COMM 792: Persuasion (3 credits)
M 4:00pm–6:40pm, 209 COM
School of Communication
San Diego State University
Rachael Record, PhD
Assistant Professor
rrecord@mail.sdsu.edu
Office: 203 Communication Building
Office hours: T/R 12:30pm-2:00pm or by appointment
Course Website: http://blackboard.sdsu.edu (Blackboard)
ABOUT THIS COURSE
Persuasion is the act of influencing someone to change their knowledge, attitudes, and/or
behavior. To thoroughly learn the communication field of persuasion this course will be split
into three sections: theories, influences, and contexts. The first half of the semester will be
focused on theoretical perspectives of persuasion and communication influences on the
persuasion process. We will examine three classifications of models of persuasion.
Psychological models of persuasion involve understanding the cognitive factors that may lead an
individual to behave a certain way. Social models of persuasion focus on how an individual’s
relationships to other people or groups may influence her or him. Cultural and Environmental
models of persuasion examine how the broader world in which an individual lives affect her or
his thoughts and behavior. Together, these three classifications of persuasion models offer a
comprehensive way of understanding the nature of human behavior and how it can potentially be
affected by communicative messages. The second half of the semester will focus on applied
persuasion research across the contexts of rhetorical, interpersonal, , mediated, health, and dark
side communication.
Specific learning outcomes for this course are as follows: (1) explain the key features of
primary theoretical frameworks in the field of persuasion, (2) identify advantages and
disadvantages to persuasive theories, (3) identify which theories of persuasion are being used
when given examples of persuasive communication, (4) identify what persuasion theories are
useful for different types of behavior change, (5) provide examples of research demonstrating
support for persuasive effects, and (6) discuss appropriate methodological approaches for
investigating persuasive effects across communication contexts.
REQUIRED MATERIALS
1. O’Keefe, D. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
2. All other assigned readings available as a PDF on BlackBoard
COURSE POLICIES
Class Conduct
First and foremost, I do not want to see your cell phone during class time ever. If
your phone is out then you are not mentally here and it will count as absent. We will have
fun this semester, and there will be a great deal of give and take in our discussions. But we will
1
only have fun if you conduct yourself with respect for yourself and others. This means you are to
1) come to class prepared (do all reading and come prepared to discuss it; do all homework) and
take pride in the work you do, 2) offer support and encouragement to your classmates, 3) listen
to others carefully before offering your opinion, and 4) talk to your instructor outside of class if
anything that happens during class bothers you. Your active participation in the learning process
is expected and valued. If a student consistently exhibits behavior that disrupts the class or
contributes to a negative communication climate, action will be taken, including forced
withdrawal from the course. In addition all university students are expected to abide by the
Student Code of Conduct.
Blackboard Policy
Blackboard will be the main page for our course. I recommend that you check the
announcements section before every class. I am responsive to student requests for changes in the
schedule, which means that the daily schedule may change during the semester. You will be
responsible for checking the online syllabus and schedule before beginning your homework for
each of our class meetings for any changes or updates. I will post all assignments on Blackboard.
Email Policy
Please use email as a primary means of contact. Allow 24 hours response time. Use basic
courtesy and proper grammar when emailing.
Academic Integrity
Plagiarism is one of the highest forms of academic offense. The University adheres to a
strict policy regarding cheating and plagiarism. These activities will not be tolerated in this
class (i.e. at the 400-level I do not give second chances regarding issues of plagiarism). Become
familiar with the policy (http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/conduct1.html). Any cheating or plagiarism
will result in failing this class and a disciplinary review by Student Affairs.
The Academic Dishonesty Policy of the School of Communication
Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. It is one of the highest forms of academic
offense because in academe, it is a scholar’s words, ideas, and creative products that are the
primary measures of identity and achievement. Whether by ignorance, accident, or intent, theft is
still theft, and misrepresentation is still misrepresentation. Therefore, the offense is still serious,
and is treated as such.
Overview:
In any case in which a Professor or Instructor identifies evidence for charging a student
with violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that
instructor’s determination. However, the faculty/instructor(s) will confer with the director to
substantiate the evidence. Once confirmed, the evidence will be reviewed with the student. If,
following the review with the student, the faculty member and director determine that academic
dishonesty has occurred, the evidence will be submitted to the Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities. The report “identifies the student who was found responsible, the general nature
of the offense, the action taken, and a recommendation as to whether or not additional action
should be considered by the campus judicial affairs office.”
(http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/academics1.html).
2
Intellectual Property:
The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personal copyrighted intellectual property
of the instructor, which means that any organized recording for anything other than personal use,
duplication, distribution, or profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws.
Proper source attribution
Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is done by (a)
providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly designating the
source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
a. Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials (whether
represented by: (i) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (ii) by percentage of
assignment length) without proper attribution, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course,
and a report to Student Rights and Responsibilities.
b. Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks but source citation, or
subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the
assignment.
Self-plagiarism
Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a given
topic across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with doubledipping topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text.
It is common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part
of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are
not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed,
as this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular
source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that
a writer simply ‘cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper
attribution, it is a form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in
to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-for-word
across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing
assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Secondary citations
Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present
similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B,
but it is source B’s ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to
make in the assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the
student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998).
Assume further that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In
such a situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if
an idea is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite
the original source for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors
sometimes commit citation errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors
3
sometimes make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore,
reliability of scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on
only a few sources of review, the learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own
research competencies are diminished, which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By
masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must second guess which sources come from which
citations, making the readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the
information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with this
principle:
 When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the
Smith source and citation.
 When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with
Jones, then find the Smith source and citation.
 In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and
believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also
said it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient.
 Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce
the reference list without actually going to look up what those references report—the
only guarantee that claims are valid is for a student to read the original sources of those
claims.
Solicitation for ghost writing:
Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an assignment for this
class (whether for pay or not) violates the standards of academic honesty in this course. The
penalty for solicitation (regardless of whether it can be demonstrated the individual solicited
wrote any sections of the assignment) is F in the course.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences
 Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed
materials without proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences,
images, or portions of images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in
assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the
Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2).
 Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation
marks, but with source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution,
will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment, and may result in greater penalty,
including a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted below. In this instance, an “F”
may mean anything between a zero (0) and 50%, depending on the extent of infraction.
 Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is
increased with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across
an assignment; or (c) proportion of the assignment consisting of infractions.
 Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive
magnifies the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism,
whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’
responsibility to make sure their assignments are not committing the offense.
 Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-by-case basis,
and only under exceptional circumstances.
4
However, there are no excuses allowed based on ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism,
or of what this policy is.
Attendance & Late Work
This class only meets once per week (i.e., missing one day is equivalent to missing 3
classes). Thus, you are expected to be in class every day so you can benefit as much as possible
from this course. Attendance will be taken but, attendance is not required.
It is your responsibility to submit all assignments on or before the designated due
dates. If you know in advance that you will be missing a class then it is your responsibility to
communicate with me PRIOR to the class session you will be missing. In the event of an
emergency, please contact me as soon as possible. LATE WORK IS NOT ACCEPTED AND
WILL RECEIVE A GRADE OF ZERO. Moreover, there is NO EXCUSE for submitting
assignments late when you know in advance that you will be missing class. In the event of an
unanticipated EMERGENCY – and if it is feasible – students who provide proper written
documentation for their absence may have up to one week after the absence to submit written
assignments. Moreover, please be aware that some assignments (e.g., in-class exercises) cannot
be made up.
Accommodations Due to Disability
If you have a documented disability that requires academic accommodations, please turn
in your accommodation letter immediately. If you are a student with a disability and believe you
will need accommodations for this class, it is your responsibility to contact Student Disability
Services at (619) 594-6473. To avoid any delay in the receipt of your accommodations, you
should contact Student Disability Services as soon as possible. Please note that accommodations
are not retroactive, and that accommodations based upon disability cannot be provided until you
have presented your instructor with an accommodation letter from Student Disability Services.
Written Work
Most all assignments will be submitted through Blackboard. If you just cannot get
Blackboard to work for you on a particular assignment, email me a copy of the assignment
before the deadline and then figure out what went wrong. This should not happen consistently!!
Blackboard works the best through Mozilla Firefox. The final assignment will be submitted as a
Turnitin assignment, meaning your assignments will be checked for textual similarity in order to
detect plagiarism.
You will be expected to use current APA 6th Edition style guidelines for all written
work. Use of appropriate grammatical skills in your written work is very important. Your
written work will be evaluated on both content and mechanics. Good writing should be
reasonably free of mistakes and without composition errors, which are called gross errors
(sentence fragments, run-on sentences, subject-verb disagreement, misspelled words, and
typographical errors which result in such errors). PLEASE proofread your papers; do not leave it
up to your computer software.
All of your work MUST BE TYPED (using no more than 12 point type with 1 inch
margins on all sides per APA) and double-spaced. Submit all written assignments before class on
the designated due date (unless otherwise noted). Failure to meet written work guidelines will
result in a grade penalty- I do not accept late work.
5
GRADED ASSIGNMENTS
There is a total of 400 points that can be earned for this course. The final grade will be
determined by adding the total points earned for each of the graded assignments. The final grade
is based on number of points accumulated—NOT PERCENTAGES. Final grades are not
rounded up and are NOT negotiable. The point breakdown for class assignments follows. Work
is evaluated based on quality, not on effort.
In-Class Participation and Activities – 100 points
These points will be based on in-class work, participation, and activities. These activities are not
always announced beforehand and cannot be made up. These activities will serve as
opportunities for you to enhance your knowledge on class subject matter while working with
peers in class.
Weekly Reading Responses – 100 points
You will complete 10 weekly reading responses (worth 10 points each); these will be due before
the start of class. Reading the course materials is essential to learning, participation, and
application. The prompt for a reading response assignment is available on BlackBoard.
Paper/study Proposal – 50 points
About half way through the semester you will complete a paper/study proposal. In this
assignment, students will outline a project for the final assignment. This assignment is an
opportunity to receive instructor feedback and ensure that projects are heading in the right
direction. A detailed prompt and rubric will be made available on BlackBoard later in the
semester.
Final Project & Presentation – 150 points
There will be two choices for the final project. Students can either (a) work individual to write a
research proposal for a persuasion study or (b) work in pairs to conduct a persuasion study
throughout the semester. The full project will include a final paper (worth 100 points) and a
presentation to the class (worth 50 points). Specific rubrics and details for each assignment will
be available on BlackBoard later in the semester.
ACADEMIC GRADING SCALE
*A—Consistently excellent work
A
376-400 (94% +)
A358-375 (90%-93%)
B—Good or inconsistently excellent work
B+
347-357 (87%-89%)
B
335-346 (84%-86%)
B318-334 (80%-83%)
C—Average/inconsistent work
C+
306-317 (77%-79%)
C
296-305 (74%-76%)
C280-295 (70%-73%)
D—Below average/poor work
D
239-279
F—Irrelevant, missing, and/or poor work
F
0-238
*A does NOT stand for average; A work is high quality work that does more than address the
bare minimum requested in a prompt.
6
Tentative Course Schedule
It should be noted that the California Faculty Association is in the midst of a difficult contract
dispute with management. It is possible that the faculty union will call a strike or other work
stoppage this term. I will inform the class as soon as possible of any disruption to our class
meeting schedule.
Recommendation: Read in order of assignment
DATE
1-25
2-1
TOPIC/READINGS/ACTIVITIES
Welcome to Course!
What is Persuasion?
O’Keefe, Chapters 1 & 9
Theories of Attitude
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A
theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological
Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.
DUE THAT DAY
(Not reading
response eligible)
Proposal
submission opens
on BlackBoard
O’Keefe, Chapter 2
Smith, S. W., Atkin, C. K., Martell, D., Allen, R., & Hembroff, L.
(2006). A social judgment theory approach to conducting formative
research in a social norms campaign. Communication Theory, 16(1),
141-152. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00009.x
O’Keefe, Chapters 3 & 4
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and
propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit
and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692-731.
2-8
Online Class via BlackBoard
Theories of Attitude, con.
O’Keefe, Chapter 5
Description of
course plan on
BlackBoard.
Ivanov, B., Parker, K. A., & Pfau, M. (2012). The interaction effect of
attitude base and multiple attacks on the effectiveness of
inoculation. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 1-11.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.616789
O’Keefe, Chapter 6
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that
predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior
relation. Psychological bulletin, 132(5), 778.
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and
reflections. Psychology and Health, 26(9), 1113-1127.
7
2-15
Theories of Change & Processing
O’Keefe, Chapter 7
Patel, S., Shafer, A., Brown, J., Bulik, C., & Zucker, N. (2014).
Parents of children with eating disorders: Developing theory-based
health communication messages to promote caregiver wellbeing. Journal of Health Communication, 19(5), 593-608.
doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.821559
O’Keefe, Chapter 8
Lane, R., Miller, A. N., Brown, C., & Vilar, N. (2013). An
examination of the narrative persuasion with epilogue through the lens
of the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Quarterly, 61(4),
431-445. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.799510
Lazard, A., & Atkinson, L. (2015). Putting environmental
infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration
likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science
Communication, 37(1), 6-33. doi:10.1177/1075547014555997
2-22
Social Influence
Boster, F. J., & Cruz, M. G. (2002). Persuading in the small group
context. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 354-370).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., & Hutchinson, K. J. (1994). The effects
of salient group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Research,
25(2), 267-293.
Etzioni, A. (2000). Social norms: Internalization, persuasion, and
history. Law & Society Review, 34(1), 157-178. doi:10.2307/3115119
Rimal, R.N. (2008). Modeling the relationship between descriptive
norms and behaviors: A test and extension of the theory of normative
social behavior (TNSB). Health Communication, 23(2), 103-116.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of
perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13(2), 184203. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00288.x
8
2-29
Online Class via BlackBoard
Influences of Sender & Receiver
O’Keefe, Chapters 10 & 12
Description of
course plan on
BlackBoard.
Faraji-Rad, A., Samuelsen, B. M., & Warlop, L. (2015). On the
persuasiveness of similar others: The role of mentalizing and the
feeling of certainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 458-471.
doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv032
Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe:
Trust and the differential persuasiveness of human and
anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 94-110.
Lim, T. S. (1990). The influences of receivers' resistance on
persuaders' verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 38(2),
170-188.
Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (2011). Hedges, tag questions,
message processing, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 30(3), 341-349. doi:10.1177/0261927X11407169
3-7
Influences of Message Content
O’Keefe, Chapter 11
Allen, M., Bruflat, R., Fucilla, R., Kramer, M., McKellips, S., Ryan,
D. J., & Spiegelhoff, M. (2000) Testing the persuasiveness of
evidence: Combining narrative and statistical forms, Communication
Research Reports, 17(4), 331-336, doi:10.1080/08824090009388781
Hosman, L. A. (2002). Language and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M.
Pfau (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in
Theory and Practice (pp. 371-390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salvoey, P., Schneider, T. R., & Apanovitch, A. M. (2002). Message
framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In J. P. Dillard
& M. Pfau (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in
Theory and Practice (pp. 391-406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 191-203.
3-14
Persuasion & Rhetorical Communication
Hogan, M. J. (2013). Persuasion in the rhetorical tradition. In J. P.
Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion:
Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 2-19). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
9
Bell, S. (2007). Narrative ethnography: The bridge between rhetoric
and social science as revealed in a case study of persuasion in
Alcoholics Anonymous. Conference Paper -- National
Communication Association.
Johnson, J. (2014). The Limits of Persuasion: Rhetoric and Resistance
in the Last Battle of the Korean War. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
100(3), 323-347. doi:10.1080/00335630.2014.979861
Westwood, S. J. (2015). The role of persuasion in deliberative opinion
change. Political Communication, 32(4), 509-528.
doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1017628
Pierce, D. L., & Kaufman, K. (2012). Visual persuasion tactics in
narrative development: An analysis of The Matrix. Visual
Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 33-47.
doi:10.1080/15551393.2012.656063
Smith, J. H., & Just, S. N. (2009). Playful Persuasion. NORDICOM
Review, 30(2), 53-68.
3-21
Persuasion & Interpersonal Communication
Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knobloch, L. K. (2002).
Interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.),
Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 425-474).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Last day to submit
paper proposals to
BlackBoard.
Neiheisel, J. R., & Niebler, S. (2015). On the limits of persuasion:
Campaign ads and the structure of voters’ interpersonal discussion
networks. Political Communication, 32(3), 434-452.
doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.958258
Wagner, T. R. (2011). Resistance to persuasion in committed romantic
relationships: Reactance effects of forewarning and message
explicitness. Ohio Communication Journal, 4915-42.
Larrimore, L., Li, J., Larrimore, J., Markowitz, D., & Gorski, S.
(2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language
features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 39(1), 19-37.
doi:10.1080/00909882.2010.536844
Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., Beebe, S. A., & Shultz, K. (2010).
Cultural differences between United States and Chinese students' use
of behavioral alteration techniques and affinity-seeking strategies with
instructors. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39(1),
10
1-12. doi:10.1080/17475759.2010.520834
3-28
4-4
SPRING BREAK—NO CLASS
Out of Class Work Day
Class time should be spent incorporating instructor feedback on final
projects, collecting literature, (for those who conducting a study)
collecting data, and drafting the final paper.
4-11
Persuasion & Mediated Communication
Holbert, R. L., & Tchernev, J. M. (2013). Media influence as
persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 36-52).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(Not reading
response eligible)
Oh, J., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). How does interactivity persuade? An
experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration,
and attitudes. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 213-236.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12147
Kim, K. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Mobile persuasion: Can screen
size and presentation mode make a difference to trust?. Human
Communication Research, 42(1), 45-70. doi:10.1111/hcre.12064
Lwin, M. O., & Malik, S. (2014). Can exergames impart health
messages? Game play, framing, and drivers of physical activity
among children. Journal ointernf Health Communication, 19(2), 136151. doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.798372
Allen, M., Wicks, R. H., & Schulte, S. (2013). Online environmental
engagement among youth: Influence of parents, attitudes and
demographics. Mass Communication & Society, 16(5), 661-686.
doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.770032
Waddell, T. F., & Ivory, J. D. (2015). It's not easy trying to be one of
the guys: The effect of avatar attractiveness, avatar sex, and user sex
on the success of help-seeking requests in an online game. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 112-129.
doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.998221
4-18
Persuasion & Health Communication
O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of
gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention
behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health
Communication, 12(7), 623-644. doi:10.1080/10810730701615198
11
Briňol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Fundamental processes leading to
attitude change: Implications for cancer prevention communications.
Journal of Communication, 56, s81-s104.
Pfau, M., Von Bockern, S., & Kang, J. G. (2008). Use of inoculation
to promote resistance in smoking initiation among adolescents. In L.
C. Lederman, Beyond these walls: Readings in health communication
(pp. 304-319). New York: Oxford.
Yeh, M. A., & Jewell, R. D. (2015). The myth/fact message frame and
persuasion in advertising: Enhancing attitudes toward the mentally ill.
Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 161-172.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1018466
Neubaum, G., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). Let’s blog about health!
Exploring the persuasiveness of a personal HIV blog compared to an
institutional HIV website. Health Communication, 30(9), 872-883.
doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.856742
4-25
Persuasion & Health Campaigns
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals:
Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education
& Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.
Noar, S. M., Zimmerman, R. S., Palmgreen, P., Cupp, P. K., Floyd, B.
R., & Mehrotra, P. (2014). Development and implementation of mass
media campaigns to delay sexual initiation among African American
and White youth. Journal of Health Communication, 19(2), 152-169.
Andersen, P. A., Buller, D. B., Voeks, J. H., Walkosz, B. J., Scott, M.
D., Cutter, G. R., & Dignan, M. B. (2008). Testing the long-term
effects of the "Go Sun Smart" worksite health communication
campaign: A group-randomized experimental study. Journal of
Communication, 58(3), 447-471. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2008.00394.x
DeJong, W., & Smith, S. W. (2013). Truth in advertising: Social
norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking. In R.
E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th
ed., pp. 177-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moran, M. B., Murphy, S. T., & Sussman, S. (2012). Campaigns and
cliques: Variations in effectiveness of an antismoking campaign as a
function of adolescent peer group identity. Journal of Health
Communication,17(10), 1215-1231.
12
5-2
Persuasion & The Dark Side
Powers, T. L., & Jack, E. P. (2013). The influence of cognitive
dissonance on retail product returns. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8),
724-735. doi:10.1002/mar.20640
Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks, A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and
audience reaction shots in television talk shows. Journal of
Communication, 53(3), 527-543. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2003.tb02606.x
Praxmarer, S. (2011). How a presenter's perceived attractiveness
affects persuasion for attractiveness-unrelated products. International
Journal of Advertising, 30(5), 839-865. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-5-839865
Paolucci, E. O., Genuis, M., & Violato, C. (1997). A meta-analysis of
the published research on the effects of pornography. Medicine, Mind
and Adolescence, 12, 1-8.
Leone, M. (2015). Propaganda mala fide: Towards a comparative
semiotics of violent religious persuasion. Semiotica, 2015(207), 631655. doi:10.1515/sem-2015-0057
Shane, S., & Hubbard, B. (August 2014). ISIS displaying a deft
command of varied media. New York: New York Times.
5-6
Final projects submitted to BlackBoard by midnight.
5-9
Scheduled Final Exam Time, 6:00pm-8:00pm
Paper Presentations
(Not reading
response eligible)
*** THIS COURSE SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ANY CHANGES WILL BE EMAILED,
POSTED ON BB, AND/OR ANNOUNCED IN CLASS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING UP WITH
CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE BY CHECKING BLACKBOARD/EMAIL DAILY! ***
13