Daniel E Bergan, Hillary C Shulman, Dustin Carnahan
Abstract In experimental work, researchers have found that policymakers discount the opinions of constituents with whom they disagree. We build on these results with a national sample of local policymakers in the United States, exploring whether communicators can prevent policymakers from discounting their opinions by providing evidence of their own knowledge about a topic. We find that policymakers discount the opinions of hypothetical constituents with whom they disagree, but there is evidence that providing unambiguous evidence about a letter-writer’s positive traits can reduce this discounting. We conclude with a discussion of implications for theory as well as practical implications for communicating with policymakers.
{"title":"Discounting constituent attitudes: motivated reasoning, ambiguity, and policymaker perceptions of constituent characteristics","authors":"Daniel E Bergan, Hillary C Shulman, Dustin Carnahan","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad047","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In experimental work, researchers have found that policymakers discount the opinions of constituents with whom they disagree. We build on these results with a national sample of local policymakers in the United States, exploring whether communicators can prevent policymakers from discounting their opinions by providing evidence of their own knowledge about a topic. We find that policymakers discount the opinions of hypothetical constituents with whom they disagree, but there is evidence that providing unambiguous evidence about a letter-writer’s positive traits can reduce this discounting. We conclude with a discussion of implications for theory as well as practical implications for communicating with policymakers.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"3 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135875267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Media Use Model (MUM) presents a metatheoretical framework that aims to unify several existing theories of media processes and effects. It uses a constraint satisfaction approach to coherence to explain the dynamic relationship between a media consumer’s motivations, expectations, individual differences, and, primarily, their cognitive processing during media use. The MUM includes six propositions, which represent stages during which a media consumer’s existing processing constraints are taken into consideration during their selection, interpretation, and comprehension of media content. It allows for both spontaneous and deliberate processing that can result in coherence or incommensurability, which then predicts continued media use or a change in media selection, respectively. Within this metatheoretical framework, (in)coherence is presented as a continuum where media consumers may have different interpretations of the same media content, which can then be used to understand their responses to it.
媒介使用模型(Media Use Model, MUM)提出了一个元理论框架，旨在统一现有的几种媒介过程和效果理论。它使用约束满足方法来解释媒体消费者在媒体使用过程中的动机、期望、个体差异以及主要是认知加工之间的动态关系。MUM包括六个命题，这些命题代表了媒体消费者在选择、解释和理解媒体内容时考虑到现有处理约束的各个阶段。它允许自发和刻意的处理，可以导致一致性或不可通约性，然后分别预测媒体的持续使用或媒体选择的变化。在这个元理论框架内，连贯性被呈现为一个连续体，其中媒体消费者可能对相同的媒体内容有不同的解释，然后可以用来理解他们对它的反应。
{"title":"The Media Use Model: A metatheoretical framework for media processes and effects","authors":"Jennifer Hoewe, David R Ewoldsen","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad044","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Media Use Model (MUM) presents a metatheoretical framework that aims to unify several existing theories of media processes and effects. It uses a constraint satisfaction approach to coherence to explain the dynamic relationship between a media consumer’s motivations, expectations, individual differences, and, primarily, their cognitive processing during media use. The MUM includes six propositions, which represent stages during which a media consumer’s existing processing constraints are taken into consideration during their selection, interpretation, and comprehension of media content. It allows for both spontaneous and deliberate processing that can result in coherence or incommensurability, which then predicts continued media use or a change in media selection, respectively. Within this metatheoretical framework, (in)coherence is presented as a continuum where media consumers may have different interpretations of the same media content, which can then be used to understand their responses to it.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"11 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136234021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stefanie Z Demetriades, Nathan Walter, R Lance Holbert
Abstract Communication seeks internal coherence and external distinction as its research profile grows and diversifies. The present essay calls for the establishment of scientific principles to guide future communication research and solidify the field’s unique scholarly identity within the marketplace of ideas. An argument is made that the field has achieved the necessary foundations to establish scientific principles but has yet to embrace this undertaking as a collective goal. This offering is intended as an initial foray into the process of identifying and evaluating scientific principles of communication by considering the value of these fundamental pillars for the field’s maturation. It proposes evaluation criteria which are then applied in a rendering of two candidate principles. These observations aim to initiate a broader conversation and spark a collective effort toward elucidating scientific principles of communication that can help to guide and anchor the field in its next stage of knowledge generation.
{"title":"Ushering in an age of scientific principles for communication research","authors":"Stefanie Z Demetriades, Nathan Walter, R Lance Holbert","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad038","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Communication seeks internal coherence and external distinction as its research profile grows and diversifies. The present essay calls for the establishment of scientific principles to guide future communication research and solidify the field’s unique scholarly identity within the marketplace of ideas. An argument is made that the field has achieved the necessary foundations to establish scientific principles but has yet to embrace this undertaking as a collective goal. This offering is intended as an initial foray into the process of identifying and evaluating scientific principles of communication by considering the value of these fundamental pillars for the field’s maturation. It proposes evaluation criteria which are then applied in a rendering of two candidate principles. These observations aim to initiate a broader conversation and spark a collective effort toward elucidating scientific principles of communication that can help to guide and anchor the field in its next stage of knowledge generation.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135265843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Although research on misinformation and corrections has recently proliferated, no systematic structure has guided the examination of conditions under which misinformation is most likely to be recognized and the potential ensuing effects of recognition. The Misinformation Recognition and Response Model (MRRM) provides a framework for investigating the antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition. The model theorizes that how people cope with exposure to misinformation and/or intervention messages is conditioned by both dispositional and situational individual characteristics and is part of a process mediated by informational problem identification, issue motivation, and—crucially—recognition of misinformation. Whether or not recognition is activated then triggers differential cognitive coping strategies which ultimately affect consequent cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Working to explore the notion of misinformation will be more fruitful if researchers take into consideration how various perspectives fit together and form a larger picture. The MRRM offers guidance on a multi-disciplinary understanding of recognizing and responding to misinformation.
{"title":"The misinformation recognition and response model: an emerging theoretical framework for investigating antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition","authors":"Michelle A Amazeen","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although research on misinformation and corrections has recently proliferated, no systematic structure has guided the examination of conditions under which misinformation is most likely to be recognized and the potential ensuing effects of recognition. The Misinformation Recognition and Response Model (MRRM) provides a framework for investigating the antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition. The model theorizes that how people cope with exposure to misinformation and/or intervention messages is conditioned by both dispositional and situational individual characteristics and is part of a process mediated by informational problem identification, issue motivation, and—crucially—recognition of misinformation. Whether or not recognition is activated then triggers differential cognitive coping strategies which ultimately affect consequent cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Working to explore the notion of misinformation will be more fruitful if researchers take into consideration how various perspectives fit together and form a larger picture. The MRRM offers guidance on a multi-disciplinary understanding of recognizing and responding to misinformation.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"108 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135265987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract According to the computers are social actors (CASA) paradigm, a dominant theoretical framework for research on human–computer interaction, people treat computers as if they were people. Recent studies on human–machine communication (HMC) and human–artificial intelligence (AI) interaction, however, appear to focus on when and how people respond to machines differently than to human agents. To reconcile this apparent contradiction, this study reviews critically the two overarching theoretical explanations proposed and tested in each respective tradition, the mindlessness account and the machine heuristic. After elaborating on several conceptual and operational issues with each explanatory mechanism, an alternative theoretical model of HMC is proposed that integrates both research traditions and generates predictions that potentially deviate from the dual-process models. Lastly, it is discussed how recent developments in AI technology invite modifications to the current understanding of HMC and beyond.
{"title":"Minding the source: toward an integrative theory of human–machine communication","authors":"Eun-Ju Lee","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad034","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract According to the computers are social actors (CASA) paradigm, a dominant theoretical framework for research on human–computer interaction, people treat computers as if they were people. Recent studies on human–machine communication (HMC) and human–artificial intelligence (AI) interaction, however, appear to focus on when and how people respond to machines differently than to human agents. To reconcile this apparent contradiction, this study reviews critically the two overarching theoretical explanations proposed and tested in each respective tradition, the mindlessness account and the machine heuristic. After elaborating on several conceptual and operational issues with each explanatory mechanism, an alternative theoretical model of HMC is proposed that integrates both research traditions and generates predictions that potentially deviate from the dual-process models. Lastly, it is discussed how recent developments in AI technology invite modifications to the current understanding of HMC and beyond.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"2 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135266139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Messages that feature intergroup comparisons (social comparison frames) regularly communicate the relative prevalence of health problems and preventive behaviors. While prior studies find that comparing disease risks between racial groups are met with resistance from the disadvantaged group, we extended existing research by investigating if behavioral comparisons which show that the higher-risk group also excels in disease prevention efforts could mitigate negative impacts of disease risk comparisons. We conducted two preregistered experiments to examine the effects of comparing cancer risks and the prevalence of screening behaviors between Black and White Americans. Communicating racial disparities in breast cancer mortality reduced perceived risks and fear among White Americans (the less-at-risk group) and decreased cancer screening intention among Black Americans (the disadvantaged group). Adding cancer screening prevalence comparisons did not shift screening intentions among Black Americans but changed their support for disparity-reducing policies, though the effects depended on the disease in question.
{"title":"Effects of social comparison framing of racial health disparities and behaviors","authors":"Jiawei Liu, Jeff Niederdeppe","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad041","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Messages that feature intergroup comparisons (social comparison frames) regularly communicate the relative prevalence of health problems and preventive behaviors. While prior studies find that comparing disease risks between racial groups are met with resistance from the disadvantaged group, we extended existing research by investigating if behavioral comparisons which show that the higher-risk group also excels in disease prevention efforts could mitigate negative impacts of disease risk comparisons. We conducted two preregistered experiments to examine the effects of comparing cancer risks and the prevalence of screening behaviors between Black and White Americans. Communicating racial disparities in breast cancer mortality reduced perceived risks and fear among White Americans (the less-at-risk group) and decreased cancer screening intention among Black Americans (the disadvantaged group). Adding cancer screening prevalence comparisons did not shift screening intentions among Black Americans but changed their support for disparity-reducing policies, though the effects depended on the disease in question.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"875 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135888449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Personalization strategy in commercial contexts has often been criticized for eliciting individuals’ reactance. Will this happen to physician–patient communication in online medical consultations (OMCs)? Two experiments attempted to probe the direct, indirect, and conditional effects of personalization on reactance in OMC. Specifically, perceived threats to freedom and perceived physician caring were examined as two mediators underlying the relationship between personalization and reactance. Health topic sensitivity was investigated as a moderator. Results from both studies revealed that there was no main effect of personalization on reactance, yet personalization induced perceived threats to freedom and perceived physician caring, which affected reactance in a way that might cancel out each other. The effects of personalization (versus depersonalization) on perceived threats to freedom and reactance were more salient at the lower level of health topic sensitivity. These suggest that personalization with its two-sided nature exerts both desired and undesired influences and health topic sensitivity can be a prominent contextual factor in personalization reactance during OMC.
{"title":"Personalization reactance in online medical consultations: effects of two-sided personalization and health topic sensitivity on reactance","authors":"Yujie Dong, Wu Li, Meng Chen","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Personalization strategy in commercial contexts has often been criticized for eliciting individuals’ reactance. Will this happen to physician–patient communication in online medical consultations (OMCs)? Two experiments attempted to probe the direct, indirect, and conditional effects of personalization on reactance in OMC. Specifically, perceived threats to freedom and perceived physician caring were examined as two mediators underlying the relationship between personalization and reactance. Health topic sensitivity was investigated as a moderator. Results from both studies revealed that there was no main effect of personalization on reactance, yet personalization induced perceived threats to freedom and perceived physician caring, which affected reactance in a way that might cancel out each other. The effects of personalization (versus depersonalization) on perceived threats to freedom and reactance were more salient at the lower level of health topic sensitivity. These suggest that personalization with its two-sided nature exerts both desired and undesired influences and health topic sensitivity can be a prominent contextual factor in personalization reactance during OMC.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135890090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anne Bartsch, Marie-Louise Mares, Johanna Schindler, Jessica Kühn, Ina Krack
Abstract Fictional entertainment can serve as a vivid and easily comprehensible source of knowledge, but only if audiences are able to tell its kernel of truth apart from fantasy. In this article, we use the lens of social epistemology to develop a theoretical framework of knowledge acquisition and verification practices for fictional entertainment that integrates various extant lines of work on entertainment education, perceived realism, information processing, credibility assessment, and verification strategies. To flesh out the conceptual model derived from top-down theoretical integration, we use an inductive, bottom-up approach to theory building, assisted by qualitative research. The resulting model describes knowledge acquisition from fiction as an essentially social process characterized by a combination of epistemic trust and epistemic vigilance toward fictional content and sources, in which credibility is assessed via social knowledge sharing and verification practices.
{"title":"Trust but verify? A social epistemology framework of knowledge acquisition and verification practices for fictional entertainment","authors":"Anne Bartsch, Marie-Louise Mares, Johanna Schindler, Jessica Kühn, Ina Krack","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fictional entertainment can serve as a vivid and easily comprehensible source of knowledge, but only if audiences are able to tell its kernel of truth apart from fantasy. In this article, we use the lens of social epistemology to develop a theoretical framework of knowledge acquisition and verification practices for fictional entertainment that integrates various extant lines of work on entertainment education, perceived realism, information processing, credibility assessment, and verification strategies. To flesh out the conceptual model derived from top-down theoretical integration, we use an inductive, bottom-up approach to theory building, assisted by qualitative research. The resulting model describes knowledge acquisition from fiction as an essentially social process characterized by a combination of epistemic trust and epistemic vigilance toward fictional content and sources, in which credibility is assessed via social knowledge sharing and verification practices.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136079950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article proposes a general theory of persuasive message effects based on four sets of arguments. The first set commits to theorizing that focuses on specifying causal order and the explanatory principle driving that order. The second set makes the case that specifying a complex causal order among a series of cognitions is unjustifiable in many cases. The third set contends that many cognitions in the persuasion process can be conceptually treated as distinct beliefs within a network. The fourth and final set theorizes that persuasive message effects occur via the activation and modification of belief clusters. This article works through these arguments in detail and then provides examples of how this framework could be implemented to guide theorizing about persuasive message effects.
{"title":"Persuasive message effects via activated and modified belief clusters: toward a general theory","authors":"David M Keating","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article proposes a general theory of persuasive message effects based on four sets of arguments. The first set commits to theorizing that focuses on specifying causal order and the explanatory principle driving that order. The second set makes the case that specifying a complex causal order among a series of cognitions is unjustifiable in many cases. The third set contends that many cognitions in the persuasion process can be conceptually treated as distinct beliefs within a network. The fourth and final set theorizes that persuasive message effects occur via the activation and modification of belief clusters. This article works through these arguments in detail and then provides examples of how this framework could be implemented to guide theorizing about persuasive message effects.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135854678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Communication is a theory-driven discipline, but does it always need to be? This article raises questions related to the role of theory in communication science, with the goal of providing a thoughtful discussion about what theory is, why theory is (or is not) important, the role of exploration in theory development, what constitutes a theoretical contribution, and the current state of theory in the field. We describe communication researchers’ interest with theory by assessing the number of articles in the past decade of research that mention theory (nearly 80% of papers have attended to theory in some way). This article concludes with a forward-looking view of how scholars might think about theory in their work, why exploratory research should be valued more and not considered as conflicting with theory, and how conceptual clarity related to theoretical interests and contributions are imperative for human communication research.
{"title":"The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication","authors":"Timothy R Levine, David M Markowitz","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Communication is a theory-driven discipline, but does it always need to be? This article raises questions related to the role of theory in communication science, with the goal of providing a thoughtful discussion about what theory is, why theory is (or is not) important, the role of exploration in theory development, what constitutes a theoretical contribution, and the current state of theory in the field. We describe communication researchers’ interest with theory by assessing the number of articles in the past decade of research that mention theory (nearly 80% of papers have attended to theory in some way). This article concludes with a forward-looking view of how scholars might think about theory in their work, why exploratory research should be valued more and not considered as conflicting with theory, and how conceptual clarity related to theoretical interests and contributions are imperative for human communication research.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":"271 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135855197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：