Testing priming effects: Differences between print and broadcast messages

SIMILE

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  Fahmy, Shahira ^a,b   Wanta, Wayne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21244456757     PISSN: 14966603     EISSN: 14966603     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3138/sim.5.2.002     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bargh, J. A., & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: the influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 437 - 449.
2. Benoit, L.B., & Smythe, M.J. (2003). Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism. Communication Studies, 54(1), 96 - 114.
3. Burgoon, M., &. Bettinghaus, E.P. ( 1980). Persuasive messages strategies. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (Vol. 8, pp. 141- 169). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
4. Chaiken, S., &. Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic information processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460 - 473.
5. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 605 - 614.
6. Gaziano, C., &. McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly. 65, 451- 462.
7. Gladney, G. A., &. Enrlich M. C. (1996). Cross-Media Response to Digital Manipulation of Still and Moving Images. Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(4), 496 - 508.
8. Greer, J. D., & Gosen, J. D. (2002). How much is too much? Assessing levels of digital alteration as factors in public perception of news media credibility. Visual Communication Quarterly, 57(7), 4 -13.
9. Harkins, S. G., &. Petty, R. E. (1981). The effects of source magnification cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 401 - 413.
10. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The Influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
11. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., &. Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 179-196.
12. Kelly, J., & Nace, D. (1994). Digital imaging and believing photos. Visual Communication Quarterly, 1(1), 4-5, 18.
13. Lang, A. (1985). The cognitive psychophysiology of emotion: fear and anxiety. In A. Tuma, & J. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 151-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Lester, P. (1991). Photojournalism: An ethical approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Meadowcroft, J. M., & Olson, B. (1995). Television viewing versus reading: Testing Information processing assumptions. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference (AEJMC), Washington, D.C.
16. Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: developing an index, Journalism Quarterly. 65, 567- 588.
17. Mitchell, M. M. (2000). Able but not motivated? The relative effects of happy and sad mood on persuasive message processing. Communication Monographs, 67(2), 215-226.
18. Moore, D. L., & Reardon, R. (1987). Source magnification: The role of multiple sources in processing of advertising appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 412-417.
19. Perloff, R. M., & Brock, T. C. (1980). And thinking makes it so: Cognitive responses to persuasion. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (pp. 67-99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Petty, R. E., & Priester, J. R. (1994). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 91-122), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Petty, R. E., Baker, S.M., & Gleicher, F. (1991). Attitudes and drug abuse prevention: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & W. J. Bukoski (Eds.), Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 71-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123-205) New York: Academic Press.
23. Petty, R. E., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Thought disruption and persuasion: Assessing the validity of attitude change experiments. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 55-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Robinson, M. J., & Kohut, A. (1988). Believability and the Press. Public Opinion Quarterly, (52), 174-89.
25. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. California: Cambridge University Press.
26. Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication theories: Origins, methods and uses in the media (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
27. Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M.., & Clore, G. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on (mis)attributions. Social Cognition, 12(4), 309-326.
28. Singer, J. L. (1980). The power and limitations of television: A cognitive-affective analysis. In P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), The entertainment functions of television (pp. 31-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Skoric, M. (2002). Framing in Foreign News Reporting: An Experimental Study of the Template Model of Framing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association Annual Conference (ICA), Seoul, South Korea.
30. Stuaffer, J., Frost, R., & Rybolt, W. (1983). The attention factor in recalling network television news. Journal of Communication, 33(1), 29-36.
31. Wanta, W., Cho, S., Fahmy, S., & Song, Y. (2004). Visual Agenda-Setting after 9-11: Individuals' Emotions, Image recall and Concern with Terrorism. A paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference (ICA). New Orleans.
32. Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1202-1213.
33. Wood, W. (1982). Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects of susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 798 -810.
34. Wright, P. L. (1981). Cognitive responses to mass media advocacy. In R.E. Petty, T.M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 263 - 282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.