Exam 2 Flashcards

Question

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

Answer 1

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)

Answer 2

Limited effects model

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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

Answer 5

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

Answer 6

identification and self-efficacy

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

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?

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

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) ## Footnote

Answer 12

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.

Answer 13

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

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

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

Answer 16

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.

Answer 17

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

Answer 18

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

Answer 19

Cognitive skills (ABCs, math, etc.) ## Footnote

Answer 20

Social skills (empathy, sharing)

Answer 21

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.

Answer 22

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

Answer 23

Cultivation Theory’s scope ONLY applies to television

Answer 24

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.

Answer 25

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

Answer 26

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) ## Footnote 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.

Answer 27

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.

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

There are heavy and light viewers

Answer 30

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

Answer 31

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

Answer 32

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

Answer 33

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)

Answer 34

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

Answer 35

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)

Answer 36

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

Answer 37

**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

Answer 38

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.

Answer 39

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.

Answer 40

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. ## Footnote

Answer 41

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.

Answer 42

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.

Answer 43

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.

Answer 44

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. ## Footnote

Answer 45

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

Answer 46

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.

Answer 47

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.

Answer 48

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.

Answer 49

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.

Answer 50

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.

Answer 51

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

Answer 52

Our assessments are very accurate.

Answer 53

Media DOES affect our assessments.

Answer 54

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

Answer 55

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

Answer 56

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.

Answer 57

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.

Answer 58

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.

Answer 59

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

Answer 60

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.

Answer 61

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.”

Answer 62

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.”

Answer 63

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

Answer 64

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.

Answer 65

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

Answer 66

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

Answer 67

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

Answer 68

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.

Answer 69

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.]

Answer 70

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…”

Answer 71

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”...

Answer 72

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.

Answer 73

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.

Answer 74

It is the WARRANT that distinguishes different argument types. ## Footnote

Answer 75

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

Answer 76

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. ## Footnote

Answer 77

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? ## Footnote 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?

Answer 78

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.

Answer 79

There are three determinants of behavioral intention: ## Footnote 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?”

Answer 80

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.

Answer 81

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

Answer 82

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.

Answer 83

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.

Answer 84

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.

Answer 85

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. ## Footnote 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.

Answer 86

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? ## Footnote 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.

Answer 87

MOTIVATION and ABILITY.

Answer 88

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?

Answer 89

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

Answer 90

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

Answer 91

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.

Answer 92

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.

Answer 93

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.

Answer 94

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. ## Footnote

Answer 95

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.

Answer 96

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.

Answer 97

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.

Answer 98

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.

Answer 99

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.

Answer 100

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.

Answer 101

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

Answer 102

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

Answer 103

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

Answer 104

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.

Answer 105

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.

Answer 106

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

Answer 107

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

Answer 108

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.

Answer 109

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.

Answer 110

Yes, but only for people with low gatekeeping trust. ## Footnote

Answer 111

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.

Answer 112

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.

Answer 113

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. ## Footnote All hypotheses were supported.

Answer 114

Conflict avoidance

Answer 115

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.

Answer 116

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).

Answer 117

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.

Answer 118

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.

Answer 119

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.

Answer 120

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.

Answer 121

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.

Answer 122

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.

Answer 123

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

Answer 124

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

Exam 2 Flashcards

(150 cards)