The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction shots in television talk shows

Journal of Communication

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 527-543

  Nabi, Robin L ^a   Hendriks, Alexandra ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TELEVISION;

EID: 0141502250     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joc/53.3.527     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
2. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
3. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4. Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 229-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140-169.
6. Davis, S. (1999). The effects of audience reaction shots and attitudes toward controversial issues. Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media, 43, 476-491.
7. Davis, S., & Mares, M. L. (1998). Effects of talk show viewing on adolescents. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 69-86.
8. Duck, S. W., & Baggaley, J. (1975). Audience reaction and its effect on perceived expertise. Communication Research, 2, 79-85.
9. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10. Gamson, J. (1998). Freaks talk back: Tabloid talk shows and sexual nonconformity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Greenberg, B. S., Sherry, J. L., Busselle, R. W., Hnilo, L. R., & Smith, S. W. (1997). Daytime television talk shows: Guests, content, and interactions. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 412-426.
12. Hamilton, M. A. (1997). The phase interfaced omnistructure underlying the processing of persuasive messages. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Advances in communication science (pp. 142-183). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
13. Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1993). The elaboration likelihood model as a theory of attitude formation: A mathematical analysis. Communication Theory, 3, 50-64.
14. Hocking, J. E., Margreiter, D. G., & Hylton, C. (1977). Intra-audience effects: A field test. Human Communication Research, 3, 243-249.
15. Hylton, C. (1971). Intra-audience effects: Observable audience response. Journal of Communication, 21, 253-265.
16. Livingstone, S. (1994). Watching talk: Gender and engagement in the viewing of audience discussion programmes. Media, Culture & Society, 16, 429-448.
17. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205), New York: Academic Press.
18. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., Fabrigar, L. R., Priester, J. R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1993). Conceptual and methodological issues in the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: A reply to the Michigan State critics. Communication Theory, 3, 336-362.
20. Robinson, B. E. (1982). Family experts on television talk shows: Facts, values, and half-truths. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family & Child Studies, 31, 369-378.
21. Scott, G. G. (1996). Can we talk? The power and influence of talk shows. New York: Plenum.
22. Wiegman, O. (1987). Attitude change in a realistic experiment: The effect of party membership and audience reaction during an interview with a Dutch politician. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 37-49.