewers made in cultivation research.

Answer 54

There are heavy and light viewers

Question 55

What are the characteristics of heavy viewers?

Answer 55

Heavy:
Watch 4 or more hours of tv a day
TV is their principle source of information (media content)
Less selective; watch tv as a ritual
Have attitudes that in fact do reflect the tv landscape more so than the real world
1/10 would be involved in violence
Overestimated their view of walking alone at night by 10
Overestimate activity of police by 5
More likely to be suspicious of other people’s motives
CONSISTENT with cultivation theory

Question 56

What are the characteristics of Light viewers?

Answer 56

Watch less than an hour a day of tv
They consume a broader variety of media content
1/100 would be involved in violence

Question 57

What are the key four attitudes that cultivations researchers have considered?

Answer 57

4 Key Attitudes
Chances of involvement with violence
Fear of walking alone at night
Perceived activity of police
General mistrust of people

Question 58

Describe the main criticisms of cultivation theory.

Answer 58

1 critic is the strength of effects (strength of relationship between heavy/light tv viewer) is pretty small; Weak/Moderated Effects
When you include moderators, wouldn’t you include other factors?
The pattern of the actual effects tend to be weak
Is it that heavy tv viewers are more scared of the world OR people that are more scared of the world watch more tv?
TV doesn’t make us scared, racist, sexist, or uninformed: it’s our REAL lives that make us those things. Byproduct is we watch a lot of tv
TV is a reflection of our society than an influence
The world portrayed on TV is scarier than the real world (amount of violence)

Question 59

How have cultivation scholars responded to these criticisms? c) In what sense is any effect—even a small effect—potentially an important effect in cultivation theory?

Answer 59

B)/C) 2 main responses:
The idea that any effects, even small ones, can matter a lot
Ex) 1/1000 people will hurt a person around them because they saw it on tv; think of the SCALE of exposure

The second response was to try and reform the theory by mainstreaming and resonance.

Question 60

What is mainstreaming?

Answer 60

Mainstreaming: rethinking the way that the effects of television work; the tendency of tv to homogenize viewers, to make them like each other (more similar)

Question 61

What is resonance?

Answer 61

Resonance: if you have an experience that fits television, a history with violence, then the violent tv that you watch will have an even STRONGER effect on you; these negative portrayals in tv, for whom this content resonates, then those effects are very powerful
Ex) If we’re all watching the same story, we’re all going to talk about the same story

Question 62

How are the scopes of social cognitive theory and cultivation theory similar? How are they different?

Answer 62

Similar
Both related to tv viewing
Differences
Social cognitive theory has a broader scope—related to video games, searching the web, watching TV, listening to broadcast, reading
You can test social cognitive theory in a lab
Focuses on short term effects
Explains why moderators are strong or weak
We watch and we learn
Cultivation Theory Effects is based solely on consuming tv
Effects are subtle and powerful
Focuses on long term effects (cumulative effects)
TV watching cultivates our view of the world
Cultivation theory affects at the societal level and SCT affects the individual

Question 63

What is the agenda setting hypothesis? example?

Answer 63

The agenda setting process says that media agenda DOES NOT tell us WHAT to think, but tells us what to THINK ABOUT. So media agenda sets the public agenda.

One example would be presidential elections, which focus the issues discussed by the public.

Question 64

What are different ways of measuring public and media agendas?

Answer 64

We measure media agendas by content analysis–seeing how often topics are discussed, where they are placed in a newspaper or in a news broadcast.

We measure public agenda by surveys.

Question 65

Identify a weakness in evidence (concerning agenda setting) obtained from simple correlational designs.

Answer 65

Simple Correlational Design: This is used to establish association between public agenda and media agenda. First you analyze the content of media, then you survey the agenda of the public to see if they are related/match up. The weakness with this is that it proves CORRELATION and not CAUSATION. You need to establish time order, which is why you use cross-lagged correlational designs.

Question 66

Explain the research designs that have been used to investigate agenda setting theory.

Answer 66

There are three ways we use to measure agenda setting. We must prove a CAUSAL relationship to prove agenda setting, so we need three things: association, time order, and the ruling out of third party interference.

Question 67

What is a cross-lagged correlational design? d) Explain how a cross-lagged correlational design provides information about the direction (i.e., time ordering) of effect between two variables.

Answer 67

Cross-lagged Correltational Design: This is when you do a SIMPLE CORRELATION DESIGN AT MULTIPLE POINTS IN TIME, so you can establish a time order relationship between factors. When this was done in reference to agenda setting, we saw that the relationship was positive both ways (public agenda sets media agenda AND media agenda sets public agenda), HOWEVER, the stronger relationship showed that media agenda sets public agenda.

Question 68

How can experiments be used to investigate the agenda-setting hypothesis?

Answer 68

Experimentation: This is used to rule out third-party variables. It allows you to test your hypothesis in a controlled setting. However, you need the above two ways of measuring so that you have a hypothesis based in reality, not solely on experimentation.

Question 69

. a) Does agenda setting occur? b) How is the strength of agenda setting effects influenced by the amount of news exposure? c) How is the strength of agenda setting effects influenced by the medium of news exposure? d) Which has a stronger agenda setting effect, newspapers or television? e) What is need for orientation? f) What influence does a need for orientation have on agenda setting? g) What is issue obtrusiveness? h) What influence does issue obtrusiveness have on agenda setting?

Answer 69

Yes, agenda setting does occur, as research and experimentation has proven. There are four moderators:

1. Strength of Exposure: the more people are exposed to an issue by the media, the more powerful the effects of agenda setting will be.
2. Channel: Generally, newspaper agenda setting is stronger than that of television agenda setting. However, this only occurs if the people involved actually read the newspaper.
3. Issue Obtrusiveness: The more obtrusive an issue is into everyday life, the less intense the effects of agenda setting will be.
4. Need for Orientation: Some people need to be oriented by media more than others. A greater need means a greater effect of agenda setting.

Question 70

What is the principal scope condition of spiral of silence theory?

Answer 70

It only applies to issues of morality–of right and wrong.

Question 71

Explain the key concepts in spiral of silence theory (e.g., fear of isolation, quasi-statistical sense, willingness to speak).

Answer 71

Fear of Isolation: This happens on an individual level, and it is related to our inherent need to be a part of something and our fear of being isolated for being in the minority opinion. It directly leads to our intense thinking about what OTHERS are thinking about.

Quasi-Statistical Sense: Also happens on the individual level. It stems from our tendency to spend a lot of time thinking about what opinions others hold. It is influenced by the media. We are pretty uncannily accurate at guessing the majority opinion on issues.

Willingness to Speak Up: This is how willing we will be to speak up on an issue. This happens on a group level, mostly, and is related to whether or not we feel we are in the majority opinion, as guessed by our quasi-statistical sense.

Question 72

Explain the spiral of silence process. Provide an example.

Answer 72

The spiral of silence occurs when people don’t speak up because they feel they are in the minority opinion. This leads to OTHER people, who might actually hold their opinion as well, feeling like THEY are in the minority opinion and not speaking up. Basically, silence begets silence.

Question 73

In what sense is spiral of silence a multilevel theory?

Answer 73

It happens on multiple levels. Fear of isolation and quasi-statistical sense happen on the individual level, willingness to speak up occurs in a group setting, and the spiral itself occurs at a societal level.

Question 74

Is agenda setting theory multilevel? Explain.

Answer 74

Yes. Agenda Setting is multilevel. Fear of isolation and quasi-statistical sense are things that happen on the individual level–that occur within the person. Our willingness to speak up is something that occurs on a group level. The group we are in will determine our willingness to speak up. The spiral itself occurs on a societal level–silence begets silence within a society.

Question 75

Describe the predictions made by spiral of silence at different levels (e.g., psychological, interpersonal, sociological).

Answer 75

On a psychological level, Spiral of Silence predicts that we will be overwhelmingly concerned with not being isolated. It predicts that we will spend a large amount of time thinking about what OTHERS might be thinking about, and trying to gauge where we fit into public opinion. On an interpersonal level, Spiral of Silence says that we will exhibit a willingness to speak up ONLY IF we are in a group that we feel shares our opinion. On a societal level, the theory says that silence from the minority opinion will beget more silence.

Question 76

Are individuals willing and able to make assessments of prevailing public opinion?

Answer 76

Findings show that we ARE willing to make assessments of public opinion

Question 77

Are these assessments accurate or inaccurate in general?

Answer 77

Our assessments are very accurate.

Question 78

Do the media influence these assessments?

Answer 78

Media DOES affect our assessments.

Question 79

Is the relationship between perceptions of public opinion and willingness to speak typically strong or weak?

Answer 79

The relationship between public opinion and willingness to speak is actually pretty weak.

Question 80

Are each of these different findings consistent or inconsistent with spiral of silence theory?

Answer 80

All are consistent EXCEPT the fact that public majority opinion doesn’t really affect our willingness to speak up.

Question 81

What factors might moderate spiral of silence processes? b) Explain how issue attachment, education and affluence, and the existence of referent groups may moderate spiral of silence processes.

Answer 81

Issue attachment: If you are part of a strong, core group of people really invested in an issue, you will be likely to speak up even if your opinion is the minority opinion.

Education and Affluence: More educated, affluent people are more likely to speak up even if they are in the minority opinion, usually because they feel their opinions are more important.

Referent groups: When people establish quasi-statistical sense, they do so using a referent group, or the group of people they spend the most time around. For example, people from Austin and people from College Station are gas weak. Doesn’t talk about how edia might change our beliefs. Even though the theory doesn’t say that the media tells us what to think, it does suggest that the media can control our willingness to speak up. It shows us as easily controlled.

Question 82

Compare and contrast social cognitive theory, agenda setting, spiral of silence, and cultivation theories?

Answer 82

SCT happens on an individual level and proposes the idea of moderators. It includes all media.
Agenda setting happens on a societal level and deals mainly with news. It changes the way we think about how media affects us (doesn’t tell us WHAT to think, but what to think ABOUT).
Cultivation theory happens on a societal level, only applies to TV, and also changes the way we think of effects (as long-term, subtle, and difficult to measure).
Spiral of Silence only deals with moral issues and it multi-level.

Question 83

How do they conceptualize media influence?

Answer 83

SCT- media influences us by observational learning. The effects are observable, temporary, and not subtle.
Agenda Setting- media influences us by telling us what to think about, NOT WHAT TO THINK.
Spiral of Silence: Media affects us by influencing our willingness to speak up about moral issues.
Cultivation Theory: Media influences us by changing the way we view the world. These effects are subtle, long-term, and not easily observable.

Question 84

What are the three sorts of evidence needed to establish a causal relationship between variables? Given that, it is relatively easy or difficult to gather evidence about communication phenomena generally and media influence in particular?

Answer 84

You need association, time order, and the removal of all third variables. It is pretty difficult because it takes a while to do.

Question 85

What is the third person effect?

Answer 85

The third person effect occurs when people hear about how media can strongly affect people, and they tend to say “sure, I guess that happens to others, but not to ME.” So we believe that these theories apply to other people, but never to us.

Question 86

Is the third person effect itself subject to the third person effect? Explain.

Answer 86

Yes. When people hear about the third person effect, they tend to say “Maybe OTHER people just assume that theories don’t apply to them, but I never assume theories don’t apply to me.”

Question 87

What are the two senses of the word “argument”?

Answer 87

Argument, use colloquially, often refers to a dispute or overt disagreement. We, however, will use the definition of argument that means “a claim and its supporting evidence.”

Question 88

Is having an argument the same thing as making an argument? Can you make an argument without having one? Can you have an argument without making one?

Answer 88

Making an argument and having an argument CAN be the same thing, but they don’t have to be. If you are making an argument without HAVING an argument, you might be laying out a case for a claim that isn’t in dispute (say you are trying to prove that dogs are better than cats, and everyone in your group agrees. You’re not having an argument with any one person, but you are making an argument/supporting a claim). You can also HAVE an argument without making one–you are disagreeing with someone, but not making an argument. It always makes me think of this scene from The Emperor’s New Groove: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXlnmF8-vAM

Question 89

Explain the relationships among justification, correctness, and persuasiveness. Is a justified claim necessarily correct? Is a correct claim necessarily justified? Is a persuasive claim necessarily justified? Is a justified claim necessarily persuasive? Give examples.

Answer 89

The Toulmin Model is concerned only with justification–if the argument is justified and does it have good evidence?

Justification does NOT have to be correct or persuasive, but the three can be related.

A claim that is JUSTIFIED, but not persuasive would be one with really good facts and evidence, but the audience just doesn’t listen or doesn’t care, and is therefore not persuaded.

A claim that is JUSTIFIED and persuasive has really good evidence, and that evidence is enough to make the audience believe the claim.

A claim that is JUSTIFIED but NOT CORRECT would be one with great evidence, but the claim simply doesn’t turn out true. For example, say I study the stock market extensively and have ample evidence that a certain stock is going to rise in value. The evidence makes my claim justified. But say something unpredictable happens and the stock market crashes and my stock loses value. The claim was justified, but turned out to be untrue.

A claim can be JUSTIFIED and CORRECT. Say I study the migration patterns of insects and with ample evidence I predict where they will be three months from now. Then, three months later, it turns out my prediction was correct.

Question 90

According to the Toulmin model of arguments, what is a claim?

Answer 90

The CLAIM is the statement you are proposing or stating is true. It is what you are trying to prove.

Question 91

According to the Toulmin model of arguments, What are grounds?

Answer 91

The GROUNDS are the evidence you give in support of the claim.

Question 92

According to the Toulmin model of arguments, What is a warrant?

Answer 92

The WARRANT is the relationship between the grounds and the claim. It shows how the evidence directly connects to the claim being made.

Question 93

According to the Toulmin model of arguments, What is backing?

Answer 93

BACKING is evidence given in support of the grounds and the warrant. The grounds and warrant themselves are claims, and require evidence (backing) in order to be acceptable.

Question 94

Explain the idea of an argument chain; explain how “backing” is a shorthand way of acknowledging the possibility of argument chains

Answer 94

Backing signals an ARGUMENT CHAIN–every grounds is the claim to another argument, and every piece of backing given to support every grounds IN ITSELF requires backing. Basically, all arguments exist inside other arguments. [For example: If I say dogs are better than cats, the grounds I can give might say something like “dogs are nicer to humans.” Well, that grounds in itself is a claim that needs to be backed up. So I might back it up by saying “dogs attack humans less” as my evidence. But then THAT statement needs evidence/needs to be proven, so we just create a long chain of an argument.]

Question 95

What is a rebuttal? Give the formula for identifying rebuttals.

Answer 95

A REBUTTAL is an acknowledgement of exceptions to any claim. It is not a NEGATION of the claim and it is not saying the claim is WRONG, but it does acknowledge that the claim might not be true in all circumstances. A rebuttal can be recognized (generally) by the word “UNLESS…”

Question 96

What is a qualifier? Provide examples.

Answer 96

A QUALIFIER is a word of phrase that clues you into the strength of an argument. It might say “will probably” or “has a high likelihood of,” or “is extremely likely”…

Question 97

Explain, give examples of, and be able to identify the various argument prototypes discussed: argument from classification, argument by generalization, cause to effect argument, effect to cause argument, argument by analogy, argument by authority.

Answer 97

Classification: This argument types says the following “All X have characteristic B, Y is a member of group X, so Y must have characteristic B.” You claim something about an object because that object is a part of a group/category. (WARRANT: All members of group X have characteristic B)

Generalization: This argument type says the following: “X% of group B believes A, since a certain percent of group B believes A, all of group B must believe A.” WARRANT: What is true for various cases must be true of the group in general.

Cause to Effect: This argument type works from a KNOWN cause to an unknown effect. Rain CAUSES wet grass. It is raining. Therefore, I can PREDICT that the effect of the rain will be wet grass. WARRANT: X causes Y.

Effect to Cause: This argument type has the same warrant as cause to effect, but in this case we have a KNOWN effect and are GUESSING at what caused it. The grass outside is wet. I know that rain causes wet grass. Therefore, I guess that what caused the wet grass was rain. WARRANT: X causes Y

Analogy: This argument type argues from one case to another. It says that something (X) is true of case A. Case B is similar to case A, so X must be true of case B as well. This is based on the idea that case A and B are similar in important ways. WARRANT: A is similar to B.

Authority: This argument type is based on the word of an authority. So Mr. Y said that X is going to happen. Mr. Y is an authority figure. So I can assume that X is, in fact, going to happen. WARRANT: Mr. Y is an authority.

Question 98

What is an argument prototype?

Answer 98

An argument prototype is a categorization of arguments types based on what the warrant says. Basically, different argument prototypes supply different ways in which the claim can be connected to the grounds.

Question 99

Explain which part of an argument in the Toulmin model distinguishes different argument types.

Answer 99

It is the WARRANT that distinguishes different argument types.

Question 100

Define the three standards for a good argument.

Answer 100

Acceptability: Do I accept all of the evidence.backing provided? Is the evidence accurate and trustworthy?

Relevance: Is the evidence actually relevant to the claim? Is the connection/relationship between the evidence and the claim actually good?

Sufficiency: Is the argument as a whole sufficient? Does it adequately handle the question and justify the claim?

Question 101

In applying the argument model to actual arguments, what sequence should you use for identifying the parts of the argument? b) What part of an argument is often left implicit? c) Given the text of an argument, be able to identify the various parts of the argument.

Answer 101

Generally, you want to follow these steps:

1. Identify the claim. This is often arbitrary, as an argument might make several claims. Pick one.
2. Identify the evidence. What reasons are they providing for why you should believe the claim?
3. Identify the warrant. This is often left implicit. Identifying the warrant means identifying which of the six prototypes is being used by this argument.

Question 102

. How are the scopes of the Toulmin model and the theories of reasoned action (TRA)/planned behavior (TPB) different?

Answer 102

The Toulmin model looks at the message itself. It is an analysis of the underlying map or structure of the message itself. How is the message formed?

TRA/TPB do NOT look at the message itself, but look at how messages affect us. It is a theory of AUDIENCE rather than MESSAGE. How do we interpret messages and how does that interpretation affect our behaviors and behavioral intentions?

Question 103

What does it mean to say that TRA and TPB are theories of behavioral intention?

Answer 103

What this means is that these theories try to understand how our behaviors, and our intentions about behaviors, are formed and affected. How do messages change or alter our intentions or our behaviors? Specifically, TRA and TPB say that our BELIEFS about behaviors will inform our intentions.

Question 104

What are the determinants of behavioral intention? b) Define attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Provide examples.

Answer 104

There are three determinants of behavioral intention:

1. Attitude: Attitude is the sum of all of our beliefs about a behavior. We can assess

this by asking questions like “On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad do you think smoking is
for your lungs?”

2. Subjective Norms: Subjective norms answers the question “How do those around me feel about this behavior?” It depends on two things/asks two questions: “How do those around me feel about this behavior? And how much do I care/not care about what those people think?”
3. Perceived Behavioral Control: This was the determinant added by TPB (the other two determinants were part of the original theory of rational behavior). This asks the question :How capable/able am I of changing my behavior?”

Question 105

Explain how the relationships between these determinants and behavioral intention are weighted.

Answer 105

These determinants are NOT weighted equally, and their importance will shift depending on both the behavior itself and the person enacting the behavior.
OVER ALL, however, ATTITUDES have been viewed as the most important determinant of behavioral intention.

Question 106

Broadly, what are three ways that persuaders may change influence behavioral intention? Provide examples.

Answer 106

The persuader may CHANGE AN EXISTING BELIEF, ADD A NEW BELIEF, or CHANGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BELIEF.

Changing an existing belief: “So you think smoking makes you look cool? Well it turns our teeth yellow and yellow teeth aren’t cool.”

Adding a new belief: “I bet you didn’t know that replacing red meat with fish can help lower your cholesterol.”

Change importance of belief: “So you know that texting and driving is dangerous, but maybe you don’t know just how dangerous–1.3 million car crashes last year were due to texting while driving.”

Question 107

What are criticisms of TRA and TPB? b) Is the relationship between behavioral intention and actual behavior perfect? c) How well do TRA and TPB account for emotional influences on behavior?

Answer 107

There are two main criticisms of TRA and TPB:
1. They are too rational. They don’t factor in emotions or moral norms into our decisions to behave a certain way. Sometimes people smoke even though they logically know it’s harmful, because it calms them down or because it reduces anxiety, which is an emotional reason.

They don’t take into account the fact that some behaviors are habitual. That we just enact them because that’s the way it’s been for a long time.

The relationship between intention and action is NOT perfect. I may wake up with every intention of going running, but end up on the couch all day instead.

TRA and TPB do not really take into account emotional influences.

Question 108

. What does it mean to say that much of the time we are cognitive misers?

Answer 108

This idea emphasizes the fact that, often, we do not like to dedicate a lot of time and thought to things. We go on autopilot for a large amount of our time and don’t necessarily always think through our decisions with the utmost care. This is not a bad thing, though. It is necessary to life.

Question 109

According to ELM, what are the two main ways we process information?

Answer 109

The two main ways we process information are PERIPHERALLY and CENTRALLY. ELM is a dual-processing model, and it states that the way we react to a message (our attitude changes) will be dependent on which processing route we decide to take/how we decide to process messages and arguments.

Question 110

Define central processing. Define peripheral processing.

Answer 110

Central Processing: Central processing used evidence and thorough examination of messages in order to make a decision/form an opinion. Central processing focuses on logic, evaluation of evidence, and elaboration.

Peripheral Processing: Peripheral processing uses heuristics. It is a form of auto-pilot, in which we don’t evaluate messages in-depth/pay a lot of attention to messages. Rather, in most cases, peripheral processing occurs without us really thinking about it.

Question 111

What are examples of peripheral cues? d) Which peripheral cues have been the focus of the most research? e) Define the credibility, liking, and consensus cues. f) Is the peripheral route a poor or bad form of processing?

Answer 111

There are three peripheral cues that we discussed:

1. Credibility: Credibility has two parts. First, is the person COMPETENT? Is he/she able to tell me the truth? Secondly, is the person trustworthy? WILL he/she tell me the truth?
2. Likability: Do you like the person speaking? It’s not about whether or not you like the MESSAGE, but whether person relaying the message.
3. Consensus: Do you feel like other people respond positively or negatively to the message/argument?

Peripheral processing is NOT a bad way of processing; in fact, it is actually necessary for life. You can’t spend a lot of time on every message you hear or you’d never get stuff done.

Question 112

What factors predict which sort of processing we will engage in?

Answer 112

MOTIVATION and ABILITY.

Question 113

Motivation is marked by three things:

Answer 113

1. Is the message RELEVANT to me?
2. Is the message HIGH STAKES?
3. Am I the kind of person who generally feels the need to deliberate over every decision?

Question 114

Ability is marked by three things:

Answer 114

1. Do i have enough INFORMATION?
2. Am I free from DISTRACTION?
3. Can I UNDERSTAND the message?

Question 115

According to ELM, if I am motivated to process a message, will I always process it centrally?

Answer 115

If you are motivated, you may still process peripherally. You need BOTH motivation and ability to process centrally.

Question 116

According to ELM, if I am motivated and able to process a message, will I always process it centrally?

Answer 116

If you have both motivation AND ability, the model says you WILL ALWAYS process centrally. However, if you process something centrally, but your response to it is NEUTRAL (meaning that, once you analyze and evaluate the message, you have neither negative or positive feeling about it), you will get kicked over into the peripheral route. Once there, your feelings toward the message will be decided by peripheral cues.

Question 117

According to ELM, if you process something CENTRALLY, there are three ways your attitude can manifest:

Answer 117

1. You have a STRONG positive reaction/attitude change.
2. You have STRONG negative reaction/attitude change.
3. You have a NEUTRAL reaction, in which case you get kicked over to the peripheral route.

Question 118

In the PERIPHERAL route, you have two possible reactions:

Answer 118

1. A WEAK attitude change (positive or negative). This happens when peripheral cues are present.
2. No attitude change at all. This happens when no peripheral cues are present.

Question 119

When will my attitude change be strongest? c) Why are attitude changes in the central route more enduring?

Answer 119

Attitude changes occurring from the central route are the strongest AND endure the longest, because in this route you are actively thinking about the issue, approaching it from new angles, and forming new thoughts/ideas about the issue. Peripheral processing is much more passive, so you are not as dedicated to the decision.

Question 120

There are two criticisms of ELM:

Answer 120

1. It does not allow for parallel processing.
2. It doesn’t really give us any information about messages themselves. It doesn’t tell us which
   messages are more likely to affect us or how to form good/effective messages. It’s definition of a
   good message is tautologous: It basically says “a good message is a message you perceive as good”. It doesn’t really tell us anything about whether or not a message will be persuasive.

Question 121

Explain the parallel processing criticism.

Answer 121

The parallel processing criticism addresses the fact that ELM only allows you to take one route or the other. It doesn’t allow for you to view a single message through both an elaboration route and a peripheral route.

Question 122

How does the Heuristic-Systematic Model offer an alternative conception of processing?

Answer 122

HSM addresses the parallel processing criticism by creating its own dual processing model of message interpretation. In this model, you have two ways of processing: HEURISTICALLY and SYSTEMATICALLY.

Question 123

According to HSM, what influence on attitude change will occur when systematic and heuristic processing agree?

Answer 123

Heuristic processing is basically peripheral processing and systematic processing is basically central processing. Like ELM, HSM says that you will only process systematically if you are MOTIVATED (is the message important?) and ABLE (do I have all the facts/enough facts?) to do so. Unlike ELM, however, HSM allows for you to process a single message through both routes at the same time.

Question 124

What influence on attitude change will occur when they contradict each other when individuals are highly motivated to process?

Answer 124

Your heuristic evaluation AND your systematic evaluation will agree/ be the same. When this happens, your attitude change/reaction to the message will be MUCH STRONGER than your reaction would be if ONLY evaluated heuristically or if ONLY evaluated systematically. Furthermore, the effect is not additive, but multiplicative. So, if you could assign numerical values to the strength of your reaction, you might say the following:
If I evaluate the message ONLY heuristically, my reaction to it is a positive 5.
If I evaluate the message ONLY systematically, me reaction to it is a positive 2.
When I evaluate the message through BOTH routes, me reaction is a positive 10 (rather than a 7).

When your heuristic evaluation of the message and your systematic evaluation of the message disagree, your systematic processing reaction will be stronger. But that only happens if you are MOTIVATED and ABLE to systematically process.
3.

When your message is ambiguous (say you are sorting through multiple messages and disagree with some but not others), HSM says that you will use heuristic cues in order to establish an order of importance among the arguments. Once you have established an order of importance, you can systematically process the arguments you see/hear.

Question 125

201 Martins and Wilson (2012) mean on the screen
1. What were the methods of the study?

Answer 125

They conducted a content analysis of the portrayal of social aggression in the top 50 programs popular with children. The analysis focused on the most watched programs by children ages 2 through 11 as reported by Nielsen Media Research (2005). They analyzed three episodes of each program (150 programs total) to ensure that the sample was as representative as possible. They also focused on a range of contextual variables so that they could fully describe how social aggression on television is portrayed. Finally, they coded physical aggression as well so that we could compare the two forms of aggression.

Question 126

201 Martins and Wilson (2012) mean on the screen

What were the five contextual (moderating) factors that make depictions more or less likely than others to pose risks to viewers?

Answer 126

Physical appearance—handsome/beautiful people have a stronger effect.
Motives for the violence—if children see JUSTIFIED violence, they are more likely to enact it.
Is the violence punished—no punishment means more likelihood to enact it.
Humor—if violence is funny, children are more affected by it.
Realistic pain cues—more pain cues means more of an inhibitory effect

Question 127

201 Martins and Wilson (2012) mean on the screen

How did the study define social aggression?

Answer 127

Actions directed at damaging another’s self-esteem, social status, or both, and
includes behaviors such as facial expressions of disdain, cruel gossiping, and the
manipulation of friendship patterns

Question 128

– 201 Martins and Wilson (2012) mean on the screen

How many of the programs contained acts of social aggression? How many acts per hour?

Was social or physical aggression more likely to be committed by a physically attractive perpetrator?

Answer 128

92% of the programs had social aggression at a rate of 14.4 acts per hour.

Social aggression.

Question 129

202 Martins and Wilson (2012) social aggression
1. What were the methods of the study?

Answer 129

Both elementary teachers and students were asked to fill out questionnaires about tv viewing and social aggression. The children were asked about their TV habits and then were asked questions about their levels of aggression. Then, the teachers were asked to answer those questions about the kids, kind of as a way to verify what the kids were saying.

Question 130

202 Martins and Wilson (2012) social aggression

What were hypotheses 1 and 2? Which were supported? Was this pattern of results consistent or inconsistent with SCT?

Answer 130

H1: There will be a positive relationship between children’s exposure to programs high in
social aggression and their use of social aggression.

H2: The relationship between exposure to televised social aggression and children’s social
aggression will be stronger for girls than for boys.

Both hypotheses were proven/supported by the study. It is CONSISTENT.

Question 131

202 Martins and Wilson (2012) social aggression

What were the moderators and control variables included in the study?

Answer 131

Moderators:
• gender of the person being surveyed
• age
• wishful identification with tv character
• perceived reality of TV–is the tv show like real life?
Control Variables:
• social economic standing
• academic achievement of the kid
• alienation of the child
• empathy
• whether the child is also physically aggressive

Question 132

202 Martins and Wilson (2012) social aggression

Was there a reliable relationship between exposure to televised social aggression and increased social aggression in school? If so, what was it, and was it the same for boys and girls? Explain.

Answer 132

Yes. And it was more intense for girls than for boys.

Question 133

204 Pingree and Stoycheff (2013)
1. What were the methods of the study?

Answer 133

Participants took an online survey to describe the level of trust they put in the media, how accurately the media chooses stories that reflect their relative importance etc. Then they were exposed to an experimental news report (one that the experimenters had created themselves) and then were asked to rank the importance of issues in America.

Question 134

204 Pingree and Stoycheff (2013)

What were hypotheses 1 and 2, and were they supported? Were they consistent or inconsistent with agenda setting?

Answer 134

Hypothesis 1 is that exposure to a pure agenda cue will shift problem importance judgments in the direction of the cue.
Hypothesis 2 is that for a pure cue, cueing effects will be stronger for those with
higher gatekeeping trust
Both hypotheses were supported, which is inline with Agenda Setting Theory.

Question 135

204 Pingree and Stoycheff (2013)

Did giving a reason for the importance of an issue affect individual’s perceptions of what was important? Explain.

Answer 135

Yes, but only for people with low gatekeeping trust.

Question 136

204 Pingree and Stoycheff (2013)

The basic agenda setting hypothesis we discussed in class focused on agenda setting as a societal level phenomenon (changes in the media agenda in aggregate affected the public agenda in aggregate). This study exemplifies more recent scholarly efforts to explain the individual level phenomena that explain that societal level pattern. How do these scholars use individual cognitive phenomena to explain the societal agenda setting effects?

Answer 136

They do this by taking into account gatekeeping trust. They look at the individual and ask how his/her personal belief in the trustworthiness of the news source affects the agenda setting process.

Question 137

203 Dalisay (2012)
 1. What were the methods of the study?

Answer 137

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of local news media
and public support for, and willingness to express opinions about, the relocation of roughly
8,600 U.S. Marines and about 10,000 of their dependents and civilian support from
Okinawa, Japan to Guam.

Question 138

– 203 Dalisay (2012)

What were the hypotheses, and were they supported or not? Were these results consistent or inconsistent with spiral of silence theory?

Answer 138

H1: Perceived support from local news media will be positively associated with
perceived public support.
H2: Perceived public support for one’s opinions will be positively associated with
willingness to express opinions.
H3: Conflict avoidance will be inversely associated with willingness to express
opinions.
H4: The positive association between perceived public support for one’s opinions and
willingness to express opinions will be stronger among those who have higher
conflict avoidance than those who have lower conflict avoidance.

All hypotheses were supported.

Question 139

– 203 Dalisay (2012)

What was the key moderating variable investigated in the study?

Answer 139

Conflict avoidance

Question 140

203 Dalisay (2012)

What relationship (if any) did the participants’ support or lack of support for the issue have on their willingness to express opinions? How is that relevant to spiral of silence theory (if at all)?

Answer 140

Generally, higher perceived public support made participants more willing to share their opinions. The more the person had a personality of conflict avoidance, the stronger the relationship was between perceived public support and willingness to share opinion.

Question 141

205 Quick (2008)
 1. What were the methods of the study?

Answer 141

Coal miners were mailed postcards a few weeks before the study (postcards that were about hearing loss). Then they were mailed a survey asking them questions about their attitudes toward hearing loss, how those around them felt about hearing loss, and whether or not they felt that they had much control over hearing loss (or stopping hearing loss).

Question 142

205 Quick (2008)

What were the hypotheses and how did they correspond to the TRA/TPB model? Were they supported or refuted? Were those results consistent or inconsistent with the model?

Answer 142

H1: Predicted that attitudes toward hearing loss would have a positive relationship with behavioral intentions. This hypothesis was supported. Consistent.

H2: Predicted a positive relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intentions. This was partially supported, so partially in line with TRA.

H3: Predicted a positive relationship between perceived behavioral control and intentions. This was partially supported (see above).

H4: Predicted that the coal miner’s intention would be reflected in the self-reported behaviors. This was supported. Consisten with TRA.

Question 143

206 Bhattacherjee (2006)
 1. What were the methods of the study?

Answer 143

Government employees from L’viv, Ukraine were given three 8hour days of training in a a new system called Lotus Notes. The training was both lecture and hands-on. At the end of the training they were given a survey about their perceived usefulness, etc. of the new technology. A few months later they were give the same survey again. The goal was to try and understand how ELM works in the adoption of technology.

Question 144

206 Bhattacherjee (2006)

What according to these authors is the weakness of theory of planned behavior based research in this context?

Answer 144

Weaknesses: Previous theories do not take into account external influences on behavioral change or the sociological process of behavioral change, they do not explain what specific types of messages and information is likely to cause a change, and they don’t address any temporal dimension of change.

Question 145

206 Bhattacherjee (2006)

What were hypotheses 1-3? Were they supported or refuted? Was this consistent or inconsistent with ELM?

Answer 145

H1: The argument quality of informational messages has a positive effect on potential users’ perceived usefulness of IT acceptance.

H2: The source credibility of informational messages has a positive effect on potential users’ attitude toward IT acceptance.

H3: The source credibility of informational messages has a positive effect on potential users’ perceived usefulness of IT acceptance.

All hypotheses were supported. Consistent.

Question 146

206 Bhattacherjee (2006)

How did the authors explain that source credibility may have had influence in the central and peripheral routes? Does their argument mean that participants were engaging in both central and peripheral processing at the same time? Explain.

Answer 146

while source credibility was a salient peripheral cue for low elaboration users, it was also viewed as an issue-relevant argument by high elaboration users. Combining high and low elaboration users in one group and testing their collective moderating influence on the impacts of source credibility therefore masked the differential nature of the effects for users in the two elaboration states. So they were not engaging in both processes at the same time, but in their individual ways were affected by the source credibility.

Question 147

206 Bhattacherjee (2006)

Did the central or peripheral route produce more stable attitude and usefulness perceptions? Was this consistent or inconsistent with ELM?

Answer 147

The central route results in more stable attitude and usefulness perceptions than the peripheral route, and hence is likely to have a longer-term impact on user acceptance decisions than the latter.
oing to have a very different sense about what prevailing public opinion is on political issues.

Question 148

Explain the criticisms of spiral of silence theory (e.g., view of audience).

Answer 148

The view of the audience is a bit cynical, like a strong effects theory would say. Spiral of silence sees people

Question 149

– 207 Gibson (2006)
1. What were the methods of the study?

2. What is identification and how is related to concertive control?
3. What were the mechanisms of discipline documented by the authors?

Question 150

207 Gibson (2006)
 3. How did the authors define organizational osmosis?

Answer 150

i. Seemingly effortless adoption of the ideas, values, and culture of an organizational on the basis of preexisting socialization